Peace in Israel/Palestine

[blankall]

Originally Posted by jofillips

Plus Jordan fought a pretty big civil war against the PLO (Yasser Arafat) and Palestinians back in the 70s (?)...
Probably not too much love lost between the two.

The relationship between the Jordanians and Palestinians is very complicated. Palestinians form the majority in Jordan.

The official stance of all the Arab countries has been to never give Palestinians full citizenship. The idea is to keep them and their descendants as refugees so that they can be used against Israel in a demographic war later on. This includes keeping people who have descendants of, for example, Jordanian and Egyptian heritigae, who happened to be in Palestine at the time Israel was created from ever gaining citizenship or land rights. For example, Yasser Arafat's family, who has Egyptian heritage was stripped of all Egyptian citizenship and land, because they qualified as Palestinian. In order to qualify as Palestinian, you had to be in what is now Israel and the occupied territories for 2 years prior to Israel becoming into being or be descended from someone who was.

That being said, the Jordanians have also made all sorts of random declarations to appease their Palestinian population and even going as far as to say that Jordanians and Palestinians are the same people.

Basically, Jordan wants to rule over all of Jordan and Israel. They, however, also fear being overthrown by the Palestinians militant groups. This is changing somewhat, as the Palestinian refugee problem, they helped create, leaves their control, and Israel's permance becomes cemented. More and more they are going to distance themselves from the West Bank. They'll also be working to sabotage Palestinian statehood. At one time, they were invading the West Bank. Now it's going to be the Palestinians with nationalist aspirations towards Jordanian territory.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

The relationship between the Jordanians and Palestinians is very complicated. Palestinians form the majority in Jordan.

The official stance of all the Arab countries has been to never give Palestinians full citizenship. The idea is to keep them and their descendants as refugees so that they can be used against Israel in a demographic war later on. This includes keeping people who have descendants of, for example, Jordanian and Egyptian heritigae, who happened to be in Palestine at the time Israel was created from ever gaining citizenship or land rights. For example, Yasser Arafat's family, who has Egyptian heritage was stripped of all Egyptian citizenship and land, because they qualified as Palestinian. In order to qualify as Palestinian, you had to be in what is now Israel and the occupied territories for 2 years prior to Israel becoming into being or be descended from someone who was.

That being said, the Jordanians have also made all sorts of random declarations to appease their Palestinian population and even going as far as to say that Jordanians and Palestinians are the same people.

Basically, Jordan wants to rule over all of Jordan and Israel. They, however, also fear being overthrown by the Palestinians militant groups. This is changing somewhat, as the Palestinian refugee problem, they helped create, leaves their control, and Israel's permance becomes cemented. More and more they are going to distance themselves from the West Bank. They'll also be working to sabotage Palestinian statehood. At one time, they were invading the West Bank. Now it's going to be the Palestinians with nationalist aspirations towards Jordanian territory.

True to an extent.

Most Palestinians living in Jordan are Jordanian citizens.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Edit: Also, before the Ottoman Empire was torn apart, there were no borders or individual countries. People could move freely between areas. So the line between being Palestinian and Egyptian or Jodanian is pretty artificial to begin with.

Looks like those Ottoman's had it figured out before the Brits messed it up... again.

I wonder what that area would look like if Ottoman rule had persisted, with their general passivity / apathy to internal ethnic groups (provided all taxes were paid and you remembered who was boss). It definitely wouldn't be engineered as it is now, but I'm still curious what the outcome would be.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

True to an extent.

Most Palestinians living in Jordan are Jordanian citizens.

I stand corrected.

This is true. However, from what I'm reading, the number of Palestinians in Jordan with Jordanian citizenship may actually be less than 50%. Jordan is purposely undereporting the Palestinian population in order to maintain a Jordanian majority.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Looks like those Ottoman's had it figured out before the Brits messed it up... again.

I wonder what that area would look like if Ottoman rule had persisted, with their general passivity / apathy to internal ethnic groups (provided all taxes were paid and you remembered who was boss). It definitely wouldn't be engineered as it is now, but I'm still curious what the outcome would be.

Not really. The Ottomans were extremely brutal towarads their populace. It was basically a Turkish elite ruling a large group of minorities under their control by extreme force. The Turks had also started various genocidal campaigns prior to leaving: Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian, Greek, etc...

Things have been bad in the middle east recently, but they were downright horrific at the end of Ottoman rule.

When the Turkish dictators were removed various Arab powers were vying for control. The Brits cut a deal with the Hashemites and Saudis. It avoided a massive war, but, also, conveniently enough stabalized access to emerging oil resources.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not really. The Ottomans were extremely brutal towarads their populace. It was basically a Turkish elite ruling a large group of minorities under their control by extreme force. The Turks had also started various genocidal campaigns prior to leaving: Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian, Greek, etc...

Things have been bad in the middle east recently, but they were downright horrific at the end of Ottoman rule.

When the Turkish dictators were removed various Arab powers were vying for control. The Brits cut a deal with the Hashemites and Saudis. It avoided a massive war, but, also, conveniently enough stabalized access to emerging oil resources.

The Ottomans were completely brutal when it came to the European areas of their empire. I don't know a lot about how they managed the Middle East, but their savagery in the Balkans left a long imprint in some areas.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not really. The Ottomans were extremely brutal towarads their populace. It was basically a Turkish elite ruling a large group of minorities under their control by extreme force. The Turks had also started various genocidal campaigns prior to leaving: Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian, Greek, etc...

Things have been bad in the middle east recently, but they were downright horrific at the end of Ottoman rule.

When the Turkish dictators were removed various Arab powers were vying for control. The Brits cut a deal with the Hashemites and Saudis. It avoided a massive war, but, also, conveniently enough stabalized access to emerging oil resources.

Gotta hate those elites ruling large groups of minorities.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not really. The Ottomans were extremely brutal towarads their populace. It was basically a Turkish elite ruling a large group of minorities under their control by extreme force. The Turks had also started various genocidal campaigns prior to leaving: Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian, Greek, etc...

Things have been bad in the middle east recently, but they were downright horrific at the end of Ottoman rule.

When the Turkish dictators were removed various Arab powers were vying for control. The Brits cut a deal with the Hashemites and Saudis. It avoided a massive war, but, also, conveniently enough stabalized access to emerging oil resources.

I'd also hate for you to be mixing up Ottomans and Turks. We want the injustices attributed to the right people.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Israel was made from Palestine.

A common misconception.

Many areas/lands have been referred to by different names throughout history. Names have changed depending on who was in charge at the time or who was writing the historical record (usually the wars' winners). The Middle East is no different - anyone been to Assyria or Mesopotamia recently?

What we know as the State of Israel has been:
- Cannaan (The Bible)
- The Kingdom of the Hebrews (Babylonian steles & tax records)
- Israel (the Apocrypha)
- Palestine (a name bestowed by the Roman Empire)
- The Ottoman Empire
- British Mandate Palestine (after the British & French split the Ottoman Empire)
- Trans-Jordan (before the British gave the bulk to the Hashimamites)
- The State of Israel

Jews did not just point to a map and arbitrarily pick a spot and say "we'll go there." Israel & Jerusalem has been a focal point of Judaism for 3000 centuries. Israel is the Jewish Homeland.

Now the question is can we all share it?
or as WCW Nitro puts it

Does anyone actually believe Israel when it says that it wants peace?

I like to look at past actions as a barometer for future actions.
After the '67 war Israel built settlements in the Sinai Peninsula. Part of the peace deal with Egypt was the removal of those settlements. Israel removed the settlements.
Israel abandoned the Gaza settlements.
Both times the Israeli PM was considered a hawk.

This is why the settlement issue is a red hearing.
Israel has proven that they are willing to remove settlements and relocate citizens for peace.

In the meantime the Palestinians have not fulfilled one term of the Oslo agreements:
- they have not clamped down on terrorists or attacks on Israel
- they have not stopped inciting Jew-hatred in their broadcasts or schools
- They have not recognized the State of Israel (recognizing Israel as the Jewish State would be a later demand from Natanyahu to go to the negotiating table)

And now they want to be bribed to come to the table.

Kerry did not have to convince Israel to come to the table. He had to convince Israel to give in to Palestinian demands in order to get the Palestinians to the table.

Ask me again which side is interested in negotiations and peace.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

A common misconception.

Many areas/lands have been referred to by different names throughout history. Names have changed depending on who was in charge at the time or who was writing the historical record (usually the wars' winners). The Middle East is no different - anyone been to Assyria or Mesopotamia recently?

What we know as the State of Israel has been:
- Cannaan (The Bible)
- The Kingdom of the Hebrews (Babylonian steles & tax records)
- Israel (the Apocrypha)
- Palestine (a name bestowed by the Roman Empire)
- The Ottoman Empire
- British Mandate Palestine (after the British & French split the Ottoman Empire)
- Trans-Jordan (before the British gave the bulk to the Hashimamites)
- The State of Israel

Jews did not just point to a map and arbitrarily pick a spot and say "we'll go there." Israel & Jerusalem has been a focal point of Judaism for 3000 centuries. Israel is the Jewish Homeland.

Now the question is can we all share it?
or as WCW Nitro puts it I like to look at past actions as a barometer for future actions.
After the '67 war Israel built settlements in the Sinai Peninsula. Part of the peace deal with Egypt was the removal of those settlements. Israel removed the settlements.
Israel abandoned the Gaza settlements.
Both times the Israeli PM was considered a hawk.

This is why the settlement issue is a red hearing.
Israel has proven that they are willing to remove settlements and relocate citizens for peace.

In the meantime the Palestinians have not fulfilled one term of the Oslo agreements:
- they have not clamped down on terrorists or attacks on Israel
- they have not stopped inciting Jew-hatred in their broadcasts or schools
- They have not recognized the State of Israel (recognizing Israel as the Jewish State would be a later demand from Natanyahu to go to the negotiating table)

And now they want to be bribed to come to the table.

Kerry did not have to convince Israel to come to the table. He had to convince Israel to give in to Palestinian demands in order to get the Palestinians to the table.

Ask me again which side is interested in negotiations and peace.

Sure, I understand that Jews have a connection to Jerusalem and what they now call Israel. That is, after all, where their religion started from. But, and this is very important, countries don't belong to religions. Judaism, for the most part, is just a religion that can be converted into and out of.

It's also disingenuous to clump all "Palestinians" together in one group when you're making claims such as "they have not clamped down on terrorists or attacks on Israel". Fatah, has done an excellent job in keeping their end of the bargain in the West Bank. Hamas, a rogue element in Palestinian society, has not. Israel is negotiating with Fatah, not Hamas. It's not fair to point to the problems with Hamas and say "well you guys don't want peace."

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Jews did not just point to a map and arbitrarily pick a spot and say "we'll go there." Israel & Jerusalem has been a focal point of Judaism for 3000 centuries. Israel is the Jewish Homeland.

I've no quarrel with this comment as it certainly rings true from my conversations with Jewish friends. However, it is absolutely no basis for land ownership in a world with different religions, cultures and societies. The "substance" of this claim is just as valid for the Palestinians as it is for the Israelis.

It reminds me of the line in Monty Python where the peasant notes that "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government." It rings true in this case when you have competing cultures with separate beliefs*.


* which are both fictional baloney anyways but hey, this thread has enough problems as it is...

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I've no quarrel with this comment as it certainly rings true from my conversations with Jewish friends. However, it is absolutely no basis for land ownership in a world with different religions, cultures and societies. The "substance" of this claim is just as valid for the Palestinians as it is for the Israelis.

It reminds me of the line in Monty Python where the peasant notes that "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government." It rings true in this case when you have competing cultures with separate beliefs*.


* which are both fictional baloney anyways but hey, this thread has enough problems as it is...

I get that you believe that nations aren't meant for religions, but the say you extrapolate it is a very anti-nationalism stance, and you can make the same argument against Israel then as you can for the majority of countries in the world. The fact is the Jewish people were without a place they could call their own for 1000's of years, and when the opportunity came when the people could create their own nation, they took it. You're stance on nationalism gives the same non-validity for say Poland to be a nation. Yes the Polish people want to be united and have a place they call home, but for centuries they were just a people that were ruled by other nations, until this past century they finally found stability in their nationhood.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

In the meantime the Palestinians have not fulfilled one term of the Oslo agreements:
- they have not clamped down on terrorists or attacks on Israel
- they have not stopped inciting Jew-hatred in their broadcasts or schools

Here I agree with you 100%. There will be no peace until this changes. Unfortunately there is too much dehumanizing going on both sides and its a bit of a chicken and egg thing. When people grow up in absolute poverty they look for someone to blame and have a lot of hate. The Gaza blockade did not help the Israeli cause.

- They have not recognized the State of Israel (recognizing Israel as the Jewish State would be a later demand from Natanyahu to go to the negotiating table)

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Israel is a state and is not going anywhere. Denying that fact is not going to help you. You can deny their claim on the lands they took in 67, but the original state is legitimate. Same goes for the reverse. If Palestine makes any effort to get internationally recognised, Israel goes crazy and works through its US allies to defund any organization that recognises their bid for statehood.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

I get that you believe that nations aren't meant for religions, but the say you extrapolate it is a very anti-nationalism stance, and you can make the same argument against Israel then as you can for the majority of countries in the world. The fact is the Jewish people were without a place they could call their own for 1000's of years, and when the opportunity came when the people could create their own nation, they took it. You're stance on nationalism gives the same non-validity for say Poland to be a nation. Yes the Polish people want to be united and have a place they call home, but for centuries they were just a people that were ruled by other nations, until this past century they finally found stability in their nationhood.

I'm not refuting people's right to identity and sovereignty. What I am refuting is a culture's claim to *exclusive* use of certain principles in order to advance only their own sovereignty.

Your example's corollary in the mideast would be to advocate for a nation for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, as neither technically had (or currently have) a "place they could call their own." In essence, your argument can be equally applied to both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I'm not refuting people's right to identity and sovereignty. What I am refuting is a culture's claim to *exclusive* use of certain principles in order to advance only their own sovereignty.

Your example's corollary in the mideast would be to advocate for a nation for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, as neither technically had (or currently have) a "place they could call their own." In essence, your argument can be equally applied to both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

That is true, I believe the best way to peace is two nations.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I'd also hate for you to be mixing up Ottomans and Turks. We want the injustices attributed to the right people.

Not really sure what you mean by this. "Ottoman" refers to a Turkish speaking member of the Ottoman Empire. They actually are the same people.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

Here I agree with you 100%. There will be no peace until this changes. Unfortunately there is too much dehumanizing going on both sides and its a bit of a chicken and egg thing. When people grow up in absolute poverty they look for someone to blame and have a lot of hate. The Gaza blockade did not help the Israeli cause.

How do you explain the attacks coming from the West Bank? The Gaza blockade saved the lives of many Israelis. The notion that Gaza would have warmed to Israel had they had more access to weapons is ridiculous. The Gaza Blockade did not come into force until after Hamas had taken power. Hamas has declared open war on Israel.

The Palestinians will continue to be poor until they address a few problems within their own society. Firslty when every woman has between 6 and 8 children, everyone is going to be poor. An economy cannot support that kind of growth. Sure, it's great for a demographic war with Israel, but it cripples your economy. Secondly, they have to allow human rights. When your government does things like throw people with dissenting ideas off bulidings or stop women from going to school, it's not going to do wonders for your economy either.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not really sure what you mean by this. "Ottoman" refers to a Turkish speaking member of the Ottoman Empire. They actually are the same people.

Let's just say that it is obviously hard to be an expert in everything. I'll let it drop because it's not important to this exact subject, but you're conflating / lumping things together.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by _Q_

It's also disingenuous to clump all "Palestinians" together in one group when you're making claims such as "they have not clamped down on terrorists or attacks on Israel". Fatah, has done an excellent job in keeping their end of the bargain in the West Bank. Hamas, a rogue element in Palestinian society, has not. Israel is negotiating with Fatah, not Hamas. It's not fair to point to the problems with Hamas and say "well you guys don't want peace."

Many would say that the the security fence has done a better job of preventing terrorist attacks from the WB than Fatah has.

When it comes to discussing the Kerry talks we are only discussing Fatah.

Fatah is in charge of the Palestinian broadcasting & school systems - the ones that never refer to Israel by name, only as the "house of apes & pigs" and have no maps that show Israel.

Fatah is asking for a bribe to come to the negotiating table.

Hamas is quite clear - Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Many would say that the the security fence has done a better job of preventing terrorist attacks from the WB than Fatah has.

When it comes to discussing the Kerry talks we are only discussing Fatah.

Fatah is in charge of the Palestinian broadcasting & school systems - the ones that never refer to Israel by name, only as the "house of apes & pigs" and have no maps that show Israel.

Fatah is asking for a bribe to come to the negotiating table.

Hamas is quite clear - Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea.

In the same way Israel never shows Palestine on any maps? http://www.goisrael.de/Tourism_Ger/T...pOfIsrael1.pdf