You do realize this was before Israel even became a state right? What would your opinion be if we were looking at partitioning Canada - specifically land that you either own or live beside?
If the indigenous of Canada wanted to start their own country and were allocated land to do it on I would then move to the land that is not theirs. Like with the Jews in Israel the Indigenous were in Canada first and had a group of people living there for thousands of years uninterrupted. I certainly wouldn't try to murder their women and children but hey that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Q_
Gotta love the racist colonialist mindset behind those notions.
What do you mean the Palestinians don't accept a group of white people splitting their land up? These savages must not want peace!
The true racist comment shows up "a group of white people splitting up their land" like the Palestinians claim every inch of land there and no one has any claim to any of it despite it being legally owned by Jews. How dare Jews want their own country! Better start a 100 years war over land.
Events Where Palestine Offered to Recognize the Legitimacy of Israel:
(clip)
The Palestinian "acceptance" of the most substantive offers - Camp David, The Arab Peace Initiative, and the Geneva accords - were all conditional on the poison pill of allowing unlimited right of return of >5 million Palestinian Refugees and their descendants to the territory of Israel (UN resolution 194 from 1948).
That's not at all the same as accepting a Jewish Israeli state.
Either way, that's all in the past, and it's the next peace agreement that I hope for.
If the indigenous of Canada wanted to start their own country and were allocated land to do it on I would then move to the land that is not theirs. Like with the Jews in Israel the Indigenous were in Canada first and had a group of people living there for thousands of years uninterrupted. I certainly wouldn't try to murder their women and children but hey that's just me.
The true racist comment shows up "a group of white people splitting up their land" like the Palestinians claim every inch of land there and no one has any claim to any of it despite it being legally owned by Jews. How dare Jews want their own country! Better start a 100 years war over land.
Not to mention most Israeli Jews are not white. The majority of Israeli Jews are descended from the people who fled Arab and Muslim lands.
The British described the mandate of Palestine as multi ethnic and Multi cultural. Now it's only Arabs who any right to sovereignty there somehow? It's just "their land" somehow.
The Palestinian "acceptance" of the most substantive offers - Camp David, The Arab Peace Initiative, and the Geneva accords - were all conditional on the poison pill of allowing unlimited right of return of >5 million Palestinian Refugees and their descendants to the territory of Israel (UN resolution 194 from 1948).
That's not at all the same as accepting a Jewish Israeli state.
Either way, that's all in the past, and it's the next peace agreement that I hope for.
So it's OK for Israel to say they reject it because of something like that, but Palestinians rejecting it for their own reasons is somehow them being a barrier to peace? it's ridiculous to lump all the blame on one side for the lack of a two state solution, there are two players here...
All meaningless whataboutism anyway, and revisiting that as a way to apportion blame solves nothing, other than illuminating just how unsolvable this situation is.
Not to mention most Israeli Jews are not white. The majority of Israeli Jews are descended from the people who fled Arab and Muslim lands.
The British described the mandate of Palestine as multi ethnic and Multi cultural. Now it's only Arabs who any right to sovereignty there somehow? It's just "their land" somehow.
I was referring to the European powers and the early zionists that decided to impose their will on the region, not the current Israeli population. Although, one can argue, even though ethnically, 60% of Israeli Jews today are non-european, it is the white elite that dominate politics and the economy.
The entire Levant is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Palestine was no exception. It's my understanding that the early Palestinian negotiators sought to reject partitioning of the land in order to create a one state reality. Would that have allowed the Jews to live harmoniously with their Muslim and Christian neighbours? That's up for debate. Would that have allowed for increased Jewish immigration to the one state? Probably not, but that might have been a point that could have been negotiated rather than pushing through a partition that didn't serve the interests of either group.
What I can say is, it's obvious the Brittish had no effing clue what they were doing and ended up screwing everyone with their "solution".
As others have said, the past is the past and can't be undone. There are roughly an equal number of Palestinians and Jews living there right now. The most important peace process is the one that happens in the future, not the ones that occurred in the past.
So it's OK for Israel to say they reject it because of something like that, but Palestinians rejecting it for their own reasons is somehow them being a barrier to peace? it's ridiculous to lump all the blame on one side for the lack of a two state solution, there are two players here...
All meaningless whataboutism anyway, and revisiting that as a way to apportion blame solves nothing, other than illuminating just how unsolvable this situation is.
I would say that yes, it is reasonable for Israel to reject a peace agreement that does not preserve the Jewishness of that country. I don't see how any offer that includes unlimited right of return is a legitimate acceptance of the state of Israel.
Similarly, it is reasonable for Palestinians to reject a non-contiguous West Bank to accommodate Jewish settlements.
The Geneva accords were the most reasonable settlement offer in my opinion. Both sides didn't like it, which suggests it was closest to what a fair deal might look like.
I agree with this last part about apportioning blame, though. The next peace process is the most important.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bownesian For This Useful Post:
Right, I'm just saying the Palestinians also had good reasons for rejecting the deals. There are intractable positions on both sides held by extremists who have no interest in peace. I think finding ways to ignore, sideline, and minimize those will be essential.
"Sorry, but you just aren't going to be happy with what we come up with, and if you can't live with that, you will have to deal with our justice system"(which would be Israel containing their own extremists, and Palestine doing the same).
Right, I'm just saying the Palestinians also had good reasons for rejecting the deals. There are intractable positions on both sides held by extremists who have no interest in peace. I think finding ways to ignore, sideline, and minimize those will be essential.
"Sorry, but you just aren't going to be happy with what we come up with, and if you can't live with that, you will have to deal with our justice system"(which would be Israel containing their own extremists, and Palestine doing the same).
In my opinion, Right of Return is an extremist position, and not a defendable reason for rejecting the deals.
There are something like 5 million Palestinian refugees (and descendants) and just under 10 million Israelis. Any acceptance of Israel that is predicated on Right of Return is not a real acceptance.
My understanding is this issue is what unraveled Camp David on the Palestine side, it was embedded in the Arab proposal making that proposal moot, and was explicitly not part of Geneva (refugee return was to be a sovereign decision of each new country) and was the largest objection from the Palestine side.
In my opinion, Right of Return is an extremist position, and not a defendable reason for rejecting the deals.
There are something like 5 million Palestinian refugees (and descendants) and just under 10 million Israelis. Any acceptance of Israel that is predicated on Right of Return is not a real acceptance.
My understanding is this issue is what unraveled Camp David on the Palestine side, it was embedded in the Arab proposal making that proposal moot, and was explicitly not part of Geneva (refugee return was to be a sovereign decision of each new country) and was the largest objection from the Palestine side.
I think it's understandable in some ways that they want that, though. Take, for example, this person who posted on Reddit:
Spoiler!
I could use me and my families own experience as an anecdote to illustrate in short. As someone with Palestinian lineage I have no rights when travelling to my homeland. None whatsoever, no right to freedom of movement, no right to a fair trial, no right to representation or self-determination, no safety, right to expressiom, greatly restricted access to water etc. If I am to visit I am not allowed into Jerusalem or anywhere in Israel without a lengthy permit, even then I am denied entry arbitrarily. I am tried under a military court, I am barred from traveling to my grandfather's home(now subsumed by the nearby jewish-only settlements) etc etc. I could list it for days. Literally looking through the 30 rights outlined in the international convention on human rights it would be far easier to count the rights Palestinians are afforded, than the ones they are denied.
All this, based solely on the fact that I am on Israels "Palestinian population registry". Essentially a list of recognised Palestinians globally. I do not have palestinian citizenship, only British. Had I not been born Palestinian, I would have factually had more rights when travelling or living in the region.
Compare this, to Jewish people. A Jewish person, with the same British citizenship, would be treated equally to me in almost every country on earth. Except in Israel, with government funded free trips, subsidies if they decide to move there and support In establishing new jewish only settlements on stolen land.
We live the absurd reality where a British friend of mine with one Jewish grandmother, who has no real connection to the land is afforded far greater rights to travel and live in my grandfather's old home(in the WB) than I do.
We have a system which clearly and explicitly denies one group of people basic rights, whilst affording another great privilege solely on the basis of lineage. Nothing more. If that isn't a racist state idk what is.
I read that and think they make some good points. I have zero ties to Israel, yet given my Jewish ancestry could claim a lot more rights there than this person who has ties to the land.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
There's zero way to have peace while still maintaining the "right of return". It would give all Palestinians, who had been in what is now Israel for 2 years or more and all of their descendants, the right to enter Israel. The Palestinians would be given a Palestinian only territory, but the Israelis would be under constant threat of having their borders re-written.
It's a proposal that undoes the Arab losses from all the wars while providing no compensation for Israeli losses. For example, the half a million Iraqi Jews in Israel aren't being compensated for the Farhud.
If you want to move forward with peace, you eventually give up trying to undo the past.
As others have said, the past is the past and can't be undone. There are roughly an equal number of Palestinians and Jews living there right now. The most important peace process is the one that happens in the future, not the ones that occurred in the past.
This 100%. Both sides need new, brave leadership to lead them into the future. No Palestinian delegation is going to negotiate with Bibi and Israel will not deal with Hamas.
I think it's understandable in some ways that they want that, though. Take, for example, this person who posted on Reddit:
I read that and think they make some good points. I have zero ties to Israel, yet given my Jewish ancestry could claim a lot more rights there than this person who has ties to the land.
This needs to be dealt with. A two state solution with free movement of people, goods and services. Btw that's what Rabin and Peres had in mind back in the 90s. Free trade zone that included Israel, Palestine and Jordan.
This needs to be dealt with. A two state solution with free movement of people, goods and services. Btw that's what Rabin and Peres had in mind back in the 90s. Free trade zone that included Israel, Palestine and Jordan.
It's a shame how much progress/momentum was wiped out.
It's a shame how much progress/momentum was wiped out.
Those were heady days. Canada-US Free Trade Agreement signed in the late 80s - they held it up as a model for their vision of a Middle East economic power zone.
The Following User Says Thank You to Manhattanboy For This Useful Post:
Those were heady days. Canada-US Free Trade Agreement signed in the late 80s - they held it up as a model for their vision of a Middle East economic power zone.
A big FU to the people who turned to hostilities and conflict to bolster their own positions in life. Despicable.
Just as today, the only winners are the once ordering the murders.
I think it's understandable in some ways that they want that, though. Take, for example, this person who posted on Reddit:
(snip)
I read that and think they make some good points. I have zero ties to Israel, yet given my Jewish ancestry could claim a lot more rights there than this person who has ties to the land.
Every nation, including Canada, has rules for which people with which passports require a visa and how difficult it is to get that visa. On the surface, it's unfair and superficially racist, but Canada requires visas for people from certain countries and not from others. Check this wealthy/whites-only list for who can get in easily:
It's understandable that someone would *want* to visit their ancestral homeland - I have done the same thing - making trips back to where ancestors once lived just to see where they came from.
Despite that poster's desire to visit, the reality of the security risk is very different between a Canadian with no regional attachment going to Israel (3-month visa on arrival provided my passport is valid for 6 months) versus someone who lived their whole life in Syria or Lebanon or Gaza.
That's all notwithstanding that the demand is not to visit Israel, but the right to return permanently.
Every nation, including Canada, has rules for which people with which passports require a visa and how difficult it is to get that visa. On the surface, it's unfair and superficially racist, but Canada requires visas for people from certain countries and not from others. Check this wealthy/whites-only list for who can get in easily:
It's understandable that someone would *want* to visit their ancestral homeland - I have done the same thing - making trips back to where ancestors once lived just to see where they came from.
Despite that poster's desire to visit, the reality of the security risk is very different between a Canadian with no regional attachment going to Israel (3-month visa on arrival provided my passport is valid for 6 months) versus someone who lived their whole life in Syria or Lebanon or Gaza.
That's all notwithstanding that the demand is not to visit Israel, but the right to return permanently.
That poster also stated they were from the West Bank. The rights of Israelis in the Palestinian controlled areas are considerably different then those for Palestinians.
