Thread: Palestinian homeland will not solve the problem

Here is an article from Flame. The are not an unbiased source but you are all welcome to debate and add what you have. It is my belief that the goals of the arab world are to destroy Israel and establishing a palestinian state is not what they intend and it would not solve the tensions in the middle east. I added the bold to one paragraph so that we could focus on this paragraph.

"Once again, strife and trouble have erupted in Israel and in the territories administered by Israel. And many thoughtful people believe that these problems could be laid to rest, that tranquility could be restored if the "Palestinians" had their own country. That homeland would be Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") and the Gaza strip. Its capital would be Jerusalem or, at the very least, its Arab sector. What are the facts?
Some clarifying definitions are in order. The Arabs living in "Palestine" — which is Jordan, Israel and the areas administered by Israel — like to refer to themselves as "Palestinians," and to the Jews living there as "Jews." But all inhabitants of Palestine obviously are Palestinians — either Arab or Jewish Palestinians. By only referring to themselves, but not to the Jews, as "Palestinians," the Arabs attempt to convey legitimacy on themselves and illegitimacy on the Jews, despite the uninterrupted presence of Jews in all part of Palestine since Biblical times.
In 1948, the Palestinian State of Jordan, in an act of naked aggression, invaded the just-born state of Israel. It managed to occupy Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") and the eastern part of Jerusalem. For the next 19 years, and until 1967 when the territory came under Israeli administration after the Six-day War, Judea/Samaria was part of the Kingdom of Jordan. During that entire time, nothing was ever heard of "Palestinian" peoplehood. The thought of creating a second "Palestinian" state in the "West Bank," in addition to the Palestinian state of Jordan, did not occur to anyone — certainly not to the "Palestinians," not to any of the 22 Arab countries, and not to the rest of the world.
By the relentless drumbeat of Arab propaganda, the impression has taken hold that the "Palestinians" in Judea/Samaria are a distinct and unique people. But that just isn't so. The concept of separate "Palestinian" peoplehood is a new one. It did not exist before 1967. The reality is that the so-called "Palestinians" in this area are exactly the same people — undifferentiated in dialect, dress, social customs or anything else — from the Palestinian Arabs in Jordan. A second Palestinian peoplehood is a myth. It was created for the purpose of laying claim to Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") in the first instance, and for its use as a launching pad for the destruction of Israel proper thereafter.
The Camp David Accords. With the help of President Carter, Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed the Camp David Accords. In line with these Accords, Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula — including the valuable oil fields it had developed, two of the world's most advanced military bases, and several cities — to Egypt, in exchange for peace. And in the Camp David Accords it was agreed that the inhabitants of Judea/Samaria and the Gaza Strip would get autonomy and that during a five-year period, the final status of the territories would be negotiated. But that process never got started. Why not? To the Arabs, the Camp David Agreement is unacceptable, because it implies recognition of Israel. The Egyptians were drummed out of the Arab League, and most Arab countries broke relations with them, for having committed the unpardonable sin of making peace with Israel. For good measure, Anwar Sadat was assassinated by his own countrymen — a destiny shared with any other Arab who has dared to advocate recognition of or peace with Israel.
The real purpose of the Arabs has never changed. The real and never changing purpose of the Arabs is not the attainment of "the rights of the Palestinian people," autonomy in the administered territories, or even a state of their own in what is now called the "West Bank." The real purpose has never changed. It is the dismantling and the destruction of the state of Israel. To the Arabs, having a state of "infidels" on what they consider "sacred Arab soil" is a religious crime. Because of that, the Kurds, the Druze, the Copts, the Armenians, the Maronites and other minorities have all been brutally repressed and periodically massacred by the Moslem Arabs. But the Arabs' greatest hatred is directed toward the Jews. The wished-for establishment of a "Palestinian" state on the "West Bank" would be the first step toward the "final solution" desired by the Arabs. The PLO has never deviated, never wavered from that. The destruction of Israel, its "secularization" or its Lebanonization, are the unswerving core dogma of the PLO.
Is Jordan part of Palestine? The "Palestinians" are not a distinct people. They are simply Arabs. They chafe under Israeli administration, however benevolent it may be. Scores of ethnic groups live under such conditions, many of them — in contrast to the Arabs under Israeli administration — under political duress, Palestinian Arabs do have a homeland. It's Jordan. Jordan is by far the largest part of Palestine. The Arabs living together are overwhelmingly Palestinians. The ultimate resolution of the problems of the Palestinian Arabs of the "West Bank" — a resolution that satisfies the irreducible security requirements of Israel and the national aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs — can only come about by direct negotiations. Under pressure of the PLO and of Arab rejectionists, the Palestinian Arabs have so far refused to participate in any such negotiations. Israel has been ready for them for over twenty years.

Lake, this is entirely true, but it doesn't fit into the idea or the cause of the Israel bashers that lurk here, so it will be slandered as biased propoganda, despite the fact that its completely and utterly supported by factual historical events.

Originally Posted by Trip

Lake, this is entirely true, but it doesn't fit into the idea or the cause of the Israel bashers that lurk here, so it will be slandered as biased propoganda, despite the fact that its completely and utterly supported by factual historical events.

Funny, it is the Israel bashers that motivated my to post it. When some poeple present one side so extremely and fervently I just have to present the other side. Knowing that they are so one sided is why I was willing to post an article that to the best of my knowledge is true but also biased. If the climate here were more balanced I would have searched harder for a more balanced article - really I would not have searched for one at all.

Anyway from what I have seen from the group Flame: they are completely factually correct, as you say, but they certainly are on the side of Israel.

And as I have said countless times: it is not the source that matters, if someone sees something that is wrong then they can say why it is wrong.

In the last thread I posted on Israel: "Who are the palestinians" I don't think the Israeli bashers showed up. But I did get a couple of greens from people who just hadn't heard that side expressed well before.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Funny, it is the Israel bashers that motivated my to post it. When some poeple present one side so extremely and fervently I just have to present the other side. Knowing that they are so one sided is why I was willing to post an article that to the best of my knowledge is true but also biased. If the climate here were more balanced I would have searched harder for a more balanced article - really I would not have searched for one at all.

Anyway from what I have seen from the group Flame: they are completely factually correct, as you say, but they certainly are on the side of Israel.

And as I have said countless times: it is not the source that matters, if someone sees something that is wrong then they can say why it is wrong.

In the last thread I posted on Israel: "Who are the palestinians" I don't think the Israeli bashers showed up. But I did get a couple of greens from people who just hadn't heard that side expressed well before.

That you could post a link to what is a bigoted spewfest that omits so much and works on OPINION and not facts indicates that yr knowledge of the I/P conflict is a simplistic one given to bashing anything and anyone who gets in the way of a good There Is No Such Thing As Palestinians rant. Right now I can't see much difference between the opinions you've stated are facts and the views of equally extremist groups like Hamas....

And who are these so-called 'Israel bashers'? To me it looks like you use that label for anyone who dares to be the slightest bit critical of Israel...

If you actually are interested in learning about the I/P conflict, then giving extremist sites on the internet a miss would be a good idea, and instead you should grab a copy of Avi Shlaim's 'The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World' It gives a good and balanced introduction to the conflict, though I can understand why it wouldn't appeal to those who want their conflict in black and white, They Are Evil and My Side Is Pure terms...

Amazon.com: The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World: Books: Avi Shlaim

[quote=Violet Crumble;234016]

That you could post a link to what is a bigoted spewfest that omits so much and works on OPINION and not facts indicates that yr knowledge of the I/P conflict is a simplistic one given to bashing anything and anyone who gets in the way of a good There Is No Such Thing As Palestinians rant. Right now I can't see much difference between the opinions you've stated are facts and the views of equally extremist groups like Hamas....

I have been honest that Flame is biased. But they are hardly a bigoted spewfest. Looks like you are a bit touchy. If you have facts that will enlighten us all then please do. Otherwise your post appears to be just your own opinion.

And who are these so-called 'Israel bashers'? To me it looks like you use that label for anyone who dares to be the slightest bit critical of Israel...

There are a small handful of people who will take every opportunity to bash Israel and have no ability to see that there are two sides. We know who they are and it is not neccessary to mention names.

But I freely admit that Israel is a draconian state which has committed its own crimes. Both sides need to work this out. I am very capable of recognizing that most people take a middle of the road approach to the conflict. What is your view?

If you actually are interested in learning about the I/P conflict, then giving extremist sites on the internet a miss would be a good idea, and instead you should grab a copy of Avi Shlaim's 'The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World' It gives a good and balanced introduction to the conflict, though I can understand why it wouldn't appeal to those who want their conflict in black and white, They Are Evil and My Side Is Pure terms...

Amazon.com: The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World: Books: Avi Shlaim

Before accusing people of being black and white you might want to read a few of their posts on a subject rather than basing your opinion on just two.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Anyway from what I have seen from the group Flame: they are completely factually correct, as you say, but they certainly are on the side of Israel.

Care to explain how this is completely factually correct?

'The wished-for establishment of a "Palestinian" state on the "West Bank" would be the first step toward the "final solution" desired by the Arabs. The PLO has never deviated, never wavered from that. '

Have I suddenly entered some bizarre alterate universe where the Oslo era the letters of mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel never happened? :whistling:

iolet crumble,

P.S. Here is a section of the Publishers Weekly review of the book from the link you posted.

"But Shlaim's revisionist enthusiasm too often gets the better of him: he fails to marshal the necessary evidence to support his contention that Arab rulers were "prepared to recognize Israel, to negotiate directly with it, and even to make peace with it." Shlaim's explanations of Arab political constraints, especially the pragmatism of Arab rulers relative to the extreme anti-Israel sentiment of the Arab street, is illuminating. But his view of Palestinian terrorism as a reaction to Israeli militarism is far too simplistic. Revisionism is one thing, but Shlaim employs a double standard: while he tends to view Israeli leaders, most notably Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, as villains, he heaps praise on the "realism" of Arab leaders. A comprehensive, balanced history of Israel's history with its Arab neighbors needs to be written, but this is not it."

[quote=lakeman;234023]

Originally Posted by Violet Crumble

I have been honest that Flame is biased. But they are hardly a bigoted spewfest. Looks like you are a bit touchy. If you have facts that will enlighten us all then please do. Otherwise your post appears to be just your own opinion.

There's bias and then there's bias that comes with a large dollop of bigotry attached. Shall you be needing assistance to have the bigotry in the post that started the thread pointed out?

There are a small handful of people who will take every opportunity to bash Israel and have no ability to see that there are two sides. We know who they are and it is not neccessary to mention names.

But I freely admit that Israel is a draconian state which has committed its own crimes. Both sides need to work this out. I am very capable of recognizing that most people take a middle of the road approach to the conflict. What is your view?

My view is that from reading yr posts in this forum you aren't giving any indication that you hold a balanced view of the conflict. As for saying Israel is a draconian state, that's rubbish. What Israel is is a pretty enlightened democratic state that by a mixture of its own shortcomings and that of Palestinian leaderships and other Arab leaders has backed itself into a corner where it is carrying out a pretty belligerant occupation of the West Bank, which btw, Israel has no legitimate claim over...

Before accusing people of being black and white you might want to read a few of their posts on a subject rather than basing your opinion on just two.

I have read all yr posts on this subject, and that's what I'm basing my opinion on

Originally Posted by lakeman

iolet crumble,

P.S. Here is a section of the Publishers Weekly review of the book from the link you posted.

"But Shlaim's revisionist enthusiasm too often gets the better of him: he fails to marshal the necessary evidence to support his contention that Arab rulers were "prepared to recognize Israel, to negotiate directly with it, and even to make peace with it." Shlaim's explanations of Arab political constraints, especially the pragmatism of Arab rulers relative to the extreme anti-Israel sentiment of the Arab street, is illuminating. But his view of Palestinian terrorism as a reaction to Israeli militarism is far too simplistic. Revisionism is one thing, but Shlaim employs a double standard: while he tends to view Israeli leaders, most notably Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, as villains, he heaps praise on the "realism" of Arab leaders. A comprehensive, balanced history of Israel's history with its Arab neighbors needs to be written, but this is not it."

And? Someone gave it a bad review. So what? Seeing as how it's a book that's commonly used as a textbook in uni courses on the Middle East and I've yet to see anyone who complains that it's biased actually come out with specific examples, I'd suggest you grab a copy and read it for yrself instead of wasting time finding stuff from extremist websites to post here

[quote=Violet Crumble;234031]

Originally Posted by lakeman

There's bias and then there's bias that comes with a large dollop of bigotry attached. Shall you be needing assistance to have the bigotry in the post that started the thread pointed out?

The whole point of this thread is for people to say what they have to say. So by all means point out the bigotry in the quote. I am not married to it and will have no concern if it is torn apart legitimatly.

Most of here can recognize real bigotry versus imagined bigotry and you will either succeed or fail to make your case in front of a jury of you peers.