Who Are The Palestinians?

[Dogmaphobe]

I've never championed Hamas. I do however, support free and fair elections even if I don't agree with the results. As to the rest, it's little more than a regurgitation of your typical sophomoric generalizations and simplistic hyperbole. You obviously have an issue with me. I recommend you take it to the Flame Zone where it is better suited.

I have an issue with you because you continuously claim you support one thing while displaying beyond a doubt that you don't, and have not diverted from this M.O. one iota in the years I have witnessed your pattern of deceit

When faced with the fact that Palestinian Arabs elected terrorists to represent them -- terrorists whose stated aim is genocide -- any decent human being would take stock of the situation. Only a propagandist with dishonest intent would keep indulging in self-aggrandizing pap about supporting the elections that propelled them to power.

Over and over, you claim to oppose Hamas, yet right here you do no such thing. You are a liar and a fraud.

 

[Coyote]

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.

One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them. Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.

As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here. Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.

Till Hamas permits new election. Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza. WB is controlled by Fatah and PA. Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat. When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.

IMO Hamas has lost it's legitimacy at this point by not permitting further election although it was fairly elected originally.

I find the parlimentary system confusing and did not realize that was why Fatah lost...thanks for the info

 

[aris2chat]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf. The mount belongs to Israel.
Can't split the baby in half again. Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000. Arafat refused the best offer. The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.

 

[Coyote]

I've never championed Hamas. I do however, support free and fair elections even if I don't agree with the results. As to the rest, it's little more than a regurgitation of your typical sophomoric generalizations and simplistic hyperbole. You obviously have an issue with me. I recommend you take it to the Flame Zone where it is better suited.

I have an issue with you because you continuously claim you support one thing while displaying beyond a doubt that you don't, and have not diverted from this M.O. one iota in the years I have witnessed your pattern of deceit

When faced with the fact that Palestinian Arabs elected terrorists to represent them -- terrorists whose stated aim is genocide -- any decent human being would take stock of the situation. Only a propagandist with dishonest intent would keep indulging in self-aggrandizing pap about supporting the elections that propelled them to power.

Over and over, you claim to oppose Hamas, yet right here you do no such thing. You are a liar and a fraud.

Your issues with me are your problem, not mine, as is your childish attitude.

The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf. The mount belongs to Israel.
Can't split the baby in half again. Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000. Arafat refused the best offer. The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.

You're probably right - you can't split it again. But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith. Same with right of return. Everything needs to be discussed. No preconditions for talks. No preconditions for peace.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.

The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.

Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.

 

[Coyote]

Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.

The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.

Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.

What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?

 

[aris2chat]

Risky or not Rocco - it is the only one that is just. Aris points out for example, how they can not even handle their own economy etc. But the truth is - they have never been free from outside interference. They have no control over their borders, their own security. They have little control over trade and none over their territorial waters or the resources there in. They have no control over their own airspace, they can not form trade agreements with other nations. Everything filters through Israel and can be stopped for any or not reason. Israel can completely halt and destroy their economy at any time for any reason. Just one example - when they elected Hamas in what was considered a free and fair election and Israel chose not to work with them in any manner whatsoever and impose embargos and blockades. This is not saying Hamas is good - but it is saying that they were elected in an election that Hamas won not for reasons of it's broader international agenda but for reasons to do with the local economy and domestic issues. When you have a people in an area that is almost completely subject to an outside nation in this way, saying things like the fact that they can not handle their own economy is a bit disengenius. You can point to things like corruption (a huge problem) but you can't ignore this other reality.

The other aspect of this is this: what other people have have been subject to this "test" of "fitness" for "self-determination"? Many nations have been won through violent means which did not end until self-determination was established. Why are the Palestinians kept to a different standard?

Your championing of Hamas as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians here directly contradicts all the many lies you have told in regards to your supposed lack of support for them.

One cannot simultaneously say they oppose something while legitimizing them. Now, I realize your very purpose on discussion boards has to do with the dispensation of agitprop designed to deceive, but any group that chooses an organization dedicated to genocide of an ethnic minority in this "free and fair" election of yours has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are most certainly NOT fit for self determination.

As far as being held to a different standard, the invented people called "Palestinian" are not held to any standard at all by their useful idiot supporters, and that is the real problem here. Human beings simply do not elect genocidal monsters in a fair and free election.

Till Hamas permits new election. Unity government collapse '07 when after armed conflict Fatah was thrown out of Gaza. WB is controlled by Fatah and PA. Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
The election was a majority for Fatah, but because more than one Fatah member ran for the same seat the Hamas candidate won the seat. When Hamas attacked the Fatah in Gaza, the unity government fell apart and many Hamas representative have since be imprisoned for various crimes.
Hamas has recently allowed some Fatah representative back into Gaza but elections are still up in the air.

IMO Hamas has lost it's legitimacy at this point by not permitting further election although it was fairly elected originally.

I find the parlimentary system confusing and did not realize that was why Fatah lost...thanks for the info

There were a few seats in Gaza where Fatah did not run, or persuaded not with draw. The other seat were a surprise even to Hamas because the votes just barely out numbers that of the other two or more candidates from the PLO. If it had been by popular vote, hamas would have lost all but the few seat where they were uncontested.
They don't have run off elections or primaries to get down to two candidate. PA has not had that many election or envisioned such an outcome when planning their election process.
If the US still used the original election rules of the founding fathers, only white males that owned land would be allowed to vote.

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.


A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.


The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
4. Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
5. Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
6. Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
7. Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
8. The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
9. Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
10. Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
11. Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..​

It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11).
​

>>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
.....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo

...The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force

>>
“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”

FACT
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure. You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

Is that any different to the Palestinians policy of forcing out the Jews. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but the Palestinians had no Jews at all in the west bank or gaza from 1948 to 1967 while Israel had arab muslims living in Israel as full citizens. So if Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians what were they doing allowing 25% + of Israels population to be arab muslims, and at the same time allowing Palestinians that had been displaced the right to return to their homes.

It is all in the history books, but then this would mean that you had been brainwashed into believing a LIE and cant quite reconcile yourself to the reality. The evidence proves your POV wrong

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?

The election was about who the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinian" wished to lead them.

Considering the fact that their very sense of identity only developed out of their hatred for Zionism, and reputable opinion polls have always shown strong support for terrorism, to discount the appeal of hateful rhetoric is foolish.

Any idiot can regurgitate the excuses offered by those who support the terrorism as a means to rationalize it. It takes intelligence to see through the b.s. and be willing to stand up and say "no, that does not ring true".

 

[Coyote]

What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?

The election was about who the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinian" wished to lead them.

EVERY election is ostensibly about who we wish to lead us but ultimately revolves around - not "who" - but what - what can that person or party do for us on critical issues?

Considering the fact that their very sense of identity only developed out of their hatred for Zionism, and reputable opinion polls have always shown strong support for terrorism, to discount the appeal of hateful rhetoric is foolish.

In the end - most politics are "local" and this election is no different. Hamas wood them, provided lots of incentives and promised things it never delivered.

You have yet to show any evidence that the election was about "hatred of Zionism" rather than corruption or domestic issues.

Any idiot can regurgitate the excuses offered by those who support the terrorism as a means to rationalize it. It takes intelligence to see through the b.s. and be willing to stand up and say "no, that does not ring true".

Any idiot can regurgitate. Yes.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

Good post, thanks.

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
And then there is:

No definition of peoples is offered,..​

Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.

Person is singular.
People is plural.
Peoples is a plural plural.
A people is a singular plural.

A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.

Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.

As they say:

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​

You asked. That is my answer.​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.

Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails

 

[aris2chat]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf. The mount belongs to Israel.
Can't split the baby in half again. Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000. Arafat refused the best offer. The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.

You're probably right - you can't split it again. But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith. Same with right of return. Everything needs to be discussed. No preconditions for talks. No preconditions for peace.

Do you really think South Korea should let a million or more North Koreans when most of the might wage war on South Korea from within? If they have family in the south or perhaps held land in the south and are not members of any hostile groups, some might be welcomed, but not so many that would pose a threat to the south.

Israel did many time offer to take in part of the refugees, but not all. That offer is likely off the table after what Israel has gone through since giving up gaza in hopes for peace. There may be some clause where after a period of so many years after a peace agreement where application to apply for something like immigration visa and green card may be possible, but no flood of refugees from all directions. PA can take in their own people and get them out of camps through out the region.
Among the refugees that were born or lived in what is now Israel, that are still alive, they could be among those to be given first consideration, but not the whole extended family and certainly not with out check for terrorist or criminal ties.
When children are being recruited and brainwash at such early ages, how many do you really expect Israel to allow back?
The offer to return by Israel was contingent on the other refugees being absorbed by the other arab nations, and no one else really wants that many palestinians either. The presence of refugees in Lebanon tipped the balance and were responsible for a very long war. Now with syria refugee more than a third of the population in Lebanon are refugees. Do you really expect Lebanon to be able to take in so many at one time?
It is nice to say "left the refugees return" but how are you going to determine which ones came from Israel and which from the WB or G? Wage after wave have push other palestinians out. How do you reverse the process? After close to 70 yrs of fighting, how many of the refugees do you think even have ties to Israel anymore?
You have to consider the logistics of housing, jobs and other resources and services require for so many "returning". Refugees should be the responsibility of the PA not Israel

 

[Coyote]

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.


A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.


The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
4. Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
5. Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
6. Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
7. Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
8. The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
9. Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
10. Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
11. Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..​

It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11).
​

>>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
.....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo

...The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force

>>
“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”

FACT
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure. You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

Is that any different to the Palestinians policy of forcing out the Jews. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but the Palestinians had no Jews at all in the west bank or gaza from 1948 to 1967 while Israel had arab muslims living in Israel as full citizens. So if Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians what were they doing allowing 25% + of Israels population to be arab muslims, and at the same time allowing Palestinians that had been displaced the right to return to their homes.

It is all in the history books, but then this would mean that you had been brainwashed into believing a LIE and cant quite reconcile yourself to the reality. The evidence proves your POV wrong

My point of view was based material that was found in official Israeli documents. Just because they didn't force out all the Palestinians doesn't mean there wasn't a concerted effort to do so as was shown by those documents in the archives which, I might add - the Israeli government has since removed from public access.

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

You cant give the Palestinians the right to free determination, they have to bring it into being themselves. Giving them full control of their air space, borders, coast, trade, utilities and treaties is not giving them free determination, it is giving them the means to destroy themselves. Do you think for one second that they did not have all these things in 1966, and proved to the world that they could not handle the pressure but still wanted more land. They were held to the same high standards that Jordan and Egypt were held to and proved they were not ready. Then in 1988 the world held its breath waiting to see if the Palestinians had realised what was needed and were about to take the bull by the horns. Guess the world is still waiting some 26 year later, and still no sign of the Palestinians showing their self determination. Who gave the Lebanese their Free Determination, the Iraqis, the Syrians and the Jordanians back in 1949. Or did they just up and declare it themselves to the whole world and got on with exercising their new found FREE DETERMINATION.

Now is the time to transition from fighting a losing battle for something that cant be given and to learn how to govern themselves with all the mistakes that FREE DETERMINATION entails

Did Israel transition from fighting to governance BEFORE they obtained their state?" Did they cease the use of violence prior to that? Did Egypt? Did Jordan? They were territories held by paternalistic colonial powers. Does this mean Israel is a colonial power - last remnant of a legacy?

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

The buildings on the mount belong to the waqf. The mount belongs to Israel.
Can't split the baby in half again. Jews will not be denied access to the Kotel again.
Palestinians could have had half of Jerusalem and access to the mount before the second intafada in 2000. Arafat refused the best offer. The intafata carried on for five year and not they threaten another.
Israel is not going to let Jerusalem be divided again like it was with Jordan.

You're probably right - you can't split it again. But I still think it needs to be part of any negotiations as a matter of good faith. Same with right of return. Everything needs to be discussed. No preconditions for talks. No preconditions for peace.

Do you really think South Korea should let a million or more North Koreans when most of the might wage war on South Korea from within? If they have family in the south or perhaps held land in the south and are not members of any hostile groups, some might be welcomed, but not so many that would pose a threat to the south.

Israel did many time offer to take in part of the refugees, but not all. That offer is likely off the table after what Israel has gone through since giving up gaza in hopes for peace. There may be some clause where after a period of so many years after a peace agreement where application to apply for something like immigration visa and green card may be possible, but no flood of refugees from all directions. PA can take in their own people and get them out of camps through out the region.
Among the refugees that were born or lived in what is now Israel, that are still alive, they could be among those to be given first consideration, but not the whole extended family and certainly not with out check for terrorist or criminal ties.
When children are being recruited and brainwash at such early ages, how many do you really expect Israel to allow back?
The offer to return by Israel was contingent on the other refugees being absorbed by the other arab nations, and no one else really wants that many palestinians either. The presence of refugees in Lebanon tipped the balance and were responsible for a very long war. Now with syria refugee more than a third of the population in Lebanon are refugees. Do you really expect Lebanon to be able to take in so many at one time?
It is nice to say "left the refugees return" but how are you going to determine which ones came from Israel and which from the WB or G? Wage after wave have push other palestinians out. How do you reverse the process? After close to 70 yrs of fighting, how many of the refugees do you think even have ties to Israel anymore?
You have to consider the logistics of housing, jobs and other resources and services require for so many "returning". Refugees should be the responsibility of the PA not Israel

I don't support right of return - it's not going to happen and it would be demographic suicide. What I'm saying is the Palestinians can't keep it off the table as a precondition that is non-negotiable. Everyone is going to have to give up some skin in this and the right of return is likely something the Palestinians will have to give up. At least for most of them.

 

[Phoenall]

Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.

The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.

Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.

What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?

It was about taking the first baby steps to self determination, and they completely blew it by making demands that no one could meet. Who hold the magic wand that bestows self determination on anyone. Who gave you the self determination to get a job, get married, have children, buy a house, buy a car, have a holiday etc. Those are all part of individual self determination that only you could decide. Now were will the Palestinians get their self determination from, because Israel certainly cant influence their choice of car, job, holiday, children etc.

 

[Coyote]

Your issues with me are your problem, not mine as is your childish attitude.

The election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza was not over Hamas' relationship to Israel but over domestic issues and corruption and the inability of Fatah to address those issues or reign in corruption.

Yep -- any old excuse to support the terrorism and genocidal ambitions will do, won't it?.

What do YOU think the election was about and can you support your view with any facts or sources?

It was about taking the first baby steps to self determination, and they completely blew it by making demands that no one could meet. Who hold the magic wand that bestows self determination on anyone. Who gave you the self determination to get a job, get married, have children, buy a house, buy a car, have a holiday etc. Those are all part of individual self determination that only you could decide. Now were will the Palestinians get their self determination from, because Israel certainly cant influence their choice of car, job, holiday, children etc.

Exactly. Who holds the magic wand?

Perhaps the Palestinians going to the UN directly to make their case for recognition is the best move. It's civilized.

 

[Lipush]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.

Well, Abbas is an a**, so most of us don't really care what he has to deal with

 

[Coyote]

Jerusalem needs to be. Everything needs to be on the table. It can be removed later or negotiated out but it needs to be.

Jerusalem is not under negotiation, because the mass majority in Israel is not interested in hearing about it, with good reason. Any leader saying "we may compromise on Jerusalem" can kiss his government goodbye, the people will chase down anyone offering to give up on our holy city.

Abbas faces a similar problem on the right of return.

Well, Abbas is an a**, so most of us don't really care what he has to deal with

Of course you don't. But he represents the other side. I doubt they care very much for your view on Jeruselum.