To protest at the words "Jewish" and "Israeli" being used interchangeabley.

[Jewishnotisraeli]

They are not the same thing at all.

Most Jews are not Isreali

Many Isrealis are not Jewish.

20-25% of Israelis, including the Israeli army are Muslim, ( varies year to year)

Some Jews are Arabs. Some Arabs are Jewish.

Some Palestinians on the West bank are Jewish.

There are no known Jewish Palestinians in the Gaza strip as Hamas has succeeded where Hitler failed, in wiping out it's own indigenous Jewish population. This is the ONLY reason why there are no Jews left in this population.

Israel has done terrible things. Hamas has done terrible things.

Please don't classify things done by Israel as done by Jews, a quarter of them are not Jews. please don't classify things done by Hamas as done to Jews, many of their atrocities are inflicted on Muslims.

To say Jews and Israelis are the same is like saying English people and Anglicans are the same, many people are English and Anglican, many people are English but not Anglican, and many Anglicans are not English.

And also, some Palestinians, and some Israelis are Christians.

because lets not kid ourselves Irseal is a ROGUE state it completly ignores UN mandates actully has Nukes, bombs civilians, steals land belonging to another state, imposaes harsh sanctions illigaly upon a entire people etc I could keep going on for the crimes of Irseal but because it has the undying support of the USA it will never be labeled rightly a ROGUE state.

Where in contrast Iran is LABELED a rogue state but has not done any of these things and just because its not best mates with the world super power is labeled a rogue state

If nothing else I would have hoped the events of the last 25 years have taught us that you can't force democracy, mutual tolerance and happiness on people by bombing them And that when it comes to the Middle East, the UK doesn't have all the answers....

Barbarianmum - when you "grabbed some land", lots of countries, probably a majority of them, are based on some sort of colonial carve-up. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc, and that's just in the vicinity of Israel. Are you saying that all these countries are illegitimate?

Clearly the British were more likely to support Zionist aspirations after WWII given that the Jews supposed the allies, while the Palestinian leader supported the Nazis. A lots of territory was handed over on that basis, eg Silesia, South Tyrol, etc. Were these all land grabs as well?

worridmum

This is the exact hyperbole and hypocrisy that I referred to earlier.

No, Israel isn't as bad as Serbia. In fact, the human rights abuses in the century long Israeli-Palestinian/Jewish-Arab (pre-1948) conflict have never reached the absolute lows of the Balkan war. Yes, there are abuses but nowhere near as bad as many that are going on in the world right now (not a justification for any that do happen but just a point in fact).

Iran has slaughtered its Sunni minority, hangs children and many others for the most outlandish reasons, funds and supports hezbolla as well as the Assad regime in Syria, oppresses its LGBT community - yet here is someone coming on and supporting the Iranian regime. That's quite unbelievable. You must really hate Israel to do that.

And no, the peace deals offered were not along the lines of colonial America (WTF?). The Palestinians were offered all of Gaza, most of WB (with settlement blocs annexed to Israel and land swaps within Israel to make up for it), shared control over Temple Mount/Haram El Sharif and Jerusalem neighbourhood (depending on whether it's the 2000 or 2008 rejected peace deals - or even the 1947 UN partition plan).

The Palestinians have rejected the opportunity for statehood THREE times. Each time they've said no, they want all their claims met. It's hard for Israel haters, so blinded by their hatred of Israel, to accept that the Palestinians may have fucked up here and that sometimes Israel is OK.

And, no, this is not a justification for all that happens with the occupation. The settlements shouldn't be there at all. But in the absence of a viable Palestinian state, should there just be a vacuum to be filled by ISIS?

barbarianmum

Britain never gave Israel anything. Britain wanted out desperately after WW2 and handed the problem over to the UN. The UN agreed a partition plan in 1947. The Jews (not Israelis at this point since Israel didn't exist) accepted, the Arabs didn't. You say it wasn't theirs to give away? So whose was it? Both Arabs and Jews have legitimate claims to the land (unless you want to start the who was here first argument?). That's why sharing it seems to be the fairest way.

Yeah but the thing is, Sam, Israel wasn't handed anything on a silver platter. The Arabs rejected the 1947 partition plan and opened war on the Jewish community. Then, with the declaration of statehood in 1948, all the Arab countries invaded Israel which ended up an absolute catastrophe for the Palestinians. But this is not a case of the colonial powers 'giving' land to Israel.

sam I don't think Israel is illegitimate at all - for exactly the reasons you mention. I think it is just a stretch not to accept that that the way it came into being will have caused some tension.

The history of Silesea I'm not getting into here. My mother's family are (ironically) from Silesea and I have heard all the arguements and counter-arguements about what was and should have been done, and what was fair or not. Let's just say that lots of the world's wars and injustices have been caused by imperial ambitions.

I agree some sort of land sharing arrangement is the fairest and in fact the only reasonable way forward, I just don't think it will happen. Both Israeli's and Palestinians may come to rue the years that they did not make peace if ISIS takes a perminent hold in the region.

Or alternatively maybe Israel will be glad that there isn't a Palestinian State whcih has become an ISIS stronghold on their doorstep?

All the years I supported Israel retreating from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria. Given what's happened in Syria since then.I admit I'm glad there was no peace deal and that Israel still holds the Golan Heights. And so are the Syrian Druze who live there.

Who knows what will happen in the future?

Shakshuka you cannot assign blame to Palestine for the ongoing problems because they refused to accept the shitty deals they have been offered. Why should they be the ones to back down and compromise? Israel doesn't get to claim superiority for offering something that was unsatisfactory, purely because that means they tried.

Of course you can assign blame. Israel has to take responsibility for its own actions and can't use that as an excuse for settlements etc. Palestinians also need to take responsibility.

Why were they shitty deals? If the Palestinians would have accepted the 1947 partition plan, there would be a 63 year old Palestinian state, bigger than the WB and Gaza now, next to Israel and not one Palestinian refugee.

What was wrong with the 2000 and 2008 peace deals? Why were they shitty? And why were they rejected?

A map of the 2008 peace deal.

Why is this shitty or unsatisfactory? Do the Palestinians think they'll get more? On what basis?

Why should those areas be ceded to Israel? Why does Israel decide what the Palestinians can and can't have?

It's called negotiations.

Patapouf - if the Palestinians thought it was a rubbish deal they could have made a counter-offer. Why didn't they, if they were interested in reaching an agreement? And if they have to compromise, it's because their demands are so outlandish (eg the "return" of 11m refugees to Israel and the clearing out of all Jews from the West Bank) that they could only have been dreamt up for the purposes of torpedoing any peace deal.

Whenever the Israelis pull out of somewhere, they find that, instead of getting on with their lives, the residents devote them to setting up missile batteries? Why would it be any different on the West Bank?

But why is this peace deal unsatisfactory? It's the two state solution.

(I can tell you why the Palestinians rejected it: the right of return. They want to have a Palestinian state AND for all Palestinian refugees to have the right of return to Israel itself. That won't happen because it'd be suicidal for Israel.)

That's true Sam. What Hamas did in Gaza, by setting up a terror state, hardly bodes well for support for a Palestinian state in the WB as well. I know there are many reasons behind the motivations for Hamas and what they did but it certainly did nothing to advance a Palestinian state being achieved.

PP said I used jewish for israeli. not the case, these particular children are jewish and they live in israel.

Carry on.

why yes palistine should of traded rich and valuable farmland for poor quailty semi desert land that is nearly worthless (hence why i said its very similear to how the Americains treated the natives trading the rich good quailty land for shitty near worthless land aka woodland / rich grass lands for marshes and desert )

ok how about I come move in next door to your home / land claim vast swaths of it (some of it being really good growing ground) and say hey lets trade land this trash dump (or rubbish land) but in return I get to keep the best parts of your land.....

Another sticking point is the elephant in the room the huge number of illigal settlements (on the best quailty land btw) hey but the two state solution should basically be the palastine state being gratful for what ever dregs irslail happens to be willing to give

just research the land irseal was trading for the land it wanted to keep its not just about square km as 1kmsq of desert is NOT worth 1kmsq of arable farmland.

BTW I am not bashing jews and I belive that both states have the right to exist but I do not belive Irseal has the right to pick and choose what land it gives back and keeps it should all be based on the orignal 1947 boarders that were first given to it before the massive land grabs.....

it would of been a fair deal if isreal had offered farmland and control of some of the large permentant water sources other than desert which made up the vast bulk of what was being offered

(isreal would of gotten far more land the vast majority of it being good farm land and in exchange palastine would of gotten 100kmsq of the judanean desert....... (oh and under that plan iseral would maintain control of 90% of the permentent water sources aka rivers and lakes so all the best land)

but its a fair deal right?

So please people actully research what the land was like before saying it was a fair trade just on the amount km offered in exchange

That's not true about the farmland. Who told you that?

Very little, if any, of the annexed land would have been farmland. The principle was to annex the large, urban settlement blocs close to the green line.

And you're talking very little land as well.But even if it were true, where is the Palestinian counter-offer?

The water issue isn't true either. Israel now has a water surplus due to the use of desalination plants. And it wasn't water which caused the Palestinians to reject the peace deal. If it were, why didn't they give a counter-offer?

Why is it SO difficult to give Israel even a bit of credit?!

Worridmum - the ideal swaps would of course be some of the Arab towns near the border, but the inhabitants are adamant that they want to stay in Israel rather than be part of the Palestinian state. Oddly, they seem to be more pro-Israel than most of the posters on MN, but of course they are living on the ground rather than Westerners trying to assuage their consciences....

And what lakes are there in the West Bank?! Last time I looked there weren't any. I suspect someone has been telling you porkies!

No, Israel won't be going back to 1947 borders! Don't forget that the Arabs started the war then and lost. It's the 1948 borders which count. And that's the principle behind the two state solution and the land swaps which were offered.

Don't forget that it's the Palestinians who would have gained the most from any peace deal, far more than the Israelis. The Israelis already have a fully functioning country. The Israeli economy is doing surprisingly well. The Palestinians are the ones who have far more to gain and are the ones who have lost out so much from having rejected the two state solution - in 1947, in 2000 and 2008. The Palestinains legitimately have plenty of grievances against Israel but if I were Palestinian, I'd have lots of questions to my own leadership as well.

because the land they were offering in return what in fact worthless and WATER was in fact an issue because under the deal the palstine state would have to rely on irseal to provide its water as alot of the annaxed land was a mixture of urban, farmland and the water sources

(you could not build towns or villages on the land offered in exchange because of how shit it was no chance of farming no supplies of water to make settlements their viable)

But there was settlements in the land isreal wanted for the bloody fact that it was useable land with surronding farmland and water sources... look at the actual land being offered again.

The deal would of left isreal far better off holding all the cards in regaurds to water and if they are running a surplus why not actully offer the palastine state control of some of the vast water resviours in land it wanted to annex???

Worridmum - what vast reservoirs are you taking about? have you ever visited the area? Israel does have an arrangement to provide water to Jordan, and there's no reason why they shouldn't offer a similar arrangement to the Palestinians. It's in Israel's interest to have an economically successful state next door, rather than a radical Islamist basket case which spends all it (donated) money on missiles and tunneling equipment.

Worridmum

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Have you ever been to the West Bank and seen the land?

Maale Adumim, one of the largest settlement blocs near Jerusalem which would have been annexed, is in the Judean Desert. That's pretty shit land there. Nothing to do with farmland. No one does any farming there.

This is not about water or farmland or land quality.

Even if there were differences in land quality or water

a) You're not talking about a lot of land

b) a peace deal would have been such a boon to the Palestinian economy that it would have more than made up for it

c) where is the Palestinian counter-offer outlining these issues?

It was never about the land quality or water. It was always about the right of return of refugees to Israel and full control of Jerusalem.

because you cannot start a nation from scarps of land Ireail would actully have to give palistine useable and valueable land and less of the bullshit about losing wars so isreail gets to claim and illigeally annex land..... (you are ignoring the fact that the UN HAS RULED WHAT ISREAL HAS DONE AS ILLIGEAL)

Its like saying to someone thats just stolen your house and kicked you out of it for several years but after benifeting greatly from your house and so you are now rich you deem they can now move back into your house but must only live in the basement and under the stairs cupboard.

As you are gaining so much as you now have a roof over your head and the theves are losing space in "their" house to accomidate you.

and to say lakes I meant aquafiers, widia's and all the rest of the water sources and their are lakes sorry resivours now because they are man made (water sources was on tablelet and could