To be completely fair, when an anti-Israel rally gets conflated with anti-Jew, and then escalates into "lets go hunt down all of the Jews", you know you have a problem.
I think the issue that is being highlighted here is that historically Jews have never wanted to wipe out the Arabs. It has always been the other way around when it comes to Israel. And that is problematic for establishing peace in the region.
Oh my God!! So because a bunch of idiots in Edmonton threatened a Jewish family, all of a sudden all Arabs want to wipe out all Jews? Way to combat racism with more racism. Just to be clear, we also don't know the race of these morons.
So if I find a video of jews chanting "Death to Arabs!" can I nullify the premise of your original argument?
Last edited by _Q_; 05-20-2021 at 09:43 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
I'm a simple man, if I see a Rex Murphy link, I don't click it.
That guy is at least 20 years past his best before date.
Saw him speak at a non-O&G related conference a few years ago, but he spent his entire stump time fellating Alberta O&G so hard I thought he was going to break in half.
Oh my God!! So because a bunch of idiots in Edmonton threatened a Jewish family, all of a sudden all Arabs want to wipe out all Jews? Way to combat racism with more racism. Just to be clear, we also don't know the race of these morons.
So if I find a video of jews chanting "Death to Arabs!" can I nullify the premise of your original argument?
I think this definitely illustrates the dangers of stereotyping people based on race/religion/ethnicity. Many of the initial posts in this thread did involve cherry picking actions by Jewish Israelis to make the point that Israel itself was evil.
I definitely do not think that all Palestinian supporters, Muslims, or Arabs are bigoted, but it is important to point out the dangers that the average Jewish citizen face everyday. It's a large part of what motivates Jews to move to Israel. Ironically, the people attacking Jews on behalf of Palestinians are only strengthening the Israeli position.
We just had a post that said "Zionists however, have been pretty clear about their desire for the eradication of Arabs." and multiple people thanked it.
People are Zionists for a lot of different reason. The majority do not want to wipe out Arabs. Many want a Jewish state for safety and sovereignty reasons, which is the same reason that Palestinians want a state. People want to pursue their lives without fear and threat.
Edit: I apologize, I do not mean to direct this at you specifically as some kind of attack. It's just a conversation piont.
I'm a simple man, if I see a Rex Murphy link, I don't click it.
That guy is at least 20 years past his best before date.
If I see a poster on this site link to a Rex Murphy article unironically, it takes me a at least a good couple of months before I'm able to even consider taking said poster seriously again.
I have a very poor understanding of this topic so I wanted to ask simply, why can't a two state be agreed upon? After the Six Days War in 67, shouldn't a two state solution have worked out?
Could Israel and Palestine co-exist in the same way for example Malaysia and Singapore co-exist? Malaysia and Singapore also had tensions in the 60s. Or even India and Pakistan.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
India and Pakistan may not be the best example of peacefully co-existing...
True. The fighting is just in that province though, not the entire border. I think the agreement of actually having two states (Pakistan and India) is still better than the current situation in Israel-Palestine.
Malaysia-Singapore is the better example.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
There is a rock. Both sides want the rock, and feel that God agrees. Rationality has left the building. Israel should have offered to slice off a piece of Syria, and officially identify it as Palastine. But that rock isn't magic. As long as these two groups live cheek and jowl, this will never end, and none of it surprises me. It's hard to be shocked by the inevitable.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
True. The fighting is just in that province though, not the entire border. I think the agreement of actually having two states (Pakistan and India) is still better than the current situation in Israel-Palestine.
Malaysia-Singapore is the better example.
Here is a good series of videos (15 segments, 5 minutes or so each), explaining the history of Israel-Palestine. It's decently well balanced and doesn't go into too much depth (or a rabbit hole).
I have a very poor understanding of this topic so I wanted to ask simply, why can't a two state be agreed upon? After the Six Days War in 67, shouldn't a two state solution have worked out?
Could Israel and Palestine co-exist in the same way for example Malaysia and Singapore co-exist? Malaysia and Singapore also had tensions in the 60s. Or even India and Pakistan.
A number of reasons.
#1 When Israel was created in 1948, 700,000 Palestinians were displaced and became refugees. Those refugees now number about 7 million. Simply defining Palestine as the 1967 borders without a solution to the refugees has always been a sticking point for the Palestinians. Returning them to Israel proper means that the Jewish character of Israel would become compromised, essentially turning Israel into an Arab state.
#2 the 1967 border runs right through Jerusalem with all the historical parts located in the Arab east end. Israel views the city as their eternal, undivided capital. The Palestinians view it the same way more or less. The Palestinians are willing to turn the eastern portion in their capital, the Israelis aren't willing to give up any of it.
#3 Israel wants to control the future Palestinian state's borders and air space. That is problematic for the Palestinians.
#4 Israel wants Palestine to be a demilitarized country, which again is problematic for the Palestinians.
#5 There are currently 500,000 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank. Israel wants to maintain control of those settlements. The Palestinians have an issue with that since it breaks up the continuity of their country.
The Following User Says Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
True. The fighting is just in that province though, not the entire border. I think the agreement of actually having two states (Pakistan and India) is still better than the current situation in Israel-Palestine.
Malaysia-Singapore is the better example.
Wasn't Singapore essentially kicked out of Malaysia, or not allowed to join, for being under developed at the time?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
#1 When Israel was created in 1948, 700,000 Palestinians were displaced and became refugees. Those refugees now number about 7 million. Simply defining Palestine as the 1967 borders without a solution to the refugees has always been a sticking point for the Palestinians. Returning them to Israel proper means that the Jewish character of Israel would become compromised, essentially turning Israel into an Arab state.
Though the last point is correct, you conveniently skip over a few points:
- The UN agreed to a partition plan creating what would have become separate countries.
- While Arabs were being displaced so too were Jews - hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced out of ancient communities throughout the middle east.
- The number of refugees is so high because Palestinian refugees are the only refugees in history to keep that status generationally. (For example - The grandson of the Vietnamese "boat people" (as termed back in the '70's) who was born in Canada is not considered a Vietnamese refugee.)
Quote:
#2 the 1967 border runs right through Jerusalem with all the historical parts located in the Arab east end. Israel views the city as their eternal, undivided capital. The Palestinians view it the same way more or less. The Palestinians are willing to turn the eastern portion in their capital, the Israelis aren't willing to give up any of it.
Again, missing a point or two-
- The old City of Jerusalem is home to the holiest place on earth for Jews (the Wailing Wall); the third holiest place for Muslims (The Rock where Muhammad ascended to heaven), and the second holiest site for Christians (the Church of the Holy Sepuclture). These are all in East Jerusalem.
- From 1948 - 1967 Jews were not allowed to pray at the Wailing Wall. There is legitimate concern that this could happen again under PA rule. The UN tried to guarantee it back in '47, it didn't work.
Quote:
#3 Israel wants to control the future Palestinian state's borders and air space. That is problematic for the Palestinians.
#4 Israel wants Palestine to be a demilitarized country, which again is problematic for the Palestinians.
These are security reasons. A reasonable person would think that is #4 could be guaranteed, then #3 is unnecessary. (Yes, I know, Netanyahu is far from reasonable.)
Quote:
#5 There are currently 500,000 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank. Israel wants to maintain control of those settlements. The Palestinians have an issue with that since it breaks up the continuity of their country.
The Palestinians real issue is that, as per their leader, Abbas, there can be no Jews left living in the State of Palestine.
Israel has proven that they will remove settlements. Yes, they are unlikely to remove the 3-4 large blocs, but many of the smaller ones (I would think 25,000 or less) would be gone. Israel removed all the settlements from the Sinai and from Gaza, they will have to remove many from Judea and Samaria.
Continuity of the country is a different issue. There is going to be crossover regardless of the end map - Gaza and Judea and Samaria are not exactly connected. Nor is Ariel connected to Israel proper. No one is getting one continuous country.
IIRC Clinton said that the refugee issue (Israel agreed to reparations and to accept 1 mil) and the concept of "End of the Conflict" were the points on which Arafat walked away.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bleeding Red For This Useful Post:
Bring what up? Is anyone arguing that the people at the protest who were driving like idiots were not idiots? Anyone? Bueller?
And I compared it to show that it’s legitimately insane, as I literally just said. You don’t think it’s weird that someone jumps in into a thread where the main topic has to do with innocent people dying and the only concern they seem to have is traffic violations at home? You don’t think it’s weird that one of these people then describes those traffic violations as “producing the destruction and chaos in Gaza locally”? That’s a profoundly stupid thing to say.
The point being, have some perspective. If you can’t be bothered to comment on the conflict, and you’re just going to show up to bitch about traffic violations during a protest of the conflict, you should probably ask yourself if maybe you’re missing something.
Even giving a small effort to talk about a peripheral issue that matters, like the issue in Germany that Cliff mentioned, that makes sense. But whining about traffic violations when you can’t be bothered to give a single word to anything more important surrounding the issue... which is literally anything else? Eh, looks pretty silly.
Were you not commenting on the rally and only the rally in earlier posts when the rally was brought up earlier?
It's relevant to discuss local protests because, guess what? it's a local message board. Those traffic violations arent just small violations either. Running through red lights can and have literally killed people. Not to mention sitting outside of the window of a speeding SUV. Did you miss that when watching the video? It's not just that video but many other witness testimonials in other incidences.
To tell me to focus only on the conflict out in the middle east while you were engaged in conversations regarding local protests is just absolutely hypocritical and asinine. I'm not the one looking silly here
Were you not commenting on the rally and only the rally in earlier posts when the rally was brought up earlier?
It's relevant to discuss local protests because, guess what? it's a local message board. Those traffic violations arent just small violations either. Running through red lights can and have literally killed people. Not to mention sitting outside of the window of a speeding SUV. Did you miss that when watching the video? It's not just that video but many other witness testimonials in other incidences.
To tell me to focus only on the conflict out in the middle east while you were engaged in conversations regarding local protests is just absolutely hypocritical and asinine. I'm not the one looking silly here
I'm not telling you to only focus on the conflict.
I'm telling you it looks ridiculous when children are being blown up and the first/only thing that is important enough for you to comment on is traffic violations, and then saying those traffic violations are "producing the destruction and chaos in Gaza locally."
Not sure how this is hard to understand. But feel free to focus only on what is important to you.
Though the last point is correct, you conveniently skip over a few points:
- The UN agreed to a partition plan creating what would have become separate countries. - While Arabs were being displaced so too were Jews - hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced out of ancient communities throughout the middle east.
- The number of refugees is so high because Palestinian refugees are the only refugees in history to keep that status generationally. (For example - The grandson of the Vietnamese "boat people" (as termed back in the '70's) who was born in Canada is not considered a Vietnamese refugee.)
Again, missing a point or two-
- The old City of Jerusalem is home to the holiest place on earth for Jews (the Wailing Wall); the third holiest place for Muslims (The Rock where Muhammad ascended to heaven), and the second holiest site for Christians (the Church of the Holy Sepuclture). These are all in East Jerusalem.
- From 1948 - 1967 Jews were not allowed to pray at the Wailing Wall. There is legitimate concern that this could happen again under PA rule. The UN tried to guarantee it back in '47, it didn't work.
These are security reasons. A reasonable person would think that is #4 could be guaranteed, then #3 is unnecessary. (Yes, I know, Netanyahu is far from reasonable.)
The Palestinians real issue is that, as per their leader, Abbas, there can be no Jews left living in the State of Palestine.
Israel has proven that they will remove settlements. Yes, they are unlikely to remove the 3-4 large blocs, but many of the smaller ones (I would think 25,000 or less) would be gone. Israel removed all the settlements from the Sinai and from Gaza, they will have to remove many from Judea and Samaria.
Continuity of the country is a different issue. There is going to be crossover regardless of the end map - Gaza and Judea and Samaria are not exactly connected. Nor is Ariel connected to Israel proper. No one is getting one continuous country.
IIRC Clinton said that the refugee issue (Israel agreed to reparations and to accept 1 mil) and the concept of "End of the Conflict" were the points on which Arafat walked away.
Whilst this is true it has nothing to do with the Palestinians
Though the last point is correct, you conveniently skip over a few points:
- The UN agreed to a partition plan creating what would have become separate countries.
- While Arabs were being displaced so too were Jews - hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced out of ancient communities throughout the middle east.
- The number of refugees is so high because Palestinian refugees are the only refugees in history to keep that status generationally. (For example - The grandson of the Vietnamese "boat people" (as termed back in the '70's) who was born in Canada is not considered a Vietnamese refugee.)
You're just parroting zionist trope that would not apply to any other circumstance anywhere in the world. You know it as well as I do.
So the UN can just arbitrarily carve up a land, without first negotiating with the inhabitants of the land and the surrounding nations?
Here's a thought experiment. How would you feel if the UN decided to carve up western Canada into some unworkable mess where half of it would remain for Canadians and the other half for another group. The UN also failed to consult with the Canadian or US government. Oh and your home is located in the part that no longer is part of western Canada, so too bad, you need to pack your bags and leave.
Do you think that Canada would just throw their hand up and give in? Would they not declare war on that entity and fight to erase it as soon as possible?
I get that the Arabs lost the war and Israel was born because of it. I get that they are now there and it's genocidal to try to remove them now. However, the mere creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was an act of war against the Arabs.
Quote:
Again, missing a point or two-
- The old City of Jerusalem is home to the holiest place on earth for Jews (the Wailing Wall); the third holiest place for Muslims (The Rock where Muhammad ascended to heaven), and the second holiest site for Christians (the Church of the Holy Sepuclture). These are all in East Jerusalem.
- From 1948 - 1967 Jews were not allowed to pray at the Wailing Wall. There is legitimate concern that this could happen again under PA rule. The UN tried to guarantee it back in '47, it didn't work.
What's your point? That's what negotiations are for. I'm sure most Palestinians would be happy to allow Jews into East Jerusalem to pray if it means they can have East Jerusalem as their capital.
Quote:
These are security reasons. A reasonable person would think that is #4 could be guaranteed, then #3 is unnecessary. (Yes, I know, Netanyahu is far from reasonable.)
Living next to another nation means that they are able to protect themselves in the same way that you protect yourself. Anything less than that and its just occupation, plain and simple..
Quote:
The Palestinians real issue is that, as per their leader, Abbas, there can be no Jews left living in the State of Palestine.
Israel has proven that they will remove settlements. Yes, they are unlikely to remove the 3-4 large blocs, but many of the smaller ones (I would think 25,000 or less) would be gone. Israel removed all the settlements from the Sinai and from Gaza, they will have to remove many from Judea and Samaria.
Continuity of the country is a different issue. There is going to be crossover regardless of the end map - Gaza and Judea and Samaria are not exactly connected. Nor is Ariel connected to Israel proper. No one is getting one continuous country.
IIRC Clinton said that the refugee issue (Israel agreed to reparations and to accept 1 mil) and the concept of "End of the Conflict" were the points on which Arafat walked away.
It's not "Judea and Samaria". It's the West Bank. The fact you call it that is extremely dismissive of the rights of the Palestinian people to their home land. How about we start calling Israel, "occupied Palestine" or "the Zionist Entity" if we're just going to dismiss the existence of each side?
Whilst this is true it has nothing to do with the Palestinians
It kind of does though. During the Ottoman era, Arabs, mainly from Jordan and at the behest of Jordanian leaders, were forcefully located to "Palestine" to make the area more Muslim, and displaced many of the Jews and Hellenic Christians that lived in the region. The Palestinian nationality didn't exist until the 1800s and was created by the Ottomans. They did a similar thing in the Balkans by creating a Bosniak nationality.
That is not to say that Arabs didn't live in Palestine before then (as did Jews and other groups), but there was a mass migration not that dissimilar to the Zionist movement that also began in the 1800s. The land grabs at the time were mutual.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
It kind of does though. During the Ottoman era, Arabs, mainly from Jordan and at the behest of Jordanian leaders, were forcefully located to "Palestine" to make the area more Muslim, and displaced many of the Jews and Hellenic Christians that lived in the region. The Palestinian nationality didn't exist until the 1800s and was created by the Ottomans. They did a similar thing in the Balkans by creating a Bosniak nationality.
That is not to say that Arabs didn't live in Palestine before then (as did Jews and other groups), but there was a mass migration not that dissimilar to the Zionist movement that also began in the 1800s. The land grabs at the time were mutual.
None of this was the Palestinians fault, nor is it, or was it justification for displacing them after they have lived there for 60 or 100 years.
