El Segundo

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

How far back do you want to go to discredit Israel's 'right to be there' though? Is it 1920, as you've said before? Or is it from before Arabs were even in the area?

The Kingdoms of Israel and Judea were countries 1600 years before Islam was invented by an illiterate warlord, and Jerusalem was founded by the Jews at about the same time, the Jews were expelled, sold as slaves and purged from the land by the Romans for fighting them to a man, ended up in Italy, Spain, France and Eastern Europe, were then chased around the continent and never really got a land of their own. When the Jewish population had recovered slightly the crusaders and Islamic Jihadists came and did exactly the same thing, and when the Ottomans took over the area there was still widespread cleansing, expulsions and slavery for the Jewish people.

The issue for much of the pro-Palestinian people seems to be that they're extremely blinkered and biased when it comes to the history of the place, the only way to solve this is a two-state solution - a solution which the Arab world has denied several times, including at several points where Israel and its allies have beaten them in defensive wars based on 'purging Jews'.

I mentioned earlier that I see the era when the World began to accept that Colonisation and denial of people's rights to self Government were unacceptable as something of a watershed or turning point.  To my mind that started to happen  post WW1 with the League of Nations Covenant being signed in 1919   Article 22 in particular seems relevant   https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-185531/.  Especially point 4.  Note the final sentence. 

"4. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized. subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."       

Palestine was set up as such a Mandatory territory under British control.  Did the British proceed to help the indigenous population of Palestine - by far the majority of whom were Palestinian Arabs, with a tiny minority of Jewish heritage (as, I believe had been the case for centuries up to that point) - towards self governance?  The records indicate not, rather they endorsed and oversaw mass immigration of Jewish people in the 1920s and 1930s.  

Is the fact that the Jews were expelled from the area over 2000 years ago relevant to what's happened in modern times?  I'd say it's at least debatable, in as much as it's debatable as to whether England should be handed back to the Ancient Britons and Celts under a UN charter.  

What out of the above do you think is blinkered or biased?   

I do agree however that the only possible "solution" now that things have come this far is the two state solution.  I can't see any other way out of it, but such a solution needs to be a fair and equitable allocation of land and rights. I'm not sure previous attempts at two state solutions have satisfied those criteria.  It's also clear that there are extremists on both sides who are unlikely to accept it.      

7 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Didint you agree that countries dont have inherent right to exist? i think you did.

Do you understand that cleansing population is natural process of creation of the country? You take similar population and you kick out unsimilar population and you create a country. That process was done for thousands of years. Its natural country creation process. its not inherently bad. And sometimes its necessary. I could explain that but you refused to engage with hypotheticals because it looks bad.

I wrote that failed countries dont deserve to exist. Oh man im such a bad guy that i believe that country who cant govern itself and cant protect its borders and people and cant take care of its people should not exist. "Very VERY  controversial"

I think letting people endlessly suffer in a failed state is more cruel than just changing a name of country electing different government implementing better systems and trying again so people can prosper and live normally. 

 

Blimey.  Where do you start?

48 minutes ago, bickster said:

It’s 2023, that absolutely irrelevant at this juncture

I’m not saying the UN is fit for purpose

What you and others choose to recognise is absolutely irrelevant. Israel exists and the fact that it does and should continue to needs to be a accepted before any meaningful dialogue can take place.

Israel is an internationally recognised legal entity at this stage, arguing about the legality of what happened in 1947 is somewhat irrelevant. 

If you think the UN resolution of 1947 is irrelevant what is the basis of the "legal right" to exist in those lands?

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

You keep saying this and it is demonstrably untrue. They absolutely do have a right to be there in international law. Israel is a country recognised by most countries in the world and is a member of the UN. The idea that Israel has no legal right to exist is utterly false.

The UN resolution of 1948 awarding Israel 56% of the land was in breach of Article 22 of their own charter relating to the rights of all people to self govern, i.e. denying the Palestinians that right.  The entire Arab world rejected that resolution for that reason.  The countries who recognise Israel would be most likely be the same countries who voted for that illegal resolution. I suppose even a corrupt UN resolution does make it legal, on paper at least.  But I and many others don't recognise it.   

The UN has condemned the expansion and establishment of settlements in previously Palestinian areas. As have most other countries.  Various UN resolutions to end that have been ignored by Israel. sSo in at least some of "those lands" they have no legal right to be there.        

16 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

They had the right to exist in the 1948 because they came into a free land with some Palestinian villagers and decided to build a country over there.

I dont believe in inherent right or ownership to the land so if you will try to argue that Palestinian villagers had a land in there and they lived in there. I dont care they should have built a country.

How was it a free land when it was occupied and run by the British until 1948 and then Israel took over? 

Some Palestinian Villagers? Is that how you would describe >90% of the population at the time?

On your last point you do realise that if you adopt that as a principle then any people could simply go and occupy any other land, take over and kick out the indigenous people as they see fit.  Which is Colonialism.  You think that's ok then do you?  

Just now, meregreen said:

Seems pretty explicit to me what your implying. Or do you now think that Israel should remain where it is.

Can you point to where I have said they should go somewhere else?   You won't be able to because I've not said it.  I've just said they are not there by right. In the sense of moral or legal right. What you infer from that is down to you nut I have neither said nor implied it.

I don't "now think" anything.  Israel is too well established and embedded for it to go anywhere, and to advocate it would be nonsensical. I don't believe anything I've said contradicts that view.  

4 minutes ago, meregreen said:

You did. You said you they didn’t have a right to those lands, and should go somewhere else.

Where did I say that?

2 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Israel’s going nowhere, ever. They are there and they are there to stay. The sooner some people recognise that fact, the sooner there can be serious discussions about providing a State for the Palestinians, who also aren’t going to go away. Deal with the world as it is, not as you’d like it to be.

Has anyone said any different?

5 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

This is very clear answer this implicates one state solution of Palestine and you cant disassociate from the outcomes of it.

No it doesn't and yes I can, and I have.  Just because that doesn't suit your illogical conclusions or kow-tow to your false accusations doesn't change that.  You're doing exactly what Israel does, attempting to undermine any criticism by playing the cards of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  It's pathetic.   

Are you going to answer my question - on what basis do you think Israel has a the right to exist in those lands?

I said in the match thread that we seem to have developed an away game habit of coming out of the dressing room unfocussed and slow and  conceding in the first few minutes.  Did it at Anfield and Newcastle, both halves at Legia and both halves today. Wolves scored not long after half  time too.  Emery needs to get them focussed from the first whistle. 

Forest were more aggressive and won far too many of the duels.  We were a bit powder puff.  First half the ref seemed to let a lot of pushes on our players go but give them to Forest for the barest of touches.  Terrible inconsistency, but our weakness was evident. 

I think only Torres, Digne and Konsa had decent games today, everyone else seemed to be well off it.  We need to improve radically away from home if we want to stay in the top 5 or 6.  

34 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

I think people would call your stance evil because when you say that Israel has no right to exist you are implying bad stuff. You can have a stance but you dont get to choose the effects or outcomes of that stance.

example: If i say i want to eat pork but i am against pig being killed its nonsensical. I am literally the reason why pig gets killed. I dont get to choose to eat pork and then disassociate from the outcome pig being killed.

So by saying that Israel has no right to exist you implying one state solution aka from the river to the sea Palestine. Any person with two braincells understands what would follow in one state solution with Palestinians controlling their lands and country. Holocaust of jews. So that is the outcome of your position you dont get to choose to disassociate from the outcome.

I'm implying nothing of the sort because I've not even said Israel has no right to exist.

The question you asked was this: 

19 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

2023 does israel have the right to exist in those lands?Not including west bank gazas. no why/yes why?

The key part is "in those lands".  Most of that land, even excluding the Gaza and the West Bank, belonged to Palestinians and was unfairly taken away from them.  I do not believe Israel ever had a right to be given, or to take those lands. I don't support the right of any people or country to exist in land that has been stolen from other people.     

Do you think they have a right to those lands? If yes, on what basis?

Second, not believing in Israel's right to exist in those lands does not entail that I think Israel has no right to exist anywhere. From what I've read, other locations were considered by the Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland.  If land anywhere, including Palestine, had been acquired fairly and without prejudice to set up a Jewish Homeland  then they would have every right to exist there.      

Third, not having the right to be there also does not entail a belief that the Jewish population should now be eradicated from that land.   Just that they are there without right.

Is that simple enough for you?  

From clinical finishing in the last few games to not being able to hit a cow's arse with a banjo in this.  Woeful finishing.

Our away form is too often nowhere near our home form.  Seem to have developed a habit of starting slowly and conceding early.  Zaniolo is starting to grate a bit.  He didn't track the fullback for the goal either so partly his fault. 

Why are you shouting again?  As I said I am fully aware some ill-informed people will say my stance is anti-Semitic and/or anti-Zionist and that's why a lot of people who agree with me are afraid to express such views.  I've already explained they are neither, so what is your issue ?  Why would anyone be able to call it evil?

I believe the Palestinians have the right to fight occupation but not by any means necessary such as committing war crimes. 

I can't possibly say whether the October 7th attack was motivated by fighting the occupation or pushed by Iran or whoever to stir up trouble. I don't have that knowledge.  You will have to ask Hamas what their motivation was.  

I've never called Hamas freedom fighters.  Some of the oppressed might very well see them as such but I don't.  Hamas are too extreme in their methods to be called such.       

I don't think the October 7th attacks on civilians were justified or proportionate, illegal occupation or not.  Fighting the occupation should not include targeting civilians.   

Quote

Settlements. Well it happened once in 2005 when israel removed settlements from gaza and then they elected established terrorist organization in 2006. So its possible i would say very likely

Yes Israel removed settlements from Gaza in 2005 but continued to expand settlements in the West Bank/East Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights.  So I wouldn't see that as a change of policy overall.     

Quote

Alternative to violent means you build your country educate and elevate your people and areas you have find allies and trades and recognition and then negotiate with israel like equals. Nothing of sort have been done period.

So Palestinians were supposed to build their country even though you yourself have stated there was no country before Israel.  Even though most of the land they occupied was seized or handed over to the Israelis.  Even though they were holed up in open prisons.  Even though their attempts with their allies to take back their lands and build their country led to military defeats and further Israeli expansions.  To assign blame to Palestinians for not “building their country” in those conditions looks very much like victim blaming to me.       

Quote

I think i agreed about the self-governance im not trying to defend what Britts did. I already said this.

No I don't think you did.

The above answers your second two questions.  To answer your other question, no I don't believe Israel has the right to exist in those lands because the bulk of that land was unfairly/illegally taken from the indigenous population, who were then forcibly displaced.  No country or people should have the right to occupy someone else's land and claim it as their own. Many who express such views with regard to Israel are dismissed anti-Zionist, or anti-Semitic.  They are neither.  I've nothing against the Jewish people, I've nothing against some of them wanting a Jewish homeland.  I just don't think they had any legal or moral claim or right to the land they took or were "awarded", and I think the way they have gone ahead anyway is abhorrent.    

14 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

@VILLAMARV you ok buddy? you wanted to ask me a question or something? I think im here in a minority who actually will answer questions and have strong position about stuff and not try to weasel out of difficult questions or dog-whistle endlessly.

I think IDF should come kick their assess(literally) pack their stuff and bring them home. Those people are religious lunatics and provokers they should not be there.

No i suggest pull out of Gaza unblock them fully support them for a few years then cut everything off and let them guide themselves into terrorist actions and then attack them with full force and annex them.

You trying to paint a picture like Palestinians want peaceful solution and they are getting cheated by Israel or UN. NO! HARD NO!

As i understand Palestinians in every step sabotaged peaceful solutions and talks for decades!  Thats why their population is uneducated thats why they dont have any real allies thats why they have terrorists in government and thousands of rockets flying into the israel. They care about from river to the sea more than they care about population education or living conditions.

Self-governance. Hey i am not defending what Britts did i think its a mess.

Everyone is talking about Israel and UN and Britts responsibilities. But no one is talking about Palestine responsibilities building their own country.

Decisions or events in 1920 or 1948 or 1967 didnt prevented Palestine to build their country into normal country. We cant pretend that because of those dates Palestinians have no responsibilities.

When i look at Palestine i dont see a country who wants to be a country or who wants to survive as a country. I see a country who dont want another country (israel) to exist.

Yes that would be nice if the IDF could clear out the nutters and give the land back to its original owners, but wouldn't it need a change of policy over the settlements and expansion by Israel first?  How likely is that to happen? And haven't the IDF been complicit in the land grabs and expulsions in occupied territories themselves?   

I'm not trying to paint a picture that Palestinians want a peaceful solution at all.  You said they should find an alternative to violent means, I've raised that approach as one of very few alternatives and asked you how realistic you think it is for them.  So if violence is not an option, and they, in your view at least, do not want a peaceful solution, what alternatives do you suggest?  

How have they sabotaged peace negotiation and solutions ?  Is it by refusing to sign up to agreements that sanction and condone the Israeli occupation?

The creation of Mandatory Palestine in 1919 and the the declaration of Israel in 1948 absolutely did prevent the Palestinians from building a country in which they could self govern the territories they lived in as of 1919-1920. 

Do you have evidence that counters the recorded facts that the British refused the people of Palestine self governance until 1948? And evidence that counters the recorded fact that the UN relieved them of 56% of the territory in 1948? If not, what do you base your hard no on?  

What are/were these "Palestinian responsiblities" you refer to in this context?  Was it to defy the occupying forces and create their own country regardless?  If so, isn't that exactly what they've been trying to do?

1 hour ago, Tumblerseven said:

Yes i think if you are occupied you can fight against occupiers military infrastructure and soldiers. There are other fighting methods besides violence. I think its very clearl that palestine didint apply seriously any other method only violence.

I think crazy radical zionist jewish settlers in west back is occupying force and should be forcefully kicked out ASAP.

I dont think israel as a whole is occupying force because i dont think there was a country before israel in there. I can understand if people say there were palestinian villages and their land was occupied but im not living in fantasy land and i understand how countries are born and i understand that if you not prepared to build a country someone else will.

Do you think Palestine population support Hamas? if no what are you basing that opinion on?

 Ok fair points but how would you propose the West Bank Radicals should be "forcefully kicked out" if violence is not an acceptable method? And by whom? 

I guess you would suggest discourse and diplomacy - but what confidence should the Palestinians put in attempting a solution through discourse and diplomacy when the great powers, including the UN have demonstrated a massive degree of untrustworthiness towards them?   

What percentage chance would you give the Palestinians of getting a fair hearing and outcome?  What percentage chance would you give of Israel complying with any outcome that reverted land back to Palestinians? 

There may not have been a Palestinian State per se, but other parts of the Arab World "liberated" from the Ottoman occupation were granted the right to self governance in line with the League of Nations charter.  I'm sure the existing population would have been more than happy to "build a country" if they had been allowed to.

I can't speak for the Palestinian people re Hamas. I have no idea how many of them would support Hamas or any other violent opposition to what they see as occupation. I suspect that a significant number of them may do, given they have been treated worse than shit for so long now that it must have given rise to a massive degree of anger and resentment, which has to find an outlet at some point.  I also suspect a fair number of them don't simply because they know that anything Hamas do will be returned with massive and indiscriminate interest by Israel.  

47 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

 

They think its occupying racist force and they think Palestinians have the right to fight back through Hamas.

Just interested in whether or not you  think Israel is an occupying force?    

As a general principle, do you think that any people that has it's land occupied has a right to oppose that occupation (not by Hamas, but in general) ?  

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

But isn't it a fallacy to say that Jews shouldn't be allowed a state because the country they'd been pretty summarily purged from Christianity/Roman and then Islamic times? Your argument totally discounts what the Ottomans did to the Jewish population when they gave Arabs the land from roughly the 1700-British colonialist times for helping the British, it's a tit for tat issue that is never ending, I'm sure the Jews could be evicted by someone who identifies as whichever tribe was there before the Semittic tribes that inhibited the place during 3-4000 years before the current set of religions took it over. My family owned a small farm on the Polish border with Belarus when they were put into gas chambers and concentration camps by Germans, it doesn't mean that the British governemnt wants me to go back there to fight whoever took it over (Soviet state). I have no legal papers or rights to go and kick a family off that land who's now lived there for 80 years, even though morally it would likely be 'just'.

You seem to operate with a cut off point which is around 1920, what about the whole villages of Jews killed by the Ottomans for assisting the British in the 50 or so years before this?

Jews don't operate with a 'convert or die' option like Christianity and Islam does/did, so of course there wasn't a big population of Jews in Judea after these two religions started taking over as you either fled\converted\got beheaded by some knight or someone praising god while killing you.

I haven't said  the Jews shouldn't be allowed a state.  In any case would such a viewpoint be a fallacy?  I mean in the sense of logical fallacy?  

Around 1920 is when the Zionist movement's desire for a Jewish homeland, which had been mooted for quite a few decades before that,  began to be ratified as part of Western (initially British) Foreign Policy.  That made it more viable, accommodated significant immigration of Jews to Palestine,  and ultimately led to the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948 when the British did a runner after realising what an unholy cock up they'd made of the whole shebang.  So to me it seems a not unreasonable point from which to start the discussion of the plight of the Palestinians under Jewish occupation.   

I'm not sure how the other points you make are relevant to the current situation.  If they are attempts to expose hypocrisy,  I don't think they work.  If they are attempts to justify what Israel has done and is doing because others are just as bad then they are just "whataboutery".      

29 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

“Modern” can mean different things, but Israel really originates with the creation of Mandatory Palestine over a century ago (1920) and that isn’t much later than the main waves of European settlement in Australia and New Zealand.

My argument is that now you have multiple generations of born and bred Israeli Jews living in the country, something roughly resembling the current nation-state of Israel (in terms of borders and a majority Jewish population) is an essential and unavoidable part of the eventual outcome. I don’t see any realistic solution that doesn’t involve that.

Do you think there is one? And if not, what is the practical relevance of Israel being a young / badly conceived state to the current situation?

And I completely accept that democracy and conciliation hasn’t worked well on either side, but it’s still the only approach that has ever worked in a situation like this, besides the complete annihilation of one side.

I can see the argument for attacks on Israeli military, govt buildings, etc but what Hamas did to innocent civilians was unconscionable and there’s a hint of “well, they had no other option” to some of the commentary. That seems to get bolstered by this idea that ordinary non-settler Israelis are recent colonisers.

I can totally see Hamas’s frustration at being boxed in by Israeli govts who often act in bad faith and make land grabs while conceding almost nothing, but I find it pretty hard to empathise with anyone who gets joy out of murdering children?

 

The bulk of immigration to the Antipodes occurred from around the 1830s to the 1850s, in prime Colonial times. A totally different ball game as I implied in my earlier post.

Of course Israel was preceded by Mandatory Palestine, ruled by the British,  but Israel as a Jewish state came into being 14th May 1948. It's within living memory and happened in a World where Colonialism had supposedly become, or was becoming, discredited and repugnant. 

It is true, however, that both Zionist activity and immigration, and Arab hostility around Palestine had been steadily growing in the inter-war period.   The promise to Zionists within the British  mandate was for a "National Homeland for the Jews", not a Jewish state.  Even that "lesser" promise contradicted guarantees made by the British Government to the Arab World that they would be granted the right to self determination of the indigenous peoples in return for helping to fight the Ottoman Empire in WWI.  Although the British later tried to wriggle out of it, those guarantees did not exclude Palestine. 

In 1919 the vast majority of the population in Palestine were non-Jewish, mostly Arabs. So the mandate not only **** over the Arabs, it was claimed that it contravened Article 22 of the League of Nations pertaining to the equal rights for self-determination of all people.   Records show that at the time Israel was created, Jews were still not a majority in Palestine, they numbered around a third of the population, and owned around only 5-6% of the land.  And that was following significant encouraged immigration of Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. 

So 1948 really is a key date in all this and was a crucial turning point - when the UN somehow sanctioned giving the Zionists 55% of the land, in contravention of its own Charter regarding equal rights to self determination, and the declaration of a Jewish state.  

I do think that Israel has become established enough to render a two state "solution" the only "viable" option.   I don't agree that that means the Arabs should accept Israel in it's current (and expanding) state.  I still don't buy your reasoning that because multiple generations of Jews have been born in Palestine since 1948 that it endows them with rights of Governance and land ownership.  Much of which has been seized by force from indigenous Palestinians.  I can only see the Arab world accepting a two state solution if Palestinians are given a fair share of the land , security from attack,   and equal rights to self governance.  Sadly I can't ever see the Zionists agreeing to that.

47 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Calling a UN-mandate 'stealing' land is quite rich, isn't it?

UN Mandate or not, if it walks like a duck....

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The same nations are/were widely racist to Jews, Kurds, Yezidi and Koptic Christians, enforced religious taxation on the local non-muslim population and in some cases ethnically cleansed people based on religion and nationality (i.e Armenians and Assyrians), I think you're adding a lot of credit to nations who in their very core have extremely bad treatment of Palestinians themselves. A lot of the displacement of Palestinians occurred due to Israeli aggression, but a fair part of that also occurred due to the whole Arab world attacking Israel in 3 major conflicts before Israel in its current form was even 30 years old.

My family is a migrant family fleeing from war and ethnic cleansing, it's not like the British government decided to put my grandparents and parents in a camp, and then denied them and their kids rights for 5 generations. It's convenient for Jordan, Egypt and Syria in particular to keep the blame game up against Israel so they don't need to do anything about the now estimated 2.4 million refugees, who after 70 years are treated like stateless people. 750.000 are in Saudi Arabia being worked to death, about a million live in squalor in Egypt and another million is spread between Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. How many of them do you think were there when the Arab League decided to attack Israel in 1948-9? The treatment of Palestinians is as inhumane in these countries as in Israel, and in some cases it's a lot worse. That's not to say Israel isn't bad because it clearly is, but the faux outrage from Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon in particular is hypocritical to its very core. The same goes for many of the people now protesting in London waving Egyptian, Lebanese and Jordanian flags around.

I'm not giving "credit" to anyone.  I get that you are trying to highlight  the hypocrisy of criticising Israel and not criticising other countries for what you believe to be similar transgressions.  For me the situations are so different that your comparisons have little or no valid basis as evidence of hypocrisy.       

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

The USA (or any white majority country in the Americas), Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, etc.

And Israel was part of a carve up of the Middle East pre WWII which involved similar top down decisions by the colonial powers to give different groups (Hashemites, Sauds, etc) control over multiethnic regions, often where they started out as a minority group (and remember Jews were present in the region for millennia).

I’m not saying any of this was right, but we don’t seriously expect to rewind any of these processes. The aim nowadays in any of these other parallel examples is usually to give equal rights to oppressed groups within established borders, and for any change in those borders (eg the reunification of Ireland) to be a democratic process.

Once you have generations of people of the “new” ethnic group born on the land that was unjustly acquired, it does become “historic” yes, unfortunately. You go past the point of no return, which we have in Israel.

None of this justifies Israel’s behaviour, but it also makes Hamas’s position untenable too. Any position that sees Israel as a state that shouldn’t exist (or that should be dramatically smaller than it is at the moment) just doesn’t work, even if you’re right to see the settler expansions and oppression of Palestinians as completely outrageous.

I specified "in modern times".  The examples you give are from times when Colonialism was the norm and every large economic and military power considered it their right.  In post-Colonial times, are they not retrospectively regarded as massive wrongs perpetrated against native peoples?  And are the neighbours blamed for being "just as bad" as the invaders? 

Such travesties were played out to more or less completion and are now so embedded that I doubt anyone would suggest reversal is possible.  In this case 1947 is within living memory, and the continuing process of cleansing and expansion has been playing out before our eyes for 75 years and with the complicit agreement and backing of the Western Powers.  This in an era that was becoming post-Colonial, and where the UN is, among other things, meant to prevent repetitions of such wrongs.   Instead they instigated one.  I don't accept that Israel/Palestine has reached the point of no return that the other examples you mention have, because it is an ongoing and evolving process.  Isn't Israel's drive to get to that point of no return what the conflict is all about? 

Sure Jews were always present in the area, but from what I can see they were a tiny minority for the last 2000 or so years.  Those Jews do not appear to have ever had Zionism as their aim and I'm not convinced their minority presence endowed the Zionists with any rights to become the forced majority in Palestine.  

Democratic processes and attempts at peace agreements have not helped the Palestinians much in the last 75 years.  Such moves  tend to revolve around an acceptance that Israel has done what it's done and the other parties just need to accept it and move on, with little or no benefit or reparations to the Palestinian population. which seems to be pretty much what you are proposing.  Is it any wonder they, including Hamas, aren't willing to accept such terms?  Would you?

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

I don't think these arguments based on historical injustices get you anywhere (apart from understanding the context).

We can all see that the creation of the state of Israel was deeply flawed, but we're now in a situation 75 years later where you have this enormous population of Israeli Jews who were born in Israel and have as much right to the land they grew up in as anyone else in the region. Just like today's Northern Irish Protestants are as legitimately Northern Irish as the Catholic community.

Also, it's worth pointing out that many of the states in the region were a product of colonialism or colonial sponsorship... Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. So singling Israel out as unique in this regard because it happens to be the only Jewish state, misses the point that most nation states are artificial in some way or another.

I think Netanyahu is a complete piece of shit and that Israeli settlers are indefensible, and that Israel routinely commits war crimes against the Palestinians. But I also think there is an unnatural obsession with Israel's actions that isn't matched by similar interest in the ethnic cleansing and oppression of minority communities across the region and in many other parts of the world - e.g. Saudi treatment of Shias in Eastern Provinces, Iraqi/Turkish treatment of Kurds, and so on.

We shouldn't demonise or glorify sides in these territorial disputes. They're all as bad as each other, and the only sustainable solution is for the decent people on each side to have more power, and the warmongers to have less power. But it's never a case of one ethnic group or nationality being better or worse, or more guilty or innocent, than the other. It's whether the good guys or the bad guys have managed to wield power within the community.

My reference to the 1948 two state "solution" was in response to the other poster bringing up the subject of its rejection as a criticism of Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, as well as other Arab nations.  To my mind they most likely saw it as a deeply unjust and unfair proposal that strongly favoured the Jewish minority and considered the Palestinian people as disposable and dispensable.   I find it hard to disagree. 

I'm not sure you can label  injustices that have been ongoing for at least 75 years and continue now as "historical".  The events of 1947-48 may have been something of a starting point (although not completely) but it has been a more or less continuous process of enlargement, oppression and displacement ever since.  And context is crucial to understanding any situation.  Why would you want to suppress it or ignore it?  The UN resolution of 1947 remains a root cause of what's going on today and is therefore still extremely relevant.  Can you just say "oh it happened so long ago it's not relevant"?  That could lead to a whole can of worms as to what can be dismissed as "historical".   

You seriously don't think Israel is a unique case? I'm not singling them out because they are a Jewish state (although that in itself makes them unique) but because, while other countries may have been shaped and influenced by the Colonialism of Britain and France in particular, and other countries persecute minorities, can you name any other examples in modern times where a minority ethno/religious population were artificially supplanted into the midst of a majority, supplemented and supported by the established Colonial Powers, and then proceeded to act like a colonial power themselves?  Taking over and expanding with extreme prejudice?  

Finally I'm not convinced that being born there as the child of a member of an occupying colonial power endows you with any rights to that land.  On what basis would those rights exist?   And do those rights extend to continuing  to expel Palestinians , take their land, and put them in open prisons?     

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

In part some of those people are who I'm talking about. They're now on their 4th or 5th generation Palestinian family living in squalor in a camp in Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt, and they're still not given even basic rights by the people who call them brothers. To call someone who's family have lived in their country since 1947-9 a refugee, is entirely morally bankrupt.

I wish all the states in this area would do some introspection. The Palestinians are just being thrown around like they're garbage.

Egypt and Jordan in particular pushed the Palestinians to not accept a two state solution in 1948, and have essentially furthered this situation by presumably hating (at least in action) both Palestinians and Israelis.

They are still not there by choice but from 75 years of continuous Israeli expansion and persecution. 

You seem to be saying that their “brothers” should have taken them in as Citizens to solve the problem after Israel had forced them out, and if they don’t, they are just as bad as Israel. How convenient for the Israelis - “yeah sure we can just kick them out and take their land cos Egypt/Lebanon/Jordan will just take them in, and if they refuse then they are just as bad as us”.  

What motivation would Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have for doing that?  What obligation is there for them to do so? 

The entire Arab world rejected the 1948 so called two state solution and why wouldn’t they?  The “UN” decided to hand over something like 55% of the land to Israelis who at the time occupied something like 6% of the land and constituted around only a third of the population even after mass immigration following World War 2.  It didn’t sound like much of a “solution” for the Palestinians who would have to hand over their land to the Israelis, nor did it sound like much of a solution to those countries that decided to oppose it.  What would you have done in their shoes?