Map of Palestine land, according to this most is controlled by Isreal, and if people want to travel approval is needed

[birdsofweather]

This short came up when I was watching other things - if the information in this short is true, which, looking at the comments, it seems to be, it is just incredibly sad. We really need a proper two state solution negotiated under which the Palestinian land is controlled by a Palestinian government - and an equal and fair split of land. Looking at how the dispute started after the Balfour Agreement and the Mandate for Palestine, the world really should do the moral thing, step in and get negotiations started. Trying to help the situation Gaza is like applying an inadequate sticking plaster - if with goodwill and political pressure an agreement for two states is agreed then the problems Israel fears go away, and Palestine can start to rebuild. Most of the Arab world will support a two state solution now.

I refer to "moral" thing to do because the likes of Charlie Kirk - who is in a position of influence - keep raising the "moral" question but missing the point. The issue isn't just moral - it is necessary for civilisation and prosperity that we agree a two state solution as soon as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m0NzTwLPHgM

If anyone thinks that the information in the short is wrong, please say.

While I was looking for the Churchill quote for Anonymummy, I found some interesting information about Churchill's thinking about how not all Jews were seen as equal, and about how he thought that a superior race could legitimately chuck out an inferior race from land - using the fact that native americans and native australians had legimately - he says - been thrown out of land by "superior" settlers. Churchill says that it was acceptable that land could be simply taken from Arabs in Palestinians, as the Zionists were "superior" race, and that this was the natural order of things (views many would find outdated and offensive today). One of Hitler's central ideologies was Lebensraum in relation to which he said he had been inspired by the attitudes of the American settlers' attitudes towards native Americans, and there was support for Hitler in the years up to 1939 by western monied groups because Hitler was anti Bolshevik - Lebensraum was about forcibly taking land to the east from the slavs.

The first link is penned by Churchill and so clearly reflects his thinking, in 1920 - it explains how some Jewish people such as the Bolshevik Jews and Jews from the ghetto were to be distinguished as being not worthy whereas the Zionist and wealthy Jewish classes were worthy. He supported a Zionist state which pushed out Arabs completely and without reservation. The second link I have not fact checked but it is thought provoking.

https://archive.org/details/WinstonChurchillZionismVsBolshevismStruggleForTheSoulOfTheJewishPeople1920

https://mronline.org/2024/06/28/the-treachery-of-the-nazi-zionist-alliance/

@Anonimummy I think that it is reasonably clear that the racial superiority and colonialistic ideas of the power groups which dominated the early 20th c are the only justification for what happened to the Arabs in Palestine - in all seriousness, taking all of this into consideration, would you still side with them? Most people now condemn colonialisation and attitudes of racial superiority, and this is part of the reason why so many favour the two state solution today. The problem is that there are very powerful backers of Zionism and perhaps they feel that a tiny piece of land does not reflect their true status, is that what you think?

You know its 2025 now right?

It was the decisions taken in 1917 and then the 1920s which led to where we are in 2025.

Nonsense. Everyone is capable of either dwelling on the past and getting stuck in a quagmire of blaming everyone else, or taking responsibility for the future and changing the narrative.

If people were taking responsibility for the future they'd be agreeing to a fair and equal two state solution. Wouldn't they?

When reasons are given (narrative) as to why this shouldn't happen, quoting Churchill, seems relevant to be clear about what Churchill's stance actually was, and why. The items I linked provide really interesting insights into the conflict which i have not seen written about much too, so they have interest and historical value as well. You seem anxious to shut down discussion, though. Why would that be then?

How am I shutting down discussion? I don't have the pwer to do that. If you want to talk about 1917 that's up to you. I'm suggesting that attitudes then are historically interesting but not particularly helpful for informing the present or future.

But yes, why do you think Hamas is is intractably opposed to a two state solution?

Look up which side rejected every offer of a two-state solution.

How many times have people used the 1947 decision to not support a 2 state solution in 2025? See the post upthread which used what Churchill said as justification for there not being a 2 state solution today. Do you tell posters who follow these narratives that this is 2025?!

Anyway, moving on - firstly the info in the links is interesting and relevant, and secondly the way decisions are made today under the influence of power groups is the same as it was in 1920 - this may shock you. The influence of bankers and financiers and big business in world affairs is quite significant today just as it was then.

Re Hamas, if you google it says they have expressed support for a 2 state solution. They are also funded by Iran and others who support a 2 state solution so there would be pressure for them to come to the table. As you well know as you have posted similar queries on other threads.

Have you read the links, and if so what did you think? Do you condemn the colonial attitudes, and the reckless way conflicting promises were given, some of which were never intended to be kept?

SharonEllis thinks that this is 2025 and that you should be focusing on the future. @SharonEllis isn't that right?

I'm sorry I can't waste my time discussing Hamas and Iran's position on a 2 state solution. Hint. No they are not working towards one.

And what do they have now from 80 years of war? Even less.their choice.

I posted this on another thread. Some posters disagreed with me.

Israel is desperate to be seen as a democratic, pluralistic state by the rest of the world. Unfortunately Israel knows that the majority of the world is now seeing it for what it is, an apartheid state. There are only 3 ways in which Israel can achieve what it wants. A two state solution with Palestine, which they will never agree to. The second way is to go down the road of South Africa in 1994 and give all people democratic rights and citizenship, in other words a single state solution. They won’t agree to this as it would mean that Israel is no longer a primarily a Jewish state. The third option, to put it in the words of Bibi and his government is to “encourage voluntary emigration” of the Palestinian population.
I think we all know what this is called. Currently the option that they are taking.

I think Israel is desperate to be able to live in peace and focus on enterprise and innovation which they are world renowned for, and advancement of their economy actually.

You can call it an apartheid state all you like but I think the Arab Israelis and minorities who actually live there are probably better informed than you.

If you mean it’s an apartheid state because they won’t let Palestinians in to try to kill them, then your opinion should be treated with the contempt if deserves. Although Israel did let in thousands of Palestinians to work and receive medical care and how were they repaid? Remember Sinwar’s life was actually saved in an Israeli hospital? Remember the Israelis in the kibbutzims who worked with the Palestinians, and ferried them into Israel for medical treatment while they passed on security information to Hamas so they could be massacred by them and Palestinian civilians too.

The Palestinians have had the opportunity to have a two state solution for over 77 years. They in fact had their own Arab state in Jordan and of course in Gaza, they elected terrorists who spent their time in government building weapons and tunnels, and mansions for themselves, while leaving their citizens in poverty and reliant on Aid, then were upset that Israel had to implement security measures to prevent them from trying to kill their citizens. Despite that Oct 7th happened………

Nobody in their right mind would think a one state solution is ever going to happen now, Israel would be condemning their current citizens to certain death.

You don’t just carry out and support the kind of atrocities carried out in Oct 7th and then become peace living citizens of the country you’d committed and supported mass slaughter, rape and hostage taking in!

Hamas, all the other terrorist groups in the region and their supporters have now had it reinforced very clearly that they can slaughter, rape and kidnap civilians including babies and children, and STILL they will get global sympathy and outrage at Israel for going after them.

Although Bibi was definitely open to a one state solution at one point before he became PM and even after serving in several wars against Arab armies surprisingly enough, and there ARE over 2 million Arab Israelis who’s parents, grandparents decided to stay in 1948,

A two state solution has been offered and refused again and again so why anyone thinks the Palestinians actually want one is beyond me.

@Anonimummy You clearly didn’t bother to read the thread, so I’ll recap it here for you:

It’s interesting that you describe Israel as the only truly pluralist multi ethnic/religious democratic state in the middle east. I’m not sure that I can agree with you on this matter. Firstly if you are Jewish you have the right to return as you wish and can hold dual citizenship. However, non Jewish Israeli citizens can not hold dual citizenship and have to go through a rigorous process in order to gain nationality. Land through the Jewish National Fund is almost exclusively allocated to only Jewish Israelis. There have been many reports highlighting that Arab majority areas have significantly lower government spending in public services and schooling.
Not sounding very democratic and pluralistic to me.

Whatever Churchill said, and I hadn’t dug that deep to try to discredit what he said about the amount of Arabs in the region of the time, are you saying that Arabs didn’t believe in their own racial superiority at that time and still to this day (ALL the land is Muslim Arab land according to them) including the ME countries Jewish people were ethnically cleansed from before and after 1948?

Arab Muslims didn’t colonise much of the ME themselves?

What is Al Aqsa built on top on of?

I don’t think anyone would give a flying fuck today about ‘colonialism’ in the ME if only those Arab armies hadn’t been outwitted and defeated in 1948, and 1967, and 1973.

BTW with regard to comment from Churchill, was he wrong?

And the Likud party are, right? 😂

This is absolutely the cultural and political space from which Israel was made: Complete faith in 19th century racialist/eugenicist beliefs about superior and inferior races, and the inherent rightness of the former just taking over lands from the latter and telling them to go jump.

But try to point out that there might be something just a teeny tiny bit racist in the assumptions that led to the decision to found Israel in an already-populated Palestine, and OMG - "how antisemitic are YOU!!!?"

This doesn't mean all Israelis now are racist. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have a country (any more than white Americans or Australians shouldn't). It does mean that drawing a line under the past and moving forward can't happen without admitting the Zionists' motivation by, and the west's complicity in, a horrendously racist worldview that the Palestinians were perfectly justified in rejecting.

There is so much history to fill in to your partial account that it would be impossible to do so here. But tell me, why do most countries in MENA now speak primarily Arabic, and have lost mamy indigenous cultures? What would you call that history if not colonisation and racial superiority? Why is it only the British role in the creation of Israel that is an issue but it was not an issue when the British installed their Arab allies as kings in the newly formed kingdoms of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, after the collapse of the Ottomam empire, even though there were millions of Kurds and other minorities there. And where does the fact that Jews come from the Levant fit in your picture? And why were Jews persecuted in various ME countries and if not persecuted undoubtedly second class citizens known as dhimmis.

All that aside, how does this acknowledgement of the past work? Once we have thrashed out all the bad things thought and done by people in the past and who is going to apologise to who (what to do about slavery in Arab countries?). Does everyone sign some sort of declaration? What about people of mixed heritage. Are they apologising to themselves?

Just to add, I think your whole approach is very orientalist.

What do you mean by orientalist?

That's okay, if you don't want to join in discussions you don't have to

I am not sure how you think you know what Iran is and is not doing though.

What do you think Churchill is right about - saying that there are good Jews and bad Jews? Saying that Zionists were superior and so could boot out Arabs without discussion? Is that what you agree with?

I take it that you did not watch the video I linked and you have not read either of the articles I linked? You are raising new and different subjects but it seems reasonably clear you aren't looking at what anyone else is saying - so why are you trying to engage here? Are you just setting out your views so that they can be seen by others? If so, why not start your own thread?

In relation to you new questions about Arabs - the occupants of the land were part of the Ottoman empire - they were mainly farmers and made up around 90 percent or so of the population and had done so for hundreds of years up to the point of the Mandate for Palestine. Does that answer your question?

Or were you asking about the Ottomans? Which is a completely different subject and not relevant here.

Do they think they are superior? I have never seen this anywhere so i don't know. What we know of Arab Palestinians is that they had lived there for 100s of years and were slowly booted off, uprooted, and thrown out into Lebanon or pushed into areas like Gaza by Zionists aided in part by Britain and by Israelis - as far as I know this is absolutely undisputed history.

What we do know is that Churchill thought the Zionists were superior - as you would see if you read the links.

Sharon, you are talking about several different things, none relevant to what is being discussed on this thread. Yes, there were and are other injusticies. Yes, the Ottoman empire expanded and to some extent this was due to them believing in their superiority. Yes, this has happened elsewhere. But none of this is really relevant here and are not reasons to not discuss what has happened in Palestine - much of which most people in the UK and the west generally do not know about and should know.

But to cut to the chase - so, what do you think should happen now? You follow to the letter and very firmly the official UK foreign policy, is that right? The official position is that we should not be dealing with Iran, full stop, is that right? What about the 2 state solution - what is the official UK position on that? I thought that the UK supported the 2 state solution - and if so, how would we proceed with negotiations if we are forbidden to negotiate with Iran in good faith?