[paraclete]

Then why did you say the Palestinian people never existed?

I didn't say that but the fact is that palestine is a modern construct, the people are either jews or arabs, the jews don't identify as palestinian and the arabs only identify as palestinian for political ends, before 1967 they were jordanian or eqyptian

[talaniman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians

Seems your version of the definition of Palestinian people is but the most recent one as clearly there have been others and for many centuries past. The Israelis may not be invaders but they are clearly oppressors, and suppressors as they expand their own territories by displacing Palestinians.

Like all the other conquerors of human history with superior forces.

[Athos]

I didn't say that but the fact is that palestine is a modern construct, the people are either jews or arabs, the jews don't identify as palestinian and the arabs only identify as palestinian for political ends, before 1967 they were jordanian or eqyptian

Adding to what Talinman said--------

You're playing the semantics game to avoid the issue. That game has been played since 1948 to somehow justify the takeover by Israel. As if suggesting the Arabs living there had no Palestinian name, therefore they did not exist, and therefore no one was displaced - what a bunch of BS!

The issue is - the Arabs that were living there, now calling themselves Palestinians, have been illegally and immorally forcibly removed from their ancestral lands by the UN in support of another group who call themselves Israelis. Anyway you slice it, the Palestinians Arabs have been oppressed and displaced.

To repeat from an earlier post: In 1947, the Arab population was about 1.25 million. Jews, primarily recent immigrants since the advent of Zionism, were a few hundred thousand. Prior to the late 19th century, the Jewish population had been a small minority and had been static since their expulsion by the Romans in 70 AD.

So it wasn't just a bunch of Arabs and Jews living there - the Arabs were overwhelmingly the dominant population. It is beyond me why you pick such a false position on the issue. It is one thing to support Israel, it is quite another thing to spew lies about the Palestinian Arabs. The facts are obvious and plain for all to see. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[paraclete]

No the fact is that when Israel was formed the Jews invited the arabs to live peacefully among them, the arabs attacked the jews resulting in defeat and an occupation. I don't deny the arabs lived there but they had no political organisation, you cannot deny that the whole of the ME is a recent construct following the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI

[Athos]

No the fact is that when Israel was formed the Jews invited the arabs to live peacefully among them,

Gee, how nice of them! So the Jews take over the land belonging to the Arabs and then they invite them to live there on their own land? Peacefully, no less! Who could resist such an offer?

the arabs attacked the jews resulting in defeat and an occupation.

What would YOU do if somebody kicked you off YOUR land?

I don't deny the arabs lived there but they had no political organisation,

The nerve of those Arabs! How dare they live on their own land without an organization you approve of. (This is just getting more and more bizarre).

you cannot deny that the whole of the ME is a recent construct following the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI

I hereby deny it. As far as I can tell, the land has been there since the planet was formed. Since then, there have been several civilizations living there as you yourself indicated in a previous post.

The way you twist words is astounding. Especially, the Jews inviting the Arabs to live on their own land. That one takes my breath away.

[talaniman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...inian_conflict

1948-2014

[paraclete]

Thank you Tal

[talaniman]

There is much more Clete.

https://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/30...ed-in-5-charts



Israeli expansion into an already small crowded place is the recipe for conflicts and bloody retributions. What does one expect from such blatant displacements?

[paraclete]

it is an ancient problem tal

[talaniman]

Yep, with no end in sight.

[Athos]

it is an ancient problem tal

Paraclete - did you look at the chart? The Israelis are taking Arab lands NOW, not anciently! And they are doing this in direct violation of the UN directive forbidding Israel to settle on Arab lands in the West Bank. SMH.

[paraclete]

Paraclete - did you look at the chart? The Israelis are taking Arab lands NOW, not anciently! And they are doing this in direct violation of the UN directive forbidding Israel to settle on Arab lands in the West Bank. SMH.

Athos, you maybe unaware that noone takes UN directives seriously when it applies to them, the US doesn't take them seriously regarding sanctions on Iran, China doesn't taken them seriously. In Fact, they are just so much background noise, why should the Israeli's listen when these people are their enemies, they conquered the west bank, not because they wanted to but because these people made war on them. I understood the graphic, just as I understood the content of Tal's link. There is not just one aggressor there and there are various forms of aggression. Whenever you jamb people into ghettos you get violence, whenever you restrict populations you get violence. The UN created the problem at the behest of the great powers and the atrocities of WWII. Israel was the UN's great experiment and the world is still paying for it. The arabs took Palestine centuries ago by conquest and now they object to the ancient inhabitants coming back

[talaniman]

All nations, both big and small want to keep their own SOVERIEGNTY. While the UN is but a collective that can make suggestions and in some cases facilitate a vehicle for joint endeavors, they cannot GOVERN. The rules don't allow it, and the most powerful nations still dominate and run the show in it's own national self interests.

You know how we humans are, conquer and dominate as you can (For profit, power and influence like it's always been) and who and how will rules be enforced? We do have a few rules though, and a loose global agreement but obviously as you said that doesn't stop those who can from bending, breaking those rules.

We're a long way off from a effective GLOBAL authority that all submit to willingly, or whole heartedly. To the discussion though, a peace agreement while one side pushes the other into an ever shrinking corner will never happen and workers to the pushers benefit and not the pushed. That's just the history of the world until a greater force intervenes instead of enables.

[Athos]

Athos, you maybe unaware that noone takes UN directives seriously when it applies to them, the US doesn't take them seriously regarding sanctions on Iran, China doesn't taken them seriously.

Israel was more than willing to listen to the UN when it decided in their favor to take Arab lands.

In Fact, they are just so much background noise, why should the Israeli's listen when these people are their enemies, they conquered the west bank,

So, your moral principle is Might Makes Right. It's a good thing for you that the United States pulled your bacon out of the fire when the Japanese were poised to overrun Australia on the theory of Might Makes Right. You probably sang a different tune back then.

The UN created the problem at the behest of the great powers and the atrocities of WWII. Israel was the UN's great experiment and the world is still paying for it.

Finally, you got something right.

The arabs took Palestine centuries ago by conquest and now they object to the ancient inhabitants coming back

Well, that didn't last long - you're back on the wrong track. The area has ALWAYS had Arabs. What changed was their culture that bound them. Originally, that culture is lost in the sands of time. Subsequent cultures/nation/city states have been Syria, Egypt, Canaan/Philistines (from which the name derives), Israel, Roman, Greek/Byzantine, Christian, Muslim, and today's displaced inhabitants. So your designation of the Israelites as the "ancient inhabitants" is not true.

It is also important to note that a majority of Arabs and Jews share DNA that traces back to common ancestors a few thousand years in the past.

[paraclete]

Israel was more than willing to listen to the UN when it decided in their favor to take Arab lands.

The jews didn't seek to take the land by conquest

So, your moral principle is Might Makes Right. It's a good thing for you that the United States pulled your bacon out of the fire when the Japanese were poised to overrun Australia on the theory of Might Makes Right. You probably sang a different tune back then.

while we are all greatfull the US won the war in the Pacific, Japan was never going to overrun Australia, it was as they say a bridge too far but they certainly didn't want Australia to become a US base. The US fought the battles in the Pacific for their own agenda

Finally, you got something right.

Finally?

Well, that didn't last long - you're back on the wrong track. The area has ALWAYS had Arabs. What changed was their culture that bound them. Originally, that culture is lost in the sands of time. Subsequent cultures/nation/city states have been Syria, Egypt, Canaan/Philistines (from which the name derives), Israel, Roman, Greek/Byzantine, Christian, Muslim, and today's displaced inhabitants. So your designation of the Israelites as the "ancient inhabitants" is not true.

It is also important to note that a majority of Arabs and Jews share DNA that traces back to common ancestors a few thousand years in the past.

Yes we know the arabs are an abrahamic people, makes all the more a wonder that they make the jews their enemies. There seems to be an adage that you keep what you conquer, but you are right the arabs are the phillistines of today even centred in the ancient phillistine cities

[Athos]

The jews didn't seek to take the land by conquest

Quibble - They ACCEPTED the land which already belonged to others. Better?

Japan was never going to overrun Australia,

Without the US, maybe.


We seem to be far off the track here. My point with all this is that the Israeli-Palestinian argument/dispute/fight/war was unfairly begun in Israel's favor. The world had tremendous sympathy for what the Jewish people suffered under the Nazis and that influenced the decision to offer them a homeland where they did.

At the time, few stood up for the Arabs being displaced. Some of the reasons supporting Israel have been beyond bizarre.

Ed Koch, ex-NYC mayor, actually claimed, seriously, the Jews had a right to the land because God gave it to them. Chaim Potok argued the Jews had a right to the land because "they made the desert bloom", while the Palestinian owners were just sheep and goat herders. I don't know which reason is stranger or less rational.

How the Jews could go along with the 1947 arrangement after experiencing the horrors of the death camps is something I will never understand.

Israel has a chance to do the right thing with the Palestinians. Settling hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank is not the right thing.

[paraclete]

Israel has a chance to do the right thing with the Palestinians. Settling hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank is not the right thing.

Israel tried to do the right thing at the start but this was quickly eclipsed by war, they could still make them citizens of a greater Israel but the palestinians didn't accept it then and they won't accept it now, so you will have two tiny states with indefensible ill defined borders and this is what allowed the situation to develop in the first place. The whole ME is the result of the failed idea of racial partition

Still we have progress the UAE, and other gulf states, have thrown the palestinians under a bus, no doubt tired of the endless propaganda and war

[Athos]

Israel tried to do the right thing at the start but this was quickly eclipsed by war,

You're repeating yourself.

they could still make them citizens of a greater Israel but the palestinians didn't accept it then and they won't accept it now,

Why should they "accept" being citizens of their own state? Another repetition from you.

so you will have two tiny states with indefensible ill defined borders and this is what allowed the situation to develop in the first place.

The "situation" started when the UN gave Arab lands to Israel. I thought you already knew that.

All of the above has already been asked and answered. You're going round and round in circles and my patience in trying to advise you of the facts is wearing thin. You need to make more of an effort to learn or else you'll continue to wallow in ignorance.

The whole ME is the result of the failed idea of racial partition

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Whatever history book you're reading, throw it away. NOW!

[paraclete]

You're repeating yourself.

a failing you have also succomed too

Why should they "accept" being citizens of their own state?

the concept of citizenship eludes you

The "situation" started when the UN gave Arab lands to Israel. I thought you already knew that.

at the risk of being tedious the UN attempted to solve a problem by separating to populations with different idiology. What you failed to recognise is the lands were already conquered and had been for decades, THEY WERE NO LONGER ARAB LANDS

All of the above has already been asked and answered. You're going round and round in circles and my patience in trying to advise you of the facts is wearing thin. You need to make more of an effort to learn or else you'll continue to wallow in ignorance.

you are not the only one who is frustrated, you seem stuck on the idea it was arab land exclusively. In fact it has had so many conquerers and occupiers it could belong to anyone

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Whatever history book you're reading, throw it away. NOW!

the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you have taken a decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance

[Athos]

a failing you have also succomed too

I have succumbed to nothing. What I have done is reply to your repeated statements. You say the same things over and over. Of course, my replies are the same. Why wouldn't they be?

the concept of citizenship eludes you

It's a simple concept. You will need to elaborate on this comment.

at the risk of being tedious the UN attempted to solve a problem by separating to populations with different idiology.

At the same risk, you refuse to understand that the UN had no right to remove a population from their lands to award those lands to a different population. What is so hard for you to grasp?

What you failed to recognise is the lands were already conquered and had been for decades, THEY WERE NO LONGER ARAB LANDS

Who did the lands belong to? Martians?

Thank you for saying this and being FINALLY so clear. Here we see an ABSOLUTE LIE from you. This is the lie that supports everything you have said. The question now is: Just why do you engage in this blatant falsehood?

you seem stuck on the idea it was arab land exclusively.

It IS/WAS Arab land exclusively! Whose do you think it was? Martians again?

In fact it has had so many conquerers and occupiers it could belong to anyone

This is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it is impossible to reply to it.

the apple doesn't fall far from the tree,

Are you now saying that I am a Palestinian? So what? True or not, that does not change the facts. In logic, that's called an argumentum ad hominem. You have failed to convince of your position, so you attack the person not the argument. You're revealing your true colors.

you have taken a decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance

This is where you go fundamentally wrong. Taking a stance is not an argument. You've made another logical fallacy. In any case, right at the beginning, I stated that "If ever there were two sides to a question, this is one of those times". Hardly a "decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance".

However, if you were honest, you would realize the stance I take is based on the facts of the situation. We've done them ad infinitum, so there's no need to go over them again. I suggest you read this thread again, be honest, and arrive at an honest resolution. I suspect you are already aware of an honest resolution, but something is holding you back.