Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Consequences
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: IF in a one-state solution, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is threatened with extinction, THEN it will spell the end of the Arab Palestinians. And it is hard to envision a one-state solution that will preserve the JNH.

Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate

(COMMENT)

Who will the UN (ie the world) blame if their constant meddling in the consequences of the regional affair is such that it drives the territory into one last Civil War where the Arab Palestinians get their to realize their one-state that will result in a final conflict.

The UN is rapidly approaching a paradoxical situation in which their chaotic soup of conceptual arguments over which sides' rights takes priority over the other.

◈ On the one hand, you cannot have the conditions set for a one-state solution that will protect the Jewish people from the excesses of the past in which the original intent was to the establishment in Palestine a Jewish National Home (JNH) should the Great War result in the fall of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic in favor of the Allied Powers.​

​

◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:​

​

✦ The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine, or any follow-on decisions derived from those concepts.​

​

✦ The authority of the San Remo Convention (1920). ​

​

✦ The premise that a JNH was necessary to reduce the probability of further mass expulsion, massacres, fraud under the color of law, and even cases of genocide.​

There is something wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:

Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.

What other people would, or should, accept that?

Give me some names.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

StandWithUs Pro-Israel Activist Speaks Before Rachel Corrie Film at SFJFF

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:

Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.

What other people would, or should, accept that?

Give me some names.

Indeed, what country? Is this connected to those "new states" you claim existed since creation by the Treaty of Lausanne? You know, those " new states" you can't identify.

Indeed, give me some names of those "new states".

 

[rylah]

◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:

Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.

What other people would, or should, accept that?

Give me some names.

Indeed, Arabs themselves accepted that and set the precedent
by expelling the Jewish communities from the 4 holy holy cities.

They have no one to blame for the payback.

 

[rylah]

Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate

You love that Israeli channel, don't you?

Probably the only place to see an actual discussion between a variety of views,
rather than the echochambers Beinart most BDS supporters are used to hide behind.
BTW, do you realize that Rabbi Sherki and Rabbi HaKohen teach at the same Yeshivah...

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Consequences
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: IF in a one-state solution, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is threatened with extinction, THEN it will spell the end of the Arab Palestinians. And it is hard to envision a one-state solution that will preserve the JNH.

Israel-Palestine w/ Peter Beinart & Yehuda HaKohen | The Great Debate

(COMMENT)

Who will the UN (ie the world) blame if their constant meddling in the consequences of the regional affair is such that it drives the territory into one last Civil War where the Arab Palestinians get their to realize their one-state that will result in a final conflict.

The UN is rapidly approaching a paradoxical situation in which their chaotic soup of conceptual arguments over which sides' rights takes priority over the other.

◈ On the one hand, you cannot have the conditions set for a one-state solution that will protect the Jewish people from the excesses of the past in which the original intent was to the establishment in Palestine a Jewish National Home (JNH) should the Great War result in the fall of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic in favor of the Allied Powers.​

​

◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:​

​

✦ The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine, or any follow-on decisions derived from those concepts.​

​

✦ The authority of the San Remo Convention (1920). ​

​

✦ The premise that a JNH was necessary to reduce the probability of further mass expulsion, massacres, fraud under the color of law, and even cases of genocide.​

There is something wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?

What "wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict" - is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self determination of both cultures. It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Aspirations 'vs' Protential Realizations
⁜→ rylah, et al,

BLUF: There was a time when racial kinship and ancient bonds, common between the Arabs of Palestine and the Jewish people, were spoken of openly and not in the manner fashionable today and called "apartheid." In fact, the exchange (1919) of such notions between HRH Emir Faisal and Dr Chaim Weizmann not only ran counter the implications of "apartheid" but enforced the idea that the "surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations" would be furthered by the "closest possible collaboration" in working towards that mutual end-state. But that was a century ago, and no one survives that time period in which such a bond is still promoted today. In fact, that many videos posted by the pro-Arab Palestinians in this discussion group are representative of anything except those ideals.

Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?

What "wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict" - is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self-determination of both cultures. It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.

(COMMENT)

The vision of a one-state solution in which the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not threatened is expressed in the 1948 rejection by the Arabs of Palestine wherein they will never recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. It is easily seen that the animosity between the two cultures has expanded into a series of multigenerational developments in which dislike has grown into an out'n'out hatred with a complete denial of any bond or right of the Jewish people.

​

The question is NOT "Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?" but rather is it ever going to be possible for the common theme of the Faisal-Weismann Agreement (of a hundred years ago) ever come to be realized again?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Gruppe42 1o1: Ronnie Barkan about Palestine, Peace, History & Boycott

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ep. 169: Pink Floyd Co-Founder Roger Waters & Rep. Rashida Tlaib -- Rumble 25 Million LIVE

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel & Palestine: U.S. Aid to Israel & the Palestinians

 

[P F Tinmore]

Speaking Out for the Voiceless with Rabbi David Saperstein - AJC Advocacy Anywhere

 

[Hollie]

Palestinian-Lebanese Scholar Ali Al-Yousuf: We Will Rip out the Israelis' Spleens and Livers

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Aspirations 'vs' Protential Realizations
⁜→ rylah, et al,

BLUF: There was a time when racial kinship and ancient bonds, common between the Arabs of Palestine and the Jewish people, were spoken of openly and not in the manner fashionable today and called "apartheid." In fact, the exchange (1919) of such notions between HRH Emir Faisal and Dr Chaim Weizmann not only ran counter the implications of "apartheid" but enforced the idea that the "surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations" would be furthered by the "closest possible collaboration" in working towards that mutual end-state. But that was a century ago, and no one survives that time period in which such a bond is still promoted today. In fact, that many videos posted by the pro-Arab Palestinians in this discussion group are representative of anything except those ideals.

Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?

What "wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict" - is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self-determination of both cultures. It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.

(COMMENT)

The vision of a one-state solution in which the Jewish National Home (JNH) is not threatened is expressed in the 1948 rejection by the Arabs of Palestine wherein they will never recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. It is easily seen that the animosity between the two cultures has expanded into a series of multigenerational developments in which dislike has grown into an out'n'out hatred with a complete denial of any bond or right of the Jewish people.

View attachment 469611

​

The question is NOT "Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?" but rather is it ever going to be possible for the common theme of the Faisal-Weismann Agreement (of a hundred years ago) ever come to be realized again?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, I'd argue that the multi-generational dispute was the main reason for initiating the JNF.
Before the establishment of the JNF and after it, it's a given. The JNF is in a dispute with a culture that till this day, values internal revenge until 11th cousin as a social norm.

And second, point to the fact that neither Weitzman nor Emir Faisal held the kind of authority among their own people, neither the act of proclamation was aimed at them, both had to deal with British authorities and international powers in "their language".

That exactly leads me back to my initial point - the norms according to which we're expected to form our relationship and society force us to play roles rather than express our national aspirations, and rather complicate and prolong the dispute.

Especially this conflict, in which everyone around, it seems, has a hand.

But of all the politicians, activists, clerks, the only people who've never publicly met to address this dispute are our elders, royals, sages of the generation... those who hold beyond just political power, but rather represent the core of both cultural archetypes. I don't know of a single time Rabbi Kook Ztvk"l ever got to meet Haj Amin Hesseini.

That one trajectory - a formation of a specific new cultural institution for the region.
Second trajectory -transition of Israel towards a parliamentary monarchy (for lack of better term).

That is what Weizman and Faisal were essentially talking about, they saw Israel more as an ally in an integral revolution of the region in cooperation with the Arab world rather than a limited national govt in a geographic unit. Basically Iran's vision, only through trade, science and focus on culture. I think they were correct, only a bit early. PM Netanyahu is not a king, but it's quiet difficult not to notice the emergence of the "king"/"kingmaker" themes in recent campaigns, and the cultural shift among the young.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Aspirations 'vs' Potential Realizations
⁜→ rylah, et al,

PREFACE: I'm fairly sure, that I agree with most (if not all) you've said.

There were three elements I was responding to in your commentary: (Note: I will not address the issue of the Gaza Strip and that population).

E1: Why is it so difficult to ENVISION one state where the JNH is not compromised?

E2: What "wrong with the vision where the simple Rules of Law and Self-Determination create an environment of perpetual conflict"
- is the imposition of secular Western norms on the self-determination of both cultures.

E3: It simply doesn't fit to fully express the natural aspirations of all involved.

Counter-Position to E1: I cannot see a viable One-State Solution to the Regional Conflict in which the two-distinct cultures and thrive in harmony. While there are always anecdotal examples wherein the two cultures co-exist in peace, there are many more examples in which the hostilities erupt as a result of proximity to one and the other. Do you honestly see a chance (in your lifetime) where an additional 1.2 to 1.9 Million Arab Palestinians (or an increase by more than 10% but less than 20%), in which nearly half are unemployed → can be assimilated into the Greater State of Israel•Palestine without the social services of Israel can accommodate the influx? While I see the positive intentions, you've just described a condition in which the working class of the Israelis will have to support the Arab Palestinians and pay for the necessary solutions to bring them up to the same level as any other citizen. How much of a burden will the Israeli citizens absorb before the system become politically untenable?

Counter-Position to E2: In my opinion, it is not a matter of Western Norms. It is a matter of the differential in norms from the Israel Culture to the Arab Palestinian Culture. For at least two decades, the Arab Palestinians have been immortalizing role models like Dalal al-Maghribi, the patriotism of the Fedayeen, the heroism of those that attacked the Olympic Village, those that ambushed the Jordanian King, hijacked airliners, were involved in suicide bombings, and alike. If the indoctrination only has a lasting effect on half a percent of the 1.5 Million assimilated, that becomes several thousand jihadists running loose in Israel. Remember that it only took 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda to create the havoc that still reverberates today from 9/11. What is the level of risk the Israels will be willing to take in a One-State Solution?

Counter-Position to E3: Who's Aspirations are we looking at? The Israelis do not have a common theme on the matter. And it is very clear that the Arab Palestinians do not speak with one voice. When we ask ourselves, what do we envision a One-State Solution to look like, what are the expectations?

Well, I'd argue that the multi-generational dispute was the main reason for initiating the JNF.
Before the establishment of the JNF and after it, it's a given. The JNF is in a dispute with a culture that till this day, values internal revenge until 11th cousin as a social norm.

(COMMENT)

We are in agreement here. But I think the repercussion will be far more complex than I can even contemplate.

And second, point to the fact that neither Weitzman nor Emir Faisal held the kind of authority among their own people, neither the act of proclamation was aimed at them, both had to deal with British authorities and international powers in "their language".

(COMMENT)

Oh yes, this is so very true. Yet, by mid-century, Who, having communicated their full powers, have agreed that His Majesty The King (of Great-Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India) recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir (Hashemite Emir Faisal) as the sovereign thereof.

Authority is rather an elusive concept when dealing in political influence and raw power.

That exactly leads me back to my initial point - the norms according to which we're expected to form our relationship and society force us to play roles rather than express our national aspirations, and rather complicate and prolong the dispute.

(COMMENT)

It is a very strange notion, yet, it has a ring of truth.

That is what Weizman and Faisal were essentially talking about, they saw Israel more as an ally in an integral revolution of the region in cooperation with the Arab world rather than a limited national govt in a geographic unit. Basically Iran's vision, only through trade, science and focus on culture. I think they were correct, only a bit early. PM Netanyahu is not a king, but it's quiet difficult not to notice the emergence of the "king"/"kingmaker" themes in recent campaigns, and the cultural shift among the young.

(COMMENT)

Some aspirations a far beyond that which one is expected to achieve. And yet, some ideas grow to something far more than was envisioned. I'm not sure what is going to be more applicable. But, I take the Battle-hardened Prime Minister as his word:

BREITBART
TEL AVIV (8 Apr 2019)
The U.S. is fully aware of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s flat rejection of the
creation of a Palestinian State
along with his plans to extend Israeli law to West Bank settlements, the Israeli premier said on Monday.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Can Israel Win the Propaganda War? (July 20 2020 )

 

[rylah]

Can Israel Win the Propaganda War? (July 20 2020 )

A very strange question for a nation that has already fundamentally influenced
half the world, even without having a state, don't you think?

Not to mention India.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Decolonizing Knowledge on Palestine | Ahlam Muhtaseb | TEDxMSJC