Israel has bombed Syria(58 Posts)
According to Channel4 News either an aircraft or drone has 'hit a facility' in Syria.
Are they trying to start WW3?
Here you go, Saski:
The three No's of Khartoum (Sept 1967):
1) No peace with Israel
2) No recognition of Israel
3) No negotiations with Israel
Does that seem reasonable to you? That's what Israel is dealing with. But all Israel's fault? Right?
However, when Sadat did make overtures to Israel, he got ALL of the Sinai back in return for a peace treaty (and was then murdered for the privilege). How about a bit of recognition for that?
If the Arabs would have admitted that they can't wipe Israel out in 1967 and actually sat down and negotiated, they'd have got all of the West Bank and Gaza. The settler movement only began later and on a small scale. Now it's all one big mess
Kungfutea - reading through this thread I doubt that anyone here thinks that Israel was an "overnight" post-WW2 gift to to Jews. The reason I mention reparations is because inevitably the holocaust is invoked whenever these discussions arise (in this case, by you), and indeed the zionist movement gained huge traction post-WW2 - so it's disingenuous to try to separate the two and tut tut people for not understanding their history of the region - because the holocaust is constantly revisited in this context (I'll agree with you on one point that I think you're making, albeit after you raised the point, which is that it's irrelevant).
That you mention the Peel partition and Sadat's "peace" treaty as examples of how the Palestinians have behaved so unreasonably is revealing. The Palestinians turned down the "offer" to give away half their land and refused - so they'll pay forever. Of course you have factions unwilling to negotiate when this is the narrative!
You're going to have to explain to me how the existing inhabitants of Palestine were not displaced by the creation of Israel. Maybe you could also explain how Palestinian identity is a "modern" invention - do you mean maybe "overlapping"?
Jerusalem has seen many peoples pass through (and conquer) and it's meaningful for all three of the "book" religions. None the historical context can justify modern Israel. This is a matter of property rights (and human rights) - not some biblical right to return (which, even if you think the bible is a basis for property rights - is contentious even among biblical scholars!).
You need to read more carefully saski.
1) i mentioned the holocaust in response to writehand who actually brought it up first, although without a doubt the holocaust clearly demonstrated the need for a Jewish homeland since if Israel had existed in 1939, perhaps six million wouldn't have perished. At least there was somewhere to go for all hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled by Arab countries (or do they not count?)
2) Sadat is not an example of Palestinians behaving unreasonably since Sadat was Egyptian and Sadat successfully negotiated a peace treaty (no need for quotation marks - the treaty is real and has lasted over 30 years) where Israel gave up all of the Sinai in exchange for peace. So the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is an example of Egypt behaving reasonably and doing very well out of it.
3) the Peel treaty gave the Arabs way more than half (and let's not forget that a few years previously all of Transjordan had been carved away from mandatory Palestine to create jordan -the true Palestinian homeland if you really look). But, hey, they had another chance to mess it up with the UN partition plan which they rejected, and then again in 1967 with the three nos of Khartoum and then again with the second intifada. They thought they'd get it all and throw the Jews into the sea, they didn't and they made the same mistake over and over again. The Palestinians are tragic, for sure, but much of it is their own making.
4) I never mentioned the bible. But there is no doubt that Israel is the Jewish ancestral homeland and since being expelled by the Romans (historically documented fact) have nevertheless had a continuous presence in the holy land (historically documented fact) and always always prayed to return, always turning towards Jerusalem in prayer. Even saladin recognized the jewish connection and invited jews to live in jerusalem.
5) The palestinians would never have been displaced if they wouldn't have declared war on Israel and attacked them. They certainly suffered but it would never have happened if they would have worked with the Jews in peace. The Arabs who remained became citizens of Israel. And the Arab counties they fled to should have absorbed them (just like israel did to the jewish refugees expelled from arab countries) instead of leaving them festering in camps, how ridiculous.
6) there was no Palestinian independence movement or real national identity until the 1970s. The residents of the west bank and gaza strip were Jordanian and Egyptian respectively prior to 1967. Anyone, Jew or Arab, born in mandatory Palestine was effectively a Palestinian. Palestine during the ottoman era was simply a district of south syria. Palestine as a national movement is a modern phenomenon, not sure why this is hard to understand.
My cousin lives there...
His a photographer... Crazy man
So, the fact that Arab people inhabit a region for centuries - but the borders are drawn and re-drawn around them - this means that they have no real identity? Is that how you derive your own identity, by the way? This is complete nonsense.
You'll note that I put quotes around "peace" - not "treaty" - of course that's an example of Egypt behaving sensibly from your view. It was a great deal for Egypt. The problem is the "peace" part because it didn't address the settlements. Why don't I say it again: the problem is the settlements!
Again and again you hear this - the problem with Palestine is of their own making, had they only agreed to give up 45% of their land when the offer was made, they wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess. How is that reasonable? And again, the subtext of your post: if Palestine had just given the land to the Jews like they were asked, they could have prevented the holocaust. How about placing blame where it's due?
1) There's certainly an Arab identify but a Palestinian one is a very modern invention. That's not to delegitimize it, a national identity has developed over the last 40 years which is fair enough. What I am saying is simply historical fact.
2) The peace treaty did address the settlements - those in the Sinai were completely dismantled and evacuated. See what happens when you behave reasonably? Why you think Egypt should tie their fate with the Palestinians who at that point were childishly refusing even to accept Israel's existence is very odd. Sadat was Egyptian. Interesting to note that even Mursi hasn't revoked the treaty. Settlements are A problem but they are not THE problem. Israel evacuated every last settlement from Gaza. They got kassam missiles in exchange.
3) Land for peace is called compromise. The jewish nationalist aspirations were just as legitimate as the Palestinian ones and they were willing to compromise. The Palestinians/Arabs had many opportunities to compromise, they refused time and time ago. They also had transjordan let's not forget. It was all or nothing. They fucked it up again and again and again.
4) the Palestinians were not responsible for the holocaust, of course not. But their leaders, like the mufti of Jerusalem, were big fans of the nazis and the Arabs told the British that if they let in Jews fleeing Europe, they'd cut off the oil. Nice.
So, do you think that any significantly persecuted ethnic minority not having a logical homeland should be granted a homeland?
That's a strange question since the Jews do have an ancestral homeland.
And there's a difference between significantly persecuted and genocidally exterminated.
Israel has a right to exist and the Jewish people have a right to one small country in a portion of their ancestral homeland.
Join the discussion
Please login first.