Ricky:

Since virtually every comment on Hamas in American media includes the assertion that the group’s Charter rejects Israel’s right to exist, it’s worth noting the following from the Likud Platform of 1999:

At least it doesn't call for the killing of Muslims everywhere which would be the parallel to Hamas's Charter.

Ricky:

You'll note earlier that I laid much blame at the feet of the dictators in the Middle east for the non-creation of Palestine.

Yes, noted.

Ricky:

Without the original crime against Palestine, where would we be today?

Ignoring the hyperbole of the 1st half of your sentence, we don't really know what would have been. Perhaps there would still be a Sunni-Shia war? Perhaps there would still be an ISIS. Perhaps there would still be a 9/11 and a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Perhaps there would be about 20 Islamic states denying rights to women, engaging in various forms of ethnic cleansing, killing gays, etc. Perhaps Christians in Lebanon would be killing Muslims there, or vice-a-versa. Perhaps Syria would be in civil war. Perhaps people would blow themselves up in Afghanistan, Somalia, Kenya, etc. Perhaps there would be 800,000 Jews in the Middle East who were being wiped out the way Christians are being wiped out. Perhaps your computer would run slower. Perhaps Iran would already have the bomb and Saudi Arabia would start building one. Perhaps there would be a Palestinian state as bad as Syria? Be careful what you wish for.

Ricky:

I'll choose the neutral academics analysis....

It noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent).

No, that's not it. Ben Gurion's speech is about the area that was specifically set aside for a Jewish state by the UN in 1947. That part was predominantly Jewish. You are looking at the larger area that includes the West Bank and other parts that were to be a Palestinian state, which as you say, was mostly Arab..

ray

Ignoring the hyperbole of the 1st half of your sentence, we don't really know what would have been.

If it was a democratic Palestine...
I think the odds are that things would have better in the middle east.
Much of the problem in the Middle east is due to the machinations of despots and dictators ships and monarchies.

danivon wrote:And that same source also indicates why the leaders of Israel were happy to see many Christians and Muslims leave / expelled.

The same Wikipedia page points out that

Several scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.[81][82][83][84][85] Baruch Kimmerling has said that Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."[86]

The massacres at Deir Yassin and other places helped that along nicely, didn't they?

But of course, Jews returning to the land they were moved from, using force to push out the people living there is absolutely nothing like Palestinians trying to return to the land they were moved from, using force to push out the people there. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest so is clearly an anti-semite, amirite?

I am, of course, being sarcastic, but it is bizarre to complain that the Palestinians are somehow odd to want to restore their lost property from 40-70 years ago, and yet at the same time the Israelies were not odd to want to restore property lost up to 1850 years prior.

Yes, I did pick up on the sarcasm. I'll note that you are falsely accusing people (me?) of falsely accusing you of being an anti-Semite. You are doing what you protest against. Oy vey.

No, I don't think the Palestinians are odd for wanting to restore their lost property. I do wonder why the rest of the world is obsessed with that as the best solution whereas the world doesn't seek to return Hindus to their homes in Pakistan and Pakistanis to their homes in India. But that's not my central argument.

My central argument is that the Palestinians (and the Arabs before them) have engaged in a tremendous amount of violence and terrorism, and that has made it extremely hard for the Israelis to make peace with them.

No doubt your counter argument is that some early Zionists were violent, or that some Israelis have engaged in terrorism, or that some Zionists wanted all of Palestine including the West Bank, etc. But the difference is that in the main the leadership of the Zionist movement did not engage in terrorism. In the main the Zionists accepted the partition of Palestine. The terrorist movement and political party was folded into the mainstream society, and their military capability was absorbed into civilian control.

This contrasts with the Palestinian movement whereby the forces of the society are violent. There were many more massacres. The Arabs stated that their desire was to kill all Jews. That's still what Hamas says. I have to go so I'll leave it at that with one other point. In the fight over Palestine the Zionist objective was to hold on to as much land as possible, and to minimize casualties. The Arab objective appeared to be to drive the Jews into the sea. Since we are all fond of game theory, we can safely say that the Zionists had a much better handle on objectives, strategy, and tactics. That's not a crime.

ray

My central argument is that the Palestinians (and the Arabs before them) have engaged in a tremendous amount of violence and terrorism, and that has made it extremely hard for the Israelis to make peace with them.

They engage in violence and terrorism because their lands are occupied and they are subject to miserable existence in apartheid like conditions. Which is also a pretty good reason to hate the people who are oppressing you.
Please acknowledge that the conditions for Palestinians are not pleasant. They are denied many freedoms and are subject to the whim of the IDF on many levels. As we saw earluer, even on the construction of wells, and purification plants...
The have reason to resent.
The conflicts have also not cost the Israelis as much as it has cost the Palestinians. The recent Gaza conflict for example cost 1200 Palestinians their lives, including 268 children. The IDF suffered 70 dead, and there were 2 Israelis civilians from rockets
If its hard fr the Israelis to make peace, surely its harder for the people who've suffered more?
The Israelis are dominant. For all the terror that Palestinians can wreak, the Israelis aren't in danger of losing their overwhelming control of the region. So the only thing really stopping them from making peace, is their own hatred towards Arabs.
You ask why Arabs won't just accept their fate and deal with the cars being dealt them? Why should they?
I ask why the Israelis can't obey their religion and behave towards the Palestinians the way they would want to be treated if the positions were reversed...

Ricky:

Please acknowledge that the conditions for Palestinians are not pleasant.

Fully acknowledged.

Ricky:

So the only thing really stopping them [Israelis] from making peace, is their own hatred towards Arabs.

Not acknowledged. The Israelis have made peace with Egypt and Jordan so clearly "hatred toward Arabs" is not a reasonable conclusion.

Let me make the following observations:

( 1) Ricky has the causation backwards. The Palestinians are not reacting to how Israel is treating them and that is causing the Palestinians to commit terrorism; Israel is reacting to the Palestinians' terrorism. After all, Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel since 1948, they did not just start after the occupation of the West Bank in 1967.

(2) The Palestinians are only willing to come to agreements that are stepping stones to eventual taking back what they consider their land . Palestinian ten point stage plan. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO%27s_ ... nt_Program
Statements made by Arafat at the time of Oslo to Arab audiences indicate that he never gave up on the idea of defeating Israel. Thus, Palestinian recognition of Israel was just a ploy to advance the Palestinian cause, not an attempt at permanent peace. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/edit ... story.html
The lack of a counter-offer in 2000 was surely due to a reluctance to actually come to a peace agreement. Then there was the launch of the Second Intifada. Abbas recently called for international recognition of the Palestinian state, again an attempt to gain something without concessions
(3) I could see that perhaps that the agreement to the Partition might have been a tactical decision, that Jewish leaders really wanted more, but what if the Arabs agreed to the Partition Plan, too? I don't think you can complain about Jewish agreement to the Partition Plan--they agreed and the Arabs did not.

(4) other than Jerusalem (and that is attachment shared by Arabs in general)I can't see the Palestinians have attachment to the land similar to the religious significance attached to the land by the Jews. No religious attachment to the land, no distinct Palestinian language , no prior Palestinian nation , or distinct Palestinian culture. Palestinian nationalism was in response to Jewish immigration. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism
But whatever the cause they do seem to have a consciousness of being a people and should have a country but it need not be 100 percent of the West Bank. It 's not like they had the West Bank before, Jordan did. And if Israel needs part of the West Bank for security, well I don't think that is an unreasonable accommodation. If Arabs had not tried to destroy Israel several times then maybe Israel having any part of the West Bank would be more problematic.
1948 was for the most part a struggle between neighboring Arab states against Israel. Palestinian nationalism appears to be rooted in hatred of Israel.

(5) While there are extremists in Israel who don't want to make peace with The Palestinians it is not a tenet or foundational belief of their culture. I am sure there are some Palestinians who want to make peace with Israel but I believe it is a core belief of their culture to not accept peace with Israel. That is what I believe , anyway. Arafat felt the need to reassure Arab audiences that Oslo was just a tactical move on the path of ultimate victory. Hopefully , as RJ 's rabbi wished , there will arise a Palestinian figure who can change it. Until then the status quo.

( 6) don't underestimate the role of oil in Western opinion towards the conflict. Countries dependent on middle eastern oil have an economic reason to favor the Palestinians.

So that is the fundamental disagreement that I have with you, Ricky. I don't believe the Palestinians are willing to make peace with Israel. Their own reason for being a people is to get back the land they believe was taken away from them by Israel. Peace would equal humiliation.

freeman3

( 1) Ricky has the causation backwards. The Palestinians are not reacting to how Israel is treating them and that is causing the Palestinians to commit terrorism; Israel is reacting to the Palestinians' terrorism. After all, Arabs have been trying to destroy Israel since 1948, they did not just start after the occupation of the West Bank in 1967

Trying to unrival a causation loop as long and continuous as the one in Israel/Palestine is a worthless exercise. And only engaged in as a distraction.
For the record the first incident I can find of Palestinian terrorism was in 1965.
The maascres at Deir Yassin and other places in 1947 predated them. As did forced expulsions. Before that, was Israelis terrorism, like the bombing f the King David Hotel...
The security zones, the confiscation of land, the denial of access to resources, those are ongoing every day conditions Freeman.. The EU sanctions being proposed are a reaction to the continuous Israel treatment of Palestinians... So I'm not alone in seeing those conditions as crimes.
You can claim that "they hit us first .." (Your essential argument..)
But really, if Zionists had not come to the region from the 1880s, there would be no conflct today... wasn't that the origin of the conflict?
And isn't everything thats come since the repercussion of that?
The point being, not who's right or wrong. There's plenty of blame to go around. There are no moral actors in the conflict. The Israelis have always claimed a moral superiority but their conduct as occupiers is not. Their conduct in the conflicts, starting with 1947, has not been pure.

Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics — including its name in Arabic, Filastin — became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314.” Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine.”

freeman

(4) other than Jerusalem (and that is attachment shared by Arabs in general)I can't see the Palestinians have attachment to the land similar to the religious significance attached to the land by the Jews. No religious attachment to the land, no distinct Palestinian language , no prior Palestinian nation , or distinct Palestinian culture. Palestinian nationalism was in response to Jewish immigration

This is an attitude common to the colonial period. The indigenous people were just taking up space were they? Our God, bequeathed this land to us, so the natives have to move on.... (How often has religion used to justify the eradication of an indigenous population?)

If the Palestinians, who owned 93% of the land that was to become Israel, had no connection to their land, why did they have to be forced off. And why is it they have to be kept from returning by force?
That Palestine wasn't a national entity before the 1930's is a product of centuries of colonialism. That it isn't a national entity now is the same.
The occupation of the areas intended for a Palestinian state by Israel is just a continuation of colonialism.

Ricky:

For the record the first incident I can find of Palestinian terrorism was in 1965.

Always happy to help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand ... _Palestine)

The Black Hand (Arabic: الكف الاسود (transliteration) al-Kaff al-Aswad‎) was an anti-Zionist and anti-British militant organization in the British Mandate of Palestine. It was founded in 1930 and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam,[1] whose preaching was instrumental in laying the foundations for the formation of the Black Hand, which he used to proclaim jihad and attack Jewish settlers.[2] The idea for such a group appeared to crystallize after the 1929 riots, though one source says a decision was taken after the Day of Atonement incitement at the Wailing Wall in September 1928.

From the outset a split occurred in the organization, with one militant group led by Abu Ibrahim arguing for immediate terror attacks, while the other headed by al-Qassam thought an armed revolt premature, and risked exposing the group's preparations. According to Subhi Yasin, the terror attacks in the north were executed by the dissident group in defiance of Qassam, though in 1969 Abu Ibrahim denied these allegations. The ensuing terror campaign began with the ambush and murder of three members of Kibbutz Yagur, 11 April 1931, a failed bombing attack on outlying Jewish homes in Haifa, in early 1932, and several operations that killed or wounded some four members of northern Jewish settlements. It climaxed with the deaths of a Jewish father and son in Nahalal, from a bomb thrown into their home, on 22 December 1932.[3]

Ricky:

You can claim that "they hit us first .." (Your essential argument..)

That's not Freeman's (or my) essential argument. The essential argument is that there is no confidence that the Palestinians can be trusted as partners in peace. (BTW, Freeman expresses himself extremely well; much better than I do, in my opinion.)

Ricky:

If the Palestinians, who owned 93% of the land that was to become Israel,

source?

Ricky:

If it was a democratic Palestine...
I think the odds are that things would have better in the middle east.
Much of the problemin the Middle east is due to the machinations of despots and dictators ships and monarchies.

Regarding your first sentence, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Earlier you say that the Arabs hated Israel because it is a democracy, and not because it is Jewish. That one never passed the smell test.

Regarding your 2nd sentence, who knows. I wonder if Iraq would have the bomb ... that's scary to contemplate.

I definitely agree with your last sentence. (Not quite up to Meatball standards, but one out of 3 ain't bad.)