You dont hear many pop stars singing for palestine

[csirl]

Egypt has the most questions to answer about Gaza. This is part of Egypt, so they should be taking responsibility for the place and keeping the peace instead of locking its inhabitants in with a bunch of nutcase terrorists. Same goes for Jordan in relation to the West Bank.

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian" - these people are all Egyptians or Jordanians who have been abandoned by their fellow citizens.

 

[Sunny]

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian" - these people are all Egyptians or Jordanians who have been abandoned by their fellow citizens.

You might as well say there is no such thing as an Israeli.
Palestine is a recognised State by over 100 Countries and their right to self determination has been recognised by the UN and even Israel. The people living there and many people living outside consider themselves Palestinian. They deserve to recognised as such because as you say they have been abandoned by the Arab world. I certainly wouldn't take away any identity that they have tried to create for themselves.

 

[Nemesis]

The Palestinian people were sold out by the Arab League in the 40’s. Why is it that their oil rich neighbours can give them missiles and religious extremism but can’t give them money to build hospitals?
Israel does indeed have questions to answer, especially in how they administered the occupied territories since the 80’s and their policy of settlement in the West Bank, but while those in the Arab world that bleat about the Palestinians continue to oppress and subjugate their own people their criticism is deeply flawed and utterly hypocritical.

The West Bank; created by Jordan when it illegally invaded and took it by force from the UN mandated territory of Palestine with the rest of the then Arab League in 1948 in order to kill every Jew in Palestine, and taken by force by Israel in 1967 when the Arabs again invaded and tried to kill every Jew in Israel.
Gaza; created by Egypt when it illegally invaded and took it by force from the UN mandated territory of Palestine with the rest of the then Arab League in 1948 in order to kill every Jew in Palestine, and taken by force by Israel in 1967 when the Arabs again invaded and tried to kill every Jew in Israel.
The Golan Heights: Settled by both Jews and Arabs from the 1850’s onward. Jewish settlers who had put everything into building farms etc were expelled when it was given by Britain, when it part of British administered Palestine, to French administered Syria. Occupied by Israel after the ’67 invasion because of its strategic importance.

Hmmm, I thought we'd reached some kind of consensus on the main issues but from the tone of your post it appears not. Seems like I might have hit a raw nerve by taking issue with the idea that it's a simple black and white struggle between the forces of darkness and light. You seem to want to use this thread to hammer home one particular reading of history. Well as always with these conflicts a lot depends on when you choose to start the clock.

From reading your posts on this issue so far one might be forgiven for thinking history began in the 1940s. We all know the roots of this conflict stretch further back than that. Let's go back to 1900 under the Ottoman Empire. Do you accept the area was a predominantly Muslim and Arab land at that time and had been for generations? Certainly there was always a Jewish presence there but it was most definitely a minority at the time although growing as significant immigration had already begun at that stage. What's your interpretation of history from this point through World War I and most importantly during the British Mandate of Palestine? And of course I know we can also go back to biblical times to find the historic home of the Jews but if we were to apply that kind of thinking to the rest of the world then we could say that many nations had no right to live where they do today.

This is important in understanding Arab hostility to the establishment of the state of Israel. From an Arab perspective, Jerusalem and the land surrounding it was just as much a part of their homeland as anywhere else in the region. While we might have liked them to welcome all Jews who wanted to emigrate there, it is perhaps unrealistic not to expect tensions to rise as a result and resentment and hostility to follow. You only have to look at how people here get uneasy and uncomfortable with what they may see as uncontrolled immigration of different ethnic groups. Large scale immigration can create a feeling that one's identity is being threatened, that one's country is slowly being taken over by foreigners (not sentiments I share but I recognise that many do). Is it really that surprising that Arabs rejected what they saw as an alien intrusion on land they thought of as their own for more than a 1000 years? Would the Chinese and Russians have extended the arms of brotherly love to any group of Jews or indeed any other ethnic group who sought to establish a new state on their frontiers? I think not.

I would also point out that the issue over administration of the occupied territories does not just begin in the 1980s. It began almost immediately after the Israeli victory in the 1967 war. The first pioneers of the settlement movement were at work almost as soon as the soldiers had secured the ground. Large scale settlement did not commence until the beginning of the 1970s but was well established by the 1980s. So please don't try to casually minimise the issue. It is fundamental to understanding how the conflict has developed.

Finally you repeatedly state the Arabs wanted to "kill every Jew in Palestine" creating the impression that Arabs were almost on a par with Hitler in their intents towards the Jews. This is a misrepresentation of the situation. If the Arab states were as bloodthirsty towards the Jews as you imply, why had they not killed every Jew living within their own borders. Why did they not kill all Jews in an act of bloody retribution after the 1948 war. There was violence against them and many felt compelled to leave but then that was nothing different to what happened in India and Pakistan after independence. Yes, if I was a Jew living in Palestine in 1948 I would not want to find myself at the mercy of those Arab armies but throughout history armies have carried out atrocities against defeated civilian populations. To try and portray Arabs and Muslims as particularly evil in this regard is a distortion. If I was alive at the time I would want the Jews to win that conflict and not have to face the consequences of an Arab victory, the same in 1967 and 1973. However my position on the conflict has evolved as the reality on the ground has changed. The key issue today is the occupation and the expansion of settlements and the effect that has in frustrating the prospects for peace.

 

[Purple]

From your post I think it's safe to say that you know quite a bit about the history of the region. Therefore I take it that you are aware that under the proposed plan put forward by the UN in 1947 Jerusalem and the land surrounding it would have been made a UN administered area. The Arab League was not happy with that plan so they invaded the day after the UN took control of the area. The 1948 borders are a result of this attack.

My point about the administration of the occupied territories since the early 80's is in the context of the cessation of any real threat of aggression from Jordan, Syria or Egypt by that period. In that context there was no excuse for the lack in investment by Israel after this period (not that there was much real excuse before that period).
I was not suggesting that the settlement issue only became a problem at that time, nor have I attempted to minimise it. I am aware that it goes back much further than the early 80's. I have always found it utter folly that the most bigoted portion of the Jewish Israeli population dominated the interface between the Jews and Palestinians.

I am also sure that you are aware that the Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine since the 16th century and that a state called Palestine never existed in modern times, that there was extensive Arab emigration into British Mandated Palestine and that the senses carried out under Ottoman rule were utterly unreliable.

I am not excusing Israeli excesses during this conflict, its partial culpability in setting the stage for the current conflict or its slip toward a much more theocratic state but the notion that the Palestinian people have arrived in their current state of dejection by the actions of Israel alone is just false. The Ottomans, the Egyptians, the Crusaders, the Persians and the Romans before then have all kept the locals under foot.

The solution lies with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syrian and the USA. They all have to work together to sort things out (and Iran just has to bugger off).

 

[Ceist Beag]

Not a song for palestine but Tom Waits - The Road to Peace is a pretty good summing up of the whole mess!

 

[csirl]

You might as well say there is no such thing as an Israeli.
Palestine is a recognised State by over 100 Countries and their right to self determination has been recognised by the UN and even Israel. The people living there and many people living outside consider themselves Palestinian. They deserve to recognised as such because as you say they have been abandoned by the Arab world. I certainly wouldn't take away any identity that they have tried to create for themselves.

Palestine isnt officially recognised as a State by the United Nations.


People seem to be painting Israel as being wrong and saying that it should not exist. The reality is that you cannot shift the millions of people who live in Israel, most of whom were born there. You cannot also force them to accept rule by an arab/muslim minority or become part of an undemocratic arab regime. Solutions that inferr getting rid of the state of Israel are not realistic solutions.

I also do not think that a newly created state called Palestine is a realistic solution - 2 parts which are geographically remote from one another with slightly different ethnicity, little in the way of resources and effectively have sealed borders (by Egypt and Jordan as well as Israel).

The only realistic solution is for the West Bank to return to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. The West Bank was part of Transjordan which became the indepedent state of Jordan, but with its terrority reduced. The people are ethnically the same. A Jordan incorporating the West Bank is viable. Similarly the people of Gaza are mainly ethnic Egyptian and this area was previously part of Egypt. Gaza as a part of Egypt is viable.

Jordan & Egypt need to be made take responsibility for their people. The arab policy of sealing these people off in poverty/violence as a sick PR stunt in their proxy war with Israel is wrong. The people of these territories deserve proper rights and opportunities to lead normal productive lives.

 

[Sunny]

Palestine isnt officially recognised as a State by the United Nations.


People seem to be painting Israel as being wrong and saying that it should not exist. The reality is that you cannot shift the millions of people who live in Israel, most of whom were born there. You cannot also force them to accept rule by an arab/muslim minority or become part of an undemocratic arab regime. Solutions that inferr getting rid of the state of Israel are not realistic solutions.

I also do not think that a newly created state called Palestine is a realistic solution - 2 parts which are geographically remote from one another with slightly different ethnicity, little in the way of resources and effectively have sealed borders (by Egypt and Jordan as well as Israel).

The only realistic solution is for the West Bank to return to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. The West Bank was part of Transjordan which became the indepedent state of Jordan, but with its terrority reduced. The people are ethnically the same. A Jordan incorporating the West Bank is viable. Similarly the people of Gaza are mainly ethnic Egyptian and this area was previously part of Egypt. Gaza as a part of Egypt is viable.

Jordan & Egypt need to be made take responsibility for their people. The arab policy of sealing these people off in poverty/violence as a sick PR stunt in their proxy war with Israel is wrong. The people of these territories deserve proper rights and opportunities to lead normal productive lives.

Not being officially recognised as a State by the UN does not invalidate the wishes of the the people for an independent Palestinian State and certainly not the desire to be know as Palestinian. Thats their identity and they have the right to fight for it. Who are we to say they should become Egyptians. They don't want to go back to Jordan or Eygpt and why should they? Everyone including the UN recognises that the people have a right to self determination and yet you just want to stick them back in with Countries that abandoned them.

I am not sure what people you mean when you say people seem to be painting Israel as wrong and saying it should not exist. I don't think anyone here is saying that at all. The recent actions of the Israelis disgusted me and I won't apologise for openly criticising them but they certainly have a right to exist and they also have a right to defend themselves against terrorists. I just don't agree with how they go about defending themselves.

 

[Nemesis]

From your post I think it's safe to say that you know quite a bit about the history of the region. Therefore I take it that you are aware that under the proposed plan put forward by the UN in 1947 Jerusalem and the land surrounding it would have been made a UN administered area. The Arab League was not happy with that plan so they invaded the day after the UN took control of the area. The 1948 borders are a result of this attack.

When I say Jerusalem and the land surrounding it I'm alluding to all of what was Mandate Palestine. I wanted to highlight the position of Jerusalem in the territory and its special significance to Muslims. And the Zionist dream was always that one day Jerusalem would be the capital of a Jewish homeland. Muslims were also especially sensitive to what they saw as outside settlement in the wider area as it rekindled memories of the Crusades. Many still view the conflict with Israel through the pr1sm* of the Crusades and feel Israel is just a front for a wider Christian attempt to dominate the holy places and humiliate Muslims. Not a very rational or constructive view but you can perhaps see how such an idea can take hold given the past.

And of course I accept that the 1947 UN Partition Plan was a good deal for the Arabs and they were wrong to reject it. They thought they were in a position to take all of the land, they gambled and lost. However while the undemocratic ruling elites in other Arab states were ultimately responsible for this, it was the ordinary Palestinian Arabs on the ground who had to suffer the consequences and still have to live with that legacy today

My point about the administration of the occupied territories since the early 80's is in the context of the cessation of any real threat of aggression from Jordan, Syria or Egypt by that period. In that context there was no excuse for the lack in investment by Israel after this period (not that there was much real excuse before that period).
I was not suggesting that the settlement issue only became a problem at that time, nor have I attempted to minimise it. I am aware that it goes back much further than the early 80's.

Fair enough. I see what you mean now

I have always found it utter folly that the most bigoted portion of the Jewish Israeli population dominated the interface between the Jews and Palestinians.

That's a good line. I would certainly agree with that.

I am also sure that you are aware that the Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine since the 16th century and that a state called Palestine never existed in modern times, that there was extensive Arab emigration into British Mandated Palestine and that the senses carried out under Ottoman rule were utterly unreliable.

But are you saying that the region's essential character was not predominantly Muslim and Arab at this time? Even before the Ottomans, various Muslim caliphs ruled the territory. The first of these dates back to the 7th century. You have many centuries of Muslim Arab rule during which time the ethnic character of the region changed dramatically.

I am not excusing Israeli excesses during this conflict, its partial culpability in setting the stage for the current conflict or its slip toward a much more theocratic state but the notion that the Palestinian people have arrived in their current state of dejection by the actions of Israel alone is just false. The Ottomans, the Egyptians, the Crusaders, the Persians and the Romans before then have all kept the locals under foot.

The solution lies with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syrian and the USA. They all have to work together to sort things out (and Iran just has to bugger off).

Definitely Iran's meddling is a major complication. Some change to more moderate leadership in Teheran would be a great help in stabilising the region and opening some opportunity for peace.



* For some peculiar reason the forum software seems to think P R I S M is a bad word. Can't figure it out and at this stage can't be bothered trying to rephrase the sentence either

 

[csirl]

They don't want to go back to Jordan or Eygpt and why should they?

I dont think that there has been any meaningful consultation with the ordinary palestinian person as to what options are open to them and they dont seem to have been given much control over their own destiny. I would be hopeful that the nutcases that claim to speak on behalf of them do not really represent their wishes. From the outside it looks as if they are heavily intimidated by the foreign backed hamas and other radical terrorist groups. I would have about as much faith in their electoral system as those in certain oppressed countries where the incumbant dictator always gets 100% of the vote.

 

[Purple]

When I say Jerusalem and the land surrounding it I'm alluding to all of what was Mandate Palestine. I wanted to highlight the position of Jerusalem in the territory and its special significance to Muslims.

Jerusalem is the third most holy city of Islam. It's the holy city of the Jews.
The most holy city of Islam is Mecca. Non Muslims are barred from entering under threat of punishment by a Sharia judge (the punishment is not specified under penal code).

I know that Mecca is not the international city that Jerusalem is but it is interesting to see how non believers are treated in each faiths most holy cities.