Palestinian state,without right of return

[Persia]

White House works out peace deal that focuses on Israel accepting Palestinian state, Palestinians giving up right of return. PM plans to present own peace plan before Kensset, US Congress

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059562,00.html

[Q24]

So the same plan that has consistently failed over the past decades. Israel will not withdraw their settlements or allow Jerusalem to provide a Palestinian capital, much less grant a satisfactory state. Palestinians will not give up the right of return (at least compensation for their displacement if not realistically a return home).

Obama could not even get Guantanamo shut down as he pledged - if he has this little real power at home then he isn't going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only time this is going away is if a big shift in the status quo occurs or given the passing of a couple more generations when the people of both sides become disassociated from what they were fighting about in the first place.

I guess Obama has to look like he's doing something or it might appear the U.S. have double-standards to approaching humanitarian and conflict issues. It all amounts to posturing in other words.

What do you think, Persia?

[Persia]

What do you think, Persia?

Things are hopeless overthere.

Nobody trust America , and the Palestinians nor the Israelis!

The U.S. role is a symbolic role, has made ​​it clear that H. Clinton on his last visit to Israel. united states looking for new friends in the area.

The U.S. Jewish lobby is working hard for Obama to end on some important points that land to build more houses.

We must wait.

[Q24]

Wait for...?

I gather by the "hopeless" description that you see no immediate solution.

Where does this lead and how does it end?

Has Zionism prevailed?

[danielost]

Wait for...?

I gather by the "hopeless" description that you see no immediate solution.

Where does this lead and how does it end?

Has Zionism prevailed?

it leads to the anti-christ and war.

[Knight Of Shadows]

how on earth you call that peace plan and attempt

they know the palestinains won't ever agree to that

it's the ssdd

i think there's no solution to the matter as long israel got

strong position in the area with the usa support always

had israel presence been weaker in the area

they'll happily make palestinian nation with full rights

but alas every thing is measured by power

you're powerful you get alot .. you're not well.. tough break

[Erikl]

Q24, Zionism prevailed since 1948. I don't know what kind of anti-Israeli brainwashing you've been fed with, but Zionism simply means :

"A movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann."

The term anti-Zionism was invented by the Soviets to give their Antisemitism a more politically correct sound, as back as the early 1950s. Being that their propaganda worked so well on both Arabs and their left-wingers supporters, many western pro-Palestinians now think that Zionism is the same as fascism, apartheid, etc. while the opposite is the truth - the Palestinian side is the totalitarian one, a fact that is being proved but their daily conduct to their own people.

[Persia]

Q24, Zionism prevailed since 1948. I don't know what kind of anti-Israeli brainwashing you've been fed with, but Zionism simply means :

"A movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann."

The term anti-Zionism was invented by the Soviets to give their Antisemitism a more politically correct sound, as back as the early 1950s. Being that their propaganda worked so well on both Arabs and their left-wingers supporters, many western pro-Palestinians now think that Zionism is the same as fascism, apartheid, etc. while the opposite is the truth - the Palestinian side is the totalitarian one, a fact that is being proved but their daily conduct to their own people.

Sir,Thank you for this info,i needed to know it and you explained very well .

[ExpandMyMind]

Q24, Zionism prevailed since 1948. I don't know what kind of anti-Israeli brainwashing you've been fed with, but Zionism simply means :

"A movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann."

'Israel' is? And here lies the problem. 'Israel' is however much land current Israel wants to take from the Palestinians, ie, Zionism. "the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel" is not Zionism, but merely what the statement describes. Old Zionism ('original' is the term you use) is quite clearly still in action and has been since the first of newly formed Israel's land grabs way back when. 'Old' Zionism did not end with the creation of the state, because they did not have all the land they wanted (as you can so easily learn by reading the writings of the founding fathers of Israel - including the one you mentioned, Weizmann - there was always a plan to take more land).

There is, of course, far more to Zionism than either of us could fit into one of these posts, but I offered a tat for your tit.

And I doubt either of us would need to educate Q on the matter of Zionism.

Edited April 24, 2011 by expandmymind

[The Caspian Hare]

According to the article, if Obama does, in fact, present a peace initiative, it will discuss four terms of reference: Israel's acceptance of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders; Palestinian acceptance that there would be no right to return to Israeli land; Jerusalem as the capital of both states; and the protection of Israel's security needs.

So what's the likelihood of that being acceptable to both sides

[preacherman76]

So what's the likelihood of that being acceptable to both sides

No chance

[Erikl]

'Israel' is? And here lies the problem. 'Israel' is however much land current Israel wants to take from the Palestinians, ie, Zionism. "the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel" is not Zionism, but merely what the statement describes. Old Zionism ('original' is the term you use) is quite clearly still in action and has been since the first of newly formed Israel's land grabs way back when. 'Old' Zionism did not end with the creation of the state, because they did not have all the land they wanted (as you can so easily learn by reading the writings of the founding fathers of Israel - including the one you mentioned, Weizmann - there was always a plan to take more land).

There is, of course, far more to Zionism than either of us could fit into one of these posts, but I offered a tat for your tit.

And I doubt either of us would need to educate Q on the matter of Zionism.

Expandmymind, I took that definition from the dictionary, the first result from a simple google search. Where did you take yours? wait - I know, your brainwashed mind. For some times now I am familiar with the way left wingers and Palestinians twist the term "Zionism", to mean the same as "Apartheid" or fascism or other bullocks. This is but one of the many steps to delegitimize Israel's existence - I mean if the very movement that created it is morally evil, then ofcourse Israel is evil. The thing is, anyone with half a brain and the ability to read can understand what that means.

Zion = Jerusalem in Hebrew. Zionism means what I said, the re-establishment of a free and independent Jewish state with it's capital being Jerusalem.

Jews gave up on taking more land by agreeing to the division of the land - the ones that refused and are still refusing to share the land are the Arabs, who since the 1920s call themselves Palestinians (it's interesting as the name "Palestinian" was used to refer to Jews in Europe, and until 60 years ago your continent urged us to "Go to Palestine"... now you have difficulties with that as well... oh well).

There was never a Palestinian state, Arabs didn't have states before the colonial powers divided the middle east - they were divided by tribes and families (in Arabic it's called "Hammulah").

I know it's hard to see things as they are from "sunny Scotland", but try to stay focused .

[ExpandMyMind]

Definition from the dictionary? There have been books upon books written on the subject, papers upon papers published in universities around the world, yet you think a simple dictionary description would suffice? I need say no more on that.

You started to go a bit off track, down the road of 'there's no such thing as a Palestinian!'. I need not address that conspiracy theory, as I have mauled the life out of it on these boards (and others) countless times.

One thing though, how can you say 'Jews' (I think you mean Israelis) gave up on taking more land, by agreeing on the 'division' (I assume you are referring to the partition plan? An often used card when debating the Israeli side, as though any group would accept 50% of THEIR OWN land being given to something like 15% of the population who were overwhelmingly Europeans) when they have played the ol' land grab game many times after? The first time they took Gaza for example, when the US President of the time made them give it back after the threat of sanctions.

I also find it ironic that you mention colonial powers, because (as I read the Israeli government admit just this week) if more countries around the world recognise '67 Palestine as a state, then by definition Israel are colonialists, and would therefore be shunned and boycotted by the international community (Israel's words). So basically what this means, is that the only thing actually stopping Israel from being classed as a colonial power, is a technicality! How about that?

Edited April 25, 2011 by expandmymind

[arglebargle]

I am completely against the Israeli state. They lived all around the world prior to WW2, just because they were targeted for mass exctinction, this does not give them the right to occupy land that isn't theirs. You're saying Palestine is the totalitarian side? Really? I wonder which side is being oppressed here.

Partial lits of items prohibited / permitted into the Gaza strip May 2010.

The Israeli state has ****** with the Palestinian people for several decades, and whenever they are confronted with it, you're immediately labeled an anti semite. It's not right.

[ExpandMyMind]

I am completely against the Israeli state. They lived all around the world prior to WW2, just because they were targeted for mass exctinction, this does not give them the right to occupy land that isn't theirs. You're saying Palestine is the totalitarian side? Really? I wonder which side is being oppressed here.

Partial lits of items prohibited / permitted into the Gaza strip May 2010.

The Israeli state has ****** with the Palestinian people for several decades, and whenever they are confronted with it, you're immediately labeled an anti semite. It's not right.

I believe they were entitled to live there, to a certain extent (by this I mean not at the expense of the native population). And now I believe they have every right to exist.

You see, what a lot of people seem to forget (or simply not know?) is that a 'home' (not a country mind you, but a home) was promised to Jews for their involvment in WW1. Without the Jews of the US and Germany entering the war (which is what actually gave rise to the Nazis and Hitler and their views on Jews), it was most likely lost for the West. The West simply owed organised Jewry.

The only problems with that, is that the same was offered to the Arabs (well, actually, the Arabs were offered statehood, Jews were only offered a place to live), without whom we would also have likely lost that war. That problem, and of course that the land offered to Jews as a national home, already was overwhelmingly Arab. There is much more to the story as we go further down the timeline, but you get the general idea.

This goes for the Arabs also. They seemingly have been unaware all of these years that without Jewish involvment, they would have probably become part of a greater German empire, where statehood and independance would have still been a pipedream.

The British are to blame for all of this mess.

Edited April 25, 2011 by expandmymind

[Erikl]

Definition from the dictionary? There have been books upon books written on the subject, papers upon papers published in universities around the world, yet you think a simple dictionary description would suffice? I need say no more on that.

Yet the simple fact is that Zionism is simple enough to be explained in a dictionary, and doesn't need a long explanation which include all sorts of conspiracy theories and distortion of truth by making it a sinister or morally ill ideology - it is not.

You started to go a bit off track, down the road of 'there's no such thing as a Palestinian!'. I need not address that conspiracy theory, as I have mauled the life out of it on these boards (and others) countless times.

I didn't say there is no such thing as Palestinians, they do exist, that's just stupid. I did say there was never a Palestinian state that is occupied, as the middle east wasn't divided to countries prior to the entry of colonial powers of the time, that also introduced "Nationalism". The Arabs that now call themselves Palestinians, call thmeslves like that because the region they live in was carved from the rest of the middle east, and named Palestine, by the British. The same goes for Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc.. This happened in the 1920s, after WW1. And before 1967, the aspirations of the "Palestinians" were to create an Arab country to be united with Syria or Egypt, not a seperate Palestine. This is why the PLO and Fatah were created prior to the 1967 occupation.

One thing though, how can you say 'Jews' (I think you mean Israelis) gave up on taking more land, by agreeing on the 'division' (I assume you are referring to the partition plan? An often used card when debating the Israeli side, as though any group would accept 50% of THEIR OWN land being given to something like 15% of the population who were overwhelmingly Europeans) when they have played the ol' land grab game many times after? The first time they took Gaza for example, when the US President of the time made them give it back after the threat of sanctions.

This is another bogus, issued and advanced by left-wingers and pro-Palestinians. That the majority of Jews in Israel are Europeans, and that Israel is just a case of colonialism. Well, 60% of Israelis are middle easterners (20% are Muslim Arabs, and 40% are Middle Eastern Jews from all over the middle east). That figure was higher prior to the huge immigration of Russian Jews in the 1990s. These Arab Jews are all descendants from 900,000 refugees, Jews from all over the middle east, from communities older than the Arab presence in these countries, which were expelled by force in 1948. But you don't see an Israeli Nakba, right? they became totally integrated into our society, and our last president, Chief of Staff, and many other prominent figures in Israeli society are their descendants. How did the Arabs treated the 600,000 Palestinian refugees? by denying them citizenship and creating an hereditary refugeness going now for 3 generations.

As for the Sinai war in 1956 - do you, as a British, really want to go there? if I'm not mistaken it was you and the French who masterminded that war...

I also find it ironic that you mention colonial powers, because (as I read the Israeli government admit just this week) if more countries around the world recognise '67 Palestine as a state, then by definition Israel are colonialists, and would therefore be shunned and boycotted by the international community (Israel's words). So basically what this means, is that the only thing actually stopping Israel from being classed as a colonial power, is a technicality! How about that?

*sigh*.... I'm tired to explain again and again to people like you why Israel and Israelis cannot be equated to Apartheid or colonialism. I understand you as Europeans are feeling guilty about what you did to the Arabs etc. in your colonial days, but not everyone is like you.

Actually, the last time I posted the differences it was a reply to you, so because I have no time or strength to re-type, I'll just post it:

Why there is NO resemblance to Apartheid? Well, for few reasons:

-The Jews have been living in the Middle East and in the current land of Israel way before Islam or Arabs have arrived. That's their place of origin as a people. The Whites in SA had no historical connections to the land, and were late comer colonialists.

-The Jews from Europe arrived to the area as refugees of millenia old persecution and anti-Semitism. They have been expelled from their land of Judea by Europeans only to be treated harshly by them for hundreds of years in Europe itself. They arrived as refugees with no support from their home countries back in Europe. The whites in SA arrived as colonialists in the name of expansioning their own homelands' territories.

-Right from the beginning, the Zionist Jews who arrived this land tried to collaborate and actually succeeded in collaborating with the local population. They were harshly oppressed by the ruling Muslim regime of the Ottomans for 40 years (1880-1920) until the British conquered the area. The Whites in SA arrived and enslaved the native population in order to use them as slaves in their own economy. There was no collaboration - there were Masters and Slaves, and when banned by the British Empire in 1803 - then the relationship became "Master race" and what they considered sub-humans (the natives).

-The Apartheid system segregated and divided humans based on race. The security measures taken by the IDF in the disputed territories is solely based on security issues - after all, 1.5 million Palestinians of the exact same ethnic identity live freely and are full and free citizens in the state of Israel, going on the same buses, same universities and same classes. Until the first intifada in 1988, there were no check-points and road blockades. And ofcourse ignoring all of this is simply ignoring the fact that without all of these security measures, Palestinian terrorists would continue slaughtering Jews in coffee shops, buses, malls, schools and hotels.

[archernyc]

I saw Miral this past weekend with a friend and if you've never considered the situation from the Palestinian viewpoint, you should see this film. I would love to see this issue get resolved in my lifetime, but I don't hold out much hope. My friend is Jewish and has been to Israel many times (we have quite a few friends that go back and forth) and her question is this: when do the oppressed become the oppressor??

[arglebargle]

I believe they were entitled to live there, to a certain extent (by this I mean not at the expense of the native population). And now I believe they have every right to exist.

You see, what a lot of people seem to forget (or simply not know?) is that a 'home' (not a country mind you, but a home) was promised to Jews for their involvment in WW1. Without the Jews of the US and Germany entering the war (which is what actually gave rise to the Nazis and Hitler and their views on Jews), it was most likely lost for the West. The West simply owed organised Jewry.

The only problems with that, is that the same was offered to the Arabs (well, actually, the Arabs were offered statehood, Jews were only offered a place to live), without whom we would also have likely lost that war. That problem, and of course that the land offered to Jews as a national home, already was overwhelmingly Arab. There is much more to the story as we go further down the timeline, but you get the general idea.

This goes for the Arabs also. They seemingly have been unaware all of these years that without Jewish involvment, they would have probably become part of a greater German empire, where statehood and independance would have still been a pipedream.

The British are to blame for all of this mess.

Yes but they should not have been given that area, where people already lived. It was a recipe for disaster and all you have to do is google image search "gaza conflict casualties" for example, to see why that was quite clearly a bad idea. I think the Palestinians had a greater claim to the area. The Jews could have been given their own land elsewhere.

[Erikl]

I saw Miral this past weekend with a friend and if you've never considered the situation from the Palestinian viewpoint, you should see this film. I would love to see this issue get resolved in my lifetime, but I don't hold out much hope. My friend is Jewish and has been to Israel many times (we have quite a few friends that go back and forth) and her question is this: when do the oppressed become the oppressor??

Unfortunately her question is an evidence of her lack of knowledge.

People seem to think that it's ok that Palestinians will teach their kids nazi-like anti-semitism because they are somehow oppressed. The fact is, that they would not have been in their current situation if it wasn't for their hatred. The conflict would have been resolved years ago if it wasn't for Palestinian hatred to Jews and lack of acceptance of the existence of Israel in the region.

[Erikl]

Yes but they should not have been given that area, where people already lived. It was a recipe for disaster and all you have to do is google image search "gaza conflict casualties" for example, to see why that was quite clearly a bad idea. I think the Palestinians had a greater claim to the area. The Jews could have been given their own land elsewhere.

I think before you google "Gaza conflict casualties" you should google "missile launch on Israeli cities from Gaza for the last 10 years".

I wonder what would the Norwegian government do if Norwegian cities would have been bombed by Lapps.

Oh wait, you oppressed the Lapps regardless of any violence.

.

[odas]

*sigh*.... I'm tired to explain again and again to people like you why Israel and Israelis cannot be equated to Apartheid or colonialism. I understand you as Europeans are feeling guilty about what you did to the Arabs etc. in your colonial days, but not everyone is like you.

Maybe Europeans are feeling guilty for what they did to Arabs. Same way they feel guilty what they did to Jews. Where is now the difference? Is it ok to feel sorry and appologize to Jews until the end of world but what happen to Arabs should not be mentioned anymore?

Here is my preposition. Europeans should quit blaming themself for what happened in the past.

Done, get over it. Pull back any support to both, Israeal and Palestine. Let them resolve their problems. Whoever wins wins.

No more appologetic money to Israel or Palestine. No more playing the "you killed us" card by the Israelies. Sounds good? I am all for it. Leave us, the rest of the world alone. Both of you. Play by yourself.

[The Caspian Hare]

But that just won't happen. Someone will support one side or another for selfish or ideological reasons, and then another country will support the other side for the same reasons. And not just superpowers either but the regional countries.

[archernyc]

People seem to think that it's ok that Palestinians will teach their kids nazi-like anti-semitism because they are somehow oppressed. The fact is, that they would not have been in their current situation if it wasn't for their hatred. The conflict would have been resolved years ago if it wasn't for Palestinian hatred to Jews and lack of acceptance of the existence of Israel in the region.

It seems that there's plenty of hatred to go around - on BOTH sides of the conflict.

[arglebargle]

I think before you google "Gaza conflict casualties" you should google "missile launch on Israeli cities from Gaza for the last 10 years".

I wonder what would the Norwegian government do if Norwegian cities would have been bombed by Lapps.

Oh wait, you oppressed the Lapps regardless of any violence.

.

And you can find articles on israelis blowing up hospitals.

Yes, we did oppress the Lapps. And the "tater" people. No not Samwise potatoes. This went on until '94. I'm not proud of that. Just like I hate how we treat the mentally ill in this country. Plenty of people I disagree with or even hate.

Does that make it right? No.

Also, the Palestinians already lived in the area before the jews were put there. You can't just insert a huge number of people into an area where people already live, and expect them to put up with it. I think the majority of jews and palestinians just want peace after so long, but it's not gonna happen. And I quite simply don't recognize the Jewish claim to the area. They should have been welcomed to the countries that promised them places to live, and that should have been the end of it.

Imagine this scenario: You move into an old house, and you find out that the descendants of someone who used to live in that house have had their new house burned down. Would you be okay with the government placing them in your house and giving them weapons to use on you if you protest? Somehow I don't think so.

[Erikl]

Imagine this scenario: You move into an old house, and you find out that the descendants of someone who used to live in that house have had their new house burned down. Would you be okay with the government placing them in your house and giving them weapons to use on you if you protest? Somehow I don't think so.

Oh but the scenario is quite different. Imagine this: you were kicked off your beloved house by a guy named Roman. Then after few years of being bullied and beaten by Roman and his friends, you return there, only to find out that your house is now filled with squatters. They won't live, and they won't accept you into your house, not wanting to share even one room with you. Would that be OK by you? I don't think so.