Implications of a Palestinian state

[NewsGuy]

Now that the UN has adopted the US-sponsored resolution that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state, the reality of Palestine seems closer than ever.

What will the establishment of a Palestinian state mean? What will the implications be to Israel? To the world?

[cerulean]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
What will the establishment of a Palestinian state mean? What will the implications be to Israel? To the world?

Bush can put "Palestine" at the top of the axis of evil list? I would fully expect it to earn a place there within a few months of existence.

[Flame]

Considering arafat pilfired billions on terrorism, rather than building an infrastructure for his future... all I see is another loose cannon rogue nation, to be used by the arab world for close range attacks.

I think they should just start the show already, get the state... show the world what they really are about and the minute the first attack happens, crush them. They will never accept a state because they love to play victim too much... I'm sure they'll still figure out a way to do both.

The US really needs to drill in Alaska and get the hell out of the ME. They have us by the balls. We are no longer this super power... not when the arabs tell us what to do and the state dept bends over backward to kiss their ass.

If anyone has AOL... dump it! This just helps the saudi prince. ITs disgusting that american businesses allow foreign investors, especially the likes of the saudis.

[NewsGuy]

The world knows that many Palestinians are terrorists, and that the Palestinian leadership pays for the terrorist infrastructure directly from money donated by the Europeans and the US.

Still, no one really cares at all so long as it is Jews who are murdered by the Palestinians.

It was never really a matter of who has a moral right to the land of Israel or who is the real victim. It was always a matter of the Arabs having the oil that fuels the world's economies.

So why would it be different in this regard if there is a Palestinian state or not? How would it change the world's perception to see that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel after they have a country?

We already know that Palestinian terrorism will continue (like Hizbullah in Lebanon) because they will always claim that not enough land was given to them, or not enough refugees were allowed back, etc., even if the UN itself rubber stamps a peace treaty.

I think that the main implication will be that Israel will be much more constrained not to react to Palestinian terrorism, because the world will then claim that Israel would be guilty of invading another country and will be compared (mark my words) to Iraq invading Kuwait.

[ibrodsky]

I have to disagree with you Newsguy.

I think if the Palestinians get a state under terms they agreed to, then they have no excuses left.

Sure, some people will still blame the Jews no matter what happens. But we must assume that countries that abide by rule-of-law would see that a deal was made and not kept.

My concern is more pragmatic: if the Palestinians get a state and then just use it to launch attacks on Israel -- as I'm sure they will -- even if twenty Western countries object, what are they going to do about it? Particularly when most Arab and Islamic states will come up with new grievances and pass various resolutions in their favor in the UN.

But I don't think the Palestinians want a state unless it is militarily advantageous to them. Hopefully, Israel will never agree to it.

[L@mplighterM]

Well Israel did invade Lebanon and it eventually ended with Arafat and his boys being sent off to Tunesia.

I don't believe for one moment that the establishment of a new state would be unconditional. There would be UN observers to hopefully keep the Palestinians out. Further Israel could divert more resourses to secure the borders.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I have to disagree with you Newsguy.

That's ok, it's been done before. :D

[McSceptic]

I imagine any future Palestinian state would be heavily demilitarised (although that was tried with Germany after 1919, without a great deal of success).

I don't imagine it would make a great deal of difference to Israel's strategic security. Continuing advances in missile technology mean it won't make a great deal of difference if the opposition are 5kms or 25kms away.

Providing other Arab regimes agreed not to approach troops within a certain distance of the borders, it could work for a while and that's all anyone can ever hope for.

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Now that the UN has adopted the US-sponsored resolution that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state, the reality of Palestine seems closer than ever.



Wasn't this contingent upon the PA undergoing "reform"? Like, a Prime Minister INSTEAD of Arafat?

Now I see in today's headlines that Arafat is considering "replacing" the person HE picked for Prime Minister to replace him.

I feel like I'm at the Mad Hatter's tea party.

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by Flame
I think they should just start the show already, get the state... show the world what they really are about and the minute the first attack happens, crush them.

Again, I simply do not understand the mindset of people who get rid of one terrorist regime (Saddam Whathisname) and are all for CREATING another!

"The minute the first attack happens...." How would you define "the first attack"? Killing more than a dozen teenaged kids in line at a disco? Been there, done that. Killing 29 mostly elderly people at a Passover Seder at a hotel in Israel? Been there, done that. Blowing up people at a supermarket? Been there, done that. Shooting to death a 5 year old cowering under her bed at her home in the middle of the night? Been there, done that. Ad nauseum.

And just WHO will "crush them"? Nobody's ALLOWED the Israeli Army to do bupkes. We could have "crushed them" years ago, the IDF have advanced beyond bows and arrows. Instead, our own men have endangered their lives in order to carefully target only the murderers, and the world has screeched its head off.

sigh

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I think if the Palestinians get a state under terms they agreed to, then they have no excuses left.

Sure, some people will still blame the Jews no matter what happens. But we must assume that countries that abide by rule-of-law would see that a deal was made and not kept.

But I don't think the Palestinians want a state unless it is militarily advantageous to them. Hopefully, Israel will never agree to it.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

The Palestinians want a state that includes Jerusalem, and a Jerusalem that is Judeinrein. This is not acceptable.

The Palestinians want a state that imposes the right of return to ISRAEL of all who allegedly left as refugees, PLUS all their descendants. This is not acceptable.

Most important, the Palestinians are determined to win their state by force, by terror. And these are the "moderates". The "non-moderates" want to destroy Israel and kill all non-Moslems who had the temerity to live on "Moslem" soil.

Arafat, the Egyptian representing the Palestinian people, signed the Oslo Accords, which was a contract. He did not comply with any of the terms which he was supposed to, or at least not for very long. There WERE bilateral patrols......until a Palestinian killed one of his Israeli patrol-mates. They were limited in the number and types of weapons. Scratch that one. And how many times did Arafat "promise" to foreswear terrorism? It is ludicrous. Extradite murderers to Israel? Name ONE TERM that Arafat has consistently complied with.

When they were supposed to have "elections" as part of the "reform", Arafat called them off on a clearly flimsy excuse that the Israelis had carried out a search-and-capture mission. A Prime Minister was to have been appointed to supplant, replace, Arafat. Who chose him (and is now reconsidering his choice)? Arafat. Now, isn't this the fox guarding the chicken coop?

First, Arafat either dies or rots in an American jail. Then, the Americans go in with an administrative governor for at least 10 years. Rewrite school textbooks. Create an infrastructure. Administer funds to build a country out of nothing. NO police force of Palestinians, only foreigners, until the Palestinians have shown themselves capable of tolerance, and understanding what human rights really are about.

Arabs simply do not recognize what you called "rule-of-law". They do not have to, according to their religion. The Koran cites Mohammed making a peace deal with a city, and then breaking it, because the city was infidel.

[wellofvow]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM

I don't believe for one moment that the establishment of a new state would be unconditional. There would be UN observers to hopefully keep the Palestinians out. Further Israel could divert more resourses to secure the borders.

UN observers??? :mad: Oy, gimme a break.

Nasser told U Thant to get the UN guarding the Sinai border out of Egypt, and out they went, like little lambs.

UN "observers" made a lovely video of 3 Israeli soldiers in Israeli territory being either killed or kidnapped, and not only did they not intervene or even report it, but they refused to hand over the video to the Israelis until long after it was a humanitarian scandal, and the boys, one a Druse, were dead.

UN personnel in the West Bank have protected terrorists and obstructed the Israeli army when it moved in to do what Arafat "promised" to do himself in the Accords.

I don't get what you wrote about "Israel could divert more resources to secure the borders". Don't you know that Israel is going bust? What resources? Our oil revenues? Allevai! Revenue from tourism? Dozens of hotels have closed. Whole towns are devasted by unemployment. Subsistence funds to the disabled are being cut. Companies fold every week. ISRAEL IS BROKE.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
What will the establishment of a Palestinian state mean? What will the implications be to Israel? To the world? Beleive it or not, for a second I believed NewsGuy could actually be constructive and courageous enough to advance toward an equitable settlement.... and then I read the thread.

Back to the question. My opinion is
"a palestinian state will change absolutely nothing in these conditions"



I think Israelis should first apologize for what they have done to palestinians. After that, a painful and difficult peace process could be initiated on this basis.


I'm pretty sure not even one among you could even dream of asking palestinians for forgiveness. You are going to tell me things like "they attacked us" or "they never existed".

[Mediocrates]

I'm pretty sure the Pals should come to deal and forget about all that hairy chested honor nonsense or they can get all their showers out of a bucket for the next 100 years. If all they want is kowtowing and big-man-of-the-village fealty they can, as they say screw themselves.

[Canajew]

I think Israelis should first apologize for what they have done to palestinians. After that, a painful and difficult peace process could be initiated on this basis.


Are you on drugs?

First. Israel should not apologize to the Palestinians. Almost everything that the Palestinians have endured since they launched the current terrorist/guerilla war is the fault of their leadership. Were the current conflict never to have happened (i.e. if it were not launched by the Palesinians), it is almost certain that there would be an independent Palestine today.

Might not be as big as they want, might not be totally free of Jews, might not have resulted in the destruction of Israel as a jewish state, might not have been militerized, but still a state of their own.

That they suffer through curfews and checkpoints, and that they suffer the death and injury of innocents, is obviously regrettable, but the primary responsibility of the Israeli governemnt is to its citizenry. To prevent a hostile actor, given funding and sanction by a party with whom you are at war, from targeting and killing your women and children by imposing closures and roadblocks is fully justified. It is the acts of the terrorists and those authorizing their behaviour which are responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Can I ask a correlary question - In Canada we have something called the RIDE progrma. Basically, police are authorized to pull over any car on the road without cause in order to determine whether the driver has been drinking. Violates search and siezure protection in the Charter of Rights, but has been deemed by the courts to be reasonably justifyable in a free and democratic society.

Now, my question: Who should Canadians blame for this intrusion? Whose fault is this depravation of rights? The Canadian government? The Canadian Courts? or drunk drivers as a class who have caused the government to act in this manner? Now, if youre inclination is to option 3, can you explain how this fundamentally differs from closures and checkpoints created to prevent attacks against civilians?

Your first inclination might be to suggest that attacks against civilians would end were Israel not an "occupying power", or some variant on this theme. Noble thought, but false. However, even given that it were true, should the government of Israel place the security of its citizens at the mercy of a hostile and corrupt Palestinian Authority (or the Palestinian government once it is independent)?

Given
(a) Palestinians' (and Arab) past behaviour;
(b) the large elements of Palestinian society which are not prepared to cease fighting under any circumstances less than the total destruction of Israel;
(c) the continued attacks by Hezballah (and, by extension, by Lebanon, Syria and Iran) in the North, notwithstanding Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon; and
(c) Israel's security concerns vis a vis the rest of the Arab world,
Israel cannot withdraw from these territories right now.

To do so would be a fundamental derilication of its duty to protect its citizenry. Even if all attacks would, in fact, stop (an almost certainly false assumption) were Israel to withdraw, how are the Israelis to know this? If a free and democratic government, acting on its best intelligence, genuinely believes that another will continue to target its civilians, is it not justified in protecting against this contingency, even if it were in fact not true?

Further, Israel believes that any further act of compromise would be seem as a sign of weekness in the Arab world, not so unreasonable a perspective given the Arab world's beliefs surrounding Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. To again unilaterally compromise with the Palestinians would only encourage more violence by the Arabs. While you may not agree with this perspective, given that Israel DOES believe this, and given that it has ample reason to believe it, it provides additional impetus to the Israeli government sitting tight until the Arabs are truly ready to make peace.


Second: "After that, a painful and difficult peace process could be initiated on this basis."

What basis is that? That we're sorry, please forgive us and let us know what you want and we'll get it for you?

It is fairly clear that you perceive both the origin of the conflict post-WWII and its continuance today to be primarily the fault of Israel. Naturually, from this perspective, all that is necessary to end the conflict is for Israel to change its behaviour, apologize for any harm it caused, and make reparations.

Problem is, your premise is wrong. While trivially you are correct (as if Israel never existed none of this would be happening), the primary cause of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the failure of Arab governments in 1947/8 to recognize Israel and sign peace treaties (or at least non-aggression treaties - did you know that the "armistace" between Israel and the Arabs after the War of Independence not only failed to recognize Israel's right to exist but expressly permitted continued aggression by the Arabs against Israel?). It was this continued agression by Israel's Arab neighbours which has led to so much Palestinian suffering.

Israel never attacked Palestine, they pre-empted an attack by Egypt (though as the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of war, Israel's actions could not necessarily be considered a "pre-emptive war"). The west bank was seized because of continuous terrorist/guerilla attacks eminating from Jordan's west bank, and was triggered by Jordanian shelling and ariel bombardment during the conflict with Egypt. Israel was prepared to ignore the terorist attacks which had eminated from Jordan for decades up until that point. The Jordanians were warned, yet they still attacked.

From this perspective, the Palestinians are owed an apology from Jordan and Egypt far more than from Israel.

As to the current manifestation of the conflict, it started when the Palestinian Authority launched an "uprising" while the Israelis were talking (and mentally preparing for) peace.


I'm pretty sure not even one among you could even dream of asking palestinians for forgiveness. You are going to tell me things like "they attacked us" or "they never existed". [/B]

My above answer falls within your "they attacked us" train of thought. Freely admitted. But this does not make the argument untrue. Again, whereas you believe that the Israelis initiated the conflict, it was the Arabs who declared war on Israel, and it was the Arab nations which maintained that state of beligerency over decades. Given this (for a moment, assume that all of this is true notwithstanding any reservations you may have), do the Israelis still owe the Palestinians an apology? Maybe after there has been peace for a long time, but certainly not now.

Maybe after true peace between the people. Maybe before the current uprising. But Palestinians' embrace of suicide terrorism targeting women and children has deeply injured Israeli's faith in the Palestinians as civilized people. To many Israelis, apologizing to the Palestinians would be equivalent to apologizing to canibals for being too sinewy.

So, to sum up, Israel should not apologize because:
(a) they started it;
(b) they can stop it whenever they want (they being the various Palestinian organizations, not the PA, which I doubt would be able to without civil war);
(c) to apologize would be to encourgae more violence;
(d) the actions of the Palestinians in the present conflict have been abjectly disgusting, and their culture is now one of the most depraved on earth (someone contest this please!! which culture is worse than the "cult of death, child martyrdom, suicide bombing" Palestinian culture? Tibet?) and to make any overtures to them before they stop would be to condone it, counter productive, and would only encourage more of that behaviour.

Why don't the Arab nations apologize to the Palestinians? Why don't their leaders? Why don't they forget about apologies, turn their backs on the cult of death and start work on building a civil society (this can happen before independence - look at Israel - civil from the get go).

Better yet, why doesn't the Arab world apologize to BOTH the Israelis and the Palestinians for using both as pawns in their domestic squabbles? Then they can make peace with Israel, Israel can make peace with the Palestinians and we can all live happily ever after.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by yehudi
Back to the question. My opinion is
"a palestinian state will change absolutely nothing in these conditions" I agree, once a terrorist, always a terrorist. Things will only get worse, if (god forbids) a "Palestinian state" will be established in the region. I much rather to see an Islamist (Iran like) state instead of france, then I'll call it "freedom and equality" to the Arabs.... what do you say?


I think Israelis should first apologize for what they have done to palestinians. After that, a painful and difficult peace process could be initiated on this basis. I think that France has to apologize to everybody elses for it exists, then for its imperialism, racism, antisemetism, anti americanism, anti freedom for Iraq, pro Saddam and other tyranical ragime to make greedy frenchies rich of the expance of the pains and bloods of these tyranical ragimes... need I go on?

Had israel behaived one part of a thousand like the French, there was no Intifada... and no Arabs in the region either.

I see no reason for us, Jews, to "apologize" to anybody. Until I see French people apologize for their own crimes against humanity, I have a proof of your double standards: demanding JEWS to apologize for false alegations, while you avoid apologizing for real crimes you French are reponsible for, some of them, belong to your own generation.

BTW, double standards is the softer word of anti semetism.

Also, I hate you alias. see this (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=49490#post49490)


I'm pretty sure not even one among you could even dream of asking palestinians for forgiveness. You are going to tell me things like "they attacked us" or "they never existed". You got THAT right for a change

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
I agree, once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
I believe that there would be no terrorism if the politic of Israel was (very) different, or of course if there was no Israel, but I don't think this latter alternative is acceptable.

I do not agree with 'once a terrorist, always a terrorist" either


Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Things will only get worse, if (god forbids) a "Palestinian state with be established in the region. I much rather to see an Islamist (Iran like) state instead of france, then I'll call is "freedom and equality" to the Arabs.... what do you say? Sorry please clarify your question I find it unclear.


Originally posted by Gilgamesh I think that France has to apologize to everybody elses for it exists, then for its imperialism, racism, antisemetism, anti americanism, anti freedom for Iraq, pro Saddam and other tyranical ragime to make greedy frenchies rich of the expance of the pains and bloods of these tyranical ragimes... need I go on? No thanks. There are certainly wrongs to be recognized, but I believe france has gone a long way already. You seems to beleive Israel is perfect

I do not

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Also, I hate you alias. I make note of this, but I'm not sure changing my nickname could be of any help concerning any dialog with you

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Canajew
Are you on drugs? No :)

Thanks for your long and argumented post, Cana but I probably will not have enough time to answer this week. I guess you find some interest in my suggestion however provocative it may seem on this forum. Also please be tolerant with me I certainly have many more things to learn.


My vision of palestinians is "people who simply wished to live on the land of their ancestors and where disturbded by a massive arrival of foreigners overs the years".

They where partly expelled, partly integrated into Israel and partly rejected into a small portion of the land they used to occupy.

They certainly have been instrumentalized etc.. still they are victims and people fighting against what they feel is an invading force. That's why I think Israel should accept her responsibility because that could be the start of a peace process.

lol no I'm not on drugs, only on holidays... but my guess is there will be no official apologies before many years. But there should be and many Israelis recognize this.

recognizing wrongdoings does not mean the end of Israel.

[NewsGuy]

Interesting that this thread was started a year ago, and now it's at the top of the news again.

The Palesitnian state looms, as it seems that Arafat agreed to have Dahlan serve under Abu Mazen on condition that Dahlan makes no more than symbolic gestures to fight terrorism.

At the same time, Arafat will have the right to inject several of his henchmen into the new Palestinian "government," to ensure that violence and massacres of Israelis and Americans remain a cornerstone of Palestinian policy.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by yehudi
I think Israelis should first apologize for what they have done to palestinians. After that, a painful and difficult peace process could be initiated on this basis.
In the year and a half that I have been monitoring this board, this statement stands out as the single most ignorant formation of words that I've thus far read.

And that's saying a lot given the fact that takeo posts so voluminously.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by yehudi
I believe that there would be no terrorism if the politic of Israel was (very) different, or of course if there was no Israel, but I don't think this latter alternative is acceptable.

And I believe there were no terrorism is France was to cease to exist.

No thanks. There are certainly wrongs to be recognized, but I believe france has gone a long way already. You seems to beleive Israel is perfect

I don't think France, or any other majore european country had done any progress at all! However, I do wonder how come France has never apologized for its crimes against humanity and against the Jewish people. Will france apologize?

I do not see are reason for Israel to apologize for anything. Israel is morally perfect. Zionism is morally just and perfect. I am a proud Zionism. Any body who is anti Zionist is an anti semetic.

I hate your alias still! You both atempted to decive (by your own admition) and you picked the name of an infamous anti zionist self hater jew. Manuchin himself was a walking insult, and your choise of alias is most offensive. see here! (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=49490#post49490)

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by yehudi
My vision of palestinians is "people who simply wished to live on the land of their ancestors and where disturbded by a massive arrival of foreigners overs the years".


Care to trace back the Palestinians to their ancestors please? You'd see most of them ARE ancestors, since just before the creation of Israel they were trans-jordanians or southern Syrians. But I guess that little fact slipped through your siv of knowledge.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by yehudi
My vision of palestinians is "people who simply wished to live on the land of their ancestors and where disturbded by a massive arrival of foreigners overs the years".
The land of Arab ancestors is undisturbd. Their land lie to the north, the east and the south west of Israel: in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan (aka east Palestain), Iraq... every "palestinian" knows exactly where he's real roots are. The land of Israel ain't one of them.

Also, Jews are no foreigners to this land. we are the indigenous dwelrs, whose lands are stolen by foreign occupayers who plan also to use anti semtism and public prusser to rob us for our rights, too. I had expacted you imperialistic europeans known better about land theft and occupation. However, I lern the hard way the bottomlessness of your hypocracy.

Will France apologize for its crimes, or not?

[Arabs were] partly rejected into a small portion of the land they used to occupy.
Not true and quite false. I see it as an example of your to spread lible and disinformation. An act of an antisemite.

They certainly have been instrumentalized etc.. still they are victims and people fighting against what they feel is an invading force. That's why I think Israel should accept her responsibility because that could be the start of a peace process. What they feel or think is beside the issue. Mass murder of unarmed civilians, men, women and children just because they were born Jewish, is a crime against humanity. Its reasons can only be anti semetic hate. Terrorism is an orginizaed hate crime.

Will you ask the Arabs to apologize for their crimes?

But there should be and many Israelis recognize this Like who? Uri Avineri? Don't listen to these fringe leftic extremist like Avineri or Chomsky. They are intelectuals for hire. Their words match only their bank account. They are paid to say what ever they are asked for. For the right sum, they would certainly deny the holocuast and praise Stalin. Ignore them, the do not represent the every day Israeli, I do!

recognizing wrongdoings does not mean the end of Israel. Yes it is.
1. I, and most Israelis do not feel Zionism is morally wrong, that we have to apologize about it.
2. I don't see Arabs apologizing for the many crimes they did against us, so the whole suggestion stinks with antisemtism and double standareds.
3. Admition in the so called "wrongs" caused by Zionism, drops the moral base for the existance of Israel. Unlike you european hypocrates, we do care about morallity.

We Jews see Zionism in higher morall degree then anything else. We don't see any reason to apologize for our existance or our basic human rights. What ever "wrongs" alegedly caused by Zionism to the Arabs, its the Arab's fault. Not ours. They begun the wars, they started the pogroms against Jews in Israel as well as the terrorism. They reaptedly lost. So tough!

[Canajew]

Originally posted by yehudi
[B]

I guess you find some interest in my suggestion however provocative it may seem on this forum. Also please be tolerant with me I certainly have many more things to learn.


Tolerance is something I am pretty good at, and I am quite aware that an individual and his or her opinions are two different things. I would also like to tell you that I have a fair amount of discomfort with some of the abuse that is fetted out to dissenting opinion holders on this site. I personally think that the quick resort to terms such as "anti-semite" "facist" etc. do not result in legitimate criticism of opinion, rather they attempt to obfuscate issues by smearing those that hold them.

Setting all this aside, I am concerned with your comment that "I guess you find some interest in my suggestion however provocative it may seem on this forum."

As an aside, this is only my 2nd post and provoking the forum does not particularly concern me (I'm sure my opinions would and will provoke many people here as well).

However, with respect to "I guess you find some interest in my suggestion," my interest stems not from the "interestingness" (if you would permit me to use a made up word) of the proposition, but rather because it reveals much about your world-view surrounding this conflict. This, in and of itself, would obviously be only of limited interest, as you are only one person (without, to my knwoledge, any legislative power). However, the perspective which underlies your opinion is widely held in the post-modern Western world, and my interest in your post stems from this.

When you get a chance, I would be interested in knowing what substantive criticisms my argument would be succeptable to.


My vision of palestinians is "people who simply wished to live on the land of their ancestors and where disturbded by a massive arrival of foreigners overs the years".


This is illustrative of a problem. What is a Palestinian? Now, I'm not going to say that Palestinians do not exist, because every "Palestinian" whether they are Palestinian or not, is a person, and undoubtedly exists. However, it is quite evident that before the fall of the Ottoman empire to the Brits in WWI there were no people who identified themselves as Palestinians. Were the Zionest movement never to have happened, "Palestine" would be some part of a greater Arab nation, not a distinct national entity. While I do not propose that there would only have been one pan-Arab nationality, as this presumes too much about the ability of different Arabs to get along, it is most likley that a Syrian, Jordanian or Egyptian entity would have sovereign authority over historic Palestine.

This, however, is only of marginal relevance, because we can define Palestinian as anyone who lived in that portion of historic Palestine not ceded to the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in the 1920s and/or who identified themselves with that land no so transferred. However, an ancillary problem arises. Given this definition of Palestinian, what date is to be used as a cut-off for deciding when a person should be considered a Palestinian? 1900? 1850? 1948?

1948 seems an incorrect approach, as an Egyptian migrant who came to Palestine in the 1940s to improve his or her lot in life is undoubtedly not a Palestinian. But then what about the 1930s? The 1920s? What about the Jews who came to Palestine in the 20s, 30s or 40s? Are they Palestinian or is there an ethnic (i.e. Arab) component to having a Palestinian ethnicity or nationality? It seems to me that to have standing as a Palestinian in the first place, one must be an Arab. Few on the Palestinian side would allow that a Jewish family in Jerusalem which can trace its lineage back to antiquity is a Palestinian family.

However, it is also equally true that the descendants of Sephardic Jews (who resided for many centuries in the Arab world) are not Iraqis or Egyptians or Syrian.

Now, all of this is somewhat beside the point you are trying to make, which is, if I may be so bold: those who considered Palestine their home (or some subset thereof - like Hebron or Jaffa or villiage X), and who had considered it their ancestral home for centuries, were dispossessed by foreign settlers who first dispossessed them of their land and then removed them from the country.

But what if these people were "disturbed" from the land they occupied not by Israel but by, say, economic circumstances. For example, with the rebirth of US cities in the 1990s, rents and land values increased significanlty in inner cities following an influx of young professionals. Former inhabitants could no longer afford rents and proces and had to move elsewhere. I would suggest that these people are not entitled to an apology from anyone.

Now, given that the original "dispossession" of Arab lands in the early 20th century was, in fact, either due to the purchase of uninhabited tracts of land from the British authorities or to the purchase of lands from Arab landholders, this dispossession does not entitle the Palestinians to an apology.

You rent land from X. I buy the land from X for my own personal use. You have to leave as a result. Am I sorry about your loss? Maybe (I, personally, am). Do I owe you an apology? No.

With respect to the refugees who fled after the creation of Israel, I would suggest that had the Arab nations not attacked Israel, few of these people would now be refugees. Further, that percentage who abandoned their land due to either fear or pressure inspired by the Grand Mufti and his ilk are also not owed an apology from Israel, but rather from the Arab secular and religious authorities.

Had the Arab nations absorbed these refugees like Israel did those Jews dispossessed from their lands in Arab nations, those people who consider themselves Palestinian would be far better off today than they actually are.

And finally, for those who were forced out of Israel during the war a question arises - why were they so dispossessed?

Why does a question like this matter, one might ask. Why should the reason a person was forced at gunpoint out of their home matter?

It matters because we are talking about apologies. I see an analogy here to house demolitions. If I demolish your house because of your political opinions, I owe you an apology (and compensation). However, if I demolish your house because either you have assented to the positioning of snipers on the property, or becuase you facilitated the inflow of weapons, I clearly do not.

But, a more difficult question - what if the viliage was in a location that was, from a military defence perspective, fundamentally necessary for the protection of the nation, say on the Jerusalem-Tel-Aviv highway? The best you should expect is a "sorry but."

However, aside from all of this, it is important to remeber that subsequent conduct can cancel the need for an apology. For example, I steal your bike and as retaliation you (frame me for murder/rape my wife/kill my neighbour etc..). Now, initially I owed you an apology for stealing your bike, but the fact that you engaged in far more reprehensible conduct vitiates my moral imperitive to apologize.

Similarly here, regardless of who is a Palestinian and where the borders of their nation should be, the campaign of suicide bombing targeting civilians completely nullifies any historic apology the Palestinians might be due.

To sum up - not all people who consider themselves to be Palestinian deserve an apology. Those who believe themselves to be Palestinians because of lies, those whose ancestors fled to get out of the way of the Arab armies, those who support the purposeful and indiscriminate execution of civilians to achieve their goals - all are not deserving of any sort of apology from Israel.

And if they cannot be separated from the rest, then none of them are entitled to anything.


They certainly have been instrumentalized etc.. still they are victims and people fighting against what they feel is an invading force. That's why I think Israel should accept her responsibility because that could be the start of a peace process.


going back to my previous argument, an apology would be counter productive and would not advance any chance of peace.
They are victims of their bretheren more than Israel. If Israel is the only one to apologize, all arabs (and many Europeans) will see this as an admission of guilt. It will weaken Israel's bargaining position in negotiations for peace. It will not make Palestinians more amenable to a settlement, and any claim that it will is wishful thinking.

Israel cannot accept responsibility unilaterally, only if the rest of the Arab world accepts primary responsibility - soemthing that will NEVER happen.


But there should be and many Israelis recognize this.


Just because lots of people believe things doesn't make them true. Israelis are just as succeptable to making incorrect judgments based on imperfect information as the French (or any of the rest of us).

Many Israelis also believed that OSLO would lead to real peace. They were also decieved. Primarily by the Palestinian Authority, but also by their own government, academia and leftist press, as information regarding the teaching of virulent hate, the importation of weapons etc. in the PA controlled areas was, while not completely supressed, certainly trivialized.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Canajew
Tolerance is something I am pretty good at, and I am quite aware that an individual and his or her opinions are two different things. I would also like to tell you that I have a fair amount of discomfort with some of the abuse that is fetted out to dissenting opinion holders on this site. I personally think that the quick resort to terms such as "anti-semite" "facist" etc. do not result in legitimate criticism of opinion, rather they attempt to obfuscate issues by smearing those that hold them.

Setting all this aside, I am concerned with your comment that "I guess you find some interest in my suggestion however provocative it may seem on this forum."

As an aside, this is only my 2nd post and provoking the forum does not particularly concern me (I'm sure my opinions would and will provoke many people here as well).

However, with respect to "I guess you find some interest in my suggestion," my interest stems not from the "interestingness" (if you would permit me to use a made up word) of the proposition, but rather because it reveals much about your world-view surrounding this conflict. This, in and of itself, would obviously be only of limited interest, as you are only one person (without, to my knwoledge, any legislative power). However, the perspective which underlies your opinion is widely held in the post-modern Western world, and my interest in your post stems from this.

When you get a chance, I would be interested in knowing what substantive criticisms my argument would be succeptable to.



This is illustrative of a problem. What is a Palestinian? Now, I'm not going to say that Palestinians do not exist, because every "Palestinian" whether they are Palestinian or not, is a person, and undoubtedly exists. However, it is quite evident that before the fall of the Ottoman empire to the Brits in WWI there were no people who identified themselves as Palestinians. Were the Zionest movement never to have happened, "Palestine" would be some part of a greater Arab nation, not a distinct national entity. While I do not propose that there would only have been one pan-Arab nationality, as this presumes too much about the ability of different Arabs to get along, it is most likley that a Syrian, Jordanian or Egyptian entity would have sovereign authority over historic Palestine.

This, however, is only of marginal relevance, because we can define Palestinian as anyone who lived in that portion of historic Palestine not ceded to the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in the 1920s and/or who identified themselves with that land no so transferred. However, an ancillary problem arises. Given this definition of Palestinian, what date is to be used as a cut-off for deciding when a person should be considered a Palestinian? 1900? 1850? 1948?

1948 seems an incorrect approach, as an Egyptian migrant who came to Palestine in the 1940s to improve his or her lot in life is undoubtedly not a Palestinian. But then what about the 1930s? The 1920s? What about the Jews who came to Palestine in the 20s, 30s or 40s? Are they Palestinian or is there an ethnic (i.e. Arab) component to having a Palestinian ethnicity or nationality? It seems to me that to have standing as a Palestinian in the first place, one must be an Arab. Few on the Palestinian side would allow that a Jewish family in Jerusalem which can trace its lineage back to antiquity is a Palestinian family.

However, it is also equally true that the descendants of Sephardic Jews (who resided for many centuries in the Arab world) are not Iraqis or Egyptians or Syrian.

Now, all of this is somewhat beside the point you are trying to make, which is, if I may be so bold: those who considered Palestine their home (or some subset thereof - like Hebron or Jaffa or villiage X), and who had considered it their ancestral home for centuries, were dispossessed by foreign settlers who first dispossessed them of their land and then removed them from the country.

But what if these people were "disturbed" from the land they occupied not by Israel but by, say, economic circumstances. For example, with the rebirth of US cities in the 1990s, rents and land values increased significanlty in inner cities following an influx of young professionals. Former inhabitants could no longer afford rents and proces and had to move elsewhere. I would suggest that these people are not entitled to an apology from anyone.

Now, given that the original "dispossession" of Arab lands in the early 20th century was, in fact, either due to the purchase of uninhabited tracts of land from the British authorities or to the purchase of lands from Arab landholders, this dispossession does not entitle the Palestinians to an apology.

You rent land from X. I buy the land from X for my own personal use. You have to leave as a result. Am I sorry about your loss? Maybe (I, personally, am). Do I owe you an apology? No.

With respect to the refugees who fled after the creation of Israel, I would suggest that had the Arab nations not attacked Israel, few of these people would now be refugees. Further, that percentage who abandoned their land due to either fear or pressure inspired by the Grand Mufti and his ilk are also not owed an apology from Israel, but rather from the Arab secular and religious authorities.

Had the Arab nations absorbed these refugees like Israel did those Jews dispossessed from their lands in Arab nations, those people who consider themselves Palestinian would be far better off today than they actually are.

And finally, for those who were forced out of Israel during the war a question arises - why were they so dispossessed?

Why does a question like this matter, one might ask. Why should the reason a person was forced at gunpoint out of their home matter?

It matters because we are talking about apologies. I see an analogy here to house demolitions. If I demolish your house because of your political opinions, I owe you an apology (and compensation). However, if I demolish your house because either you have assented to the positioning of snipers on the property, or becuase you facilitated the inflow of weapons, I clearly do not.

But, a more difficult question - what if the viliage was in a location that was, from a military defence perspective, fundamentally necessary for the protection of the nation, say on the Jerusalem-Tel-Aviv highway? The best you should expect is a "sorry but."

However, aside from all of this, it is important to remeber that subsequent conduct can cancel the need for an apology. For example, I steal your bike and as retaliation you (frame me for murder/rape my wife/kill my neighbour etc..). Now, initially I owed you an apology for stealing your bike, but the fact that you engaged in far more reprehensible conduct vitiates my moral imperitive to apologize.

Similarly here, regardless of who is a Palestinian and where the borders of their nation should be, the campaign of suicide bombing targeting civilians completely nullifies any historic apology the Palestinians might be due.

To sum up - not all people who consider themselves to be Palestinian deserve an apology. Those who believe themselves to be Palestinians because of lies, those whose ancestors fled to get out of the way of the Arab armies, those who support the purposeful and indiscriminate execution of civilians to achieve their goals - all are not deserving of any sort of apology from Israel.

And if they cannot be separated from the rest, then none of them are entitled to anything.



going back to my previous argument, an apology would be counter productive and would not advance any chance of peace.
They are victims of their bretheren more than Israel. If Israel is the only one to apologize, all arabs (and many Europeans) will see this as an admission of guilt. It will weaken Israel's bargaining position in negotiations for peace. It will not make Palestinians more amenable to a settlement, and any claim that it will is wishful thinking.

Israel cannot accept responsibility unilaterally, only if the rest of the Arab world accepts primary responsibility - soemthing that will NEVER happen.



Just because lots of people believe things doesn't make them true. Israelis are just as succeptable to making incorrect judgments based on imperfect information as the French (or any of the rest of us).

Many Israelis also believed that OSLO would lead to real peace. They were also decieved. Primarily by the Palestinian Authority, but also by their own government, academia and leftist press, as information regarding the teaching of virulent hate, the importation of weapons etc. in the PA controlled areas was, while not completely supressed, certainly trivialized.
I am sitting on the sidelines clapping, and I wanted you to know that. Damn good post.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I am sitting on the sidelines clapping, and I wanted you to know that. Damn good post.


Thank you kindly. I appreciate it.

On another note, and tied more directly to the thread title, does anyone here actually believe that any state which is created for the palestinians will be anything but an authoritarian/Islamist, backwards and barbarous state?

And if people do not believe this, yet still believe in a peace deal as soon as possible, how can these two positions be reconciled?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by wellofvow
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

The Palestinians want a state that includes Jerusalem, and a Jerusalem that is Judeinrein. This is not acceptable.

The Palestinians want a state that imposes the right of return to ISRAEL of all who allegedly left as refugees, PLUS all their descendants. This is not acceptable.

Most important, the Palestinians are determined to win their state by force, by terror. And these are the "moderates". The "non-moderates" want to destroy Israel and kill all non-Moslems who had the temerity to live on "Moslem" soil.

Arafat, the Egyptian representing the Palestinian people, signed the Oslo Accords, which was a contract. He did not comply with any of the terms which he was supposed to, or at least not for very long. There WERE bilateral patrols......until a Palestinian killed one of his Israeli patrol-mates. They were limited in the number and types of weapons. Scratch that one. And how many times did Arafat "promise" to foreswear terrorism? It is ludicrous. Extradite murderers to Israel? Name ONE TERM that Arafat has consistently complied with.

When they were supposed to have "elections" as part of the "reform", Arafat called them off on a clearly flimsy excuse that the Israelis had carried out a search-and-capture mission. A Prime Minister was to have been appointed to supplant, replace, Arafat. Who chose him (and is now reconsidering his choice)? Arafat. Now, isn't this the fox guarding the chicken coop?

First, Arafat either dies or rots in an American jail. Then, the Americans go in with an administrative governor for at least 10 years. Rewrite school textbooks. Create an infrastructure. Administer funds to build a country out of nothing. NO police force of Palestinians, only foreigners, until the Palestinians have shown themselves capable of tolerance, and understanding what human rights really are about.

Arabs simply do not recognize what you called "rule-of-law". They do not have to, according to their religion. The Koran cites Mohammed making a peace deal with a city, and then breaking it, because the city was infidel.

Sorry, I don't see where we disagree.

Personally, I don't think the Palestinians want their own state. I think that demand is at best just Stage 1 in their effort to destroy Israel and at worst just propaganda for Western consumption.

At this point, I think the Palestinians have demonstrated they are untrustworthy negotiating partners and incorrigible terrorists. If it were up to me, they would be forcibly removed and the West Bank permanently annexed.

But it isn't up to me. Many people believe the lie that they "just want their own state" and at some point they will probably get it, though I doubt it will change anything. The only conceivable benefit is it will prove that that was not their real goal. The terrorism will continue, and they will continue to make excuses.

Hopefully, at that point an exasperated Israel will fight an all-out war and deal them such a crushing defeat they will wish they never heard of terrorism.