freeman3

People want to go home, Ricky? They left home 66 years ago. For all but a very small fraction of Palestinians, they never had a home in land presently occupied by Israel. With every passing year the Right of a Return has left validity.

First: left home? At least half were forced out . And most of the others left for reasons of safety.
Second: That they've been gone 66 years, doesn't mean they haven't been trying to go back. They've kept away by force. The y didn't surrender their ownership it was seized from them.
What you're essentially saying is that all someone has to do is keep something by force for a long enough period and they own it. No matter how they got it. In that way I guess you support the notion that jews who lost their homes or property in WWII shouldn't get compensation?
Israel, and Germany disagree with that attitude:

The German government has agreed to pay €772 million ($1 billion) for the homecare of Holocaust survivors throughout the world. The decision was reached by the German Finance Ministry together with the Claims Conference, a Jewish fund for victims of Nazi aggression, after negotiations in Jerusalem concluded on Tuesday.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 02528.html

Its an interesting juxtapostion of moral standing, isn't it?

By the way, how do you balance the Palestinians forced absence of 66 years and their right of return, with Jews absence of some 1500+ years, and their claim to a right to return? Don't you find that juxtapostion uncomfortable?

I'm a realist Freeman3. I think most of the Palestinians should be compensated in some way for their loss. Not returned to their properties. I'm not making this arguement in order to justify Palestinians return. What i'm doing is insisting that an examination of Israel that looks past the myths and the PR clearly shows they have no moral high ground. At best a gentle swail.
Without that high ground, and considering the continuing crime commirtted during the occupation, the west should stop supporting their efforts to run out the clock on a true 2 state solution.
Because what Israel is obviosuly truing to do, is stall long enough on each incremental land grab, and security zone enlargement until that your attitude that "its been too long," prevails .

At least half were forced out? Where is your factual support as that appears to be ridiculously inflated number. You 're a realist-- that's good to know. What makes you think think the Palestinians are realists about Right of Return? They rejected an offer at Camp David that would have allowed up to 100,000 to return as part of family reunification and a 30 billion international fund to help pay for funds.
Do you actually read the settlement with Holocaust survivors you just posted ? That had to do with for care for Jewish survivors who lived in ghettos . In other words, it was for claims relating to Germsn mistreatment of Jews during WWII. That is not similar to Right of Return.

What about financial claims of all Israelis killed or wounded by Palestinian terrorism? What about Israeli claims for economic damage as a result of terrorism or security costs related to terrorism. How about emotional distress claims related to missile attacks? How about the financial claims of the 850,000 Jews forced out from other Arab countries after 1948? At some point in coming to a peace agreement you have to write off past wrongs and move on.

And Israel is not delaying peace for a land grab-- that's absurd. But Israel is a very small country with not that much usable land and as long as there is no peace there are going to be people in Israel attracted to land on the West Bank. The delay in coming to a peace agreement is coming from the Palestinian side who either have unrealistic expectations or perhaps cannot accept a peace agreement that cuts off their ability to ultimately take political control over the land that Israel occupies.

freeman3

At least half were forced out? Where is your factual support as that appears to be ridiculously inflated number.

Is there really a significant difference between becoming a refugee because one fled in advance of violence or bcause a man forced you at gun point? A refugee is a refugee...
from wikipedia

The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war.[2] The term nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949.
The very precise number of refugees is a matter of dispute[3] but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (50 percent of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes.[4][5]

So its ridiculous to claim that 700,000 left?
How should I characterize your claim that because palestinians have been gone for 66 years that they have lost their claim?
especially when

Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property

.
This isn't a land grab?
And 66 years versus 1500? How do you reconcile those two numbers?

freeman3

Do you actually read the settlement with Holocaust survivors you just posted ? That had to do with for care for Jewish survivors who lived in ghettos . In other words, it was for claims relating to Germsn mistreatment of Jews during WWII. That is not similar to Right of Return.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? The point is that Germany is still making amends, and offering compensation today....
Israelis participates in this compensation.
But their attitude towards Palestinians is entirely different isn't it?

You are now resorting to the "their worse" aruguement that usually ends up being the defence of Israelis behaviours to the Palestinians. I'm not defending the Palestinians or Arabs as a more moral actor. I've said both governments are guilty of immoral behaviour. Their both imooral.
But if you wanted to play the comparsion of wrongs and damages I'm pretty sure the butchers bill for Palestinians is higher than that for Israel. Wirness the disparity in casualties in the recent Gazan conflict.
The Palestinians have been losing... which means they've suffered more.

freeman3

And Israel is not delaying peace for a land grab-- that's absurd. But Israel is a very small country with not that much usable land and as long as there is no peace there are going to be people in Israel attracted to land on the West Bank

And they are going to find a way to take it and pretend its legitimate. They'll call it necessary for security reasons... They just did with the annexation annoucement two weeks ago.
You didn't mention the fact that water is particualrly scarce in the region. And of course a vital resource.
Here's how Israel deals with that resource in the West bank.

* Israel doesn’t give water to the Palestinians. Rather, it sells it to them at full price.
* The Palestinians would not have been forced to buy water from Israel if it were not an occupying power which controls their natural resource, and if it were not for the Oslo II Accords, which limit the volume of water they can produce, as well as the development and maintenance of their water infrastructure.
* This 1995 interim agreement was supposed to lead to a permanent arrangement after five years. The Palestinian negotiators deluded themselves that they would gain sovereignty and thus control over their water resources.
The Palestinians were the weak, desperate, easily tempted side and sloppy when it came to details. Therefore, in that agreement Israel imposed a scandalously uneven, humiliating and infuriating division of the water resources of the West Bank.
* The division is based on the volume of water Palestinians produced and consumed on the eve of the deal. The Palestinians were allotted 118 million cubic meters (mcm) per year from three aquifers via drilling, agricultural wells, springs and precipitation. Pay attention, Rino Tzror: the same deal allotted Israel 483 mcm annually from the same resources (and it has also exceeded this limit in some years).
In other words, some 20 percent goes to the Palestinians living in the West Bank, and about 80 percent goes to Israelis – on both sides of the Green Line – who also enjoy resources from the rest of the country.
Why should Palestinians agree to pay for desalinated water from Israel, which constantly robs them of the water flowing under their feet?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.574554

How moral is this deal on water Freeman?

Yes, but a refugee is someone who left his homeland ...66 years have passed and very few Palestinians still qualify...This makes Right of Return about something different than returning home for most of the Palestinians who claim Right of Return.
How very nice of the German government to make some amends for the Holocaust... The point is stop making idiotic comparisons with what happened during the Holocaust to what is happening to Palestinians under Occupation. Do you believe that the Holocaust occurred, Ricky? Because your casual attitude about it indicates at that very least a lack of human empathy about it. What is happening during Occupation--where Palestinians continue to use terrorism against Israel, where their population is skyrocketing despite it, where they originally started the war, and where they have never made any kind of peace proposal that even you would agree with--is not comparable in any way with the Holocaust. That is not to say that Israel cannot be criticized with regard to treatment of Palestinians, but it is say that human decency demands that you not invoke comparisons to the Holocaust in doing it.

When the Palestinians stop terrorism and make some kind of reasonable peace proposal (which indicates acceptance that they will never control the land that constitutes Israel), then I will be sympathetic to the Palestinians. Until then, I will be more sympathetic to the Western democratic country that has a culture much more similar to our own and is doing its best under difficult circumstances.

Ricky:

I'm a realist Freeman3. I think most of the Palestinians should be compensated in some way for their loss. Not returned to their properties. I'm not making this arguement in order to justify Palestinians return

I don't have time to respond to all of Ricky's silliness, but just on this small point. You are not being a realist. At best you are being a provocateur.

There are no serious contributors to this discussion that think that monetary compensation is at the root. There have been sizeable compensation offers by the EU and others to the Palestinians. Most of them have been made behind the scenes, but some have been upfront. http://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-ready-t ... of-return/ . There are a lot of countries with a lot of money who would be willing to pay to have this conflict go away.

One has to ask, why exactly is Ricky making the compensation argument? Perhaps he is visiting anti-Semitic websites? Perhaps he is misguided? I don't know. The reality is that compensation has been offered time and time again. I don't see how you can make the compensation argument and claim that you are a realist at the same time.

Ricky:

People want to go home Ray. There is a book called `The Jews are coming Back`about the attempts by most jews to try and regain their homes after WWII (author: Banker I think) . Most didn`t decide to leave for Israel till they were turned away from their previous homes...

This is a very complicated subject and my best guess is that you know little about it. There were very different experiences, and it often depended on the country of origin. Whereas some Jews may have felt comfortable returning to Italy or France, others would have felt much less comfortable returning to say, Poland, where there were pogroms after the war had already ended. Also, many were reluctant to return to countries that were behind the iron curtain. Finally, it took a while to even know which of your family members were still alive and where you could find them.

In any case, you should provide some support for the statement:

Most didn`t decide to leave for Israel till they were turned away from their previous homes...

Finally, embedded in your statement are two factual errors. they couldn't just "decide to leave for Israel" for two very good reasons: 1. Israel did not yet exist, and 2. The Brits were blockading it.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/09/rocket-reportedly-fired-into-israel-from-gaza/380299/

Meanwhile, the hits just keep on comin'...

ray

This is a very complicated subject and my best guess is that you know little about it

I did read part of the book I recommended to you. Here's a critique of it..
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11343
But if you think you know more ok.I think you've demonstrated some gaps.

I'm glad you're now admitting its complex. Instead of
Ray

After you lose 6,000,000 of your brethren and 90% of the Jewish children of Europe are murdered, you don't really care about some home you used to live in

The fact is that the first place many if not most Jews went, was back to where they used to live.... They were looking for family members and hoping to repossess property... Wouldn't you do that?
In many places they weren't allowed to return and in most they were made to feel unwelcome... Poland was especially cruel.
That very specific tragedy is very similar to what has occured to Palestinian refugees who were barred from their homes by Israel law enforced by the IDF. ... And no, I don't think its insensitive to point out that similarity.

The descendants of Jews who lost property in WWII still seek the property back Freeman. Why shouldn't the descendant of Palestinians also make claims to lands they were forced from by Israel? What exactly is different about that? Is it just because they are Arabs?

freeman

Do you believe that the Holocaust occurred, Ricky? Because your casual attitude about it indicates at that very least a lack of human empathy about it

This is total bullshit and typical of the bullying language that comes when defenders of Israel are asked to confront some similarities between how Jews were treated, or Blacks in South Africa were treated under apartheid, and how Arabs are now treated in Palestine.
I've obviously refered to all all kinds of events that ocurred after the Holocaust and during the post war years so I know about them, and Im not being in any way casual about them. I'm sure that some of them may have been events that aren't featured in Israelis history synopsis. (Like the history of the Irgun.)
. But you throw in BS like Holocaust denier...
I think the line of reasoning your on is: The Jews Suffered in the Holocaust so its okay for them to take land from a bunch of Arabs." Is that in a nutshell where you come from? Just asking.

ray

Finally, embedded in your statement are two factual errors. they couldn't just "decide to leave for Israel" for two very good reasons: 1. Israel did not yet exist, and 2. The Brits were blockading it

.
There was an offfical quota that Britain allowed, and to which many displaced persons applied. Sure they were officially going to Palestine, but Zionists called it Israel already.
Many dislaced Jews spent a year or more after the war in Euorpean refugee camps regaining their health and deciding what to do next..
....plus
I also refer you to the Bricha Movement... Although the state did not yet officially exist, they were taking refugees to Israel and well before WWII officially ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricha

freeman

Yes, but a refugee is someone who left his homeland ...66 years have passed and very few Palestinians still qualify

Could we please confront the difference in the time when Jews left Israel and when they decided to return with a legitimate claim on the land?
Why is 1500 years okay but 66 years far too long Freeman? How do have the termity to make the claim that 66 years is too long and a generation away from a legitimate claim, but support the notion that an ancient claim has value?

So you're upset about being asked about being a Holocaust denier? Then stop making inappropriate comparisons with the Holocaust. If you really believe that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, then you should stop bringing up alleging similarities in how Israel treats Palestinians with how Jews were treated during WWII. The differences between the two are many, many orders of magnitude greater than any alleged similarities so stop doing it. What happened to the Jews in Europe does not justify any alleged mistreatment of Arabs, but it is offensive to conflate the two as being similar.

As for 66 years versus 2000 years, well, the Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine for many years prior to 1918. Then Great Britain had the Mandate until 1948. So it really is not 2000 years with regard to Jewish rights to the land---they were living there in 1948. Their main right to the land is that they resided on the land (they had connections to the land that went back thousands of years but their principal right was residence) The Palestinians resided there as well. They each had a right to the land. Since the Palestinian people had never governed the country they had no greater right to the land than the Jews living there. There was a proposed Partition, the Palestinians gambled on a complete victory and they lost. Actions have consequences. It's now 66 years later, the fraction of Palestinians who actually lived in Palestine prior to 1948 is a pretty small percentage of the total seeking Right of Return. If they want cash, I'm sure something can be arranged. If they want the land, they are going to have to take it back.How well is that going for them?

Ricky:

I've obviously refered to all all kinds of events that ocurred after the Holocaust and during the post war years so I know about them, and Im not being in any way casual about them.

I disagree. You are being extremely casual about them because you are droning on about how they are like Dorothy and just want to go home or have monetary compensation. You are suggesting that Israel is less moral than post WWII Europe because it isn't allowing Palestinians to return home or compensate them. As to returning home, there are very different fact patterns that you are casually ignoring. As to compensation, you are casually ignoring years of history where the Palestinians have been offered compensation as part of a larger deal and have not taken it. You are also casually ignoring the fact that in some cases Israel has made monetary compensation to the Palestinians.

Getting back to the big picture, I don't find your views to be realistic or moral. Your plans seems to be that Palestinians have a right to return to Israel proper AND that Palestinians have a right to a state of their own (which presumably will be Jew free as they do not recognize the settlements and there has been no discussion about those Jewish refugees from the West Bank in 47/48). Meanwhile a majority of Palestinians have not rejected violence and have not accepted a 2 state solution.

If you don't view the Palestinians right of return to Israel as necessary, why do you drone on about it? If compensation is sufficient, then you have no point, because compensation has been offered.

Finally, I do agree with you that Israel could do a better job in the West Bank; I also feel sorry for innocent Palestinians from 1948 or 1967 or 2014 for that matter. I also feel sorry for innocent Japanese people who happened to live in Hiroshima in 1945. History is filled with innocent victims. We suffer because of our leaders and the decisions that our countries and people make. It's always been that way, and I think it always will be. But putting the onus primarily on Israel makes no sense. Casually making comparisons to the Holocaust won't help you win arguments on these pages although you would fit right in on many websites.

The mission of Israel is to protect its current population. It would be immoral for the government to put its population at risk to satisfy some fantasy that the Palestinians are ready to live in peace and accept a 2-state solution. As the winner of the conflicts that the Arabs and Palestinians started, and especially considering the years of terrorism orchestrated by the Palestinians, Israel has every right to demand its security in exchange for giving the Palestinians another chance.

freeman3

So you're upset about being asked about being a Holocaust denier

I didn't say i was upset. I said that you asking the question is total bullshit.

ray

You are suggesting that Israel is less moral than post WWII Europe because it isn't allowing Palestinians to return home or compensate them

.

I'm asking you to compare the behaviours of other nations in response to the crimes of the Holocaust and the response of Israel to the calamity that befell Palestinians. And to how they treat Palstinians in the occupied lands.
Why?
In order to demonstrate that Israel isn't a moral paragon. It doesn't measure up.And in some ways it replicates policies inflicted on Jews in Europe.
Until defenders of Israel let the current policiies and behaviours and policies stand on their own merits without the armour of moral supremacy that israel proclaims as a defence at every turn they won't feel the need to change their policies.
.Witness the THE IDF is the most moral armed force in the world: loudly proclaimed to attempt to discredit soldiers protesting the occupation forces treatment of Palestinians..
Once Israel is seen in the light it should be, as a brutal occupation force who have exploited their dominant position then the need to prod them to accomodate Palestinian aspirations becomes more apparent.
But if they get a special pass, that accepts that they get to act bruatlly and exploit the region and its people for historical reasons.... If they get a dofferent standard of acceptable behaviour that one can't criticize ... They'll continue steam rolling the Palestinians.
(Please note, no where do I defend the Palestinians as morally superior... They aren't)

Ricky:

And in some ways it [Israel]replicates policies inflicted on Jews in Europe.

If that's what you think, you are unhinged from reality. Israel hasn't killed 90% of the Palestinian children who live in the Middle East. They haven't killed 2/3rds of the Palestinian people who were peacefully living in their society for hundreds of years. No one should lower themselves and engage in a debate with someone who stakes out such a ridiculous position.

"in some ways" =/= "in all ways"

Ricky is not denying the Holocaust. He's not diminishing it. He is comparing aspects to the way that Jews were treated with the ways that other people have been treated, but that does not mean he is claiming equivalence.

The Holocaust is not, I'm afraid, a taboo to be elevated above all discussion and comparison. Unfortunately there are parallels all through history and all over the world - many nowhere near as deadly or as disgusting, but this is a difference of degree, or of intent, rather than of completely different paradigm.

But the real question is what is moral now. Is it moral to bomb areas you know have civilians in? Is it moral to spy on people for purposes other than national security?

And if your response to such questions is to leap on the immorality of others, does that actually answer them? No. If you do submit that 'the Arabs' are undeserving lying scoundrels, then you should also not want them to be the yardstick of morality. Claiming to be more moral than they are is not really addressing objective morality - only subjective/relative.

No, you're wrong to justify the moral equivalency between the Holocaust and Israeli treatment of the Palestinians coming from Ricky. No one is saying here that what Israel is doing with regard to Palestinians has any immunity because of the Holocaust. There are issues and we can go back and forth on whether Israel is being too harsh with the Palestinians or whether they are at fault for there being no peace agreement. But it is crossing the line to compare Israel's behavior with what was done to Jews in the Holocaust. And Ricky was not that direct in making the comparison, but he was doing it. Oh it's ok for Jews to get money relating to the Holocaust but not Arabs to get Right of Return. Do you really think that is an appropriate comparison?
The dispute between Israel and Palestinians is a complex one. But look at Israel what was done with the desert (for the most part) they inherited-- they have turned it into an economic powerhouse. Did they base their country on being victims of the Holocaust--no! They have turned their country into the economic powerhouse through hard work and ingenuity. Meanwhile , the Palestinians are quibbling over getting 91 percent (later raised to about 96% with land swaps) and putting ancient claims over rights to land as an impediment to having their own country. The Palestinians need to stop playing the victim and maybe they can turn their country into an economic powerhouse. And that will have zero to do whether they get 91 percent or whatever and has nothing to do with Right of Return. We would probably would be doing them a favor if we turned off the money spigots to their aid as refugees and withheld that money only to be used in nation development ( by the way Owen I was reading an article indicating that some British aid money was being used by the Palestine Authority to help terrorists in jail...nice)
Or the Palestinians can keep complaining about their treatment as they elect Hamas and keep doing what they can to harm Israel. You can expect somewhat harsh treatment in those circumstances. The Palestinians have the key to their own freedom--they are quibbling over ridiculous issues as compared to their being able to run their country largely free from Israeli interference.

danivon wrote:"in some ways" =/= "in all ways"

Ricky is not denying the Holocaust. He's not diminishing it. He is comparing aspects to the way that Jews were treated with the ways that other people have been treated, but that does not mean he is claiming equivalence.

The Holocaust is not, I'm afraid, a taboo to be elevated above all discussion and comparison. Unfortunately there are parallels all through history and all over the world - many nowhere near as deadly or as disgusting, but this is a difference of degree, or of intent, rather than of completely different paradigm.

It's absolutely a different paradigm. These are very dissimilar things. It's a shame with all of these parallels all through history Ricky could not find any other to compare to. Do tell me all the ways in which the treatment of the Palestinians is similar to Hitler's treatment of the Jews; explain to me why this is the best historical comparison.

(cross posted with Freeman whose post is better, I admit.)