Who Are The Palestinians?

[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.

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.

That was august of '47. If anything it was an example to promote fear in the palestinians to leave.

 

[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?

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

Prove it the "vast majority" of arabs are "recent arrivals with "no historic ties". I'd like to see some numbers validating that from a reputable source. Because if you are going to go by genetics (and those genetic studies are far from conclusive since other groups share their same markers).... their ties belong in Africa - that is their first home. Let's send everyone home to Africa!

Genetics...open to question:

Genetic studies on Jews - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Many genetic studies have demonstrated that most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians and other Levantines, like the Druze[12][13][17][37] and Bedouin,[12][13] are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews are to non-Jewish Europeans or Africans.[12][13][94] One DNA study by Nebel and colleagues found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD".[94] They also found substantial genetic overlap between Muslim Palestinians and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, though with some significant differences that might be explainable by the geographical isolation of the Jews and by immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.[94]​

I think the attempt to use genetics as a basis for establishing the validity of a people's rights is weak at best.

 

[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".

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%

It's not "pro-Palis" or "pro-Israeli's" making these determinations. It's scientists who's profession is genetics. They aren't drawing their conclusions based upon the large amount of genetic matter that is common to most humans, they are looking at markers that are uniquely shared within certain groups - in otherwords, that 15%.

I'm not being silly - I'm asking you to support your claim.

 

[Kondor3]

...I think the attempt to use genetics as a basis for establishing the validity of a people's rights is weak at best.

Quite possibly. At best, it can only be utilized to prove ethnic or racial linkages, oftentimes lost in the mists of time, and, given human interbreeding over the millennia, of little practical value, beyond refuting very broad-based claims of group membership. Present-day Realities are a far more reliable indicator of Rights - enforceable ones, anyway.

 

[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.

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

Negotiate for parts of the West Bank as was originally invisioned. Keep in mind - Israel got it's state despite it's terrorist activities against the Brits and Arabs.

Once they have a state they have something to lose. They can b e held accountable as a state for aggression or terrorism and be held to the same sanctions as any other state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Rashid Khalidi


Noura Erakat

 

[aris2chat]

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

Prove it the "vast majority" of arabs are "recent arrivals with "no historic ties". I'd like to see some numbers validating that from a reputable source. Because if you are going to go by genetics (and those genetic studies are far from conclusive since other groups share their same markers).... their ties belong in Africa - that is their first home. Let's send everyone home to Africa!

Genetics...open to question:

Genetic studies on Jews - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Many genetic studies have demonstrated that most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians and other Levantines, like the Druze[12][13][17][37] and Bedouin,[12][13] are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews are to non-Jewish Europeans or Africans.[12][13][94] One DNA study by Nebel and colleagues found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD".[94] They also found substantial genetic overlap between Muslim Palestinians and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, though with some significant differences that might be explainable by the geographical isolation of the Jews and by immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.[94]​

I think the attempt to use genetics as a basis for establishing the validity of a people's rights is weak at best.

The Smoking Gun Arab Immigration into Palestine 1922-1931 Middle East Quarterly

RESEARCH Palestinians Arab immigrants children Desolate land pre increased Jewish return

British Opposition to Jewish Immigration to Palestine

How Did the Land of Israel Become Palestine

 

[aris2chat]

Who are the Palestinians?

Rashid Khalidi


Noura Erakat

>>
Rashid Ismail Khalidi is a Palestinian-Lebanese American historian of the Middle East, the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University, and director of the Middle East Institute.<<

I find Ajami and Phares more factual and less bias

 

[50_RiaL]

Arab S-Q-U-A-T-T-E-R-S from surrounding area!

 

[Lipush]

...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.

Riiiiiiiight

 

[MJB12741]

...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.

Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.

 

[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.

Riiiiiiiight

They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.

 

[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. 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.

Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.

I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either). I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused. The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.

 

[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.

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.

Riiiiiiiight

They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.

and some are reclaiming jewish land taken under jordanian rule or land that was bought and then sale nullified by jordanian/palestinian law with no return of money or compensation, just because the buyer was jewish.
Why should the WB or G be "jew free". Why is it OK for palestinians to be racists but not for Israel to seek to maintain a jewish majority, while protecting minority rights?

 

[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.

Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.

I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either). I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused. The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.

How benevolent would you be if your neighbors wanted to kill you and steal the land you have invested in developing? How would you feel if they attacked you constantly calling you all types of name and comparing you to the most vial of creatures? How would you respond to massacres of civilians, women and children, sometimes in the most horrific way?
Would you put locks on your doors and close your windows or remove the doors and invite your neighbors to have their way with you?

 

[Kondor3]

...Why should the WB or G be "jew free". Why is it OK for palestinians to be racists but not for Israel to seek to maintain a jewish majority, while protecting minority rights?

Wwwwwhhhhhhaaaaaatttttt?

You demand 'reciprocity' from Muslims, directed towards non-Muslims?

How dare you, Infidel !

 

[MJB12741]

...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.

Riiiiiiiight

They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.

Okay, how about this proposal. All illegal Israeli settlers & all illegal Palestinian squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole have to leave the land? Fair enough?

 

[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.

Riiiiiiiight

They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.

and some are reclaiming jewish land taken under jordanian rule or land that was bought and then sale nullified by jordanian/palestinian law with no return of money or compensation, just because the buyer was jewish.
Why should the WB or G be "jew free".

I never said it should be.

Why is it OK for palestinians to be racists but not for Israel to seek to maintain a jewish majority, while protecting minority rights?

I never said it was ok. But look at how you word it: one side is "racist", the other side merely "seeks to maintain a jewish majority". Your choice of wording is telling in this.

 

[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. 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.

Can't wait to see any rebuttals to the facts you have posted here.

I already made my rebuttal when I showed that the Palestinians did not all leave voluntarily and that there was a deliberate plan by the Israeli's to drive them out and prevent them from returning - contrary to claims being made (which you haven't rebutted either). I don't disagree with all Aris has to say except that the Israeli's are by no means benevolent angels here and their actions are often overlooked, white washed or excused. The Palestinians are their own worst enemy and Hamas the worst by far - but I get tired of the constant re-writing of Israel's own actions - such as the claim that the Palestinians left on their own or at the urging of the Arabs and leaving out their own part in it and their role in deliberately preventing their return.

How benevolent would you be if your neighbors wanted to kill you and steal the land you have invested in developing? How would you feel if they attacked you constantly calling you all types of name and comparing you to the most vial of creatures? How would you respond to massacres of civilians, women and children, sometimes in the most horrific way?
Would you put locks on your doors and close your windows or remove the doors and invite your neighbors to have their way with you?

There is a considerable amount of mistrust and hatred of the other on both sides. The Israelis aren't exactly angels here but their transgressions get excused. None of that changes the fact that the Israeli's were instrumental and as culpable as the Arabs in driving the Palestinians out and making sure most could not return. You can not keep claiming that they had nothing to do with it or only barred the return of those who were terrorists. That simply isn't true.

 

[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.

Riiiiiiiight

They settlers who are illegally residing there - in some cases violating Israeli law.

Okay, how about this proposal. All illegal Israeli settlers & all illegal Palestinian squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole have to leave the land? Fair enough?

No. You have people who have been living there for generations if not centuries. Even some of the settlers are established for several generations at some of the oldest settlements. You can't simply evict people like that and still call yourself "civilized". Both sides need to negotiate a just and humane solution. Both sides will need to give up some land and move some populations but in the end it's the only just way to settle things.