Israel and the UAE normalize relations

RandomName2 · 14-08-2020 8:47pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There is no such country as "Palestine".

There is a region known as Palestine in which nation states such as Jordan, Egypt and Israel are located. There is no nation state called "Palestine".

There's no such country as Kurdistan either, doesn't mean that Kurds don't exist.

Odhinn wrote: »

It's normalising relations with a state acting outside the UN charter by its colonisation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem etc.

Can you think of any other country in the world where that is the procedure? North Korea, Iran, Eritrea. Plenty of countries act outside the UN charter, but you don't have people say they shouldn't exist.

Israelis are a.. fairly pugnacious bunch. They act as if the world is out to get them. A good start to changing this would probably involve not having your neighbors say 'What is Israel? I know of no country called Israel. If you are talking about the Zionists, they'll soon be pushed back into the ocean where they belong'

As long as countries around Israel can put up the farce that Israel doesn't exist, can they put up the farce that the Palestinian territories don't exist.

James Brown · 14-08-2020 9:00pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don't recognise the Palestinians because there is no Palestinian state. There has never been one. The Arabs never established one.

When Israel expanded its borders in the 1948 and 1967 wars, (both defensive wars in which no peace treaty was agreed) they were expanding into areas in which no state or nation existed.

The arabs in those occupied zones have no legitimate claim to statehood in those areas. They've been offered a two state solution no less than five times and they've rejected it each time.

As for bulldozing in modern times, Israel's demolition policy is intended as both a punitive measures against Arab terrorists and as a precautionary measures to keep their citizens safe. It is perfectly legitimate in the context of that conflict.

So who's land are you stealing and who's civilians are you murdering?
Are you suggesting you can't just get a group of like minded people together and form a state? :rolleyes:
What legitimate claim do the Israeli's have?
What about the ones bulldozed to make way for new jewish settlements?

Have you seen Raiders of the Lost Ark and if so have you complained to Spielberg over featuring a map with Palestine on it?

Did he create Palestine? Don't see a mention of this Israel you conjured up.

RandomName2 · 14-08-2020 9:21pm

Bowie wrote: »

Did he create Palestine? Don't see a mention of this Israel you conjured up.

I mean Bowie, if you're going to argue that you could just talk about how Mandate Palestine existed. Using footage from a action-adventure film set in the 1930s doesn't really bolster your argument much.

But here is a contemporary map for anyone interested.

James Brown · 14-08-2020 9:24pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I mean Bowie, if you're going to argue that you could just talk about how Mandate Palestine existed. Using footage from a action-adventure film set in the 1930s doesn't really bolster your argument much.

But here is a contemporary map for anyone interested.

Very dishonest of you. I trust you read my comments but chose to put your own spin on them.

I also answered your earlier direct questions. Care to answer mine?

RandomName2 · 14-08-2020 9:51pm

Bowie wrote: »

Very dishonest of you. I trust you read my comments but chose to put your own spin on them.

I mean the setting of the movie predates Israel. That's why Israel isn't on the map. I'm sure Spielberg, as a Jewish American would have no qualms putting Israel on a map if it fit the setting. Furthermore the film is entirely fictional.. so..

Bowie wrote: »

I also answered your earlier direct questions. Care to answer mine?

Your questions to Sean.3516 ?

Sean.3516 · 14-08-2020 9:56pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

There's no such country as Kurdistan either, doesn't mean that Kurds don't exist.

Kurds are an actual ethnic group native to an autonomously governed region called Kurdistan inside Iraq.

Never in history has there been a distinct ethnic group or national/regional identity known as "Palestinian".

Sorry but there just hasn't been.

James Brown · 14-08-2020 9:56pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I mean the setting of the movie predates Israel. That's why Israel isn't on the map. I'm sure Spielberg, as a Jewish American would have no qualms putting Israel on a map if it fit the setting. Furthermore the film is entirely fictional.. so..

Your questions to Sean.3516 ?

It was never posted as an academic citation.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sticking with the thread, what problem do you have with UAE recognizing Israel?

I replied.

end of the road · 14-08-2020 10:01pm

Edgware wrote: »

The Palestinians sold out again by their Arab "brothers". When will the penny drop withthem that with good negotiators a compromise could be made with Israel that would guarantee peace and prosperity for both peoples.
Or do they believe that no bread is better than half a loaf.
Egypt Jordan Lebanon U.A.E. are all happy to deal with Israel. The Palestinians are running
out of friends. But never fear Rich Boy Barrett and Posh Boy Murphy can always gather a few scum for a solidarity protest

never, because there is no penny to drop as it's not true that any compromise could be found as israel doesn't do compromise.
it wants the land, it does not want to stay within it's borders.
the people engaging in solidarity protests with the palestinians are mostly decent people, including mr Boy Barrett who has worked tirelessly over his career to help those in need.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No,no,no,no,no.
It's the height of historical revisionism to suggest that Israel owes its existence as a country to Western guilt after the Holocaust.
European Jews started migrating to Palestine (a province of the Ottoman Empire) and purchasing land over 50 years before the Holocaust happened.

In 1917 when the British took over the region, the Balfour Declaration set out a goal of setting up a Jewish state and an Arab state in the region. The British proposed a two state solution as early as 1936.

Yes, the Holocaust was a catalyst for the UN Partition of 1947 that allowed Israel to declare independence but it wasn't as if the West just decided to plant to Jews there right after the Holocaust and kick out all the Arabs. There was already a substantial Jewish presence there.

You mean their treatment of Arabs who never bothered setting up a state when they were given the right to by the UN? Who declared war instead?
The Arabs who didn't fight Israel were allowed to stay. It was only the ones who assisted invading armies from surrounding countries that were forcibly removed.

nope, it's actual history and reality, no revisionist anything.
the fact that people went there doesn't automatically mean a specific state exists or existed, israel did not exist until 1948.
the arabs in the area were prevented from setting up their state as from the minute israel came to be, ethnic cleansing more or less began, arabs only declaring war in self defence, arabs in general were forced out regardless of whether they defended themselves against israel's antics or not.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

In 1948, some Arabs left Israel voluntarily, some were forced to retreat as invading Arab armies retreated, some were forcibly expelled for fighting against Israel and some were forced to leave as they lived in hostile Arab villages that had to be destroyed by the Israeli army as part of war measures.

20% of Arabs who lived in Israel before the Arab-Israeli War stayed in Israel and were given citizenship. There were Arabs elected to the first Knesset. Many Arab areas remained under martial law for the next 15-20 years due to tensions but ALL had full rights as Israeli citizens.

This does not amount to an ethnic cleansing.

villages weren't destroyed due to war measures, they were destroyed to take the land.
arabs under martial law didn't have rights at all, they were often subject to abuse, some were disappeared/killed for absolutely no reason at all.
a state forcing people who are members of a minority group either via religion oor skin color, out of areas they live in is ethnic cleansing.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don't recognise the Palestinians because there is no Palestinian state. There has never been one. The Arabs never established one.

When Israel expanded its borders in the 1948 and 1967 wars, (both defensive wars in which no peace treaty was agreed) they were expanding into areas in which no state or nation existed.

The arabs in those occupied zones have no legitimate claim to statehood in those areas. They've been offered a two state solution no less than five times and they've rejected it each time.

As for bulldozing in modern times, Israel's demolition policy is intended as both a punitive measures against Arab terrorists and as a precautionary measures to keep their citizens safe. It is perfectly legitimate in the context of that conflict.

whether you recognise the palestinians or not ultimately means nothing, as they still exist and you will have to get over it.
any of the wars israel have engaged in were not defensive wars but were expansion wars, and in 1967 they stole territory from other countries, some of which they were forced to hand back.
the arabs in the occupied areas have every claim to be there as it is illegal for a country to occupy and colonise areas outside it's borders.
the 2 state solution they were offered meant giving up 99% of the lands they currently legitimately occupy, so quite rightly they rejected it because it would have meant large scale ethnic cleansing, and no doubt a final expansion down the line by israel to eradicate them altogether.
israel's demolition policy is not about punishing arab terrorists, freedom fighters or all else but about punishing the families which is against international law, and about land expansion. the policy is not legitimate but illegal, and has nothing to do with keeping their citizens safe given demolishing houses and stealing land does not keep citizens of a country safe.

RandomName2 · 14-08-2020 10:32pm

Bowie wrote: »

I replied.

Yes, and I thought it was an interesting reply.

I would have thanked it had it not included an accusation that a poster with a 2 year old account and several hundred posts was a Israeli astroturfer.

Sean.3516 · 14-08-2020 11:03pm

Bowie wrote: »

So who's land are you stealing and who's civilians are you murdering?

Nobody's. There's no state there. Maybe some of those people have Jordanian or Egyptian citizenship but they are living outside those jurisdictions.

Bowie wrote: »

Are you suggesting you can't just get a group of like minded people together and form a state? :rolleyes:

Are you kidding? Arabs living Palestine have had ample opportunity to form a legitimate state but they haven't.

In 1936, The Peel Commission of the British Govt. proposed a two-state solution that would have given Arabs 80% of the territory and they rejected it.

In 1947, the UN Partition plan granted permission for a Jewish state and an Arab state to be formed. The Jews formed their state. (Within the UN approved boundaries). The Arabs instead of forming a state, colluded with neighbouring Arab nations to annihilate Israel in the war of 1948. Since No peace treaty was signed after that war and some of the land was occupied by Israel and some of it (including the entire West Bank) was occupied by Jordan. There was no interest among Arabs in setting up an Arab state.

1967. After the Six Day War, when Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank, half of the Knesset wanted to return Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan and half wanted to turn it over to the Arabs living there for a state. The Arab League announced that year they wouldn't negotiate with Israel under any circumstances.

In 2000, Israeli PM Ehud Barak and PLO leader Yasser Arafat met at Camp David. Barak offered the Arabs a state in all of Gaza, 94% of the West Bank including East Jerusalem. In the words of Bill Clinton, Arafat "said no to everything."

In 2008, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered them everything Barak had, including additional land. They said no.

Five offers. Five rejections.
They kept rejecting because all of these offers carried the caveat of recognising Israel as a state also. Their hatred and anti-semitism outweighs their concern for their own people.

Bowie wrote: »

What legitimate claim do the Israeli's have?

UN Resolution 181 (II), adopted on the 29th of November 1947.

Bowie wrote: »

What about the ones bulldozed to make way for new jewish settlements?

The demolitions have two main purposes and that isn't one of them.

1.) As a punitive measure against terrorists and associates of terrorists.

2.) As a regulatory measure because houses have been built without permits, or are in violation of building codes and regulations. Both Arabs and Jews have similar rates of building permit approvals but Arabs are encouraged to boycott Israeli authorities. In the early 2000s for example, illegal building was at epidemic levels in East Jerusalem. There is no discrimination at play here.

Bowie wrote: »

Have you seen Raiders of the Lost Ark and if so have you complained to Spielberg over featuring a map with Palestine on it?

Did he create Palestine? Don't see a mention of this Israel you conjured up.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is set in 1936. Israel didn't exist then. The Palestinian Mandate, commonly called Palestine was governed by the British Empire. Before that it was a province of the Ottoman Empire. Before that it was a province of the Roman Empire

There was never a state known as "Palestine". The people there would have called themselves either Jews or Arabs. The Arabs in the region only started calling themselves "Palestinians" in the late 60s in an effort to invoke the name of a state that never existed.

The region was named Palestine by the Romans to mock the Jews since the Philistines were the historical enemies of the Jews. The Philistines haven't existed as a tribe since 600 BC and have no connection whatsoever to the Arabs currently living in Palestine.

Sean.3516 · 15-08-2020 12:51am

end of the road wrote: »

the fact that people went there doesn't automatically mean a specific state exists or existed, israel did not exist until 1948.

I agree with you. The Jews who founded Israel would have agreed with you. They were obsessed with the legality and legitimacy of the state they were trying to found and had no interest in declaring independence without the approval of the authorities in Palestine whether it was the British or the UN.

end of the road wrote: »

the arabs in the area were prevented from setting up their state as from the minute israel came to be, ethnic cleansing more or less began, arabs only declaring war in self defence, arabs in general were forced out regardless of whether they defended themselves against israel's antics or not.

Wow. Every single word of that paragraph is pure, unadulterated rubbish. So much that I was genuinely shocked as well as baffled when I read it. Where do I begin?

Arabs were not prevented from setting up a state by Israel or anybody else.

The UN Resolution took place in November of 1947 (although Israel didn't officially come into existence until the British left in May the following year). Arabs started protesting immediately. The first casualties occurred on the 30th of November 1947. An eight-man Arab gang from Jaffa ambushed a bus carrying Jews, killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, killing two more. Arab snipers attacked Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa. In other words, the first shots of this conflict were fired by Arabs, not Jews. Unfortunately, some Jewish gangs and paramilitaries committed reprisals on Arab civilians but the Haganah (the official military of the Jewish Agency) refrained from counter attacking as they did not want to imperil Israel's legitimacy by acting before the British left and they had actual authority. Britain was still the official authority at this time at it was their job to punish criminals.

No large population movements took place in the seven months between the UN Resolution and the Declaration of Israel's independence although a lot of upper and middle class Arabs from the major cities did decided to evacuate.

Your claim that the Arabs were immediately prevented from setting up a state from the minute Israel came to be is false. Israel declared independence on the 14th of May 1948. The surrounding Arab countries declared war on the 15th of May.

Your claim that they declared war in self defence is completely ridiculous. Look at a map of Israel's borders as defined in 1947 and try and tell me that Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia (with combined populations of about 50 million) could have felt legitimately threatened by Israel, then the smallest country on planet Earth with a population of 700,000 Jews.

end of the road wrote: »

villages weren't destroyed due to war measures, they were destroyed to take the land.

Yes. It turns out when EVERY surrounding country declares war on you, you're going to need a buffer zone afterwards. The 1947 borders were completely unworkable as soon as the surrounding Arab countries tried to destroy Israel. In order to survive they needed a buffer zone and for that reason hostile Arab villages had to be cleared out.

end of the road wrote: »

arabs under martial law didn't have rights at all, they were often subject to abuse, some were disappeared/killed for absolutely no reason at all.

Unfortunately reprisals occurred on both sides for many years afterwards but its difficult to say Arabs had no rights when Arabs were literally elected to the first Knesset. Martial law in Arab areas was completely lifted in 1966.

end of the road wrote: »

a state forcing people who are members of a minority group either via religion oor skin color, out of areas they live in is ethnic cleansing.

There was no ethnic cleansing. 20% of Arabs who lived in Israel before independence kept living there afterwards. If Israel wanted to force them all out, they could have.

Did you know in 1948, the surrounding Arab countries expelled their entire Jewish populations? About 800,000 in total. Almost the same number as Arabs who were moved from Israel. All of those Jews were fully integrated into Israel. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the Arabs who were forced by Jordan and Egypt to live in refugee camps for the next 70 years and were never integrated.

end of the road wrote: »

whether you recognise the palestinians or not ultimately means nothing, as they still exist and you will have to get over it.

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying that their claims to a Palestinian national identity have no grounds.

end of the road wrote: »

any of the wars israel have engaged in were not defensive wars but were expansion wars, and in 1967 they stole territory from other countries,

Again, where are you getting this information? It's patently false.

1948 was a defensive war. Seven Arab countries declared war on Israel.
1967 was also defensive. Abdel Nasser (leader of Egypt) closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (Israel, Egypt and the UN agreed in 1956 that Israel would consider this an act of war if it happened again. Egypt massed troops on Israel's border and announced its intentions to destroy Israel. This was absolutely an act of war and Israel responded accordingly.

Israel had no obligation to give back territories gained in defensive wars in which no peace treaties were ever agreed.

end of the road wrote: »

the arabs in the occupied areas have every claim to be there as it is illegal for a country to occupy and colonise areas outside it's borders.

Not under those circumstances as I've outlined. Neither Jordan nor Egypt showed the slightest interest in negotiating a treaty to get back the lands they lost in the war that THEY instigated.

end of the road wrote: »

the 2 state solution they were offered meant giving up 99% of the lands they currently legitimately occupy, so quite rightly they rejected it because it would have meant large scale ethnic cleansing, and no doubt a final expansion down the line by israel to eradicate them altogether.

What specific offer are you referring to?

end of the road wrote: »

israel's demolition policy is not about punishing arab terrorists, freedom fighters or all else but about punishing the families which is against international law, and about land expansion. the policy is not legitimate but illegal, and has nothing to do with keeping their citizens safe given demolishing houses and stealing land does not keep citizens of a country safe.

The amount of terrorism that Israel experiences on a regular basis means that they have a strict system of permits and regulations with regard to building. They don't want structures being used for paramilitary purposes. If Arabs obtain permits, they can build. If they build without permits, those structures have to be destroyed. The Palestinian Authority deliberately tells people to build without permits.

batman75 · 15-08-2020 12:51am

As the op has said Israel is not going anywhere and I expect more states in the relative georgraphical vicinity to recognise Israel as time goes on. Israel could help it's own cause by rowing back the settlements in the Palestinian Territories but thats unlikely. To my mind the settlements equate to a land grab by stealth. While I love going to Israel I am not blind to their wrongdoings.

end of the road · 15-08-2020 1:05am

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Nobody's. There's no state there. Maybe some of those people have Jordanian or Egyptian citizenship but they are living outside those jurisdictions.

incorrect.
the land being stolen is not nobody's, it belongs to those living there who are forced out by a state that for some reason think borders don't apply to it.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Are you kidding? Arabs living Palestine have had ample opportunity to form a legitimate state but they haven't.

In 1936, The Peel Commission of the British Govt. proposed a two-state solution that would have given Arabs 80% of the territory and they rejected it.

In 1947, the UN Partition plan granted permission for a Jewish state and an Arab state to be formed. The Jews formed their state. (Within the UN approved boundaries). The Arabs instead of forming a state, colluded with neighbouring Arab nations to annihilate Israel in the war of 1948. Since No peace treaty was signed after that war and some of the land was occupied by Israel and some of it (including the entire West Bank) was occupied by Jordan. There was no interest among Arabs in setting up an Arab state.

1967. After the Six Day War, when Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank, half of the Knesset wanted to return Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan and half wanted to turn it over to the Arabs living there for a state. The Arab League announced that year they wouldn't negotiate with Israel under any circumstances.

In 2000, Israeli PM Ehud Barak and PLO leader Yasser Arafat met at Camp David. Barak offered the Arabs a state in all of Gaza, 94% of the West Bank including East Jerusalem. In the words of Bill Clinton, Arafat "said no to everything."

In 2008, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered them everything Barak had, including additional land. They said no.

Five offers. Five rejections.
They kept rejecting because all of these offers carried the caveat of recognising Israel as a state also.

even if they had accepted any of the offers, there is a very high chance that israel wouldn't keep to their side of the agreement.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Their hatred and anti-semitism outweighs their concern for their own people.

i'm afraid the old anti-semitism trope doesn't work anymore.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

UN Resolution 181 (II), adopted on the 29th of November 1947.

yes, to the land they got under that resolution, nothing else.
anything outside the 1948 border they have no claim to.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The demolitions have two main purposes and that isn't one of them.

1.) As a punitive measure against terrorists and associates of terrorists.

2.) As a regulatory measure because houses have been built without permits, or are in violation of building codes and regulations. Both Arabs and Jews have similar rates of building permit approvals but Arabs are encouraged to boycott Israeli authorities. In the early 2000s for example, illegal building was at epidemic levels in East Jerusalem. There is no discrimination at play here.

again incorrect.
the policy is about collective punishment and land expansion. collective punishment is against international law, and houses are being demolished in areas which israel have no legitimate claim to as they are outside their borders.
families of "terrorists" are not associates of them unless there is proof they are involved in such actions, for which even then courts and jail are the correct punishment.
demolitions are clearly not for regulatory reasons as there are plenty of illegal jewish settlements and the numbers are growing, and such settlements are being encouraged.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Raiders of the Lost Ark is set in 1936. Israel didn't exist then. The Palestinian Mandate, commonly called Palestine was governed by the British Empire. Before that it was a province of the Ottoman Empire. Before that it was a province of the Roman Empire

There was never a state known as "Palestine". The people there would have called themselves either Jews or Arabs. The Arabs in the region only started calling themselves "Palestinians" in the late 60s in an effort to invoke the name of a state that never existed.

The region was named Palestine by the Romans to mock the Jews since the Philistines were the historical enemies of the Jews. The Philistines haven't existed as a tribe since 600 BC and have no connection whatsoever to the Arabs currently living in Palestine.

people in israel only called themselves as much since 1948 when the state came into existence, so arabs calling themselves palestinians since the 1960s means nothing, it doesn't change the fact that they are entitled to live on the land they do, and israel has no legitimate claim to anything outside their borders.

end of the road · 15-08-2020 1:31am

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Wow. Every single word of that paragraph is pure, unadulterated rubbish. So much that I was genuinely shocked as well as baffled when I read it. Where do I begin?

i think given israel's behaviour since their foundation, we can safely say it's not rubbish.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Arabs were not prevented from setting up a state by Israel or anybody else.

The UN Resolution took place in November of 1947 (although Israel didn't officially come into existence until the British left in May the following year). Arabs started protesting immediately. The first casualties occurred on the 30th of November 1947. An eight-man Arab gang from Jaffa ambushed a bus carrying Jews, killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, killing two more. Arab snipers attacked Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa. In other words, the first shots of this conflict were fired by Arabs, not Jews. Unfortunately, some Jewish gangs and paramilitaries committed reprisals on Arab civilians but the Haganah (the official military of the Jewish Agency) refrained from counter attacking as they did not want to imperil Israel's legitimacy by acting before the British left and they had actual authority. Britain was still the official authority at this time at it was their job to punish criminals.

No large population movements took place in the seven months between the UN Resolution and the Declaration of Israel's independence although a lot of upper and middle class Arabs from the major cities did decided to evacuate.

Your claim that the Arabs were immediately prevented from setting up a state from the minute Israel came to be is false. Israel declared independence on the 14th of May 1948. The surrounding Arab countries declared war on the 15th of May.

Your claim that they declared war in self defence is completely ridiculous. Look at a map of Israel's borders as defined in 1947 and try and tell me that Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia (with combined populations of about 50 million) could have felt legitimately threatened by Israel, then the smallest country on planet Earth with a population of 700,000 Jews.

yes, it's reasonable to suggest that they were under threat from israel given as i have already mentioned, it's behaviour since it's foundation.
the expansion, the land theft, the ethnic cleansing and colonisation.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes. It turns out when EVERY surrounding country declares war on you, you're going to need a buffer zone afterwards.

actually no, you aren't.
there is no buffer zone, as israel keep expanding it's borders into others territory.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The 1947 borders were completely unworkable as soon as the surrounding Arab countries tried to destroy Israel. In order to survive they needed a buffer zone and for that reason hostile Arab villages had to be cleared out.

the borders were workable, israel just did not want to stay within them as they wanted a bigger state, and they think they are special and borders don't and shouldn't apply to them.
they didn't need any such buffer zone to survive, we already know that is nonsense as they currently have no buffer zones and never have had so, any land they took they built settlements on straight away once they got hold of it.
hostile arab villages, hostile because they were victims of ethnic cleansing, weren't cleared out for any other reason then land expansion of the state of israel.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Unfortunately reprisals occurred on both sides for many years afterwards but its difficult to say Arabs had no rights when Arabs were literally elected to the first Knesset. Martial law in Arab areas was completely lifted in 1966.

some arabs being elected doesn't mean all others had rights, plenty of arabs had no rights, and as i said those under martial law were victims of brutality, slaughter, disappearences etc, it was lifted in 1966 as said villages had been cleansed out.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There was no ethnic cleansing. 20% of Arabs who lived in Israel before independence kept living there afterwards. If Israel wanted to force them all out, they could have.

there was ethnic cleansing, there is currently ethnic cleansing going on, all at the hands of israel.
they couldn't really go on a rampage to force all out as there would be an actual risk of them losing their only real alai, hence the drip drip.

end of the road · 15-08-2020 1:35am

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Did you know in 1948, the surrounding Arab countries expelled their entire Jewish populations? About 800,000 in total. Almost the same number as Arabs who were moved from Israel. All of those Jews were fully integrated into Israel. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the Arabs who were forced by Jordan and Egypt to live in refugee camps for the next 70 years and were never integrated.

other countries behaving like dicks is not justification for another country to do so.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying that their claims to a Palestinian national identity have no grounds.

they do, the fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Again, where are you getting this information? It's patently false.

1948 was a defensive war. Seven Arab countries declared war on Israel.
1967 was also defensive. Abdel Nasser (leader of Egypt) closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (Israel, Egypt and the UN agreed in 1956 that Israel would consider this an act of war if it happened again. Egypt massed troops on Israel's border and announced its intentions to destroy Israel. This was absolutely an act of war and Israel responded accordingly.

1948, arab countries engaged in defensive measures fearing an israely invasion.
1967, egypt closed that corridor to israel and massed troops on the israely border after finding out that israel had planned an invasion.
egypt has every right to close it's territory to states it feels are a threat to it's security.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Israel had no obligation to give back territories gained in defensive wars in which no peace treaties were ever agreed.

actually, they did and do.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Not under those circumstances as I've outlined. Neither Jordan nor Egypt showed the slightest interest in negotiating a treaty to get back the lands they lost in the war that THEY instigated.

ultimately irrelevant.
land not within israel's borders, not israel's land and they have no claim to it.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What specific offer are you referring to?

every single one of them.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The amount of terrorism that Israel experiences on a regular basis means that they have a strict system of permits and regulations with regard to building. They don't want structures being used for paramilitary purposes. If Arabs obtain permits, they can build. If they build without permits, those structures have to be destroyed. The Palestinian Authority deliberately tells people to build without permits.

the amount of terrorism israel experiences is nothing compared to the amount they engage in, either directly or indirectly.
structures are destroyed for land expansion and collective punishment, nothing to do with permits as there are plenty of illegal jewish settlements in the stolen territories, and the amount of them are growing unimpeeded.

smellyoldboot · 15-08-2020 1:35am

Israel is a bastion of civilization in a sea of lunatic theocracies. Long may it live.

end of the road · 15-08-2020 1:48am

smellyoldboot wrote: »

Israel is a bastion of civilization in a sea of lunatic theocracies. Long may it live.

it's not really.
sure, certain aspects of it are better then it's neighbours but it's also more like them in other ways, more then it would like to admit.

Sean.3516 · 15-08-2020 2:06am

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect.
the land being stolen is not nobody's, it belongs to those living there who are forced out by a state that for some reason think borders don't apply to it.

I didn't say the people didn't own the land. I said there is no state there and it's subject to the rules of a military occupation.

end of the road wrote: »

even if they had accepted any of the offers, there is a very high chance that israel wouldn't keep to their side of the agreement.

Are you saying that's why the Arabs rejected them?

Based on what? What reasons would the Arabs have had to doubt Israel's sincerity in 1947?
Or the sincerity of the UN for that matter?

1947 was the first time that the Arabs dealt with the Jews directly as a sovereign power as opposed to doing so through some other arbitrator like the Britain or the UN. At the point in time, what good reason would the Arabs have had to distrust the Jews?

What makes you think a small country of 800,000 Jews surrounded by hostile neighbours would have willingly endanger itself by violating the Arab borders under the UN Partition Plan?

end of the road wrote: »

i'm afraid the old anti-semitism trope doesn't work anymore.

Do you have a better explanation for why Arabs reject those deals?

end of the road wrote: »

yes, to the land they got under that resolution, nothing else.
anything outside the 1948 border they have no claim to.

That resolution established Israel's existence within those initial borders and they were happy to do so. Also, the fact that every surrounding country invaded Israel the day after it came into existence made those borders completely unworkable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#/media/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg

Look at the map of Israel as 1947. The country is divided into 3 narrow, separate strips of land between the areas that were supposed to be Arab. It is completely ridiculous to expect Israel could maintain those borders while also maintaining its own existence after the 1948 war. The needed a buffer zone. Also, that map assumes the existence of an Arab state in the orange zones which never materialised. Therefore who's borders was Israel violating when it occupied those zones? The answer is nobody's.

It might be worth noting that Resolution stipulated that both states must come into existence no later than 1 October 1948. In other words, the Arabs missed the expiration date.

end of the road wrote: »

again incorrect.
the policy is about collective punishment and land expansion. collective punishment is against international law, and houses are being demolished in areas which israel have no legitimate claim to as they are outside their borders.

This is starting to get repetitive.

I will say that international law is mostly a load of crap. That said, international does say that when one country invades another country and loses territory, the country that was invaded has the right to occupy them until such time as a peace treaty is agreed. This is a well established precedent of international law. Lawyers like Allen Dershowitz of Harvard (who's no right winger) has affirmed this.

end of the road wrote: »

families of "terrorists" are not associates of them unless there is proof they are involved in such actions, for which even then courts and jail are the correct punishment.

In my opinion, people who knowingly associate with terrorists and don't come forward to the authorities don't deserve houses.

end of the road wrote: »

demolitions are clearly not for regulatory reasons as there are plenty of illegal jewish settlements and the numbers are growing, and such settlements are being encouraged.

The people who built those buildings have permits from the Israeli government.

end of the road wrote: »

people in israel only called themselves as much since 1948 when the state came into existence, so arabs calling themselves palestinians since the 1960s means nothing,

The people in Israel started calling themselves Israel because Israel came in to existence legally in 1948 under the UN agreement.

People who call themselves Palestinian are invoking a state which never existed and doesn't exist. It could have existed but it doesn't.

end of the road wrote: »

it doesn't change the fact that they are entitled to live on the land they do, and israel has no legitimate claim to anything outside their borders.

Actually, they don't have any guaranteed right to live anywhere.

Sean.3516 · 15-08-2020 2:59am

The post you were replying to was part of a conversation between Bowie and myself but I'll happily reply to you.

end of the road wrote: »

other countries behaving like dicks is not justification for another country to do so.

Those other countries did exactly what you accuse Israel of doing. They forcibly deported everybody of a particular race.

Again, Israeli expulsion of Arabs was neither ethnic cleansing nor indiscriminate.

20% of Arabs who lived in Israel before 1948 stayed in Israel. Are you denying that to be true?

end of the road wrote: »

they do, the fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.

It has nothing to do with whether I like it. They have no grounds because there is not nor was there ever a Palestinian state.

end of the road wrote: »

1948, arab countries engaged in defensive measures fearing an israely invasion.

Are you telling me 50 million Arabs feared invasion from 800,000 Israeli Jews?

I'm just asking because I want to make sure. For my own sanity.

end of the road wrote: »

1967, egypt closed that corridor to israel and massed troops on the israely border after finding out that israel had planned an invasion.
egypt has every right to close it's territory to states it feels are a threat to it's security.

That is not the entire story.
They were fed misinformation by the Soviet Union, that Israel was planning an attack which they never were. If Egypt believed false information, that's their problem.
They closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, knowing that this in itself was an act of war and massed troops on the border. The Egyptian president announced his intention to destroy Israel. All of things together constitute acts of war giving Israel every right to act as it did.

end of the road wrote: »

actually, they did and do.

International law says they don't. In the absence of a peace treaty, occupations following wars are always justified. It's a well established precedent.

end of the road wrote: »

ultimately irrelevant.
land not within israel's borders, not israel's land and they have no claim to it.

The UN Resolution simply created Israel and gave them initial borders. Once Israel took its place among the nations of the world, the basic rules and conventions that governed relations between countries for thousands of years applied to Israel. Conventions like the conventions of war for example that allow for occupations and the transfer of territory following legitimate wars in which peace treaties have not been agreed.

The idea that Israel was supposed to be forever shackled and bound by the UN resolution that created it and can't do anything unless it is approved by the UN or the "international community" is completely absurd and there isn't a single other country on planet earth that you would apply that standard to.

end of the road wrote: »

every single one of them.

Hahahahaha.

If you had actually bothered to read the conversation between Bowie and myself that you decided to inject yourself into, you would have seen that I gave an account of every proposal for a two-state solution of the last 100 years. I'll repeat it for your benefit.

1936, a British proposal that would have given Arabs 80% of the land. Rejected.
1947, The UN plan. which we're all aware of.
1967, following the war, half the Knesset wanted to return the occupied zones to Jordan and Egypt. The other half wanted to give it to the region's Arabs to set up a state of their own. The Arabs refused to negotiate.
2000, Israel offered all of Gaza, 94% of West Bank and East Jerusalem. Rejected
2008, Israel offered all of Gaza, 94% of West Bank, East Jerusalem plus extra land to sweeten the deal. Rejected.

Now here's what you said a few posts ago:
"the 2 state solution they were offered meant giving up 99% of the lands they currently legitimately occupy, so quite rightly they rejected it because it would have meant large scale ethnic cleansing, and no doubt a final expansion down the line by israel to eradicate them altogether."

Again, I ask, to what deal were you referring?

James Brown · 15-08-2020 3:28am

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don't recognise the Palestinians because there is no Palestinian state. There has never been one. The Arabs never established one.

When Israel expanded its borders in the 1948 and 1967 wars, (both defensive wars in which no peace treaty was agreed) they were expanding into areas in which no state or nation existed.

The arabs in those occupied zones have no legitimate claim to statehood in those areas. They've been offered a two state solution no less than five times and they've rejected it each time.

yet you say...

No,no,no,no,no.
It's the height of historical revisionism to suggest that Israel owes its existence as a country to Western guilt after the Holocaust.
European Jews started migrating to Palestine (a province of the Ottoman Empire) and purchasing land over 50 years before the Holocaust happened.

So Palestinian did exist but not in the form you recognise. It wasn't a state.
Jews from Europe how ever set up what you recognise as Israel before the holocaust, and before it was a state.
You do admit the Palestinians were there but dismiss them as a people.

As with everything Israel complete hypocrisy to justify it's actions.
The Arabs were essentially nomadic. You moved onto their land and have been systematically stealing more land and anyone living there is ****ed quite frankly.
The Arabs have no legal claim based on what? And your claim comes from the same people who accuse you of crimes you don't recognise.
Israel needs to withdraw, pay reparations and talk peace.

Sean.3516 · 15-08-2020 4:22am

Bowie wrote: »

So Palestinian did exist but not in the form you recognise. It wasn't a state.

Yes. I make a distinction between Palestine as a geographic region which was a province of various empires and the notion of a Palestinian nation state which has never ever existed.

By the way, let’s be clear about what exactly “Palestinian” meant at that time. In modern times we use that word to refer exclusively to Arabs in the region. Back then “Palestinian” just meant a person from Palestine. Whether that person was an Arab or a Jew or something else. And there had been a continuous although small Jewish presence in Palestine since before migration from Europe started.

Bowie wrote: »

Jews from Europe how ever set up what you recognise as Israel before the holocaust, and before it was a state.
You do admit the Palestinians were there but dismiss them as a people.

I didn’t say that Jews from Europe set up Israel before the Holocaust. I accept that Israel didn’t exist until 1948.

I said that Jews migrated to Palestine in large numbers in the decades before the Holocaust and legally purchased land. They worked with the British to set out a vision of an eventual statehood most likely in the context of a two state solution. My point being that the claim Israel wouldn’t exist were it not for the Holocaust is quite false. The road to statehood was merely catalysed by the Holocaust.

Yes, I admit that Palestinian (Arabs) were also there but they never had a state or showed the slightest interest in setting one up. So yes, I completely dismiss the notion of Palestinian Arab statehood or national identity.

Bowie wrote: »

The Arabs were essentially nomadic. You moved onto their land and have been systematically stealing more land and anyone living there is ****ed quite frankly.

Jewish migrants from Europe purchased land from Arab landlords. They didn’t steal anything.

And what’s this “You” business? I’m not Israel, I’m not Jewish and I’m not Israeli.

Bowie wrote: »

The Arabs have no legal claim based on what? And your claim comes from the same people who accuse you of crimes you don't recognise.
Israel needs to withdraw, pay reparations and talk peace.

They have no claim because they ignored or rejected every opportunity they had to form a state. They never bothered organising themselves politically and when overtures were made to allow them to set up a state, first by the British, then the UN, then the Israelis, they’ve rejected every plan put to them. Often violently.

They’ve missed their chance.

suicide_circus · 15-08-2020 5:11am

Why did Israeli expansionism begin in 1967?

Irishman80 · 15-08-2020 6:01am

Great thread...learned quite a bit here about the history.

@end of the road: Sean is after embarrassing you. Take the loss.

15-08-2020 6:49am

irish people that are mad into israel/palestine

whats that about

Wanderer78 · 15-08-2020 7:15am

Deleted User wrote:

whats that about

'Injustice', we have a strong sense of it in this country, it's something we should be proud of

15-08-2020 7:24am

what, this one specific injustice out of all the rest?

seems a bit of a fetish, i must say.

Wanderer78 · 15-08-2020 7:36am

Deleted User wrote:

what, this one specific injustice out of all the rest?

It probably has close similarities to our own struggles also, in which people can strongly identify with, makes a lot of sense why we have such concerns

biko · 15-08-2020 12:08pm

Great news that UAE and Israel have normalised relations. And Oman have already openly supported it.

Eric Cartman · 15-08-2020 12:38pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

irish people that are mad into israel/palestine

whats that about

Theres a political force in Ireland that seeks to equate the Palestinian struggle with our own against britain.

Both sides are terrible and a 2 state solution is the only way forward , but some of the loudest voices in Ireland move beyond defending palestine and into that murky cess pit of left wing anti semitism.

Wanderer78 · 15-08-2020 12:50pm

Eric Cartman wrote:

Both sides are terrible and a 2 state solution is the only way forward , but some of the loudest voices in Ireland move beyond defending palestine and into that murky cess pit of left wing anti semitism.

Left wing anti semitism, where that be?

Israel and the UAE normalize relations

Comments