Palestinian Right of Return

[il Padrino Ute]

Mike, if pressed, I will side with Israel for two reasons:

1. Israel is an ally.
2. I'm not aware of any terrorists that are supported by the Israeli state.

Would I like to see Israel give the West Bank back to the Palestinians? Of course. But Palestine did more harm to itself by allowing Arafat and those of his ilk to be their leaders. When Palestine (and other states) goal is to kill the Jews, what is Israel supposed to do?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by galapagos

then you're with Ahmadinijad, who wants to wipe out all of the jews from the face of the Earth, I wonder if you're mormon at all?

You either don't understand sarcasm or you are addressing your post to someone else.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For those of you who keep bringing up the Mexican-American War, let's do a little analysis. Yes, it was a naked land grab by the United States. No doubt about that. At the time of the US invasion, there were about 8000 Mexican families in the entire territory. That's about 30-40,000 people in an area covering much of the Western United States (just the mexicans - not counting the native americans). Furthermore, when General Steven W. Kearny marched into "New Mexico" (the non-California part of northern mexico) on his way to Southern California they would stop in each Mexican village and he would read a proclamation telling the locals that they came in friendship and that all of them were now American citizens with all of the associated rights and privileges. If any of them did not want to be citizens, they were allowed to remove to lower Mexico in peace. Only a small number left, typically corrupt Mexican officials who had been abusing their power. Most of the Mexicans were wary because they had been told by the Catholic priests that the Americans would rape their women and not let them keep their religion. They quickly realized that this was a lie and that they would be fine. One could easily argue that these former Mexicans are now much better off being US citizens.

I see very few parallels between this situation and the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank. If I am missing something, let me know.

[MikeWaters]

Jeff, it's better telling that the best argument put forth so far supporting Israel is "well, America exterminated the Indians and stole land."

That shows you what kind of people we are dealing with. Immoral, evil, ignorant, moronic. Some of them in each category.

[MikeWaters]

Liberal Israelis who cry as they kill.

http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/n...l-israeli.html

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

For those of you who keep bringing up the Mexican-American War, let's do a little analysis. Yes, it was a naked land grab by the United States. No doubt about that.

Some say the same about Israel's occupation of the terroitory outside of it's internationally recognized borders. The whole settlements issue turns on this. You see no problem with a naked land grab?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

At the time of the US invasion, there were about 8000 Mexican families in the entire territory. That's about 30-40,000 people in an area covering much of the Western United States (just the mexicans - not counting the native americans).

Interesting arguement. Exactly the same one made by white South Africans about the minimal numbers of native blacks when they arrived. They argued that most blacks migrated after the whites had arrived. Anyway, what level of occupation would have been necessary for us today to condemn the land grab and offer some form of reparation?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Furthermore, when General Steven W. Kearny marched into "New Mexico" (the non-California part of northern mexico) on his way to Southern California they would stop in each Mexican village and he would read a proclamation telling the locals that they came in friendship and that all of them were now American citizens with all of the associated rights and privileges. If any of them did not want to be citizens, they were allowed to remove to lower Mexico in peace. Only a small number left . . . One could easily argue that these former Mexicans are now much better off being US citizens.

Isn't that how thing happened in Israel? The UN established the state and those Palestinians living within the borders were allowed to stay. Many left with the expectation that their Arab brothers would rectify the situation by overturning the UN action and bring the territory to their control. They now live in camps as refugees or have migrated to other countries. Given the comparison, many would argue that those Palestians that remained are better off, full citizens of Israel.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I see very few parallels between this situation and the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank. If I am missing something, let me know.

I addressed both Israeli and occupied territory because the current elected Palestinian leadership (Hamas) does not see the two as separate issues. Hamas wants the whole territory. As Mindful has been so kind to remind us, most Islamic regimes in the region call for the same. A Palestinian state established from the Occupied Territories is only step one. The dissolusionment of Israel is the ultimate goal.

What if Israel opted to annex those parts of the Occupied Territories in which there is a clear Jewish majority? Other than scale, how would that differ from the American land grab you reference?

[MikeWaters]

What is so wrong with having one state?

Change the name, change the flag, give everyone the right to vote.

Yes, this would wipe Israel off the map, but so what? Make them live together. Blow up the ghettos and get these people together.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What is so wrong with having one state?

Change the name, change the flag, give everyone the right to vote.

Yes, this would wipe Israel off the map, but so what? Make them live together. Blow up the ghettos and get these people together.

Sure, why not! A similar policy has worked wonders in Lebanon and Iraq.

[Jeff Lebowski]

First of all, let me first state that I flat-out reject the notion that if I benefit somehow from a past misdeed or injustice, that I am forbidden from condemning similar injustices. That is nonsense. Colonial America was built on the backs of slaves. Are we forbidden from condemning slavery? My cousin was conceived and given life when an unknown man raped her birth mother. Is she forbidden from condemning rape? Of course not.

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Some say the same about Israel's occupation of the terroitory outside of it's internationally recognized borders. The whole settlements issue turns on this. You see no problem with a naked land grab?

No, I am saying that it is where the similarities both start and end.

And FWIW, we stole it from the Mexicans who had stolen it from the native americans. Hence the tiny population of Mexicans in the territory at the time.

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Interesting arguement. Exactly the same one made by white South Africans about the minimal numbers of native blacks when they arrived. They argued that most blacks migrated after the whites had arrived. Anyway, what level of occupation would have been necessary for us today to condemn the land grab and offer some form of reparation?

I was pointing out the differences between the two situations. The population density of Palestine was many orders of magnitude higher than the frontier west. Yes, that makes a difference to me. And you are still missing the main point of my post (more on that below).

Ironically, one of the myths promoted by Zionists is the old saying "A land without a people, a people without a land."

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Isn't that how thing happened in Israel? The UN established the state and those Palestinians living within the borders were allowed to stay. Many left with the expectation that their Arab brothers would rectify the situation by overturning the UN action and bring the territory to their control. They now live in camps as refugees or have migrated to other countries. Given the comparison, many would argue that those Palestians that remained are better off, full citizens of Israel.

The notion that all the Palestinians inside the original borders were offered full citizenship and left only to support the overthrow of Israel is another old myth. Many of them panicked and fled as a result of threats from the Zionists and many were driven off by force. This is not a bad summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

It definitely has an apologist slant; I have read more critical accounts from Jewish authors. Nevertheless, you will see that it was much more complicated than you described.

Think about it: If all of the Palestinians had been allowed to stay and had been offered citizenship, how could Israel become both a Jewish state and a democracy?

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I addressed both Israeli and occupied territory because the current elected Palestinian leadership (Hamas) does not see the two as separate issues. Hamas wants the whole territory. As Mindful has been so kind to remind us, most Islamic regimes in the region call for the same. A Palestinian state established from the Occupied Territories is only step one. The dissolusionment of Israel is the ultimate goal.

In spite of what you hear in the US media and right-wing talk radio, I can guarantee you that if you offer the Palestinians the pre-1967 borders, a fair share of water, and the removal of settlements in exchange for permanent recognition of Israel's right to exist, they would take that offer in a heartbeat. Look what happed with the Egyptians in exchange for the Sinai.

Originally Posted by myboynoah

What if Israel opted to annex those parts of the Occupied Territories in which there is a clear Jewish majority? Other than scale, how would that differ from the American land grab you reference?

I am surprised that my post was not clear. The difference is that we did not forcibly expel anyone. We did not take their homes or property. We gave them full citizenship. We did not steal their resources or deny them a reasonable chance at economic development. They were better off in the end. None of this applies to the Palestinian situation.

[MikeWaters]

Ethnic Cleansing 101

Memorial to 418 Palestinian Villages Which Were Destroyed, Depopulated and Occupied by Israel in 1948, Refugee tent and embroidery thread, 138" x 115" x 96", 2001

http://www.stationmuseum.com/Made_in...cir/jacir.html