Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so bogus.

I have backed up my claims with documents.

How about you?

(COMMENT)

You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.

Most Respectfully,
R

I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

Which the Palestinians have exercised to the full in 1988 when they declared independence under UN res 181. Just as the Jews did in 1948. Now it cant be invalid or the Jews yet valid for the arab muslims can it, as that would be taking away the Jews INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF-DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDNCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND NATIONAL UNITY. The link you provided spells it out very clearly that the Jews have as much right to declare independence in Palestine as the arab muslims do. The demographics mean nothing at the end of the day as they are just numbers with no basis in law. In reality the Jews should have had all of Palestine because the arab muslims had already declared in other parts of the Palestine mandate.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et asl,

Again, this is a timeline issue.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so bogus.

I have backed up my claims with documents.

How about you?

(COMMENT)

You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.

Most Respectfully,
R

I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

(COMMENT)

Watch closely. (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)

Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
---- Three decades later. ----
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
---- A decade later. ----
A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​

The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" (A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:

• Gaza: 1988
• West Bank 1950

Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are starting late in your timeline.

You can go back to May 15 1948 when Jordan invaded Palestine and annexed the west bank. That was also an " actualisation of free determination" as the arab muslims did not disagree with Jordan's invasion and subsequent occupation of the west bank. Prior to this there was no actual show of self determination in Palestine

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No such thing.

P F Tinmore, et asl,

Again, this is a timeline issue.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so bogus.

(COMMENT)

You have not presented any convincing argument or evidence that the Jewish Declaration of Independence and their exercise of the right of "self-determination" was in any way invalid at the time.

Most Respectfully,
R

I have. It is just that you have refused to see it.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

(COMMENT)

Watch closely. (Now you see it ---- Now you don't!)

Jordanian Parliamentary Action 11 April 1950, Unification of the Two Banks, West Bank Annexation, "actualization of "self-determination"
---- Three decades later. ----
A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978 UN reaffirmation of "self-determination"
---- A decade later. ----
A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988 Palestinian Independence --- actualization of "self-determination"​

The applicability of the "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination" (A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978) ended for the Palestinian:

• Gaza: 1988
• West Bank 1950

Today, the 1988 Declaration applies to all Palestinians located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are starting late in your timeline.

(COMMENT)

The timeline covers a period between 1950 and today; anywhere in between.

Pick your time. Let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

Like I say, you are starting late.

Then how about you show hen the relevant INTERNATIONAL LAW came into force that granted the whole of the Palestinian peoples the right to free determination while not allowing the Jews their inalienable rights to set up as promise THE RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS.

 

[Coyote]

...People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim...

Can't simply relocate people?

You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.

So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.

The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.

So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.

The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.

No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.

The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance. Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally.

The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights. People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it. Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out. Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper.

Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done. It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land. You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe. Would you do that?

How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora? Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?

Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept? Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds. It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there. The establishment of Israel is a good example of this. You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians are people. Human beings. Men and women and children.

Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?

Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.

 

[Coyote]

The Palestinians are people. Human beings. Men and women and children.

Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?

Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.

Some are recent immigrants some are not.

This has been well established.

There are many Jewish immigrants from European countries. Why are they afraid to admit they are not from Palestine originally but are recent migrants?

 

[MJB12741]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.

I see it in terms of people. It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label. They have rights. They belong there. Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so. But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.

It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.

What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?

 

[Phoenall]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )

 

[Coyote]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.

I see it in terms of people. It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label. They have rights. They belong there. Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so. But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.

It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.

What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?

Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.

 

[Coyote]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )

If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa. After all, that is their genetic homeland. hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem

As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".

 

[Phoenall]

...People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim...

Can't simply relocate people?

You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.

So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.

The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.

So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw.

The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better.

No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.

The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance. Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally.

The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights. People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it. Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out. Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper.

Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done. It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land. You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe. Would you do that?

How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora? Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?

Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept? Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds. It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there. The establishment of Israel is a good example of this. You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.

Even more recently we have seen mass forced migrations in the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia etc to make way for mulsims. Can you see the common denominator in these forced migrations, and how the same thing would have happened in Palestine if the Jews had not fought back against the muslim land grabs. The majority of the land allocated to Israel was owned by the Jews in the first place so the arab muslim claims were based on arab nationalism and the teachings of the koran

 

[Kondor3]

...No, you can't simply relocate people against their will...

Incorrect. Happens all the time. On both a small and a large scale.

...The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance. Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally...

Quite probably true, at least in part, but it can also serve as an object lesson in what not do to, the next time around. And, of course, close cultural symmetry does not exist between the Jews and the Muslims of the region, so we can probably set that particular concern off to the side, in evaluating barriers to such an action.

...The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights...

When it comes down to a choice between (1) violating a people's human rights in the interim in order to ensure the safety and future happiness of two enemy populations, and (2) condemning those same populations to perpetual warfare and death on a large scale, if the Gordian Knot remains uncut... well, the choice becomes obvious, very quickly.

...People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it. Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out. Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper...

Yep. There are, indeed, examples, in which Population Relocation did not work out very well, but, of course, such efforts were undertaken without the friendship and support of the world community.

There is every bit as good a chance that a Palestinian Relocation would have a happy ending, rather than a tragic one, and, given present circumstances and future prospects, we're pretty much already out of options, except for a couple of Draconian possibilities.

This is already boiling down to a choice of the lesser of two evils; the first being the slaughter of a problematic population, the other being their forcible relocation. There is no other viable alternative on the horizen, and this has gone on long enough. Time to put an end to it, by removing the losers from the field of conflict as a humanitarian gesture. The victors are too strong to try that kind of shit with them, and they have very powerful friends that would not allow it, anyway.

...Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done...

Quite true. Then again, in this context, we're out of options, and we're out of time. Slaughter or Expulsion seem to be all that is left. I wish I were wrong, but I have a sinking feeling that I'm right. It's logical, albeit heartless. If those two options are all that is left, practicaly speaking, then, I choose Expulsion for the Palestinians. Is it fair? Quite possibly not. But, then again, what-the-hell does 'fair' have to do with anything? Life isn't fair. But even an Unfair Thing can result in Good Things down the road.

...It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land...

Incorrect. Should the Palestinians be granted new and different lands, in Egypt's Sinai and/or in Jordan and/or in Lebanon and/or in Iraq, et al, they will greatly benefit from such an action, in that they will then be permanently out of harm's way, they will be positioned for generations to come, to control their own destiny, to live in peace, and to build and to enjoy happy and prosperous lives, dwelling amongst their own kind, in the arms of loving co-religionists, and far from the madness and squalor of their present circumstances.

... You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe. Would you do that?

The Palestinians are not a Regional Superpower, nor do they possess a nuclear arsenal with intercontinental warhead-delivery capabilities, nor is their sliver of land the only place in the world controlled by their own co-religionists.

...How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora? Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?...

A Palestinian Diaspora would be short-lived, given that so many of them are of Egyptian or Bedouin or Jordanian or Lebanese (and their predecessor polities) ancestry, in whole or in part, and given that they would be repositioned into lands already steeply saturated in their religion and similar culture, such as it is. When the Jews were scattered, they were scattered into a world of dissimilar peoples and religions and found themselves 'forting-up' and becoming reclusive and self-contained. There will be no such pressure upon so-called Palestinians, and they will melt into the surrounding Arabic Muslim populations within a handful of generations, until they are little more than a footnote in history and a Pal-Pride Parade every year, by the 22nd or 23rd century.

...Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept?...

I don't - nor does anyone else - but with the UN running the show, and with the backing of most of the world community, the project stands a better chance of attaining a desirable outcome than most other projects might. And - come to think of it - relocating with the promise of decades-long support, is a damned sight more attractive than dying in-place, and living in squalor while you're waiting to die or be overrun for the last time. Taking a chance on life is always preferable to dying - either quickly or slowly.

If I, as a family man, were given the choice between being assisted into a new homeland and a new home and economy, or continuing to make my family sit in a shithole for another 66 years, and if most of my outer family and friends and neighbors were coming with me, I know which one I'd choose - the choice that any sane person would make.

... Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds. It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there. The establishment of Israel is a good example of this. You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.

Perhaps.

But it's a chance.

A chance at life, rather than death.

Population Relocation is an extreme measure, it is unpopular, rather frightening, seemingly heartless, fraught with practical constraints, and subject to an ultimately unpredictable outcome.

Trouble is, we're now probably moving into the Era of Extremes, in this context - we're out of options, we're out of time, and the Palestinians are out of luck.

Undertaking an Extreme that ultimately preserves life and provides an alternative path to life and happiness and prosperity - as radical as that might be - sure as hell beats rotting in shitholes and dying in place - which seems to be the only alternative remaining, that is likely to materialize.

I choose Evil #2 - relocation - as better than Evil #1 - slaughter or slow death (metaphorical, or actual).

Silly me.

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians are people. Human beings. Men and women and children.

Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?

Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.

Some are recent immigrants some are not.

This has been well established.

There are many Jewish immigrants from European countries. Why are they afraid to admit they are not from Palestine originally but are recent migrants?

The vast majority of arab muslims are recent arrivals with no historic ties to the land, the vast majority of Jews have ties to the land as shown by their DNA. They are not afraid to admit they are migrants, but they are in the minority as the vast majority of the Jews are from the M.E. and had been expelled at the point of a gun from their homes an property between 1948 and 1967

 

[Coyote]

Even more recently we have seen mass forced migrations in the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia etc to make way for mulsims. Can you see the common denominator in these forced migrations, and how the same thing would have happened in Palestine if the Jews had not fought back against the muslim land grabs. The majority of the land allocated to Israel was owned by the Jews in the first place so the arab muslim claims were based on arab nationalism and the teachings of the koran

Those so-called forced migrations are due to a variety of factors. For example - Serbia committed genocide on Yugoslavia's ethnic Muslim minority. What "forced migrations" are you talking about?

Conflicts - war inevitably produces refugees, which are largely what you are talking about. It's tragic, but it's another issue. That is not the same as taking a group of people and forceably removing them from their homeland to another country - which is what Stalin did and what Hitler started out with. It's even what America tried to do when Liberia was created - it was to be a "homeland" to send American blacks to. In otherwords, get them out of America.

 

[Phoenall]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.

I see it in terms of people. It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label. They have rights. They belong there. Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so. But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.

It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.

What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?

Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.

They have a state already that they refuse point blank to be held accountable for. Why should they be given another one to destroy and hold up to ransom to the world

 

[Hossfly]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.

I see it in terms of people. It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label. They have rights. They belong there. Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so. But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.

It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.

What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?

Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.

Let's suppose that today, Israel signed an agreement to give the Palestinians every condition they've demanded over the years. Would they accept the agreement or would they commence lobbing rockets? Would the Arab League allow them to accept? Would Hamas?

 

[Phoenall]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )

If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa. After all, that is their genetic homeland. hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem

As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".

The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. That is what most pro Palestinians point when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.
Now you are being very silly as you know that was in the depths of pre history.
You forget the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%

 

[MJB12741]

Hoss, many are as indiginous to Palestine as the Jews.

Beyond that - does it matter?

They are people and it's all to easy to marginalize them with these sort of arguments.

The question to ask is why is it so important to some how make them less worthy of inclusion by asking these sorts of questions?

I realize and understand that but my point is that in 1948 the Arabs living there abandoned the country "until the Jews could be swept into the sea." That act nullified any claim to the land and to the right of return. Then with the complicity of the Russians, Arafat named the people and the land, Palestine and tried to make it look like Israel was the bad guys. I won't buy that and nor should anyone. That's my personal opinion.

I see it in terms of people. It doesn't matter if Araft named the people and the land - the people pre-existed the label. They have rights. They belong there. Now, I'm not saying the right of return is an option any more, I don't think so. But they have a right to the West Bank and the constant attempt to delegitimize them as a people who have rights is as evil as those who insist Jews should just go back to Europe.

It won't happen - there must be a just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples...it's the constant dehumanizing that I object to.

What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?

Give them a state and hold them accountable just as you would any other state.

WHERE should Israel "give them a state & hold them accountable" where they cannot continue to suuport Hamas to annihilate Israel?

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinians are people. Human beings. Men and women and children.

Who would have thought it would be this difficult a question to answer?

Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.

As the record shows in Mandatory reports to the LoN and the UN later. Nearly all the immigration was Jewish. The Christians and Muslims are the natives. Read note 5. below from the official report of the Mandatory.:

 

[aris2chat]

...People are connected to places. That's why you can't simply move people around like human pawns and relocate them on a whim...

Can't simply relocate people?

You might want to ask that question of the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia's 'Sudatenland' by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Ethnic Germans who were expelled from East Prussia (now Poland, after the land-grab) by the victorious Allies after WWII, or the Muslims relocated to Pakistan and the Hindus relocated to India, when the old British Imperial India achieved her independence in 1947 and immediately split into modern-day Pakistan and India as we now know them, or the Jews of much of Islam, expelled or forced or nudged out of several Muslim countries, during the period 1948-1975... all of that involving millions, and all of that well within the bounds of Living Memory.

So long as the relocated people - the Palestinians in this case - receive Wergeld (compensation) and high-quality logistics support and are given land that they can truly call their own - someplace else - and are provided with large-scale assistance to build infrastructure sufficient to support them, and so long as they are assisted for a couple of decades after the Grand Moving Day, to get them well-launched into the world - relocation would be a blessing, both for the otherwise largely weak and powerless and degenerating-declining Palestinians, and their adversaries.

The Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much to live peacefully, side by side. Too much blood has been spilled. Therefore, if that is true, logic indicates the removal of one or the other. Given that the Israelis are already the victors in this long-running fracas, and given that they are a regional superpower which can no longer be dislodged without the most extraordinary efforts, and given that the victors of a conflict dictate terms, not the losers, the burden will be upon the Palestinians, to take the "sucker's walk", and to leave.

So long as the Palestinians are well supported in this relocation by the world community, the idea of relocation stands a better chance of working than any other option still on the table. A one-state solution hasn't been on the table since the 1948-1949 timeframe. The idea of a two-state solution died with the Intifadas and the Gaza Wars. All that's left is for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to pack up and move out of harm's way, and, given the vastly superior Israeli position, the Palestinians have drawn the short straw. Who knows? Perhaps the Egyptians can be persuaded or paid to part with a slice of the Sinai, or some other nearby country(ies) might be persuaded to take them (or some of them) in. Cash, and trade incentives, would work wonders, in greasing that particular wheel.

The sooner that relocation can be imagined and consensus built and the sooner that the practicalities can be conjured, in order to get underway with the damned thing, the better - and what better 'umbrella' under which to organize that humanitarian effort, than the United Nations itself? Hell, the Israelis could probably be persuaded to float the first few billions, to get the thing started, and I'm sure that the US, and much of the EU, would be willing to chip-in, if asked, in connection with a serious and viable effort along those lines... a chance to do something nice for the so-called Palestinian People that actually stands a decent chance of doing some sustainable good.

Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers. To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel. Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land. Keys that had no locks.
There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not. These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact. It was part of the war. Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor. Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land. Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy. Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews. Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred. False reports were put out. Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders. Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press. That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe. Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.