• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Netanyahu calls for Immediate peace talks (withOUT precondition)

Voluntary said:
Stop destroying their houses and your words would have more weight. If 4.5 million Palestinians are seeking Jewish refuge, then why doesn't Israel offer a one state peace negotiation? Your argument is bunk on all levels.
Click to expand...
Moderator's Warning:
You're a new poster here so I'll bring you up to speed. The ME forum is currently under Martial Law with a zero-tolerance policy. The debate here is expected to be civil and courteous at all times. This is just a head's up notice. Do NOT respond to this Mod Box.
 
Apocalypse said:
Or why do they have more right than people from Germany.
Heard about the Sudetenland?

Anyway, first generation refugees would have been taken in by Israel in Olmert's offer (BBC NEWS | Middle East | Olmert: I went furthest on peace).
Those are numbered in the few thousands, and are no threat to the Israeli political stability.

The problem arises when the Palestinians claim that all 4.5 million Palestinians that they call 'refugees' must receive an Israeli citizenship, something that I'm sure you can see the problem with.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. As it happens im writing a paper on this issue so that will come handy.

Ive im all for Sudetan germans returning to Czechlovakia if they want too (and i belive there is something about this is the lisbon treaty that the czechs are launching a legal challenge against). Aside from overpoplation (which could be reduced by stopping Jewish imigrants with perfectly good homes in the west from imigrating) i cant see the problem with 4.5 million palestinians emigrating aside from this bizzare obession with keeping Israel Jewish. Again I think someone decended from those who fleed the holy land in 1948 , or someone who himself fled the holy land in 1948, has a stronger right to return then someone decended from those who fled the holy land in 63 AD.
 
Last edited:
Voluntary said:
I apologize for making blanket statements, but I have no desire to speak to Apocalypse, who takes on a condescending attitude.
Click to expand...

I would be most happy to speak in apocalypse's place if that would help. :2wave:
 
Red_Dave said:
Thanks for the link. As it happens im writing a paper on this issue so that will come handy.

Ive im all for Sudetan germans returning to Czechlovakia if they want too (and i belive there is something about this is the lisbon treaty that the czechs are launching a legal challenge against). Aside from overpoplation (which could be reduced by stopping Jewish imigrants with perfectly good homes in the west from imigrating) i cant see the problem with 4.5 million palestinians emigrating aside from this bizzare obession with keeping Israel Jewish. Again I think someone decended from those who fleed the holy land in 1948 , or someone who himself fled the holy land in 1948, has a stronger right to return then someone decended from those who fled the holy land in 63 AD.
Click to expand...

Then I think you should see:

The 'Big Lie' Tactic (Evelyn Gordon) February, 2001

"....* Millions of Moslems fled India for Pakistan following the bloody riots of 1947. India not only stripped them of citizenship, but Barred them, in its Constitution, from Ever returning. No one ever suggested that these Moslems had a "right of return."

* After World War II, Czechoslovakia expelled all its German citizens. Yet no one suggested that the millions of Sudeten Germans had a "right of return." In 1997, Germany even signed a treaty acknowledging the Irrevocability of the Expulsion.

* When the communists took power in Vietnam, millions of "boat people" fled to the United States and various Asian countries. No one has ever suggested that these people have a "right of return."..."
Click to expand...

and

CAMERA: BACKGROUNDER: The Palestinian Claim to a “Right of Return”
-
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
i cant see the problem with 4.5 million palestinians emigrating aside from this bizzare obession with keeping Israel Jewish.
Click to expand...
Then I am very sorry but if you cannot see that Israel's demographics changing from 75% Jews, 20% Arabs and 5% other to 35% Jews 60% Arabs and 5% other would lead to the election of a Muslim party, to the end of the state of Israel (Israel is a Jewish state by its name, flag, symbol and hymn), and to the rise of another Muslim nation in the middle east.

I am also certain that you would have no problem if 600 million Muslims were to immigrate all at once to the United Kingdoms now, but just as your political mentality prevents you from understanding why the Jewish people wish to keep Israel's existence, so there are other people who's mentality prevents them from finding sense within such a decision, and will want to see Israel continue to be the state that it is.
 
Voluntary said:
For what? Illegal settlements are the main obstacle to peace negotiations.

Get over youself.
Click to expand...

First off the settlements only comprise 3 or 4% of the West Bank. The Main blocks which have roughly around 90% of the people are located ajacent to the Green line. These settlements are going to stay with Israel either unilaterally or by negotiated peace deal which would probably include land swaps or them. These settlements are not an obstacle to peace anymore than the settlements in the Sinai were obstacles. If they were obstacles then Israels withdraw from Gaza would have resulted in less terror not a geometric increase in attacks.

The majority of the settlements are not illegal per international law and Res 242. The WB and Gaza are disputed territory and per 242 Israel is not required to leave all of it. But this is for another discussion

The real obstacle to peace is essentially the same as it always has been since Israels founding in 48. This was Arab/Pal agression, incitement, terrorism and various others things directed at Israel. Also it was their obstructionist unrealistic view hoping for the impossible as well as making demands for the impossible

The longer the Palestinians engage in terror hoping for the impossible that they will defeat Israel to get from river to sea, and hold out for demands or concessions that they will never get, the worse their situation will get and the worse peace deal they will get. Right or wrong the reality is Israel is much more powerful and can continue with the status quo much longer with more minimal effects on its society than the Palestinians can. The Palestinians can either accept this reality, get what they realistically can and move on avoiding needless misery or they can continue to live in misery holding out for the impossible and eventually having to take a worse deal.
 
Voluntary said:
Stop destroying their houses and your words would have more weight.

If 4.5 million Palestinians are seeking Jewish refuge, then why doesn't Israel offer a one state peace negotiation?

Your argument is bunk on all levels.
Click to expand...

No. He is correct. YOU are incorrect.
 
Apocalypse said:
Then I am very sorry but if you cannot see that Israel's demographics changing from 75% Jews, 20% Arabs and 5% other to 35% Jews 60% Arabs and 5% other would lead to the election of a Muslim party, to the end of the state of Israel (Israel is a Jewish state by its name, flag, symbol and hymn), and to the rise of another Muslim nation in the middle east.

I am also certain that you would have no problem if 600 million Muslims were to immigrate all at once to the United Kingdoms now, but just as your political mentality prevents you from understanding why the Jewish people wish to keep Israel's existence, so there are other people who's mentality prevents them from finding sense within such a decision, and will want to see Israel continue to be the state that it is.
Click to expand...

I would like to see a source for that (for my paper as much as for this disscussion;)) but if theres a risk of a muslim party rising to power then that illustrates the need for some sort of power sharing system to be put in place. I would have a problem with 600 million Muslims imigrating en masse to the UK but my opionion would perhaps be different if they had lived there previously and been forced to leave.

So why must Israel continue to be the state that it is? The conflict might well have been ended if Israel had shown a greater willingness to take people back but this wont happen because of this bizzare obession with keeping the state Jewish. Its would seam as if keeping the state Jewish is more important then ending the conflict for many people. So what is so important about keeping the state Jewish?
 
Red_Dave said:
So why must Israel continue to be the state that it is? The conflict might well have been ended if Israel had shown a greater willingness to take people back but this wont happen because of this bizzare obession with keeping the state Jewish. Its would seam as if keeping the state Jewish is more important then ending the conflict for many people. So what is so important about keeping the state Jewish?
Click to expand...


If all your neighbors had been screaming that they wanted your family dead ever since before the time your grandfather were born, and then proceeded to try to kill you at every opportununity would YOU invite them to stay in the guest room?
 
Red_Dave said:
Well the sudentan germans are not as much of a non-issue as they are being made out to be

Sudeten Germans continue fight for right of return - Haaretz - Israel News Though it has to be said that the sudetan germans living in Germany are a great deal better of then the Palestinians living in Lebannon.
Click to expand...

I honestly cannot believe you don't understand the logic here.

If Israel allows the Palestinians in, the Palestinians will become the majority. Israel will cease to exist. The Jews would then face the same terrors in their own country that they suffered during WWII.

As long as Israel exists there will never be another holocaust. The Palestinians want to holocaust the Jews and take their land. This is unacceptable.

Shame on you for even suggesting the Israels take action that would allow this to happen.
 
I think this "right of return" should be taken at face value, myself. Anybody who left before 1948 who can establish that they were a resident at the time should be able to move back. Anybody who was not born in Israel, or who cannot prove they lived in what is now Israel before 1948 cannot.


How can people "return" to a land they never lived on? From Israel's standpoint, how can a relatively small number of people in their later years in life pose a threat?
 
Gardener said:
If all your neighbors had been screaming that they wanted your family dead ever since before the time your grandfather were born, and then proceeded to try to kill you at every opportununity would YOU invite them to stay in the guest room?
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that most arab violence towards jewish imigrants was a responce to their attempts to set up a jewish state. We should bear in mind that before the movement towards a jewish state gained momentum, palestinian jews had little trouble living alongside the arabs. It was mass imigration, the intension behind this mass imigration that caused the trouble. Although the arabs were hardly completely blameless we need to look at how this violence came about, this can be explained by how these imigrants aquirred land.

The increase in Jewish ownership was largely prompted by the founding
of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA) by Baron Edmond
de Rothschild, the "Father of the Yishuv" (the Jewish settlement in Palestine)
who for decades was to be the largest Jewish landowner in Palestine
and Transjordan. Rothschild "bought land from the feudal Effendis, sometimes
by bribing the Ottoman administration, and drove the fellahin off the
land."' Some of the same fellaheen were hired to work the land they once
cultivated as their own.
A different approach was taken by Zionists of a more purist position
than the classic colonialist policy held by Rothschild. "When we occupy the
land.. .we must expropriate gently the private property on the estates
assigned to us," wrote Zionism's founder Theodor Herzl. "We shall try to
spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment
for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own
co~ntries."~ In 1907 the World Zionist Organization incorporated the Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (Jewish National Fund), which was dedicated to purchasing
land exclusively for Jews and refusing employment to displaced
Arabs. Beginning a year later with the building of a suburb outside Jaffa
which came to be known as Tel Aviv, Keren Kayemeth was destined to be
the major landowner in Palestine.
During the last years of Turkish rule in Palestine, the lands seized from
Arab peasants by Arab absentee landlords were in turn being sold to Zionist
settlers whose policy increasingly was to deny employment to Arabs. Only
144 Arab landlords owned a total of 3,130,00Q dunums in Palestine-in the
Jezreel Valley alone the Sursuk family of Beirut and Egypt held title to
230,000 dunums-and "the great majority of land bought by Jews in the
period of Turkish rule, and later under the British Mandate,. ..was acquired
from proprietors of large estates."' By 1914 Jewish ownership of
land amounted to 418,000 dunums or about 1.6% of Palestine, and Jews
constituted 84,660 (12%) out of a population of 689,275.1°

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine
of a national home for the Jewish people," wrote British Foreign Secretary
Lord Balfour to Lord Lionel Rothschild in November 1917, adding
that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious
rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," i.e., the overwhelming
majority of the population consisting of Moslem and Christian
Arabs. Palestine was a land without a people and for a people without a
land according to Zionist leader Israel Zangwill, who wrote in 1919:
The power in every country.. .always resides in the landowning
classes. Yet over 30,000Arab landlords and some 600,000fellahin are to
continue in possession of the bulk of the Holy Land.. .. [To remedy this
situation] measures of [bold]race redistribution[/bold].. .will be carried out in
Palestine as elsewhere. Thus the Arabs would gradually be settled in the
new and vast Arabian Kingdom. . .. Only with a Jewish majority. . .can
Israel enter upon the task of building up that model state.. ..Ib
Click to expand...

https://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_2.pdf
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
I honestly cannot believe you don't understand the logic here.

If Israel allows the Palestinians in, the Palestinians will become the majority. Israel will cease to exist. The Jews would then face the same terrors in their own country that they suffered during WWII.
Click to expand...

Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state but i dont see why this would be a problem. If you mean to say that Jews wouldnt have rights in this state or would be at risk of being killed then again this illustrates the need for power sharing. This has worked in places like Burundi were the history of violence between the two groups has been alot more severe.
 
Red_Dave said:
Bear in mind that most arab violence towards jewish imigrants was a responce to their attempts to set up a jewish state.
Click to expand...
Which makes it even more awkward.
Their opposition to the Jewish people having their own state in a land that was considered "dominated by Islam" was expressed with violence and the initiating of a civil war, and later on, an actual war, against the Jewish Yishuv in Mandate Palestine and against the state of Israel.
 
Gardener said:
I think this "right of return" should be taken at face value, myself. Anybody who left before 1948 who can establish that they were a resident at the time should be able to move back. Anybody who was not born in Israel, or who cannot prove they lived in what is now Israel before 1948 cannot.


How can people "return" to a land they never lived on? From Israel's standpoint, how can a relatively small number of people in their later years in life pose a threat?
Click to expand...

What but surely the issue at hand here is those that lived in whats now Israel who had to flee during the 1948 war and their decendants. Are you seriously claiming they never lived there?
 
Apocalypse said:
Which makes it even more awkward.
Their opposition to the Jewish people having their own state in a land that was considered "dominated by Islam" was expressed with violence and the initiating of a civil war, and later on, an actual war, against the Jewish Yishuv in Mandate Palestine and against the state of Israel.
Click to expand...

If this about being dominated by Islam then why was there no violence towards hristian Arabs during the Brittish mandate? This was more about people being forced to leave land that the Zionists had aquirred from the Ottomans then it was about religeon. And why shouldnt the arabs have objected to the establishment of a Jewish state on a land that had historically been inhabited by both Jewish and Arab people? Trying to establish a monoethic state on land populated by different ethnicities would cause a war anywhere in the world.
 
Red_Dave said:
If this about being dominated by Islam then why was there no violence towards hristian Arabs during the Brittish mandate? This was more about people being forced to leave land that the Zionists had aquirred from the Ottomans then it was about religeon.
Click to expand...
What? You're saying that a war declared by the Arabs in the region on the State of Israel was a result of "people being forced to leave the land" by Israel, something that has happened at the end and as a direct result of that same war?
You're not making any sense.
And why shouldnt the arabs have objected to the establishment of a Jewish state on a land that had historically been inhabited by both Jewish and Arab people?
Click to expand...
Because both the Jews and the Arabs have a claim to the land, and objecting to one of the two is objecting to peace.
It's really sad that instead of making their own state like Israel and Jordan did, they have chosen to act barbarically and started a war.
Trying to establish a monoethic state on land populated by different ethnicities would cause a war anywhere in the world.
Click to expand...
:confused:
What are you talking about?
Do you know what does the word partition mean in "the partition plan of Mandate Palestine"?
 
Red_Dave said:
Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state but i dont see why this would be a problem.
Click to expand...
:rofl

I laughed so hard at this I almost fell out of my chair.
 
Red_Dave said:
What but surely the issue at hand here is those that lived in whats now Israel who had to flee during the 1948 war and their decendants. Are you seriously claiming they never lived there?
Click to expand...

Why should they be allowed back? A war started by their fellow arabs, which they abetted - but since they lost, they now get to be positioned as well as before? Forget it.
 
Red_Dave said:
If this about being dominated by Islam then why was there no violence towards hristian Arabs during the Brittish mandate? This was more about people being forced to leave land that the Zionists had aquirred from the Ottomans then it was about religeon. And why shouldnt the arabs have objected to the establishment of a Jewish state on a land that had historically been inhabited by both Jewish and Arab people? Trying to establish a monoethic state on land populated by different ethnicities would cause a war anywhere in the world.
Click to expand...

And you think there wasn't?

You ever been to the middle east?

The land was split, not all of it was "given" to the jews. Yet the arabs would not tolerate even that. Why don't you go ask the arabs, with 22 nations, most of them artificially drawn on the map, can't the jews have their own nation?

Why aren't you defending the Azari or Kurds, who had their land taken away by mapmakers 80-100 years ago by arab or persian nations?
 
Apocalypse said:
What? You're saying that a war declared by the Arabs in the region on the State of Israel was a result of "people being forced to leave the land" by Israel, something that has happened at the end and as a direct result of that same war?
You're not making any sense.
Click to expand...

No im talking about what happened before the war.Read the article. People where made to leave land purchased from the Ottomans,
 
Dave,
Would you read the first TWO posts here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/48220-myth-1-israel-stolen-land.html

Just checking... As a 4 year member one assumes you've already seen it but haven't said anything.

The 'Arabs/Palestinians' got 87% of the Mandate.. and half the Jews 13% was the Negev Desert owned by No Arab. (as well as 15-20% more that was state land passing from Ottoman to British to the Jews)

The Partition forced Not a single arab to lose land nor move.. until they started a War that is.
The partition merely involved a change of sovereignty for Some.
and in 2000 years (since Israel I) that's all that area had, different sovereigns.
And the Palestinian/Arab population Grew steadily along WITH the Jewish population/did NOT decrease.

The whole apportioning of the Ottoman Empire wasn't perfect.

'Iraq', a conglomeration of 3 very different Ottoman Provinces was given to a Sauda Prince (Faisal) screwing the true people, 'Kurds' (ethnicity, language, culture) far worse than the 'palestinians' 'arabs', who got two states.; one Rejected.

People forget the made of nationality 'Jordanian' is also 70% 'Palestinian.'
Jordan to be ruled by yet another Saudi Hashemite Family given to Abdullah, great Grandfather of the Present.
Perhaps, as bonafide Saudis for a thousand+ years (and traditional Guardians of Mecca) These two ruling families have a 'Right to Return' to that Holy city.

Lebanon was Gerrymandered from the French Mandate to have a Christian majority.. now gone and many Maronites, perhaps a Million have fled 'their own' country from Muslims.
Dar al-harb Lebanon the main reason/example why even anti-Israel Chomsky eventually conceded to Dershowitz two states was better.

It seems out of all these Large/LARGER inequities, people have only ONE problem, the Jewish problem.
Ironically Israel! the only country in the area created by a vote of a World body/as opposed to pure whim, spolis, or closet negotiations.

One can only imagine, or be unbelievably naive (or tongue-in-cheek genocidal) to suggest the much more Despised Jews live under a palestinian/arab majority state.

And be clear there would be NO 'protections' (you must be joking).. anything set up in a so-called 'consititution' would be quickly amended by an ever growing (2/3+++) majority arab population. Or just ignored in practise by that ever growing majority.

Jews would be evicted (the ones who were dumb enough not to Pre-Flee making it a 75% arab state to begin with), in the name of 'right of return'/'palestinian land'.

'One-state' is a non-starter/joke. This isn't combining North and South Caolina.
-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom