The Truth Comes Out - Regular Palestinians do NOT want two state solution

[Toddsterpatriot]

Iranians despise Arabs more than they do Israelis.

They deserve each other.

 

[teddyearp]

Here's a metaphor I always use to explain why those who propose a two-state solution are full of beans.

Let's suppose that through some legal trickery or another, I manage to gain title to a house that has been in your family for generations. I throw you and your family out onto the street. Some of your family take up residence with kind neighbors.

Now, if I let you move into the unheated garage, are you going to feel "gratitude" towards me?

Let me clarify the huge glaring error and/or omission in your metaphor.

Let's suppose that you are squatting on someone else's land that they own in absentia, perhaps for generations. You do not own it nor do you want your name on the title otherwise you will have to pay taxes on it and/or serve in the military of the .gov that has control over that land. Then, that land is sold by the legal owner to another legal owner (called legal trickery by you) and they come and want to do something with the land.

I'll just leave the rest of your fairy tale alone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me clarify the huge glaring error and/or omission in your metaphor.

Let's suppose that you are squatting on someone else's land that they own in absentia, perhaps for generations. You do not own it nor do you want your name on the title otherwise you will have to pay taxes on it and/or serve in the military of the .gov that has control over that land. Then, that land is sold by the legal owner to another legal owner (called legal trickery by you) and they come and want to do something with the land.

I'll just leave the rest of your fairy tale alone.

The landowners get killed in a war and suddenly the home has been in the squatter's family for 400 years.

 

[Shusha]

Let me clarify the huge glaring error and/or omission in your metaphor.

Let's suppose that you are squatting on someone else's land that they own in absentia, perhaps for generations. You do not own it nor do you want your name on the title otherwise you will have to pay taxes on it and/or serve in the military of the .gov that has control over that land. Then, that land is sold by the legal owner to another legal owner (called legal trickery by you) and they come and want to do something with the land.

I'll just leave the rest of your fairy tale alone.

Without arguing with a word of the above, I think it still misses the point of why the analogy isn't working, at least for me. It is still conflating individual property ownership with self-determination/sovereignty. Ownership is not the same as governance.

Let's see if I can build a better analogy. (I'm not entirely convinced that I can, but I'll try).

Imagine an apartment high-rise that has been abandoned by the building's owner. Living in the apartments are different families each of whom have been there for generations and generations. The families agree to take control of the building. Each family will be responsible for a certain number of floors: taking responsibility for cleaning and maintenance, collecting rent, turnover of apartments, decorating, providing shared services, and anything else needed for those floors.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Without arguing with a word of the above, I think it still misses the point of why the analogy isn't working, at least for me. It is still conflating individual property ownership with self-determination/sovereignty. Ownership is not the same as governance.

Let's see if I can build a better analogy. (I'm not entirely convinced that I can, but I'll try).

Imagine an apartment high-rise that has been abandoned by the building's owner. Living in the apartments are different families each of whom have been there for generations and generations. The families agree to take control of the building. Each family will be responsible for a certain number of floors: taking responsibility for cleaning and maintenance, collecting rent, turnover of apartments, decorating, providing shared services, and anything else needed for those floors.

Add in the old owner selling the building to new owners who offer the squatters the right to stay, but the squatters instead enter into an agreement with a local gang to kill the new owners and give the building back to the squatters. Then after that fails, the squatters who fled to avoid the fighting between the gang and the new owners spend the next ninety years complaining that they were screwed over and trying to kill the new owners. Add that in and your analogy works better.

 

[Shusha]

Add in the old owner selling the building to new owners who offer the squatters the right to stay, but the squatters instead enter into an agreement with a local gang to kill the new owners and give the building back to the squatters. Then after that fails, the squatters who fled to avoid the fighting between the gang and the new owners spend the next ninety years complaining that they were screwed over and trying to kill the new owners. Add that in and your analogy works better.

I don't think this works. The old owner didn't sell the building. That is, the old owner didn't exchange his interest in real property for something of equivalent value. The old owner renounced all title and interest, but did not assign his interest to a specific party. He did hire a management company to handle the transition, and gave that management company the authority to act.

I also reject the idea that the people just living in the apartments should be labelled as "squatters", regardless of the family they are from. They are just people living in the apartments.

If I was to continue the analogy:

The management company that has been hired to ease the transition assigns the 1st through 6th floors to the Red family and the 7th through 10th floors to the Blue family. The Red family decides that the Blue family must not be permitted to control any floors. It attacks violently, with help from neighbors in nearby buildings, and manages to take control of floors 7 and 8. The Blue family manages to retain control on the 9th and 10th floors.

In my opinion, the Red family has no right to determine the rights of the Blue family, let alone to use violence to deny or remove the rights of the Blue family.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don't think this works. The old owner didn't sell the building. That is, the old owner didn't exchange his interest in real property for something of equivalent value. The old owner renounced all title and interest, but did not assign his interest to a specific party. He did hire a management company to handle the transition, and gave that management company the authority to act.

I also reject the idea that the people just living in the apartments should be labelled as "squatters", regardless of the family they are from. They are just people living in the apartments.

If I was to continue the analogy:

The management company that has been hired to ease the transition assigns the 1st through 6th floors to the Red family and the 7th through 10th floors to the Blue family. The Red family decides that the Blue family must not be permitted to control any floors. It attacks violently, with help from neighbors in nearby buildings, and manages to take control of floors 7 and 8. The Blue family manages to retain control on the 9th and 10th floors.

In my opinion, the Red family has no right to determine the rights of the Blue family, let alone to use violence to deny or remove the rights of the Blue family.

The Ottoman owners did sell much of the property in Israel to Jewish immigrants between the late eighteen nineties and the beginning of WWI. But add in that the management company mixed families from the red floors into the blue floors to "integrate" them and make them hard to secure.

 

[Shusha]

The Ottoman owners did sell much of the property in Israel to Jewish immigrants between the late eighteen nineties and the beginning of WWI.

I'm not arguing that people who owned apartments sold apartments. I AM trying to disambiguate the selling of apartments from governing floors.

 

[JoeB131]

I already do what Jews do that pisses off the inbred supremacists.

I live, I thrive, and I am not part of their primitive cult.

Um, okay. the "They just hate our freedom" was proven tobe pretty silly in the Aughts, I doubt anyone takes it seriously now.

they don't have your values. It doesn't mean they don't have values, and they probably have more in common with you than you have with me.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep

But hey, France just said they'll take them all. Ship them there. That ought to work out wonderfully...

If America is so keen on a Jewish State, maybe we should give them one of ours that we are barely using.

Like one of the Dakotas.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

South Carolina

 

[JoeB131]

Its a bad metaphor. Ownership of personal real property does not have the same legal foundation as the rights of collective peoples to self-determination. There is no title, no street, and no unheated garage.

Its also a bad metaphor for all the things it omits and all the things it gets wrong.

Actually, it's spot on. One's country is as much one's home as their domicile.

the Palestinians had that taken away from them by the Zionists.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Actually, it's spot on. One's country is as much one's home as their domicile.

the Palestinians had that taken away from them by the Zionists.

Nope, they tried to take the Jewish villages and lost theirs instead.

Send them to South Carolina, South Dakota, Madagascar, I don't care.

 

[Shusha]

Actually, it's spot on. One's country is as much one's home as their domicile.

the Palestinians had that taken away from them by the Zionists.

None of the peoples of the territories formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire had a "country" prior to the Ottoman Empire renouncing the territories (arguably except the nation of the Jewish people - Israel, Judea, Samaria). You can't take from someone what they never had.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, they tried to take the Jewish villages and lost theirs instead.

Send them to South Carolina, South Dakota, Madagascar, I don't care.

Really? You mean Jewish villages that didn't exist until Europe started dumping their Jews into Palestine?

Seems to me that you can't condemn what Hitler did in Europe and praise what the Zionists are doing in Palestine.

Or what the white man did to Native Americans.

It's wrong no matter who is involved.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Really? You mean Jewish villages that didn't exist until Europe started dumping their Jews into Palestine?

Seems to me that you can't condemn what Hitler did in Europe and praise what the Zionists are doing in Palestine.

Or what the white man did to Native Americans.

It's wrong no matter who is involved.

Samaria, Judea, and Israel always had Jews from way back to the Ottomans and after until 1948.

You know that.

 

[JoeB131]

Samaria, Judea, and Israel always had Jews from way back to the Ottomans and after until 1948.

You know that.

Why, because a book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales says so?

Actually, that's not really true, either.

If you look at Ottoman Census figures, very few Jews lived in Palestine before the British took it over, and they weren't keen to move there afterwards, either, not until the war, anyway.

Okay, I get it, the whole world feels bad about the Holocaust. But punishing the Palestinians for what the Germans did is a bit, wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why, because a book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales says so?

Actually, that's not really true, either.

If you look at Ottoman Census figures, very few Jews lived in Palestine before the British took it over, and they weren't keen to move there afterwards, either, not until the war, anyway.

Okay, I get it, the whole world feels bad about the Holocaust. But punishing the Palestinians for what the Germans did is a bit, wrong.

If you look at Ottoman Census figures, very few Jews lived in Palestine before the British took it over,

And there weren't a whole lot of Arabs living there either.
Until the Jews move in and started creating jobs.

But punishing the Palestinians for what the Germans did is a bit, wrong.

If only there were any Arab land in the region.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Why, because a book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales says so?

<snip>

Stop being a snip.

How long have the Jews and their ancestors inhabited Palestine?

The Jewish presence in the land historically known as Palestine—also referred to as the Land of Israel—extends back over 3,000 years, with deep cultural, religious, and historical roots.

All well documented by history, archaelogy, etc.

Ancient Origins

• Circa 1200 BCE: The Israelites emerge in Canaan during the Iron Age, forming tribal confederations.
• 1000 BCE: The Kingdom of Israel is established under Saul, David, and Solomon, with Jerusalem as its capital.
• 586 BCE: Babylonian conquest leads to the destruction of the First Temple and exile, but many Jews remain or return later.

Classical Periods

• Persian & Hellenistic Eras (539–63 BCE): Jews rebuild the Second Temple and maintain religious autonomy under various empires.

• • Roman Rule (63 BCE–313 CE): Despite revolts and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish communities persist across Judea and Galilee.
  • Byzantine Period (313–638 CE): Jewish life continues, though under Christian rule and increasing restrictions.
  • Islamic & Ottoman Eras
    
  • 7th century onward: After the Muslim conquest, Jews live under Islamic rule, often as dhimmi (protected non-Muslims), with communities in cities like Jerusalem, Hebron, and Tiberias.
  • Ottoman Period (1517–1917): Jewish populations grow, especially in the 19th century with waves of immigration and religious revival.
  • Continuity & Identity
    
  • Jewish communities in Palestine have included Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi Jews, with some tracing lineage back to ancient Judeans.
  • Even during periods of exile and diaspora, Jews maintained spiritual and cultural ties
• • Roman Rule (63 BCE–313 CE): Despite revolts and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish communities persist across Judea and Galilee.
  • Byzantine Period (313–638 CE): Jewish life continues, though under Christian rule and increasing restrictions.
  • Islamic & Ottoman Eras
    
  • 7th century onward: After the Muslim conquest, Jews live under Islamic rule, often as dhimmi (protected non-Muslims), with communities in cities like Jerusalem, Hebron, and Tiberias.
  • Ottoman Period (1517–1917): Jewish populations grow, especially in the 19th century with waves of immigration and religious revival.
  • Continuity & Identity
    
  • Jewish communities in Palestine have included Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi Jews, with some tracing lineage back to ancient Judeans.
  • Even during periods of exile and diaspora, Jews maintained spiritual and cultural ties

This long-standing habitation is central to Jewish historical consciousness, religious tradition, and modern identity.

hoover.org

 

[JoeB131]

And there weren't a whole lot of Arabs living there either.
Until the Jews move in and started creating jobs.

Not true. Arabs were 90% of the population.

Stop being a snip.

How long have the Jews and their ancestors inhabited Palestine?

The Jewish presence in the land historically known as Palestine—also referred to as the Land of Israel—extends back over 3,000 years, with deep cultural, religious, and historical roots.

Um, guy, the problem is, israel wasn't formed by a Jewish Presense in Palestine, of which there was very little before the 1920s.

For instance, the 1800 Census only counted 7000 Jews and 246,000 Muslims, as well as 22,000 Christians.

Since Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all offshoots of the Abrahamic Religion, they all have equally good claims to the land. That is if you want to use Bronze Age Fairy Tales as a claim.

As a practical matter, there were few Jews who wanted to live in Palestine until Hitler decided to start trying to kill them all, and the rest of Europe was mostly fine with it.

But the people of Palestine shouldn't be punished for what White European Christians did.