freeman3 wrote:I understand what you're saying, Owen--you're being a conciliator, trying to get both sides to be reasonable. I just disagree. Since the Second Intifada Israel has opted for a permanent defense against the Palestinians rather than take the risk of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. And they have been relatively successful with this strategy. So in this case the threat of violence against Israel as a negotiating tactic does not work because Israel has already factored that in permanently. The way to change that calculus is for the Palestinians to show that they are not (at least not necessarily) a threat to Israel.

Interesting, but then again if Palestinians do calm down and renew peaceful efforts, and Israelis now have no problems with the status quo, what reason compels them to change the current position and concede anything to the Palestinians (like occupation, settlements, land swaps, control of East Jerusalem, Palestinian statehood etc etc)?

I do indeed think both sides need to be reasonable - at least more reasonable. Of course Israelis who feel protected by their government don't wish to change the status quo that much - and if one is in power and believes they have greater strength, why would they? Why would British people the 1770s support American Independence or wish to seek a resolution that altered the status quo? Why would the South Africans wish to concede anything to the Namibians if the occupation of that land was easy and simple and there were not bitter warfare going on? Indeed, why would the British had finally relented after decades of running the Mandate and accepted the Israeli state has it not been for the violent action of the Irgun and other groups?

RJ - the Kurds have used violence to carve out their limited autonomy, and are able to feel secure because in reality the Iraqi state ends somewhere south of Mosul (which in turn is why ISIS have been able to exploit the gap and move into the Sunni Arab areas). They also had a lot of international backing in order to establish their state, with the NATO no-fly zone. And do not believe that there are not considerable strands of opinion among Kurds in the region that still want a larger independent state, encompassing parts of Turkey, Syria and Iran.

The Palestinians have accepted for now the PA, but that does not mean that they should be satisfied with the 'generous' offer of a non-contiguous West Bank, Israel-controlled settlement areas - with routes to and from them, not even control over their own water or borders, and be expected to run a viable state. Especially as Israel was making it quite clear at Camp David that this was to be the final settlement.

Isreal also refused to re-open the Camp David talks shortly afterwards (and well before the election of Hamas).

By the way, RJ when you say

That makes sense when you consider the Palestinian narrative. Western Europeans arrived and slowly displaced them from their land thru force and trickery. They had to fight a colonial power with inferior arms.

If you read the Arab press you will see that narrative reinforced. In fact, Danivon and Ricky will pick it up at times by calling Israel a colonial power. Danivon provides sources that claim Jews bought their land and kicked them out. They will tell us about the relative population in Palestine in the 1880's. Whereas many Zionists refuse to read that stuff, I fully embrace it. And what it tells me is that the problem is not solvable.

Are you saying you embrace the basis of Zionism was to displace the people living in the area, or simply that you acknowledge this as a point of view that you also regard to be without merit? Or something in between?

Only I don't just get this from the 'Palestinian narrative', but from the words of the Zionist movement leaders themselves.

Danivon:

RJ - the Kurds have used violence to carve out their limited autonomy, and are able to feel secure because in reality the Iraqi state ends somewhere south of Mosul (which in turn is why ISIS have been able to exploit the gap and move into the Sunni Arab areas). They also had a lot of international backing in order to establish their state, with the NATO no-fly zone. And do not believe that there are not considerable strands of opinion among Kurds in the region that still want a larger independent state, encompassing parts of Turkey, Syria and Iran.

Correct; that's my point. The Kurds have accepted limited autonomy since at least the 90's before you and I even knew how to spell ISIS. No doubt they would have preferred a full state, but they were willing to settle for less given the reality of the situation..

Danivon:

Isreal also refused to re-open the Camp David talks shortly afterwards (and well before the election of Hamas).

Yes, but the Palestinians did institute violence, often against civilians, with the 2nd Intifada. That's precisely the point.

Danivon:

Are you saying you embrace the basis of Zionism was to displace the people living in the area, or simply that you acknowledge this as a point of view that you also regard to be without merit? Or something in between?

No, the basis of Zionism is that Jews have a claim to the land as far back as 3,000 years ago. That's in the historical record. We were kicked out 2,000 years ago. That's also established historical record. Jews of Europe had the right to try to return to Palestine. They did so legally, first while it was part of the Ottoman Empire, and then when it was part of the British Mandate.

That right is strengthened based on the treatment that Jews received in Europe and the Arab World for 1900 years. You also have to accept that the Jewish people kept their religion over these many yeas in spite of the hardship that it caused. We never renounced our history and collectively we never renounced our religion. And we never renounced the importance of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel as it relates to the religion. Those are the roots of Zionism from its beginning in the 19th century.

Fast forward to the Holocaust and the fact that for many Jews there was nowhere to go, and the case for a Jewish nation is complete. Add the fact that 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands in the 1940's and 1950's you have sufficient force for me to embrace the moral right of Jews to the Land of Israel.

However, that Jews have a moral right to the Land of Israel does not mean that they are the only ones with a moral right. The Palestinians also have a legitimate claim. There were Arabs in Palestine for many years. There was substantial migration in and out for hundreds of years. Although the population was small, and it often went back and forth between Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, there is still a legitimate claim. Arabs did live in Palestine in 1948, and they either left of were forced out. They have a legitimate claim to some of the land as well. Sometimes 2 people can have rights to the same land. That's why a compromise such as the 2-state solution is the right outcome.

However, the Arabs and Palestinians have rejected a 2-state solution time and time again. I understand why. They rejected the small amount of land allocated to Israel by the Peel Commission in the 20's, and they rejected the small Jewish state in 1947. They rejected the 1948 armistice lines, and they rejected the Camp David accords. Let's be honest:ultimately they want the whole thing. Some may want less, but on the whole as a group, they can't accept a deal.

So whereas I accept some legitimacy to the Palestinian claim, I also understand why many Israelis are no longer willing to engage in the façade that the Palestinians are willing to be reasonable. If you cannot reconcile the 2 moral claims via negotiation, the only alternative is to reconcile the claims thru force.

(I've edited my initial post to clean it up a bit, but not to change the overall meaning.)

Ray Jay wrote:Correct; that's my point. The Kurds have accepted limited autonomy since at least the 90's before you and I even knew how to spell ISIS. No doubt they would have preferred a full state, but they were willing to settle for less given the reality of the situation..

And the Palestinians have settled for the PA in the same way. Both the Kurds and the Palestinians want greater autonomy. And the Kurds are definitely well armed and ready to resist any attempt by Iraq to stifle them.

Danivon:

Isreal also refused to re-open the Camp David talks shortly afterwards (and well before the election of Hamas).

Yes, but the Palestinians did institute violence, often against civilians, with the 2nd Intifada. That's precisely the point.

Israel also used violence in response, and in some cases over-used it.

Danivon:

Are you saying you embrace the basis of Zionism was to displace the people living in the area, or simply that you acknowledge this as a point of view that you also regard to be without merit? Or something in between?

No, the basis of Zionism is that Jews have a claim to the land as far back as 3,000 years ago. That's in the historical record. We were kicked out 2,000 years ago. That's also established historical record. Now, that in and of itself is not sufficient for the claim. But when you combine the treatment that we received in Europe and the Middle East for 1,900 years as well as the fact that the religion is centered on Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, you get sufficient force to claim the land.

I understand the religious, cultural and social impetus to find a homeland, and to make it Israel (but if you do want to go back thousands of years, look at what the Bible says about how the Israelites 're'-conquered the land post-Moses).

But I was really referring to the way that Zionism was a means to make the land "as Jewish as England is English" (Chaim Weizmann). And the words of early (pre-Holocaust) Zionist leaders and commenters:

When Theodore Herzl was writing in his diary about building a Jewish homeland, he wrote in his diary in 1895:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ... It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example ... Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us"

Manahem Ussihkin in 1930: "We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession … if there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a greater and nobler ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of Arab fellahin."

Ben-Gurion in 1937: "We must expel Arabs and take their places… and, if we have to use force – not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places – then we have force at our disposal."

Yosef Weitz in 1938: "the transfer of the Arab population from the area of the Jewish State does not serve only one aim - to diminish the Arab population, it also serves a second, no less important aim which is to evacuate land presently held and cultivated by the Arabs and thus to release it for the Jewish inhabitants."

Jabotinksy in 1939: "There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs (to Iraq and Saudi Arabia)."

All of these seem to condone ethnic cleansing. Not the idea of a recognition that the people living in Palestine up to the arrival of the settlers might have a moral right to retain the land of their birth as a homeland.

Throw in the Holocaust and the fact that for many Jews there was nowhere to go and the fact that 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands you have sufficient force for me to embrace the moral right of Jews to the Land of Israel.

The Holocaust was not a factor for the original Zionist settlers in the 1880s, or the later wave of the post WWI era. We cannot use the Holocaust as a post-hoc justification for the positions or actions that predate it. Sorry.

However, that Jews have a moral right to the Land of Israel does not mean that they are the only ones with a moral right. The Palestinians also have a legitimate claim. There were Arabs in Palestine in the 1880's. They were there for sometime, although it is not clear how long. But they were there from the 1880's till 1948. Sometimes 2 people can have rights to the same land. That's why a compromise such as the 2-state solution is the right outcome.

However, the Arabs and Palestinians have rejected a 2-state solution time and time again.

if you look at the current position of the PLO, indeed that from about 1993, you will see that it accepts the 2-state solution.

But of course this is inconvenient, so they must be lying, right?

Ray

I also understand why many Israelis are no longer willing to engage in the façade that the Palestinians are willing to be reasonable. If you cannot reconcile the 2 moral claims via negotiation, the only alternative is to reconcile the claims thru force

consider then this :
I also understand why many Palestinians are no longer willing to engage in the façade that the Israelis are willing to be reasonable. If you cannot reconcile the 2 moral claims via negotiation, the only alternative is to reconcile the claims thru force.
You've made a perfect arguement for the continued used of violent resistance by Palestinians...

ray

No, the basis of Zionism is that Jews have a claim to the land as far back as 3,000 years ago. That's in the historical record. We were kicked out 2,000 years ago

I guess the solution then is for the descendants of Canaan to show up and lay claim as the first on the scene, kicking everyone else out?
Oh wait, weren't they the original victims of ethnic cleansing? And does that somehow change the moral arguement?

Really when we want to bring up antiquity and The Bible as a rationale to todays world, we start to get ridiculous. Arabs are suppossed to accept the reaity of losing their land from the 1880s through 1949, and even in the later wars...None more than 100 years, and most within 4 to 6 decades....
....but Jews have a right to return after 1,500 years? C'mon.
You know, if only the Jews had only accepted the conditions that their occupiers gave them, and hadn't been so troublesome, what with their constant violent uprisings, the Romans wouldn't have shipped them out.... (Kinda what you see as a solution for the Palestinians today.)
Sorry if this seems snarky.

The point of reality in the region right now, is that Israel is largely in control. And if they want to end the cycle of violence, they are in a position to take some chances. Asking Palestinians to make the first step is like asking prey to stop squirming.
Palestinians are more likely to respond postiively to concessions by Israel, than to continuance of the current occupation conditions.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Correct; that's my point. The Kurds have accepted limited autonomy since at least the 90's before you and I even knew how to spell ISIS. No doubt they would have preferred a full state, but they were willing to settle for less given the reality of the situation..

And the Palestinians have settled for the PA in the same way.

The same way?

Danivon:

Yes, but the Palestinians did institute violence, often against civilians, with the 2nd Intifada. That's precisely the point.

Israel also used violence in response, and in some cases over-used it.

When you play tit for tat or whataboutery, it doesn't seem like you are hearing my point. I'm explaining why the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians. If you want to make the argument that the Palestinians don't trust the Israelis, fine. But that doesn't negate my train of thought which is to explain the Israeli predisposition to not trust that the Palestinians genuinely want a 2-state solution.

Danivon:

Are you saying you embrace the basis of Zionism was to displace the people living in the area, or simply that you acknowledge this as a point of view that you also regard to be without merit? Or something in between?

No, the basis of Zionism is that Jews have a claim to the land as far back as 3,000 years ago. That's in the historical record. We were kicked out 2,000 years ago. That's also established historical record. Now, that in and of itself is not sufficient for the claim. But when you combine the treatment that we received in Europe and the Middle East for 1,900 years as well as the fact that the religion is centered on Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, you get sufficient force to claim the land.

I understand the religious, cultural and social impetus to find a homeland, and to make it Israel (but if you do want to go back thousands of years, look at what the Bible says about how the Israelites 're'-conquered the land post-Moses).

I can't figure out your point here. Are you trying to tell me how smart you are or are you trying to tell me that the Jewish Bible has Jews doing terrible things or that some people who were conquered who no longer exist (and perhaps never existed) should be found so we can give them the land? Certainly their is corroborating evidence from around the time of King David, about 3,000 years ago. Clearly the Bible was written down about 500 BCE before the Babylonian exile. What compels you to talk about the allegory of Moses for which there is no historical record? I used 3,000 years and not 3,300 years for that very reason. Archeologists found reference to Hebrews where Israel is now in Egyptian pottery around 1200 BCE. Anything before that is outside the historical record and not relevant to my thought process.

Throw in the Holocaust and the fact that for many Jews there was nowhere to go and the fact that 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands you have sufficient force for me to embrace the moral right of Jews to the Land of Israel.

The Holocaust was not a factor for the original Zionist settlers in the 1880s, or the later wave of the post WWI era. We cannot use the Holocaust as a post-hoc justification for the positions or actions that predate it. Sorry.

I'm very clear on the timeline. There was a justification for Zionism when it started, and that justification has strengthened as a result of the Holocaust in Europe and the treatment of Jews in the Arab world after the establishment of Israel. Sorry that you didn't read more carefully.

However, that Jews have a moral right to the Land of Israel does not mean that they are the only ones with a moral right. The Palestinians also have a legitimate claim. There were Arabs in Palestine in the 1880's. They were there for sometime, although it is not clear how long. But they were there from the 1880's till 1948. Sometimes 2 people can have rights to the same land. That's why a compromise such as the 2-state solution is the right outcome.

However, the Arabs and Palestinians have rejected a 2-state solution time and time again.

if you look at the current position of the PLO, indeed that from about 1993, you will see that it accepts the 2-state solution.

But of course this is inconvenient, so they must be lying, right?

I wish it were true. I think the Israelis are being rational when they are skeptical.

Ricky:

Really when we want to bring up antiquity and The Bible as a rationale to todays world, we start to get ridiculous.

I'm not relying solely on the Bible. There were Jews in Israel in 500 BCE. That's corroborated by many sources. There's evidence of the Kingdom of Israel at about 1,000 BCE. That's corroborated by some sources.

The Greeks will confirm that there were Jews in Israel about 2,300 years ago. That's historical record.

However, the main point, that the Romans kicked out the Jews. That's established history and has nothing to do with the Bible.

Ricky:

You've made a perfect arguement for the continued used of violent resistance by Palestinians...

Except that they will lose.

rickyp wrote:Ray

I also understand why many Israelis are no longer willing to engage in the façade that the Palestinians are willing to be reasonable. If you cannot reconcile the 2 moral claims via negotiation, the only alternative is to reconcile the claims thru force

consider then this :
I also understand why many Palestinians are no longer willing to engage in the façade that the Israelis are willing to be reasonable. If you cannot reconcile the 2 moral claims via negotiation, the only alternative is to reconcile the claims thru force.
You've made a perfect arguement for the continued used of violent resistance by Palestinians...

So if "both sides cannot reconcile the two moral claims via negotiation, the only alternative is to reconcile the claims through force" is what you say, are you are OK with the Palestinians doing that?

Are you OK with the Israelis reconciling the moral claims through force as well? It appears you have a double standard.

Ricky:

You know, if only the Jews had only accepted the conditions that their occupiers gave them, and hadn't been so troublesome, what with their constant violent uprisings, the Romans wouldn't have shipped them out

Ha, ha. Estimates have the Romans killing one million Jews 2,000 years ago. I'm not amused. You are not getting us.

bbauska

So if "both sides cannot reconcile the two moral claims via negotiation, the only alternative is to reconcile the claims through force" is what you say, are you are OK with the Palestinians doing that?

I'm as okay with the Palestinians using force as I am the Israelis.
And I'd prefer that both sides use non-violent means.
I don't see either side possessing a moral superiority that uniquely justifies their use of force.
I cetainly don't see any moral justification based on "being there first". Particularly not 1500 year old claims.

The White Man in conquering the new World justified the elimination of the indigenous largely on religious and racist arguements. The new world was empty to them and a genocide was committed. (Some of it unintentional because of the spread of disease.)
The arguement that the Israelis have some morally superior claim to the land in Israel strikes me as similar. And Danivons quotations of the early Zionists supports the idea that Zionism was conceived as a similar venture.Filling up a land that is a divine gift....

If Israel wants to make a claim to a superior moraility, they need to act with genorosity towards the Palestinians. Right now the conflict is between two equally morally repugnant groups. (The governments, not the people).
The point is that Israel is in control. And if they want to act geneously, in the spirit of reciprocity, and take a chance that a resolution can begin to be achieved through this generosity, they can do so without much risk. That the present government is unwilling to take the risk speaks volumes about the morality of their continuing the current state of affairs.

You'll say that the Palestinians should take the first step....But if they do, it isn't an act of genorosity or reciprocity, it is surrender. And the terms of their surrender are already clearly not favorable.

ray

Except that they will lose.

I'm sure that many feel that as long as they are putting up a fight, they haven't lost.
The removal of dignity and pride can fuel a lost cause for a very long time.Historically, successful peace, where a genocide hasn't been committed, has usually followed a period where the victor has genourously helped the loser to reestablish themselves with dignity.

Ray

I'm not relying solely on the Bible

.
neither was I. I said "antiquity" because I know that the view of most archeologists and historians is that the trbes of Israel were indigenous to the region, and that they did indeed supplant the Caanites.
I just don't think thts terribly relevant to todays situation.

Ricky:

Right now the conflict is between two equally morally repugnant groups.

I think you've lost touch with reality.

Ricky:

Particularly not 1500 year old claims.

and math

Ray

I'm not relying solely on the Bible

.
neither was I. I said "antiquity" because I know that the view of most archeologists and historians is that the trbes of Israel were indigenous to the region, and that they did indeed supplant the Caanites.
I just don't think thts terribly relevant to todays situation.

If you don't accept a historical right for Jews to be in Israel, then the Jewish actions are no different than Apartheid South Africa or whites in Belgium Congo (which happened at about the same time that those Zionists were saying those awful things that so repulse you).

However, if you accept the historical claim, then your perception of the conflict changes dramatically. It forces you to confront the resistance of the claim by the Arab and Muslim world. It forces you to look at the wider picture of a vast Muslim world and a tiny Jewish one. You have to look at Palestinian terrorism as an expression of their view of the conflict. Of the Arab and Palestinian refusal to acknowledge this basic right of Jews.

When does antiquity end and the modern world begin?

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Correct; that's my point. The Kurds have accepted limited autonomy since at least the 90's before you and I even knew how to spell ISIS. No doubt they would have preferred a full state, but they were willing to settle for less given the reality of the situation..

And the Palestinians have settled for the PA in the same way.

The same way?

Do you really think that the Kurds have been peaceful all this time?

Danivon:

Yes, but the Palestinians did institute violence, often against civilians, with the 2nd Intifada. That's precisely the point.

Israel also used violence in response, and in some cases over-used it.

When you play tit for tat or whataboutery, it doesn't seem like you are hearing my point. I'm explaining why the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians. If you want to make the argument that the Palestinians don't trust the Israelis, fine. But that doesn't negate my train of thought which is to explain the Israeli predisposition to not trust that the Palestinians genuinely want a 2-state solution.

Mentioning the Kurds is 'whataboutery'. Mentioning the other side in the same conflict as the Palestinians is not.

The point is that neither side trusts the other. You want to make one side out to be the only problem. It really is not.

I can't figure out your point here. Are you trying to tell me how smart you are or are you trying to tell me that the Jewish Bible has Jews doing terrible things or that some people who were conquered who no longer exist (and perhaps never existed) should be found so we can give them the land? Certainly their is corroborating evidence from around the time of King David, about 3,000 years ago. Clearly the Bible was written down about 500 BCE before the Babylonian exile. What compels you to talk about the allegory of Moses for which there is no historical record? I used 3,000 years and not 3,300 years for that very reason. Archeologists found reference to Hebrews where Israel is now in Egyptian pottery around 1200 BCE. Anything before that is outside the historical record and not relevant to my thought process.

Fine.

So what about the quotes from the last 100 years or so that are in the historical record and show that even pre-Holocaust practical Zionism was about more than just settling, it was about exclusivity.

Throw in the Holocaust and the fact that for many Jews there was nowhere to go and the fact that 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands you have sufficient force for me to embrace the moral right of Jews to the Land of Israel.

The Holocaust was not a factor for the original Zionist settlers in the 1880s, or the later wave of the post WWI era. We cannot use the Holocaust as a post-hoc justification for the positions or actions that predate it. Sorry.

I'm very clear on the timeline. There was a justification for Zionism when it started, and that justification has strengthened as a result of the Holocaust in Europe and the treatment of Jews in the Arab world after the establishment of Israel. Sorry that you didn't read more carefully.

Oh, I read it. Are you prepared to address the attitudes of Zionist leaders before the 1940s to Arabs?

However, the Arabs and Palestinians have rejected a 2-state solution time and time again.

if you look at the current position of the PLO, indeed that from about 1993, you will see that it accepts the 2-state solution.

But of course this is inconvenient, so they must be lying, right?

I wish it were true. I think the Israelis are being rational when they are skeptical.[/quote]How do you know that it isn't. Other than the circular logic that the Arabs lie, so they must me lying?

The PLO has changed its stance since the 1960s, and has signed up to the two-state solution for Oslo and subsequent attempts to negotiate a settlement. What they want, however, is for their state to be viable. What Israel wants is for its state to be secure. Both disagree on the extent to which those things clash.

ricky

Particularly not 1500 year old claims

.

ray

and math

Kind of depends on the starting and stopping point. If the 1880's Zionisit settlemetns is the beginning of the "return from exile", when was the exile?
In fact there were several periods of emmigration, forced and unforced. Going back to 6th Century BC and continuing well into the 3rd and 4th century AD.
1880 _ 1500 = 380 CE
I was being generous. If you choose to beleive there was a sudden mass expulsion in 70 CE then the claim is 1800 years old...

The widespread popular belief that there was a sudden expulsion of Jews from Palestine in 70 CE that led to the creation of the Diaspora is not correct, and scholars argue that modern Jewish ancestry owes about as much to converts from the first millennium to the beginning of the Middle Ages as it does to the Jews of antiquity.[15] The concept of Jewish exile from Palestine is dismissed by serious Jewish historical scholarship.[16] The diaspora was a process that occurred over centuries time starting with the Assyrian destruction of Israel, the Babylonian destruction of Judah, the Roman destruction of Judea, and the subsequent rule of Christians and Muslims. After the revolt, the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars. The destruction of the Second Temple was responsible for a seismic change in communal Jewish self-perception and of their place in the world. For the generations that followed the event came to represent a fundamental insight about the Jews who were to become an exiled and persecuted people for much of their history.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

ray

f you don't accept a historical right for Jews to be in Israel, then the Jewish actions are no different than Apartheid South Africa or whites in Belgium Congo (which happened at about the same time that those Zionists were saying those awful things that so repulse you

Then you'll understand why Desmond Tutu said this ...

"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces," he said in a statement. ... "Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."
"In South Africa, we could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime," he told News24.
"The same issues of inequality and injustice today motivate the divestment movement trying to end Israel's decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory and the unfair and prejudicial treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them."
"'Those who turn a blind eye to injustice actually perpetuate injustice. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor," Tutu said.
"It doesn't matter where we worship or live. We are members of one family, the human family, God's family."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/1 ... id-Israel#

The current reality has to be dealt with, not fantastical visions of what could be....
Israel exists, and will continue to exist and has every right to defend itself.
Palestine does not currently exist. There is an occupation of what most of the world has determined should be a Palestinian State. And an illegal blockade of another part of what is considered by most nations to be a part of the Palestinian State. Israel has no right to occupy Palestine or to entrap Gaza in misery.
There is a resolution possible. Such a resolution cannot accomodate the most extreme views of either party and it must recognize the minimum requirements for the establishment of a viable state. Israel is not acting morally whilst it stalls on making accomodations that can move towards a resolution.

Ricky: ricky


Particularly not 1500 year old claims
.
ray

and math

Kind of depends on the starting and stopping point. If the 1880's Zionisit settlemetns is the beginning of the "return from exile", when was the exile?
In fact there were several periods of emmigration, forced and unforced. Going back to 6th Century BC and continuing well into the 3rd and 4th century AD.
1880 _ 1500 = 380 CE
I was being generous. If you choose to beleive there was a sudden mass expulsion in 70 CE then the claim is 1800 years old...

And English.

The Claim does not originate with the date of expulsion.

Ricky:

The current reality has to be dealt with, not fantastical visions of what could be....
Israel exists, and will continue to exist and has every right to defend itself.

I totally agree.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Correct; that's my point. The Kurds have accepted limited autonomy since at least the 90's before you and I even knew how to spell ISIS. No doubt they would have preferred a full state, but they were willing to settle for less given the reality of the situation..

And the Palestinians have settled for the PA in the same way.

The same way?

Do you really think that the Kurds have been peaceful all this time?

I thought this was Ricky at first. There are many dimensions to both conflicts. I think that there are similarities between the 2 conflicts, but I would not agree that the Palestinians and the Kurds have "settled in the same way". The Palestinians have rejected a peace offer that would have given them a lot of autonomy. I don't think that the Kurds have ever rejected such an offer.

Danivon:

]Mentioning the Kurds is 'whataboutery'. Mentioning the other side in the same conflict as the Palestinians is not.

The point is that neither side trusts the other. You want to make one side out to be the only problem. It really is not.

No, you are not getting me. I'm explaining to you why the Israelis are skeptical that they have a peace partner. I'm explaining to you why they are reluctant to make concessions on the ground. The Israelis are trading land and security for peace. They know what they are giving away. They don't know if they will get anything in return. The Palestinians are not trading security for peace. They are trading for security AND peace. They just have to give up their right of return and some land claims. But they don't have to risk their security. It is already compromised. Yes you are right that both sides have at times been wrong and uncompromising. But that doesn't mean the risks and concessions relative to the rewards of a deal are parallel.

So what about the quotes from the last 100 years or so that are in the historical record and show that even pre-Holocaust practical Zionism was about more than just settling, it was about exclusivity.

That will take some time. There are a range of quotes and views amongst the early Zionists. They were writing from over 100 years ago in a world with different sensitivities. I'm sure some are insensitive and some are better. I suspect that they did not see the Palestinians as distinct people, but as Arabs. I'm not sure that anyone thought of Palestinians as a distinct people then.

But of course this is inconvenient, so they must be lying, right?

I wish it were true. I think the Israelis are being rational when they are skeptical.

How do you know that it isn't. Other than the circular logic that the Arabs lie, so they must me lying?

[/quote]

I didn't say they "must be lying". But I do think that there is a good chance that they are lying. I also think that some of "they" may be telling the truth, but other forces in their society will make it so "they" may as well have been lying. Faced with that, I would be extremely reluctant to compromise security and ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of people from the West Bank. (In my mind Jerusalem isn't even on the table, and I'm not even right of center.) In a negotiation you are dealing with possibilities and probabilities.

The PLO has changed its stance since the 1960s, .

typo?