Sollution for Palestine

Israel & Palestine Forum

Its fairly simple really and only the palestinian lack of desire for statehood prevents this being discussed. The palestinians as well as their freinds in the international community claim that a Palestinian state has to be viable and contigous. Israel is a tiny country with very little land to give away. The Arabs have to accept that Israel should not be the only country to give land to the Palestinians.

I ask, why not ask Egypt and Jordan to also provide land for this Palestinian state?

Add one more to the list...........

Why add more? Jordan was created by carving out 80% of Palestine in 1921 so why not give some back? Egypt has vast land in the Sinai which borders Gaza. As both Egypt and Jordan were the aggressors when Israel took the territories surely they have some responsibility?

The Palestinians arent going to let go of this land, the idea of the sorrounding Arab countries to give land for the Palestinians is great, but that has to happen after the Palestinians get the 67 Borders.

TWBR

You have to understand that there were NO 1967 borders. The borders you are talking about were armisetice lines and as such not legaly recognised. More importantly these lines were the result of Arab aggression so the palestinians have to forget about getting these territories that NEVER belonged to them. Egypt lost the Gaza Strip and Jordan the West Bank. There is NOTHING in UNR 242/338 that states these lands have to be give to the 'palestinians'.

Besides, if you support the palestinians, why don't you propose JORDAN ateast, return some land? Why only Israel?

That's not what the Palestinians want..what's the point of giving the Palestinians chunks of land that mean nothing to them and they don't want? If you are concerned about peace, then give them what they want and deserve.

twbr

'but that has to happen after the Palestinians get the 67 Borders.'

First of all these '1967 borders' were not borders but armictise lines - a BIG difference. Further, as Israel took the 'west bank' back from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt, why on earth should the palestinians automaticaly get these territories? They never owned them as a nation and only will when they fight terror. That's the first thing that has to happen.

Palestinians will never rest until they remove Israel from the West Bank. Fact is homer, they don’t care if Jordan has taken most of their land. They don’t care if Egypt could give them more room to grow as a people. It’s not about what is justice, but what they perceive as justice.

This conflict goes back a long time and it’s about win or lose to them. Arabs are good people but they are very vengeful. They want revenge for the consistent loses they incurred in that region after every conflict initiated in that region.

You pose some excellent questions homer, some of which I’ve also expressed, however the hate for the Israelis by far outweighs the sense of reason and balance there. Arabs will never rest until what they perceive as injustice is avenged.

Meanwhile there will be more suffering among the Palestinian people until that region boils over in conflict and a very heavy price is paid.

Oneofpeace summarised quite well, although I think he was being a bit unfair on the Arabs, true Jordan might have taken land but that doesn't justify what Israel did in 1948.

What I summerzied is exactly the case as it is. Arabs/Muslims are quite vengful and they want to even the score as they see it, not as justice demands.

Imagine this antizion. You have a home and two people come in and take it over. Person 1 takes the complete upstairs, and half the downstairs, and person 2 takes over the kitchen and laundry room. You call the cops and ranting and raving about how person 2 has come in and taken over your home and how unfair it is. Not only that, but person 1 is also ranting on how unfair person 2 is to come and take over the kitchen and laundry room.

Do you see my point? Why single out person 2 when person one has taken over the majority of your home?

The fact that they raise no concern about anyone else but Israel and the fact that other Arabs that treat their people with such inhumane contempt can sit and point to Israel in the West Bank is the pinnicle of hypocracy. For you to say "that doesn't justify what Israel did in 1948" leaves me a bit mystified on the justice tip.

Besides, what did Israel do in 1948? They didn't pick up arms first it was the Arabs that decided to war against them and reject their existance there. Why now and only after 1967 do they want statehood in the West Bank? They didn't while Jordan occupied it.

This is why I have trouble with the Arab version of events. As for Israel, I do not believe they are right for holding on to the land, however the land would not have been theirs had there never been any hostilities initiated by the Arabs in that region.

oneofpeace

'Palestinians will never rest until they remove Israel from the West Bank.'

.....and Gaza and Tel-Aviv etc. What makes you think the palestinians will ever settle for a state on the 'west bank' and Gaza only? Compare that propspective state (no Gas/oil and little water) with the vast Arab states in existence. Why would Arafat give up his title of 'heroic freedom fighter' for leader of one of the world's poorest states?

This has nothing to do with righting wrongs but everything to do with hatred for anything Jewish.

'Meanwhile there will be more suffering among the Palestinian people until that region boils over in conflict and a very heavy price is paid.'

Unfortunately I agree. I've felt for a long time that Israel's responces to suicide bombings have been patheticaly limited with the result being that the palestinians haven't suffered hard enough to make them shout 'STOP!'. One village should be bulldozed in entirety for every major terror attack. Why do we have to wait for a 'mega-terror' attack before Israels strikes hard?

antizionist

' true Jordan might have taken land but that doesn't justify what Israel did in 1948.'

What did Israel do in 1948 apart from defend itself? Not content with having control over 80% of historic Palestine already the Jordanians then annexed the 'west bank'. How is this less worse than what you think the Israelis did?

It’s about balance homer. First, I agree that many Arabs want to see Israel consumed by fire and brimstone from heaven but I think they realize now that the most probable and realistic solution will be for two states to coexist there.

There are many dynamics that impedes the process from taking place. Israel is not without fault homer, the Palestinians have some legitimacy in their gripes. I do not however believe that any other nation on earth would endure such attacks with the restraint that Israel has used over the years, however what you proposed is going over the top.

The wall is a good idea. As we have seen suicide attacks have undoubtedly slowed since the building of that wall. I believe this is in part the reason why Arabs object to it, however the other problem is the path the wall takes dips deep into Palestinian territory.

The situation is delicate and diplomacy has to be the rule not the exception here. However I don’t believe it will ever be achieved with so many factions running loose on the Palestinian side of the border.

oneofpeace

I don't believe a strong responce to an attack such as the Dolphinarium massacre can be construed as over the top. To deliberately kill 20 young teenagers is as blatant an act of war as any. If this were to happen, again, tommorrow then without doubt the palestinian people will have to finally be told they are ALL responsible. You have to understand that until the palestinian 'civillians' look at the suicide bombers and their leaders as people bringing death and mayhem to themselves instead of as heroes there will always be a ready supply of suicidal recruits. belive me, I'm no far right militaristic nut and if it sounds a little less harsh, I didn't propose bulldozing entire villages with the residents inside, though if this didn't stop the sick adulation that suicide bombers got then mass casualty attacks would be unavoidable.

Just consider a couple of things. When talking about what is and isn't over the top try and recall the international community's (including the US) response when Israel moved 100 yards into Gaza for a few days about 3 years ago. The point is, this isn't about revenge but the best and quickest way to end the so called 'intifada'. Don't forget, the US dropped TWO nuclear bombs on Japan - not to kill as many as possible but to save as many lives as possible.

Regarding the barrier you reffered to as the 'wall' - it isn't a wall and the palestinians should count themselves lucky if this is the worst thing that is happeneing to them.

The tried and true solution from the USA, move them to a new reservation far enough away from the civilized folk that they won't cause trouble. And if they have a problem with it, kill them.

Homer

If we were to look at history, and in this case we must, we can see that there were massacres on both sides of the line, not just with Palestinians only. Because you can flatten a nation militarily doesn’t mean that’s the best course of action to take. Remember for ever action there’s a reaction.

I don’t agree with your assessment that the US dropped 2 atomic devices on Japan to save lives. Japan was already defeated and they were stubbornly fighting to the last man. We did it because we had the weapon and I believe it was a terrible moment in history, even if it ended the war.

If your suggestion is that Israel hit them devastatingly harder that this would somehow end the conflict, then I think you’re sadly mistaken. For many reasons this is not the solution to the problem and it must be diplomacy that avails.

Regarding the wall, barrier, barricade, obstruction, it all has the same meaning. If the ‘barrier’ runs along the front of your home it could very easily give you the impression that you’re inside of a prison. I think much of the reason why that wall dips into their territory is to create a buffer between them and current settlements on the other side, however this is of little comfort to Palestinians who have to see it up close.

You have to understand something else. Palestinians are growing up in a place where they are living in ghettos. Their economy sucks and their standard of living is less than humane. This is on top of the fact that they endure road blocks and incursions and even though Israel in my opinion has a good reason for them, to Palestinians it’s perceived as harassing and menacing and lets face it. Israel IS harassing them more than what’s necessary. This is due to the harsh feelings that run deep on both sides of the issue here but it still perpetuates much of the problem that exists there.

There’s much blame to pass around here homer on both sides. However I do believe that Palestinians are shooting themselves in the foot with their support for what they see as “resistance”. It’s hard to paint yourselves as victims while engaging in such behavior as suicide bombing and it’s support. On the flip side, Israel has to be more sympathetic to the harassment of Palestinians while protecting the security of their people.

Oneofpeace:

That's an extremely general statement. To say that Arabs/Muslims are just simply vengeful people is ridiculous, you can't condemn an entire nation on certain actions a few of them have done.

I agree that One overgeneralized there, but you have undergeneralized. There is unfortunately a large amount of support among Palestinians for the suicide bombings. It is in fact majority support, according to every opinion poll out there, including the Palestinian polls that show a majority supporting a two-state solution. The fact is that condemnation of both Palestinian and global terrorism among the Arabs has, at best, been lukewarm.

I can see why you would think it is hypocritical. I think that the Palestinians were more upset when the Jews did it for a few reasons. Firstly, the Jordanians were Arabs, and they had a very similar culture and traditions. They all spoke Arabic as well. In the case of the Jews, to them they were an alien foreign minority.

Bingo. They have always seen the Jews that way. Had they not seen them that way none of this would be happening. The Palestinians were offered statehood as far back as 1937 as a result of the Peel Commission Report. That report recommended partition that would have given the Arabs the vast majority of what was left of Palestine (after 70% had already been given to the Arabs as Trans-Jordan), and they rejected it because they would not tolerate any notion of a Jewish state there of any size. Not all Israeli conduct since these beginnings has been commendable, but you have to recognize Arab xenophobia as being a major root cause here.

Although, I think the main reason is that in 1948 the Palestinians had a lot more national pride and a stronger feeling of nationalism. After see Jordan taking chunks of land, they realised they wanted an independant Palestinian state. At the time, in 1921, they probably didn't care. However, I do wonder what their reactions would have been if Jordan had taken land in 1948. Do you think it would have been the same?

No, the cries for a Palestinian state were sporadic at best in 1948. They rejected statehood in 1937 and 1948 because it meant a partition that gave the Jews some of the land. They would have taken a state, I'm sure, if it was in all of Palestine, but nothing short of that. The more unified cry for statehood started in the middle 1960's with the formation of the PLO, and it became a major agenda item after Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.

I don't mean the Arabs in the surrounding countries, I am talking about the Palestinian Arabs. What I am referring to is the ethnic cleansing operations committed by the Jewish terrorist groups. It is true that all the Jewish agencies and in particular the Haganah condemned the majority of the attacks, but the fact is they happened, and as a result many Palestinians fled in fear and terror. These people actually brought their house keys with them, for many thought they would simply return to their homes after the drama had all ended. Many still have their keys, dreaming they will some day see their old homes again. Since when has fleeing your house been punishable with confiscation of it? If you go on holiday for 2 weeks, you don't expect to come back and find out that it's not yours any more!

It is true that Deir Yassin was a motivating factor in many Palestinian's having fled. It is also true that the Arabs played up and propagandized the event because they *wanted* the Arabs to leave. Your own encyplodedia source that you used to construct your essay made that point.

As to Arab responsibility:

"The role of Arab leaders in urging the Arab population to leave is similarly well-documented. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared:

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs:

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re_enter and retake possession of their country.

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948_49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.

Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al_Janub (August 16, 1948):

The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said:

The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.

Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951):

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.

And Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue ."

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_in...s_arabs_why.php

- woolfe