The reason why Palestine will never be divided

[José]

Originally posted by Dogmaphobe
tl:dr b.s.

You didn't read it but you're sure it's bullshit. Interesting...

Last time you said I was lying/bullshiting the only bullshit was coming from you:

Dogmaphobe, the IDF murdered thousands of
unarmed palestinians in cold blood between 48-56.

JOSÉ

LIES!! STOP LYING, JOSÉ!!

The front lines effectively became free fire zones and troops were usually ordered to shoot to kill (palestinians refugees trying to return to their homes).​

 

[José]

Originally posted by bigrebnc1775
Oh great you can name the first Palestine king

This is exactly what I said, bigrebnc1775.

There was no palestinian people before the Zionist movement started in 1880 just like there was no black South African people before the europeans arrived in southern Africa.

The palestinian people was a creation of european colonialism in Palestine. The struggle to save the arab society in Palestine from the jewish society that was being created on top of it by zionism, generated a sense of shared history and shared destiny that caused those arabs to start thinking about themselves as a single people and the ENTIRE, and I repeat, the ENTIRE region of Palestine as their homeland.

You didn't even read what I typed, big.

There's no problem with skipping long texts about subjects you're only mildly interested in. I do it myself all the time. If you have little interest in the IP conflict, then by all means, skip away!!

But I can't debate with you about a text you didn't even bother to read in the first place. It's humanly impossible.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Lisa558
I just read the headline calling a non-existent country “Palestine” and could predict the rest.

The title referred to Palestine as a region not a country. Even ultra zionist agree that is one of the names of the region.

they (the palestinians) want Israel to cease to exist entirely.

LISA558​

This is exactly what I said:

Palestinians will never accept the partition of the region of Palestine because this is the mental image they have of their homeland (and not only the WB and Gaza):

First she says the OP is bullshit and soon after she agrees with me 100%.

These comical situations are what happens when you comment on a text you never read.

 

[José]

Originally posted by jwoodie
See the "Four-State" solution.

I read your thread when you posted, jwoodie.

I immediately thought to myself:

He's proposing a single, unitary state in Palestine but he forgot to tell us if Palestinians will have the right to move freely in their ENTIRE HISTORIC HOMELAND, from the river to the sea, from Hebron in the WB to Haifa on the shores of the Meditarranean or from Gaza City to Ashkelon.

If they won't, his proposal is not worth a roll of toilet paper just like David 2004's plans for a future palestinian state. His "Four-State Solution" will be completely ignored by Palestinians and the conflict will go on.

 

[ESay]

The very idea of a 'two-state' solution based on 1967 borders was flawed from the beginning. It is hard to create a feasible 'Palestinian state' out of two enclaves divided by an Israeli territory.

 

[José]

The very idea of a 'two-state' solution based on 1967 borders was flawed from the beginning. It is hard to create a feasible 'Palestinian state' out of two enclaves divided by an Israeli territory.

And here comes Esay trying to find more excuses, pretexts that supposedly "explain" the miserable failure to divide Palestine in the last 100 years.

And the worst of all is that these excuses are based on facts that makes sense.

What Esay is saying is absolutely true:

The ethnic enclaves created by all ethnocracies in the world, including the jewish supremacist state to keep an artificial jewish majority in Palestine are BY DEFINITION:

1 Located in the most impoverished regions of the territory, lacking fertile soil and natural resources (native american reservations, Bantustans and the WB-Gaza).

2 They are truncated, disconnected, they lack the most basic territorial contiguity to the point of becoming almost ungovernable.

But we know this is just an excuse because the same palestinians rejected the 48 UN Partition Plan that envisioned a contiguous palestinian state (even though it was still extremely artificial):

The international press is responsible for bombarding people around the world with all those excuses, lies about the IP conflict.

We still don't have a Palestinian state because:

THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM

LACK OF TERRITORIAL CONTIGUITY BETWEEN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA

LACK OF TERRITORIAL CONTIGUITY IN THE WEST BANK ITSELF DUE TO SETTLEMENTS

There was contiguity between the WB and Gaza, no settlements and total access to Jerusalem in 48 and they still rejected!!

And to make matters even worse, you have dozens of palestinian politicians "confirming" those excuses, because in ethnocratic conflicts the leadership of the native people cannot openly express the real reasons due to fear of reprisals (Israel imposing even more restrictions, the US, Europe and Japan cutting off funds, etc...)

If those palestinian leaders were free to tell the truth outloud they would say there will never be a palestinian state because the fight for the land lost to Israel is the very fact that created the palestinian people in the first place. It's what distinguishes Palestinians from their fellow Arabs: Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc...

It's precisely because the West Bank and Gaza are "enclaves" as you said, Esay, and not the real historic homeland of the palestinian people that they lack any potential to become real, legitimate states in the future.

Esay, Coyote, Vren, Billo Really and dozens of other posters are massacred for this avalanche of pretexts and excuses parroted by the international press and TRAGICALLY confirmed by dozens of palestinian leaders who fear Israel's reprisals and losing international political and financial support. They lack a solid grasp of the nature of ethnocratic conflicts to be able to withstand that deluge of fake motives.

You just can't understand anything about this conflict without applying the ethnocratic paradigm to it.

 

[Lastamender]

When I joined this board there was a poster called David 2004 (I think he joined that same year). As far as I know he posted only about the IP conflict and his threads presented details of a future palestinian state. His ideas for a palestinian state were so incredibly detailed, so academic that no one could believe he had came up with them by himself so everybody searched the Net trying to find the source to no avail.

After I read 10 or 12 of his threads I felt sorry for the guy and decided to explain to him why his plans were a terrible waste of time. I started by comparing the South African and Palestinian identities:

What's the origin of the South African national identity?

Why do the black people of South Africa today identify the territory of South Africa as their historical homeland if their ancestors fought like lions to prevent the white invaders from creating the country in the first place?

When the white settlers arrived in South Africa they found a native population that had no concept of nation states, national boundaries. Their homelands were the territory inhabited by their clans, tribes or kingdoms.

It was exactly the 3 century-long war against white colonialism and supremacism that created among the diferent bantu peoples of South Africa a sense of shared history, a sense of belonging to a single south african people, a sense that the national boundaries of South Africa, established by the white colonists by force, against their will, had, ironically, become the limits of their new homeland too. The fight against dutch and english colonialism and supremacism is what distinguishes the black population of South Africa from the african people of neighboring countries, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, etc...

Without white colonialism and supremacism this sense of belonging to a single people, to a new homeland with new frontiers would never have developed. Instead of South Africa you would have dozens of smaller republics.

In settler-colonial ethnocracies the colonists find a native population who has no concept of the country, the nation state the settlers intend to found but in the course of their historical struggle against the creation of that alien, colonial society in their homeland the native people often end up united in a single national identity that mirrors the national identity and/or the territorial space created by the settlers.

It was precisely this new national identity, this new territorial configuration created by the white settlers and IRONICALLY absorbed by the black population in their struggle against the settlers that prevented black south africans to accept the Bantustans, the pseudo countries that South Africa under Apartheid created for each bantu people.

The Bantu peoples of South Africa could never accept the ethnic enclaves, the pseudo countries of Transkei, Ciskei, Kwazulu-Natal as their homeland, because in 1960, 70, 80, the whole image below corresponded to their mental image of their homeland, not only the parts in green, red, yellow, orange, etc...:

The same historical process of struggle against colonialism created the Palestinian people and the boundaries of their homeland.

Zionists are absolutely right when they say there was no Palestinian people in the 19th century. The people who inhabited Palestine at that time identify themselves as:

1 Arabs, Jews

2 Muslim, Christian, Jews

3 Ottomans

4 Members of their respective arab clans.

It was precisely the 140 year war against Zionist colonialism that created the palestinian people and the boundaries of their homeland that coincide perfectly with the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.

The reason there will never be a palestinian state is the simple fact that their mental image of the borders of their homeland corresponds to this:

and not to this:

I remember I said to him:

"David, all your plans about a future palestinian state are a tremendous waste of time... This state will never exist.

You sound like someone who sympathizes with the palestinian cause but doesn't really understand what means to be a palestinian.

The zionist colonialism, building a new society inside Palestine against the will of the natives, ended up, inadvertently, generating a new collective identity among the arabs that inhabited that part of the Levant. The struggle for the land lost to Israel is what separates a palestinian from a Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi or Lebanese. Their common struggle against european colonialism is what defines them as a people.

So when you ask a palestinian arab to accept the partition of Palestine so your state can be created you are, in reality, asking him to stop being a palestinian arab, you're asking him to renounce to his own national identity built during the creation of the state of Israel.

And this, David, is something the palestinian arabs will never be able to do."

You cannot divide a country that never existed. Here answer these questions,

 

[ESay]

The very idea of a 'two-state' solution based on 1967 borders was flawed from the beginning. It is hard to create a feasible 'Palestinian state' out of two enclaves divided by an Israeli territory.

And here comes Esay trying to find more excuses, pretexts that supposedly "explain" the miserable failure to divide Palestine in the last 100 years.

And the worst of all is that these excuses are based on facts that makes sense.

What Esay is saying is absolutely true:

The ethnic enclaves created by all ethnocracies in the world, including the jewish supremacist state to keep an artificial jewish majority in Palestine are BY DEFINITION:

1 Located in the most impoverished regions of the territory, lacking fertile soil and natural resources (native american reservations, Bantustans and the WB-Gaza).

2 They are truncated, disconnected, they lack the most basic territorial contiguity to the point of becoming almost ungovernable.

But we know this is just an excuse because the same palestinians rejected the 48 UN Partition Plan that envisioned a contiguous palestinian state (even though it was still extremely artificial):

The international press is responsible for bombarding people around the world with all those excuses, lies about the IP conflict.

We still don't have a Palestinian state because:

THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM

LACK OF TERRITORIAL CONTIGUITY BETWEEN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA

LACK OF TERRITORIAL CONTIGUITY IN THE WEST BANK ITSELF DUE TO SETTLEMENTS

There was contiguity between the WB and Gaza, no settlements and total access to Jerusalem in 48 and they still rejected!!

And to make matters even worse, you have dozens of palestinian politicians "confirming" those excuses, because in ethnocratic conflicts the leadership of the native people cannot openly express the real reasons due to fear of reprisals (Israel imposing even more restrictions, the US, Europe and Japan cutting off funds, etc...)

If those palestinian leaders were free to tell the truth outloud they would say there will never be a palestinian state because the fight for the land lost to Israel is the very fact that created the palestinian people in the first place. It's what distinguishes Palestinians from their fellow Arabs: Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc...

It's precisely because the West Bank and Gaza are "enclaves" as you said, Esay, and not the real historic homeland of the palestinian people that they lack any potential to become real, legitimate states in the future.

Esay, Coyote, Vren, Billo Really and dozens of other posters are massacred for this avalanche of pretexts and excuses parroted by the international press and TRAGICALLY confirmed by dozens of palestinian leaders who fear Israel's reprisals and losing international political and financial support. They lack a solid grasp of the nature of ethnocratic conflicts to be able to withstand that deluge of fake motives.

You just can't understand anything about this conflict without applying the ethnocratic paradigm to it.

And? What was you point?

If we go as far as 1940s or even earlier, then we should admit that things went wrong from the start. The best solution would have been the Arab state (Jordan) and the Jewish state (all west of the Jordan river). Without all those senseless patches.

But today is not 1948 or 1967. It is pointless to talk about the things that could or should have happened 60 or 80 years ago. What we have now - the Palestinians (as a nation, no matter one likes that or not or what historical excuses one can offer), two isolated enclaves (one of them 'patched' itself), and new Arab-Israeli war that can go beyond initial borders.

 

[José]

Originally posted by lastamender
You cannot divide a country that never existed. Here answer these questions,

Another poster who didn't read a single word I typed or if he did, he didn't understand a word of what he read.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Esay
If we go as far as 1940s or even earlier, then we should admit that things went wrong from the start. The best solution would have been the Arab state (Jordan) and the Jewish state (all west of the Jordan river). Without all those senseless patches.​

What we have now - the Palestinians (as a nation, no matter one likes that or not or what historical excuses one can offer)

After all I said you still don't understand the first thing about the nature, the genesis of the palestinian national identity, Esay.

The palestinian people themselves were created by the struggle against european colonialism. It was precisely the 140 year opposition to Zionism that created their mental image of their homeland:

THIS

NOT THIS:

If palestinian arabs accepted the loss of Haifa, Ashkelon, Acre, Tyberias they would immediately cease to be palestinian Arabs. From that moment on they could just as well immigrate to Saudi Arabia by the millions and "disappear" as a distinct, separate people.

If all the land west of the Jordan River were "given" to the jewish racial dictatorship we would still have the same palestinian people we have today, created by their struggle against Zionism and fighting for their right to live in Acre, Haifa, Tyberias, etc...

The only difference is that we would have even more palestinian refugees spread in the Middle East and lobbying rockets into Israel.

As I said to David 2004 almost 20 years ago:

"So when you ask a palestinian arab to accept the partition of Palestine so your state can be created you are, in reality, asking him to stop being a palestinian arab, you're asking him to renounce to his own national identity built during the creation of the state of Israel.

And this, David, is something the palestinian arabs will never be able to do."

The entire palestinian struggle, Esay, is not a fight against the "patches" in the WB, it's not about East Jerusalem, it's not about a few inches of land here, a few inches of land there.

Its about the right of the Palestinian people to move freely in the western part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Go to the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebannon and Israel itself and see for yourself how many palestinians are willing to give up the right of return.

The problem is the existence of a giant propaganda machine bombarding Esay's mind since he entered this world 39 years ago with falsehoods according to which the partition of Palestine can be a solution to this conflict when in reality the partition is the cause of it.

And to confuse Esay's mind even more, you have dozens of palestinian leaders like Arafat, Erakat "confirming" the falsehoods spread by the international press for the reasons I already explained.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

When I joined this board there was a poster called David 2004 (I think he joined that same year). As far as I know he posted only about the IP conflict and his threads presented details of a future palestinian state. His ideas for a palestinian state were so incredibly detailed, so academic that no one could believe he had came up with them by himself so everybody searched the Net trying to find the source to no avail.

After I read 10 or 12 of his threads I felt sorry for the guy and decided to explain to him why his plans were a terrible waste of time. I started by comparing the South African and Palestinian identities:

What's the origin of the South African national identity?

Why do the black people of South Africa today identify the territory of South Africa as their historical homeland if their ancestors fought like lions to prevent the white invaders from creating the country in the first place?

When the white settlers arrived in South Africa they found a native population that had no concept of nation states, national boundaries. Their homelands were the territory inhabited by their clans, tribes or kingdoms.

It was exactly the 3 century-long war against white colonialism and supremacism that created among the diferent bantu peoples of South Africa a sense of shared history, a sense of belonging to a single south african people, a sense that the national boundaries of South Africa, established by the white colonists by force, against their will, had, ironically, become the limits of their new homeland too. The fight against dutch and english colonialism and supremacism is what distinguishes the black population of South Africa from the african people of neighboring countries, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, etc...

Without white colonialism and supremacism this sense of belonging to a single people, to a new homeland with new frontiers would never have developed. Instead of South Africa you would have dozens of smaller republics.

In settler-colonial ethnocracies the colonists find a native population who has no concept of the country, the nation state the settlers intend to found but in the course of their historical struggle against the creation of that alien, colonial society in their homeland the native people often end up united in a single national identity that mirrors the national identity and/or the territorial space created by the settlers.

It was precisely this new national identity, this new territorial configuration created by the white settlers and IRONICALLY absorbed by the black population in their struggle against the settlers that prevented black south africans to accept the Bantustans, the pseudo countries that South Africa under Apartheid created for each bantu people.

The Bantu peoples of South Africa could never accept the ethnic enclaves, the pseudo countries of Transkei, Ciskei, Kwazulu-Natal as their homeland, because in 1960, 70, 80, the whole image below corresponded to their mental image of their homeland, not only the parts in green, red, yellow, orange, etc...:

The same historical process of struggle against colonialism created the Palestinian people and the boundaries of their homeland.

Zionists are absolutely right when they say there was no Palestinian people in the 19th century. The people who inhabited Palestine at that time identify themselves as:

1 Arabs, Jews

2 Muslim, Christian, Jews

3 Ottomans

4 Members of their respective arab clans.

It was precisely the 140 year war against Zionist colonialism that created the palestinian people and the boundaries of their homeland that coincide perfectly with the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.

The reason there will never be a palestinian state is the simple fact that their mental image of the borders of their homeland corresponds to this:

and not to this:

I remember I said to him:

"David, all your plans about a future palestinian state are a tremendous waste of time... This state will never exist.

You sound like someone who sympathizes with the palestinian cause but doesn't really understand what means to be a palestinian.

The zionist colonialism, building a new society inside Palestine against the will of the natives, ended up, inadvertently, generating a new collective identity among the arabs that inhabited that part of the Levant. The struggle for the land lost to Israel is what separates a palestinian from a Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi or Lebanese. Their common struggle against european colonialism is what defines them as a people.

So when you ask a palestinian arab to accept the partition of Palestine so your state can be created you are, in reality, asking him to stop being a palestinian arab, you're asking him to renounce to his own national identity built during the creation of the state of Israel.

And this, David, is something the palestinian arabs will never be able to do."

Since there’s no such state or nationality that exists you’re dividing by 0.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

After all I said you still don't understand the first thing about the nature, the genesis of the palestinian national identity, Esay.

The palestinian people themselves were created by the struggle against european colonialism. It was precisely the 140 year opposition to Zionism that created their mental image of their homeland:

THIS

NOT THIS:

If palestinian arabs accepted the loss of Haifa, Ashkelon, Acre, Tyberias they would immediately cease to be palestinian Arabs. From that moment on they could just as well immigrate to Saudi Arabia by the millions and "disappear" as a distinct, separate people.

If all the land west of the Jordan River were "given" to the jewish racial dictatorship we would still have the same palestinian people we have today, created by their struggle against Zionism and fighting for their right to live in Acre, Haifa, Tiberias, etc...

The only difference is that we would have even more palestinian refugees spread in the Middle East and lobbying rockets into Israel.

As I said to David 2004 almost 20 years ago:

"So when you ask a palestinian arab to accept the partition of Palestine so your state can be created you are, in reality, asking him to stop being a palestinian arab, you're asking him to renounce to his own national identity built during the creation of the state of Israel.

And this, David, is something the palestinian arabs will never be able to do."

The entire palestinian struggle, Esay, is not a fight against the "patches" in the WB, it's not about East Jerusalem, it's not about a few inches of land here, a few inches of land there.

Its about the right of the Palestinian people to move freely in the western part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Go to the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebannon and Israel itself and see for yourself how many palestinians are willing to give up the right of return.

The problem is the existence of a giant propaganda machine bombarding Esay's mind since he entered this world 39 years ago with falsehoods according to which the partition of Palestine can be a solution to this conflict when in reality the partition is the cause of it.

And to confuse Esay's mind even more, you have dozens of palestinian leaders like Arafat, Erakat "confirming" the falsehoods spread by the international press for the reasons I already explained.

Oh they had a mental image. An imaginary home for imaginary people.

 

[ESay]

After all I said you still don't understand the first thing about the nature, the genesis of the palestinian national identity, Esay.

The palestinian people themselves were created by the struggle against european colonialism. It was precisely the 140 year opposition to Zionism that created their mental image of their homeland:

THIS

NOT THIS:

If palestinian arabs accepted the loss of Haifa, Ashkelon, Acre, Tyberias they would immediately cease to be palestinian Arabs. From that moment on they could just as well immigrate to Saudi Arabia by the millions and "disappear" as a distinct, separate people.

If all the land west of the Jordan River were "given" to the jewish racial dictatorship we would still have the same palestinian people we have today, created by their struggle against Zionism and fighting for their right to live in Acre, Haifa, Tyberias, etc...

The only difference is that we would have even more palestinian refugees spread in the Middle East and lobbying rockets into Israel.

As I said to David 2004 almost 20 years ago:

"So when you ask a palestinian arab to accept the partition of Palestine so your state can be created you are, in reality, asking him to stop being a palestinian arab, you're asking him to renounce to his own national identity built during the creation of the state of Israel.

And this, David, is something the palestinian arabs will never be able to do."

The entire palestinian struggle, Esay, is not a fight against the "patches" in the WB, it's not about East Jerusalem, it's not about a few inches of land here, a few inches of land there.

Its about the right of the Palestinian people to move freely in the western part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Go to the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebannon and Israel itself and see for yourself how many palestinians are willing to give up the right of return.

The problem is the existence of a giant propaganda machine bombarding Esay's mind since he entered this world 39 years ago with falsehoods according to which the partition of Palestine can be a solution to this conflict when in reality the partition is the cause of it.

And to confuse Esay's mind even more, you have dozens of palestinian leaders like Arafat, Erakat "confirming" the falsehoods spread by the international press for the reasons I already explained.

I understand what you are trying to say. Main points:

• the Palestinian nation was created as a result of the 'native' people's struggle against a foreign 'invasion'. Virtually, the Zionist movement itself created the Palestinians.
• The Palestinians won't accept anything less than 'from the river to the sea', otherwise they will cease to be 'Palestinians'.
• not sure about Arafat, Abbas and the like. These guys basically were/are at a payroll to make sure that as long as 'the struggle' continues no Palestinian state could be created?

Okay, my question still stands - how to resolve the Arab-Israeli issue? It seems that the only correct answer, applying your logic, would be to take all 'European colonists' back from Palestine.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Doubtful he would consider Palestinians as dogs

Attack Dogs. Pit-Bull Paleonasties.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Esay
Okay, my question still stands - how to resolve the Arab-Israeli issue?

There are no short or medium term solutions, only the STATUS QUO.

Israel occupying the West Bank (and now Gaza) and putting in practice the expansionist-colonialist ethnocratic ideology that serves as the ideological basis of the jewish state:

The complete Judaization of the entire territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.

If you ask me about the long-term consequences of the permanence of the status quo, I suspect it will be the growing international delegitimization of state of Israel.

But it's not like the country has any other option to choose from.

 

[José]

Originally posted by lastamender
You cannot divide a country that never existed. Here answer these questions,

Originally posted by Missouri Mike
Since there’s no such state or nationality that exists you’re dividing by 0.

Originally posted by Missouri Mike
Oh they had a mental image. An imaginary home for imaginary people.

Notice that nobody denies the fact that the black south african people and their notion of South Africa's territory was created by Dutch and British colonialism in South Africa.

Notice that nobody denies that american Indians who consider themselves americans, who put their hands on their heart and sing "The Star Spangled Banner", who root for the US team in sports competitions, nobody denies they are expressing a real, legitimate national identity that was created by british colonialism in North America.

Nobody calls black south africans and native americans who consider themselves only Americans, or American and Cherokee... nobody calls them fake peoples, "imaginary" peoples... the fact that their national identities were the result of centuries of european colonialism does not delegitimize them.

The whole world accepts that black south african and Indians who think of themselves as Americans didn't exist in 1500, 1600 but legitimately exist now...

You can clearly see that lastamemder and Missouri Mike didn't take the time to think this issue through and are only parroting the zionist propaganda they read somewhere.

Why out of dozens of national identities of native peoples created by colonialism the palestinian identity is the only fake one?

Why is it so important to delegitimize the palestinian identity and not the other two?

Because supremacist America and Apartheid South Africa belong in the dustbin of History so trying to delegitimize the national identity of those two peoples serves no political purpose while the conflict in Palestine is the most politically charged issue of the century.

 

[José]

The only place in the world where the south african identity of black people was ever denied and delegitimized was exactly in South Africa under Apartheid.

The afrikaner ethnocracy repeated exactly the same arguments used by lastamender and Mike:

There had never been a black south african people in History... The were just several Bantu peoples: Xhosas, Zulus, etc... and Khoisan, etc... therefore South Africa should belong only to the white people who created the national identity in the first place and not to its native people.

The denial that Mandela, Tutu, Buthelezi, Biko, etc... were South Africans was the reason behind the creation of the South African Bantustans:

National homelands for the different peoples of South Africa...

Mandela as a member of the Xhosa ethnicity, was a "citizen" of Transkei and could never become a "citizen" of Kwazulu-Natal, created for the Zulu people, let alone a citizen of South Africa.

30 years after apartheid was dismantled we have lastamender and Mike here, regurgitating the same racist, dehumanizing propaganda that denies the legitimacy of the palestinian identity.

 

[ESay]

There are no short or medium term solutions, only the STATUS QUO.

Israel occupying the West Bank (and now Gaza) and putting in practice the expansionist-colonialist ethnocratic ideology that serves as the ideological basis of the jewish state:

The complete Judaization of the entire territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.

If you ask me about the long-term consequences of the permanence of the status quo, I suspect it will be the growing international delegitimization of state of Israel.

But it's not like the country has any other option to choose from.

I have to agree with that. The status quo is the only possible result. Though, even that 'status' will be nominal, because the Gaza Strip seems to be partially occupied, partially 'buffer zoned' etc.

All these speculations about one-, two-, n-state solutions will remain only on political forums, without any meaning on the ground. The divisions between two warring sides are too deep, and animosity are two high to work out any reasonable solution. And the things will only get worse in this regard.

So, another 'permanent' war in the Middle East with regular attacks and hostilities between the sides. Let it be it that way. It is their lands and their issues, after all.

 

[Weatherman2020]

When I joined this board there was a poster called David 2004 (I think he joined that same year). As far as I know he posted only about the IP conflict and his threads presented details of a future palestinian state. His ideas for a palestinian state were so incredibly detailed, so academic that no one could believe he had came up with them by himself so everybody searched the Net trying to find the source to no avail.

After I read 10 or 12 of his threads I felt sorry for the guy and decided to explain to him why his plans were a terrible waste of time. I started by comparing the South African and Palestinian identities:

What's the origin of the South African national identity?

Why do the black people of South Africa today identify the territory of South Africa as their historical homeland if their ancestors fought like lions to prevent the white invaders from creating the country in the first place?

When the white settlers arrived in South Africa they found a native population that had no concept of nation states, national boundaries. Their homelands were the territory inhabited by their clans, tribes or kingdoms.

It was exactly the 3 century-long war against white colonialism and supremacism that created among the diferent bantu peoples of South Africa a sense of shared history, a sense of belonging to a single south african people, a sense that the national boundaries of South Africa, established by the white colonists by force, against their will, had, ironically, become the limits of their new homeland too. The fight against dutch and english colonialism and supremacism is what distinguishes the black population of South Africa from the african people of neighboring countries, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, etc...

Without white colonialism and supremacism this sense of belonging to a single people, to a new homeland with new frontiers would never have developed. Instead of South Africa you would have dozens of smaller republics.

In settler-colonial ethnocracies the colonists find a native population who has no concept of the country, the nation state the settlers intend to found but in the course of their historical struggle against the creation of that alien, colonial society in their homeland the native people often end up united in a single national identity that mirrors the national identity and/or the territorial space created by the settlers.

It was precisely this new national identity, this new territorial configuration created by the white settlers and IRONICALLY absorbed by the black population in their struggle against the settlers that prevented black south africans to accept the Bantustans, the pseudo countries that South Africa under Apartheid created for each bantu people.

The Bantu peoples of South Africa could never accept the ethnic enclaves, the pseudo countries of Transkei, Ciskei, Kwazulu-Natal as their homeland, because in 1960, 70, 80, the whole image below corresponded to their mental image of their homeland, not only the parts in green, red, yellow, orange, etc...:

The same historical process of struggle against colonialism created the Palestinian people and the boundaries of their homeland.

Zionists are absolutely right when they say there was no Palestinian people in the 19th century. The people who inhabited Palestine at that time identify themselves as:

1 Arabs, Jews

2 Muslim, Christian, Jews

3 Ottomans

4 Members of their respective arab clans.

It was precisely the 140 year war against Zionist colonialism that created the palestinian people and the boundaries of their homeland that coincide perfectly with the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.

The reason there will never be a palestinian state is the simple fact that their mental image of the borders of their homeland corresponds to this:

and not to this:

I remember I said to him:

"David, all your plans about a future palestinian state are a tremendous waste of time... This state will never exist.

You sound like someone who sympathizes with the palestinian cause but doesn't really understand what means to be a palestinian.

The zionist colonialism, building a new society inside Palestine against the will of the natives, ended up, inadvertently, generating a new collective identity among the arabs that inhabited that part of the Levant. The struggle for the land lost to Israel is what separates a palestinian from a Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi or Lebanese. Their common struggle against european colonialism is what defines them as a people.

So when you ask a palestinian arab to accept the partition of Palestine so your state can be created you are, in reality, asking him to stop being a palestinian arab, you're asking him to renounce to his own national identity built during the creation of the state of Israel.

And this, David, is something the palestinian arabs will never be able to do."

You should educate yourself and learn where the term ‘Palestine’ comes from and who it was applied to

 

[surada]

Christians were driven out of Lebanon by the Muslim majority.

When Israel drove Palestinians out of Palestine in 1948-1967 Lebanon's demographics were turned upside down. Don't you remember? I visited a refugee camp outside Beirut in the 1950s. I love Lebanon and went there often. The changes were dramatic and sudden. Israel was always attacking them... killing Lebanese farmers, stealing topsoil. The problems got worse because the refugees forced out of Israel were angry and impoverished.
..