Dear Israel,

@Ionus,

Let's face it. Any Jewish claim to the land that is now Israel that doesn't equally apply to the Palestinians is a mythological.

Here we are in the 21st century justifying an act of ethnic cleansing based on some story about a guy who heard a voice from a burning bush.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here we are in the 21st century justifying an act of ethnic cleansing based on some story about a guy who heard a voice from a burning bush.

Israel is not engaged in ethnic cleansing.

If there were to be ethnic cleansing in the future, I personally would justify it by pointing to the Palestinians' perpetual refusal to ever stop attacking Israel.

I do not believe there will be any ethnic cleansing in the future. I think the Palestinians will remain in Area A, and that will become the Palestinian state.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

DNA shows that Palestinians have the same ancestors as the Jews do. The Jews and Palestinians are the same people (if you take away the European intermixing).

True, they both are related but I was looking also at culture, language, religion .

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

justifying an act of ethnic cleansing

Dont say ethnic cleansing as though it is a bad thing . The massacre in Rwanda....Burundi has the same number of Hutu as a minority as Rwanda has Tutsi as a minority . They could force the populations to swap but no, it is better to let them kill each other so the people in the West can live up to their own ideals of not standing for ethnic cleansing .

We could take the Palestinians out of their predicament and place them in Arab countries . We could save the Christians in Muslim countries...but no, we dont stand for ethnic cleansing...far better they be massacred and we stand on our principles .

There are many examples around the world where it is demonstrable that people would be better off separated but the West has populations that want that within their own borders, so for our own reasons of maintaining unity it is better to scream racist! or Ethnic Cleansing! and then go "tut-tut how terrible that massacre is"....of course the UN doesnt stand still for that..they go and watch the massacre .

1 Reply

How can we get credible information on Middle East Crisis, the information coming on Media is biased and unreliable. Can anyone provide the most credible information from the ground?

1 Reply

@Adam786,

Good question.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

True, they both are related but I was looking also at culture, language, religion .

Ok, so given the culture, language and religion of the land we now call Israel over the past 2000 years... why do the Jews have any more claim to the land then the Palestinians?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Dont say ethnic cleansing as though it is a bad thing .

This is both funny and troubling.

Let's just say we disagree.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The Palestinians can live with others the same . The Jews can not as they dont have a homeland .

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Ok, so given the culture, language and religion of the land we now call Israel over the past 2000 years... why do the Jews have any more claim to the land then the Palestinians?

If Israel has a stronger claim to the land than the Palestinians, but the Palestinians also have a claim, just not as strong of a claim, would that matter? Would there be any practical difference verses a situation where their claims were equally strong?

I can argue that the Israeli claim is stronger, but I don't think it actually matters. The reason the Palestinians are in a bad place right now is not because of a weaker claim, but because they refuse to ever make peace with Israel.

"Land For Peace" doesn't mean that the Palestinians get the land and then keep attacking Israel.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Israel and the Palestinians both need to have an incentive to accept a Peace deal. If you give either Israel or the Palestinians a situation where they are better off with Peace then with violence, then they will choose peace.

Right now, the Palestinians aren't being offered a viable state or a real chance at a secure existence with a strong economy. If you offer them this, and make it clear that war will take this away... then of course they will choose what is advantageous to them.

(You will claim that they have been offered this, but you aren't being honest. A viable state that can have a good economy needs to be contiguous, it needs to have access to resources and it needs to be able to control its own borders. This has never been offered.)

Right now the Israelis have no incentive to have peace either. This is because the United States is absorbing all of the consequences of the occupation. They aren't paying very much for the occupation and they are being led to believe that if they just hold off (with a few deaths from rockets) that they will be given all of the land.

In my opinion the way we fix this, so that both sides have more to gain by peace, and more to lose by violence is simple.

1) We stop giving Israel the political cover and put strings on our military and economic help unless they truly commit to giving the Palestinians a real state; that is contiguous, has a share of the resources and has control of their own economy and borders. (again I will point out that Israel has never offered a contiguous state to the Palestinians and that this is really important)

2) We give Palestinians such a state contingent on them renouncing violence and accepting Israels right to exist.

I understand, Oralloy, that you think that Israel is always right and never does anything wrong. This makes it a little difficult for you to be balanced in your understanding of the situation.

I want to point out this imbalance is exactly the problem and the reason that we still haven't reached a peace agreement after all of these years.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

It is not just the land boundaries, Palestine would need water too.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion the way we fix this, so that both sides have more to gain by peace, and more to lose by violence is simple.
1) We stop giving Israel the political cover and put strings on our military and economic help unless they

Israel can respond by finishing the Security Fence, annexing all land west of the Fence, and fully developing the E-1 Area.

East of the Fence, they can reclaim full military control over Area B.

Israel isn't going to put up with this sort of stuff anymore. Acts against Israel will be responded to accordingly.

maxdancona wrote:

(again I will point out that Israel has never offered a contiguous state to the Palestinians and that this is really important)

Israel just got done offering it for 14 straight years.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The whole ME is in this situation . Follow the major rivers on a map .

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Come on Oralloy, you aren't even making any sense.

1) Do you know what the word "contiguous" means? Take a look at the map and see how it applies to this "Area B"?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Oslo_Areas_and_barrier_projection_2005.png/640px-Oslo_Areas_and_barrier_projection_2005.png

2) You are talking about Israel taking over "Area A", a large swath of land where hundreds and thousands of people live. This means shoving the Palestinians into a significantly smaller set of land.

Come Oralloy... I get it. You think Israel is always right no matter what they do. But this is nuts. You are not even making sense. The fact is that Israel has never offered the Palestinians a contiguous, economically viable independent state.

Please look up the words "contiguous", "viable" and "independent" in the dictionary before you respond to this.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Come on Oralloy, you aren't even making any sense.
1) Do you know what the word "contiguous" means?

Yes.

maxdancona wrote:

Take a look at the map and see how it applies to this "Area B"?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Oslo_Areas_and_barrier_projection_2005.png/640px-Oslo_Areas_and_barrier_projection_2005.png

Area B does not represent the offers that Israel made over a 14 year period.

Rather it refers to the agricultural areas that I advocate Israel seizing back from the Palestinians.

maxdancona wrote:

2) You are talking about Israel taking over "Area A", a large swath of land where hundreds and thousands of people live. This means shoving the Palestinians into a significantly smaller set of land.

No. I said that Israel should seize Area B.

Area A will become the Palestinian state.

maxdancona wrote:

Come Oralloy... I get it. You think Israel is always right no matter what they do.

Facts are facts.

maxdancona wrote:

The fact is that Israel has never offered the Palestinians a contiguous, economically viable independent state.
Please look up the words "contiguous", "viable" and "independent" in the dictionary before you respond to this.

Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and Mr. Netanyahu all offered that to the Palestinians in the period from 2001 to 2014.

Ariel Sharon was interested in unilateral separation, so did not extend any offers.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and Mr. Netanyahu

I've never gotten around to learning the spelling of Mr. Netanyahu's first name. That's why I give him a Mr. instead of a full name like the others. No disrespect intended towards any of them.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
The fact is that Israel has never offered the Palestinians a contiguous, economically viable independent state.
Please look up the words "contiguous", "viable" and "independent" in the dictionary before you respond to this.

Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and Mr. Netanyahu all offered that to the Palestinians in the period from 2001 to 2014.

Ariel Sharon was interested in unilateral separation, so did not extend any offers.

You are being ridiculous Oralloy. We saw the terms and the maps that were offered by Israel. They are on record. Did you look up the term "contiguous" in the dictionary as I suggested?

Your claim that Israel has ever offered the Palestinians a contiguous economically viable state is just plain false. It is not even close to true.

If I am wrong, then it is easy to prove me wrong. Show me an Israeli offer that gives the Palestinians a contiguous, economically viable state. Every offer comes with maps.

I dare you! Post the link with a map that backs up your ridiculous claim. Or just stop making it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If I am wrong, then it is easy to prove me wrong. Show me an Israeli offer that gives the Palestinians a contiguous, economically viable state.

Here is the map offered by Ehud Barak (PDF):
http://web.archive.org/web/20051105012811/www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/final_status_map_taba.pdf

Here is the map offered by Ehud Olmert:
http://fmep.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/v18n6_map_westbankprojection.jpg

Mr. Netanyahu's offer has not been made public.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The map offered by Barak is not contiguous or economically viable (have you looked up the word "contiguous" in the dictionary yet.

The map from Olmert was never offered.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know