What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?

[P F Tinmore]

... created a preferred class of people.

No, it did not.

What do you mean by “starting date”? The area has always been rich in cultural diversity ...

No. The area has NOT always been rich in cultural diversity. Cultural diversity is a consequence of invasion, conquest and colonization. The cultural diversity was caused by other peoples inflicting their will upon the indigenous inhabitants -- the Jewish people. And the indigenous peoples were able (miraculously!) to maintain their culture both inside the territory and in the Diaspora.

Actually...I would disagree. The region has always been a crossroads of conquests, migrations and trade. Who did the Jewish people conquer and displace in their time? Are you saying it was fine when the Jewish people did so and imposed their culture but not succeeding people’s thousands of years ago?

Cultural diversity is not necessarily another people inflicting their will upon the original inhabitants. It is often multilateral, through trade, through natural migrations of people’s, causing cultures to evolve and change. You don’t want to see that with the Jewish people and you want to claim it is all conquest and force.

There is a lot of sanity in this discussion.

 

[rylah]

... created a preferred class of people.

No, it did not.

What do you mean by “starting date”? The area has always been rich in cultural diversity ...

No. The area has NOT always been rich in cultural diversity. Cultural diversity is a consequence of invasion, conquest and colonization. The cultural diversity was caused by other peoples inflicting their will upon the indigenous inhabitants -- the Jewish people. And the indigenous peoples were able (miraculously!) to maintain their culture both inside the territory and in the Diaspora.

Actually...I would disagree. The region has always been a crossroads of conquests, migrations and trade. Who did the Jewish people conquer and displace in their time? Are you saying it was fine when the Jewish people did so and imposed their culture but not succeeding people’s thousands of years ago?

Cultural diversity is not necessarily another people inflicting their will upon the original inhabitants. It is often multilateral, through trade, through natural migrations of people’s, causing cultures to evolve and change. You don’t want to see that with the Jewish people and you want to claim it is all conquest and force.

There is a lot of sanity in this discussion.

The level of sanity in this discussion is about the same as in "Gays for Hamas" marches.
Complete idiots who're oblivious to the fact that public execution of gays is institutionalized in the Palestinian Caliphate.

Twist and deny, but that's what "from the river to the sea" means.

 

[toastman]

Maybe that means end the occupation.

Yes, lets create ANOTHER Arab country, while getting rid of the only Jewish one.

The Arabs want ALL of Israel, not just Judea and Samaria.

 

[Coyote]

You are putting a hell of a lot in my mouth that I did not say and asking me to defend positions I HAVE NOT TAKEN!

Where in the hell have I argued that Jews be forbidden from living in certain places?

Feel free to clarify at any time. I'm pretty sure you have argued that Jewish "settlers" should not live on one side of the Green Line. But feel absolutely free to correct me if I am mistaken in that.

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

 

[Coyote]

Actually...I would disagree. The region has always been a crossroads of conquests, migrations and trade. Who did the Jewish people conquer and displace in their time? Are you saying it was fine when the Jewish people did so and imposed their culture but not succeeding people’s thousands of years ago?

Archaeological records demonstrate that the Jewish people developed in situ as a natural growth of the existing peoples. There is absolutely NO evidence of conquest or invasion in the sense of a culture developed in another place and moved onto another territory. The Jewish people originated in the place they claim as a homeland. The Jewish people and culture did not originate elsewhere and migrate. If you have evidence that the Jewish people developed ELSEWHERE and then transferred their culture from that elsewhere into the territory in question, by all means BRING IT!

Cultural diversity is not necessarily another people inflicting their will upon the original inhabitants. It is often multilateral, through trade, through natural migrations of people’s, causing cultures to evolve and change.

Sure. Are you arguing that THAT is what happened to the Jewish people? That it was a multilateral idea that their Temple was destroyed? Twice. That the introduction of Babylonians, Assyrians,, Hellenists, Romans, European Christianity and then Arabic Islam was a mutual decision with the Jewish people? That the Jewish people agreed to it because, yeah, seems like it will work to everyone's mutual satisfaction?

So you you think it was all forceable conquest and nothing else? I don’t buy that and neither does history. Often it is a mixture with some adapting the new culture and blending it with their own...in fact in some cases, the newer one leaves the older ones alone and just collects taxes. It is in part a natural and organic process.

 

[Coyote]

No one is demanding the Jewish people accommodate people to their own detriment

Yes. They are. Do you want examples?

but they should respect them, respect their cultures and heritage as part of the new national whole. And YES I agree they do a pretty decent job, certainly better than their neighbors.

Yeah. They do an exceptional job. They do a better job than literally any other nation on the planet and in history. They DO respect Arab culture and Arab religion and Arab heritage -- even to the point where they RESTRICT their own freedoms and rights in order to accommodate their Arab citizens because those Arab citizens can't even SHARE a holy place that they STOLE with the original owners. What other culture DOES that? Other cultures blow up monuments and holy places that don't suit them. Can you name a single other culture in the world which deliberately denied its own people universal, legal and moral rights in order to accommodate another culture, let alone a usurping culture? It is INSANE to demand that the Jewish people "do better" with respecting Arab Palestinians and their cultures and their heritage. Compared to WHO? And that is before we even begin to discuss reciprocity in that matter. Where is the respect for Jewish culture in the Arab world? Are you kidding me? You say they do a decent job, yet demand they do more. While at the same time insisting that Arab Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have "nothing" and therefore lack an ability to "do more" or "be something other than nothing".

It really sounds like you are trying to justify forced expulsions because ultimately THAT is what these population exchanges are.

On the contrary -- I'm saying that this is the NORM in the past. What you are trying to justify is that the NORM is awesome until...well, Jews. If we are going to apply the NORM -- then there wouldn't BE Arabs in Israel. The whole reason this is still a conflict is because the Jewish people chose not to expel their Arabs. While every other Arab nation did choose to expel their Jews. That is THE norm, after all. That is what the Arab Palestinians demand and for them even that is not enough! I am trying to point out the standards which are applied to Israel which are applied to no other State. Ever.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

To be clear, I am against forced expulsion in principle. BUT in the conflict between expulsion and having a hostile, violent population in your midst, threatening your citizens, I'll take expulsion any day. Evil, yes. Necessary evil, damn yes. And I think that is a GOOD thing. You want self-determination? Yep? Awesome! You should have it. You want to stay on the exact plot of land that your ancestors bought? Cool. You should have it. But you don't get to have both. You have to choose. And its a personal decision. Up to each individual. And they should have the choice. But if they insist that they should have their plot of land while violently fighting against the self-determination of another people -- expulsion it is. The alternative is absolutely unconscionable.

And! If the Arab Palestinian people think that they can't POSSIBLY live in the presence of Jews, (because ewwww). I am ALSO okay with that. For the same reason. I'll take expulsion any day over having to worry about my safety and the lives of my children because some people think its okay to murder Jews if they are on the wrong side of some imaginary line.

But you are trying to argue both sides of the fence. You argue that ethnic cleansing is abhorrent while simultaneously suggesting that Jews must be forbidden to live in certain places.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

 

[Shusha]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

 

[Shusha]

Actually...I would disagree. The region has always been a crossroads of conquests, migrations and trade. Who did the Jewish people conquer and displace in their time? Are you saying it was fine when the Jewish people did so and imposed their culture but not succeeding people’s thousands of years ago?

Archaeological records demonstrate that the Jewish people developed in situ as a natural growth of the existing peoples. There is absolutely NO evidence of conquest or invasion in the sense of a culture developed in another place and moved onto another territory. The Jewish people originated in the place they claim as a homeland. The Jewish people and culture did not originate elsewhere and migrate. If you have evidence that the Jewish people developed ELSEWHERE and then transferred their culture from that elsewhere into the territory in question, by all means BRING IT!

Cultural diversity is not necessarily another people inflicting their will upon the original inhabitants. It is often multilateral, through trade, through natural migrations of people’s, causing cultures to evolve and change.

Sure. Are you arguing that THAT is what happened to the Jewish people? That it was a multilateral idea that their Temple was destroyed? Twice. That the introduction of Babylonians, Assyrians,, Hellenists, Romans, European Christianity and then Arabic Islam was a mutual decision with the Jewish people? That the Jewish people agreed to it because, yeah, seems like it will work to everyone's mutual satisfaction?

So you you think it was all forceable conquest and nothing else? I don’t buy that and neither does history. Often it is a mixture with some adapting the new culture and blending it with their own...in fact in some cases, the newer one leaves the older ones alone and just collects taxes. It is in part a natural and organic process.

I was speaking specifically about the Jewish people.

 

[Coyote]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

 

[Shusha]

No one is demanding the Jewish people accommodate people to their own detriment

Yes. They are. Do you want examples?

but they should respect them, respect their cultures and heritage as part of the new national whole. And YES I agree they do a pretty decent job, certainly better than their neighbors.

Yeah. They do an exceptional job. They do a better job than literally any other nation on the planet and in history. They DO respect Arab culture and Arab religion and Arab heritage -- even to the point where they RESTRICT their own freedoms and rights in order to accommodate their Arab citizens because those Arab citizens can't even SHARE a holy place that they STOLE with the original owners. What other culture DOES that? Other cultures blow up monuments and holy places that don't suit them. Can you name a single other culture in the world which deliberately denied its own people universal, legal and moral rights in order to accommodate another culture, let alone a usurping culture? It is INSANE to demand that the Jewish people "do better" with respecting Arab Palestinians and their cultures and their heritage. Compared to WHO? And that is before we even begin to discuss reciprocity in that matter. Where is the respect for Jewish culture in the Arab world? Are you kidding me? You say they do a decent job, yet demand they do more. While at the same time insisting that Arab Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have "nothing" and therefore lack an ability to "do more" or "be something other than nothing".

It really sounds like you are trying to justify forced expulsions because ultimately THAT is what these population exchanges are.

On the contrary -- I'm saying that this is the NORM in the past. What you are trying to justify is that the NORM is awesome until...well, Jews. If we are going to apply the NORM -- then there wouldn't BE Arabs in Israel. The whole reason this is still a conflict is because the Jewish people chose not to expel their Arabs. While every other Arab nation did choose to expel their Jews. That is THE norm, after all. That is what the Arab Palestinians demand and for them even that is not enough! I am trying to point out the standards which are applied to Israel which are applied to no other State. Ever.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

To be clear, I am against forced expulsion in principle. BUT in the conflict between expulsion and having a hostile, violent population in your midst, threatening your citizens, I'll take expulsion any day. Evil, yes. Necessary evil, damn yes. And I think that is a GOOD thing. You want self-determination? Yep? Awesome! You should have it. You want to stay on the exact plot of land that your ancestors bought? Cool. You should have it. But you don't get to have both. You have to choose. And its a personal decision. Up to each individual. And they should have the choice. But if they insist that they should have their plot of land while violently fighting against the self-determination of another people -- expulsion it is. The alternative is absolutely unconscionable.

And! If the Arab Palestinian people think that they can't POSSIBLY live in the presence of Jews, (because ewwww). I am ALSO okay with that. For the same reason. I'll take expulsion any day over having to worry about my safety and the lives of my children because some people think its okay to murder Jews if they are on the wrong side of some imaginary line.

But you are trying to argue both sides of the fence. You argue that ethnic cleansing is abhorrent while simultaneously suggesting that Jews must be forbidden to live in certain places.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

 

[Shusha]

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

The only nation which captured territory in war were Jordan and Egypt. And no, Jordanians and Egyptians should not be permitted to send people in. That would actually be a violation of international law.

There are, at present, TWO peoples who have rights to return and live in that territory -- the Arab Palestinian people and the Jewish people. Neither of these people are "outsiders". They are the two peoples seeking self-determination in the territory. But you keep labeling the one "outsider".

 

[Shusha]

Oh, and I actually agree with your comments about Israel annexing Area C (or at least parts of Area C) and making unilateral decisions on which territory will belong to which State. Its the only possible solution.

The problem is the upcoming war. Israel does not want to fight Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in the south and Arab Palestine to the east all at the same time. To say nothing of fighting her own interior hostile population. After the war, when the dust settles, I think the face of the Middle East will be somewhat, well, changed. I don't think in any way this is going to be good for the Arab Palestinians.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

 

[Shusha]

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

Yes, but would they be settlers and outsiders, right? Not allowed to live there (there being Area C).

 

[Coyote]

No one is demanding the Jewish people accommodate people to their own detriment

Yes. They are. Do you want examples?

but they should respect them, respect their cultures and heritage as part of the new national whole. And YES I agree they do a pretty decent job, certainly better than their neighbors.

Yeah. They do an exceptional job. They do a better job than literally any other nation on the planet and in history. They DO respect Arab culture and Arab religion and Arab heritage -- even to the point where they RESTRICT their own freedoms and rights in order to accommodate their Arab citizens because those Arab citizens can't even SHARE a holy place that they STOLE with the original owners. What other culture DOES that? Other cultures blow up monuments and holy places that don't suit them. Can you name a single other culture in the world which deliberately denied its own people universal, legal and moral rights in order to accommodate another culture, let alone a usurping culture? It is INSANE to demand that the Jewish people "do better" with respecting Arab Palestinians and their cultures and their heritage. Compared to WHO? And that is before we even begin to discuss reciprocity in that matter. Where is the respect for Jewish culture in the Arab world? Are you kidding me? You say they do a decent job, yet demand they do more. While at the same time insisting that Arab Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have "nothing" and therefore lack an ability to "do more" or "be something other than nothing".

It really sounds like you are trying to justify forced expulsions because ultimately THAT is what these population exchanges are.

On the contrary -- I'm saying that this is the NORM in the past. What you are trying to justify is that the NORM is awesome until...well, Jews. If we are going to apply the NORM -- then there wouldn't BE Arabs in Israel. The whole reason this is still a conflict is because the Jewish people chose not to expel their Arabs. While every other Arab nation did choose to expel their Jews. That is THE norm, after all. That is what the Arab Palestinians demand and for them even that is not enough! I am trying to point out the standards which are applied to Israel which are applied to no other State. Ever.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

To be clear, I am against forced expulsion in principle. BUT in the conflict between expulsion and having a hostile, violent population in your midst, threatening your citizens, I'll take expulsion any day. Evil, yes. Necessary evil, damn yes. And I think that is a GOOD thing. You want self-determination? Yep? Awesome! You should have it. You want to stay on the exact plot of land that your ancestors bought? Cool. You should have it. But you don't get to have both. You have to choose. And its a personal decision. Up to each individual. And they should have the choice. But if they insist that they should have their plot of land while violently fighting against the self-determination of another people -- expulsion it is. The alternative is absolutely unconscionable.

And! If the Arab Palestinian people think that they can't POSSIBLY live in the presence of Jews, (because ewwww). I am ALSO okay with that. For the same reason. I'll take expulsion any day over having to worry about my safety and the lives of my children because some people think its okay to murder Jews if they are on the wrong side of some imaginary line.

But you are trying to argue both sides of the fence. You argue that ethnic cleansing is abhorrent while simultaneously suggesting that Jews must be forbidden to live in certain places.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

I disagree. For one, ethnic cleansing has a specific meaning. You don’t get to make up your own new definition of it.

This is from Wikipedia, but they are all essentially the same:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.​

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population who is seeing the occupying nation bringing in thousands of it’s own nationals to build new (ethnically exclusive I might add) communities on their land. You are trying to change it from a struggle over occupation to one of “it’s because they’re Jews” and completely ignoring the larger context of the conflict in regards to settlements.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

Equality...how? By refusing to call things what they are...or renaming them to subtly alter their emotional connotations? Let’s look at words.

Settlers. That is what they call themselves. No one else started that term. The Jewish settlers took that term for themselves with the intention of “resettling” ancient biblical Israel as per what they felt to be their religious right. Settlers will never be Arab.

Occupied territory. Another good one. For decades that was the term. Israeli politicos used it. Even the Israeli High Court affirmed it. Then suddenly....it wasn’t. What changed? It certainly wasn’t resolved. Nor was it annexed. Nor was it returned to the inhabitants. What changed? Only the choice of words and the emotional content (one might even call it a subtle and persuasive propaganda) which those words impart.

More words...right of return...invaders. According to Team P Arabs have a right of return and Jews are invaders. According to Team I Jews have a right of a right of return and Arabs are invaders. Pick your poison. It may not be the language of equality but there is a warped sort of equality to it.

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Words have a meaning and attempting to redefine them or misapply them in an attempt to create some sort of emotional equality does not seem very workable to me.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

No. I am not arguing there should be no building by anyone. I am arguing that the people who were there at the time of the occupation should build what ever they want and outsiders should hold off until it is resolved. And it does not matter if the outsiders are Jews or Arabs or martians. If Israel can’t see fit to allow that then they should annex it and take the consequences rather than take this devious approach of gradually undermining any possibility for a two state solution in a territory they never had any intention of relinquishing in the first place.

 

[Coyote]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

Yes. And that has what to do with this particular argument? Two wrongs make a right, is that it? I don’t need to whine about it because I have stated repeatedly and unequivocally that forced population transfers are wrong, regardless of who is involved.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one is demanding the Jewish people accommodate people to their own detriment

Yes. They are. Do you want examples?

but they should respect them, respect their cultures and heritage as part of the new national whole. And YES I agree they do a pretty decent job, certainly better than their neighbors.

Yeah. They do an exceptional job. They do a better job than literally any other nation on the planet and in history. They DO respect Arab culture and Arab religion and Arab heritage -- even to the point where they RESTRICT their own freedoms and rights in order to accommodate their Arab citizens because those Arab citizens can't even SHARE a holy place that they STOLE with the original owners. What other culture DOES that? Other cultures blow up monuments and holy places that don't suit them. Can you name a single other culture in the world which deliberately denied its own people universal, legal and moral rights in order to accommodate another culture, let alone a usurping culture? It is INSANE to demand that the Jewish people "do better" with respecting Arab Palestinians and their cultures and their heritage. Compared to WHO? And that is before we even begin to discuss reciprocity in that matter. Where is the respect for Jewish culture in the Arab world? Are you kidding me? You say they do a decent job, yet demand they do more. While at the same time insisting that Arab Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have "nothing" and therefore lack an ability to "do more" or "be something other than nothing".

It really sounds like you are trying to justify forced expulsions because ultimately THAT is what these population exchanges are.

On the contrary -- I'm saying that this is the NORM in the past. What you are trying to justify is that the NORM is awesome until...well, Jews. If we are going to apply the NORM -- then there wouldn't BE Arabs in Israel. The whole reason this is still a conflict is because the Jewish people chose not to expel their Arabs. While every other Arab nation did choose to expel their Jews. That is THE norm, after all. That is what the Arab Palestinians demand and for them even that is not enough! I am trying to point out the standards which are applied to Israel which are applied to no other State. Ever.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

To be clear, I am against forced expulsion in principle. BUT in the conflict between expulsion and having a hostile, violent population in your midst, threatening your citizens, I'll take expulsion any day. Evil, yes. Necessary evil, damn yes. And I think that is a GOOD thing. You want self-determination? Yep? Awesome! You should have it. You want to stay on the exact plot of land that your ancestors bought? Cool. You should have it. But you don't get to have both. You have to choose. And its a personal decision. Up to each individual. And they should have the choice. But if they insist that they should have their plot of land while violently fighting against the self-determination of another people -- expulsion it is. The alternative is absolutely unconscionable.

And! If the Arab Palestinian people think that they can't POSSIBLY live in the presence of Jews, (because ewwww). I am ALSO okay with that. For the same reason. I'll take expulsion any day over having to worry about my safety and the lives of my children because some people think its okay to murder Jews if they are on the wrong side of some imaginary line.

But you are trying to argue both sides of the fence. You argue that ethnic cleansing is abhorrent while simultaneously suggesting that Jews must be forbidden to live in certain places.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

I disagree. For one, ethnic cleansing has a specific meaning. You don’t get to make up your own new definition of it.

This is from Wikipedia, but they are all essentially the same:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.​

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population who is seeing the occupying nation bringing in thousands of it’s own nationals to build new (ethnically exclusive I might add) communities on their land. You are trying to change it from a struggle over occupation to one of “it’s because they’re Jews” and completely ignoring the larger context of the conflict in regards to settlements.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

Equality...how? By refusing to call things what they are...or renaming them to subtly alter their emotional connotations? Let’s look at words.

Settlers. That is what they call themselves. No one else started that term. The Jewish settlers took that term for themselves with the intention of “resettling” ancient biblical Israel as per what they felt to be their religious right. Settlers will never be Arab.

Occupied territory. Another good one. For decades that was the term. Israeli politicos used it. Even the Israeli High Court affirmed it. Then suddenly....it wasn’t. What changed? It certainly wasn’t resolved. Nor was it annexed. Nor was it returned to the inhabitants. What changed? Only the choice of words and the emotional content (one might even call it a subtle and persuasive propaganda) which those words impart.

More words...right of return...invaders. According to Team P Arabs have a right of return and Jews are invaders. According to Team I Jews have a right of a right of return and Arabs are invaders. Pick your poison. It may not be the language of equality but there is a warped sort of equality to it.

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Words have a meaning and attempting to redefine them or misapply them in an attempt to create some sort of emotional equality does not seem very workable to me.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

No. I am not arguing there should be no building by anyone. I am arguing that the people who were there at the time of the occupation should build what ever they want and outsiders should hold off until it is resolved. And it does not matter if the outsiders are Jews or Arabs or martians. If Israel can’t see fit to allow that then they should annex it and take the consequences rather than take this devious approach of gradually undermining any possibility for a two state solution in a territory they never had any intention of relinquishing in the first place.

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population

Which country lost the territory?

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Do the Palestinian fighters fit the definition of soldier in the Geneva Convention?

 

[Coyote]

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

The only nation which captured territory in war were Jordan and Egypt. And no, Jordanians and Egyptians should not be permitted to send people in. That would actually be a violation of international law.

There are, at present, TWO peoples who have rights to return and live in that territory -- the Arab Palestinian people and the Jewish people. Neither of these people are "outsiders". They are the two peoples seeking self-determination in the territory. But you keep labeling the one "outsider".

Israel captured territory in war, that is a matter of historical record.

I agree that there are two peoples seeking self determination on that particular territory at this particular time, however the only people (not peoples) with any rights there should be those who were inhabiting the area at the time it was taken until its final resolution. Until then anyone else is an outsider whether Jew or Arab. They were not living there. The immigrated in. They are outsiders just as much as an Egyptian would be or a Syrian in the context of the conflict.

 

[TrueTT]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

Yes. And that has what to do with this particular argument? Two wrongs make a right, is that it? I don’t need to whine about it because I have stated repeatedly and unequivocally that forced population transfers are wrong, regardless of who is involved.

No one cares what a dhimmified American pseudo-SJW thinks on the internet.

Israel is here to stay. Impregnable and irrevocable. You and your Islamic masters need to come to terms with that inconvenient truth.

 

[Coyote]

No one is demanding the Jewish people accommodate people to their own detriment

Yes. They are. Do you want examples?

but they should respect them, respect their cultures and heritage as part of the new national whole. And YES I agree they do a pretty decent job, certainly better than their neighbors.

Yeah. They do an exceptional job. They do a better job than literally any other nation on the planet and in history. They DO respect Arab culture and Arab religion and Arab heritage -- even to the point where they RESTRICT their own freedoms and rights in order to accommodate their Arab citizens because those Arab citizens can't even SHARE a holy place that they STOLE with the original owners. What other culture DOES that? Other cultures blow up monuments and holy places that don't suit them. Can you name a single other culture in the world which deliberately denied its own people universal, legal and moral rights in order to accommodate another culture, let alone a usurping culture? It is INSANE to demand that the Jewish people "do better" with respecting Arab Palestinians and their cultures and their heritage. Compared to WHO? And that is before we even begin to discuss reciprocity in that matter. Where is the respect for Jewish culture in the Arab world? Are you kidding me? You say they do a decent job, yet demand they do more. While at the same time insisting that Arab Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have "nothing" and therefore lack an ability to "do more" or "be something other than nothing".

It really sounds like you are trying to justify forced expulsions because ultimately THAT is what these population exchanges are.

On the contrary -- I'm saying that this is the NORM in the past. What you are trying to justify is that the NORM is awesome until...well, Jews. If we are going to apply the NORM -- then there wouldn't BE Arabs in Israel. The whole reason this is still a conflict is because the Jewish people chose not to expel their Arabs. While every other Arab nation did choose to expel their Jews. That is THE norm, after all. That is what the Arab Palestinians demand and for them even that is not enough! I am trying to point out the standards which are applied to Israel which are applied to no other State. Ever.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

To be clear, I am against forced expulsion in principle. BUT in the conflict between expulsion and having a hostile, violent population in your midst, threatening your citizens, I'll take expulsion any day. Evil, yes. Necessary evil, damn yes. And I think that is a GOOD thing. You want self-determination? Yep? Awesome! You should have it. You want to stay on the exact plot of land that your ancestors bought? Cool. You should have it. But you don't get to have both. You have to choose. And its a personal decision. Up to each individual. And they should have the choice. But if they insist that they should have their plot of land while violently fighting against the self-determination of another people -- expulsion it is. The alternative is absolutely unconscionable.

And! If the Arab Palestinian people think that they can't POSSIBLY live in the presence of Jews, (because ewwww). I am ALSO okay with that. For the same reason. I'll take expulsion any day over having to worry about my safety and the lives of my children because some people think its okay to murder Jews if they are on the wrong side of some imaginary line.

But you are trying to argue both sides of the fence. You argue that ethnic cleansing is abhorrent while simultaneously suggesting that Jews must be forbidden to live in certain places.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

I disagree. For one, ethnic cleansing has a specific meaning. You don’t get to make up your own new definition of it.

This is from Wikipedia, but they are all essentially the same:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.​

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population who is seeing the occupying nation bringing in thousands of it’s own nationals to build new (ethnically exclusive I might add) communities on their land. You are trying to change it from a struggle over occupation to one of “it’s because they’re Jews” and completely ignoring the larger context of the conflict in regards to settlements.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

Equality...how? By refusing to call things what they are...or renaming them to subtly alter their emotional connotations? Let’s look at words.

Settlers. That is what they call themselves. No one else started that term. The Jewish settlers took that term for themselves with the intention of “resettling” ancient biblical Israel as per what they felt to be their religious right. Settlers will never be Arab.

Occupied territory. Another good one. For decades that was the term. Israeli politicos used it. Even the Israeli High Court affirmed it. Then suddenly....it wasn’t. What changed? It certainly wasn’t resolved. Nor was it annexed. Nor was it returned to the inhabitants. What changed? Only the choice of words and the emotional content (one might even call it a subtle and persuasive propaganda) which those words impart.

More words...right of return...invaders. According to Team P Arabs have a right of return and Jews are invaders. According to Team I Jews have a right of a right of return and Arabs are invaders. Pick your poison. It may not be the language of equality but there is a warped sort of equality to it.

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Words have a meaning and attempting to redefine them or misapply them in an attempt to create some sort of emotional equality does not seem very workable to me.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

No. I am not arguing there should be no building by anyone. I am arguing that the people who were there at the time of the occupation should build what ever they want and outsiders should hold off until it is resolved. And it does not matter if the outsiders are Jews or Arabs or martians. If Israel can’t see fit to allow that then they should annex it and take the consequences rather than take this devious approach of gradually undermining any possibility for a two state solution in a territory they never had any intention of relinquishing in the first place.

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population

Which country lost the territory?

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Do the Palestinian fighters fit the definition of soldier in the Geneva Convention?

You are missing the point of the entire extended conversation. The argument isn't on whether Palestinian fighters are soldiers but on the use of language to distort meanings.