[VIDEOS] An unpopular truth: Why Israel should reinstate Palestine

[FearlessRoar]

I know this won't be a popular view, but I believe the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to reinstate Palestine and grant Jews living in Palestine equal citizenship rights. This would mean Jews becoming Palestinian citizens, with representation in the Palestinian parliament. I know many will see this as a radical idea, but I think it's the only way to truly address the root causes of the conflict.

I also believe that Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be encouraged to relocate within Israel's recognized borders or become Palestinian citizens. I know this will be a difficult pill to swallow for many, but I think it's essential for creating a truly sovereign Palestinian state.

Some will say this is unrealistic, that it's too much to ask Israel to give up its claims to the land. But I think it's the only way to achieve true peace and coexistence. The current situation is unsustainable, and we need to think outside the box to find a solution.

Many will disagree with me, but I think this is the only way forward. Let's put aside our preconceptions and consider a new path, one that prioritizes reconciliation and coexistence over territorial claims and divisions.

 

[Stewie]

I know this won't be a popular view, but I believe the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to reinstate Palestine and grant Jews living in Palestine equal citizenship rights. This would mean Jews becoming Palestinian citizens, with representation in the Palestinian parliament. I know many will see this as a radical idea, but I think it's the only way to truly address the root causes of the conflict.

I also believe that Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be encouraged to relocate within Israel's recognized borders or become Palestinian citizens. I know this will be a difficult pill to swallow for many, but I think it's essential for creating a truly sovereign Palestinian state.

Some will say this is unrealistic, that it's too much to ask Israel to give up its claims to the land. But I think it's the only way to achieve true peace and coexistence. The current situation is unsustainable, and we need to think outside the box to find a solution.

Many will disagree with me, but I think this is the only way forward. Let's put aside our preconceptions and consider a new path, one that prioritizes reconciliation and coexistence over territorial claims and divisions.

How about they make it the United States of Palestine and Israel and give everybody equal rights to contest in the elections.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Jews living under Palestine?

The next idea will be to lock up chickens with Foxes and hope for the best.

 

[deltexas]

I know this won't be a popular view, but I believe the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to reinstate Palestine and grant Jews living in Palestine equal citizenship rights. This would mean Jews becoming Palestinian citizens, with representation in the Palestinian parliament. I know many will see this as a radical idea, but I think it's the only way to truly address the root causes of the conflict.

I also believe that Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be encouraged to relocate within Israel's recognized borders or become Palestinian citizens. I know this will be a difficult pill to swallow for many, but I think it's essential for creating a truly sovereign Palestinian state.

Some will say this is unrealistic, that it's too much to ask Israel to give up its claims to the land. But I think it's the only way to achieve true peace and coexistence. The current situation is unsustainable, and we need to think outside the box to find a solution.

Many will disagree with me, but I think this is the only way forward. Let's put aside our preconceptions and consider a new path, one that prioritizes reconciliation and coexistence over territorial claims and divisions.

An FYI. Israel is not giving up any land. FWIW - Palestine and Arab nations initiated a war against Israel and didnt want the 2 nation plan in 1948 and 1967 and lost both times. So you initiate a war, lose and then want the land.. Hope you see the logic or lack of in this. hamas and Palestine goal that they get the entire land is delusional dreams. Israel is going nowhere. Palestine should still work out a 2 state Gaza West Bank option and live peacefully. This dream of getting the entire land will keep ending in more misery.. Could have been resolved in 2000 Camp David as well but no , they want the entire land that they lost in a war they initiated.. Pot calling the kettle black. Take tough decisions - work out a 2 state option - give a better life for your citizens - good education healthcare quality of life etc and move on.

 

[Stewie]

Jews living under Palestine?

The next idea will be to lock up chickens with Foxes and hope for the best.

Jews and Christians and Muslims historically lived rather peacefully in Palestine till the western powers decided to turn it into Israel and hand the control to Jews after world war 2.

 

[Stewie]

An FYI. Israel is not giving up any land. FWIW - Palestine and Arab nations initiated a war against Israel and didnt want the 2 nation plan in 1948 and 1967 and lost both times. So you initiate a war, lose and then want the land.. Hope you see the logic or lack of in this. hamas and Palestine goal that they get the entire land is delusional dreams. Israel is going nowhere. Palestine should still work out a 2 state Gaza West Bank option and live peacefully. This dream of getting the entire land will keep ending in more misery.. Could have been resolved in 2000 Camp David as well but no , they want the entire land that they lost in a war they initiated.. Pot calling the kettle black. Take tough decisions - work out a 2 state option - give a better life for your citizens - good education healthcare quality of life etc and move on.

I don't think you are familiar with the history and seem to only know the talking points of the WEST in this matter.

The land was not empty and Palestinians were living there and the Jews were settled there and the state of Israel was created on Palestinian land. So who was the aggressor here and who violated whom? Please watch the video I shared above.

 

[deltexas]

I don't think you are familiar with the history and seem to only know the talking points of the WEST in this matter.

The land was not empty and Palestinians were living there and the Jews were settled there and the state of Israel was created on Palestinian land. So who was the aggressor here and who violated whom? Please watch the video I shared above.

I know the history maybe you need to revise yourself. Britain partitioned the land in 1948 ( just like they did Ind and Pak) into a jewish israel and islamic palestine. Palestine was not happy with the % land they got. So, they decided to go for all or nothing , they took the "risk" to go to war and once they did that all options were off. They then lost the war and the same in in 67. So, who is the aggressor? You initiate the war, you lose it comprehensively and then you want the land back . Wishful thinking isnt it ??

 

[Champ_Pal]

Jews and Christians and Muslims historically lived rather peacefully in Palestine till the western powers decided to turn it into Israel and hand the control to Jews after world war 2.

"In 1936, as Europe was preparing for war, the Supreme Muslim Council in Palestine, led by Amin al-Husayni, instigated the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine in which Palestinian Arabs rioted and murdered Jews in various cities.[27] In 1937 Amin al-Husayni, who was wanted by the British, fled Palestine and took refuge successively in Lebanon, Iraq, Italy and finally Nazi Germany."

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jaffa riots of 1921​

Jaffa riots - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1920 Nebi Musa riots​

1920 Nebi Musa riots - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-Zionist riots
Anti-Zionist riots erupted in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1939. These eventually culminated into a full-scale rebellion from 1936 to 1939.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-206581/

That area was always a flash point. There was never peace.

 

[aboveandbeyond]

Jews living under Palestine?

The next idea will be to lock up chickens with Foxes and hope for the best.

Once again it's clearly evident History is not a strong point, be it through ignorance, or highly likely because some of the historic truth does not fit ones narrative

 

[deltexas]

Once again it's clearly evident History is not a strong point, be it through ignorance, or highly likely because some of the historic truth does not fit ones narrative

See post # 7 for historical events. Maybe the historic truth is clearer.. Being the aggressor and then claiming the victim mentality.. You lose the war, you suck it up, take it on the chin take tough decisions and make a better life and move on. Japan lost the WW2 to US after the atom bomb attacks - so they accepted the loss , and moved forward to a successful country and dint keep claiming the victim card.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I don't think you are familiar with the history and seem to only know the talking points of the WEST in this matter.

The land was not empty and Palestinians were living there and the Jews were settled there and the state of Israel was created on Palestinian land. So who was the aggressor here and who violated whom? Please watch the video I shared above.

Jews have a history of 3000 years in that land.

Palestinians are Arabs who settled there with the Arab armies. There were no Muslims or Arabs in holy land before Arab invasion of Jerusalem. Most Palestinians have Egyptian, Syrian and Arab ancestry. They settled there during Mamluk and later Ottoman rule.

Jews started resettling in holy land under British rule.

Both Jews and Arabs have claims on that land. There was no Palestine before 20th century. They both have to learn to live in peace. I support 2 nation or 3 nation idea and permanent boundary between them.

 

[HalBass9]

I don't think you are familiar with the history and seem to only know the talking points of the WEST in this matter.

The land was not empty and Palestinians were living there and the Jews were settled there and the state of Israel was created on Palestinian land. So who was the aggressor here and who violated whom? Please watch the video I shared above.

Comments like those from the individual you quoted are replete with the predictable, superficial talking points typically regurgitated by Western corporate media. Only those who seek to justify the heinous acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and we are all quite aware of which groups these apologists belong to, would be so quick to adopt such rhetoric, particularly those aligned with Hindutva ideologies from South East Asia.

However, to suggest that the Palestinians should have acquiesced to the catastrophe known as the Nakba simply because the British imposed an arbitrary division of land is not only historically ignorant but morally reprehensible.

Let them continue being a loud nuisance, the more they rely on tired cliches, the more they reveal about their own intellectual limitations.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Once again it's clearly evident History is not a strong point, be it through ignorance, or highly likely because some of the historic truth does not fit ones narrative

I have no idea. They were all singing Kumbaya and Jinga la la before 1948.

 

[deltexas]

Comments like those from the individual you quoted are replete with the predictable, superficial talking points typically regurgitated by Western corporate media. Only those who seek to justify the heinous acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and we are all quite aware of which groups these apologists belong to, would be so quick to adopt such rhetoric, particularly those aligned with Hindutva ideologies from South East Asia.

However, to suggest that the Palestinians should have acquiesced to the catastrophe known as the Nakba simply because the British imposed an arbitrary division of land is not only historically ignorant but morally reprehensible.

Let them continue being a loud nuisance, the more they rely on tired cliches, the more they reveal about their own intellectual limitations.

Repeating this if its not clear and you can make your rhetoric statements apologist language etc but it doesnt change the facts.. Britain partitioned the land in 1948 ( just like they did Ind and Pak) into a jewish israel and islamic palestine. Palestine was not happy with the % land they got. So, they decided to go for all or nothing , they took the "risk" to go to war and once they did that all options were off. They then lost the war and the same in in 67. So, who is the aggressor? You initiate the war, you lose it comprehensively and then you want the land back . So if this was reversed, all you guys would have been yelling " but the jews and israel lost the war and the land they initiated " . See the hypocricy.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I know this won't be a popular view, but I believe the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to reinstate Palestine and grant Jews living in Palestine equal citizenship rights. This would mean Jews becoming Palestinian citizens, with representation in the Palestinian parliament. I know many will see this as a radical idea, but I think it's the only way to truly address the root causes of the conflict.

I also believe that Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be encouraged to relocate within Israel's recognized borders or become Palestinian citizens. I know this will be a difficult pill to swallow for many, but I think it's essential for creating a truly sovereign Palestinian state.

Some will say this is unrealistic, that it's too much to ask Israel to give up its claims to the land. But I think it's the only way to achieve true peace and coexistence. The current situation is unsustainable, and we need to think outside the box to find a solution.

Many will disagree with me, but I think this is the only way forward. Let's put aside our preconceptions and consider a new path, one that prioritizes reconciliation and coexistence over territorial claims and divisions.

A good suggestion for apartheid regime before they had to give it all in an all out war in future.

 

[deltexas]

Diversionary tactics as usual. And using kids to depict this or derogatory language against kids is never acceptable. SM is full of these vile things and thats fine - it an individuals opinion. What matters is the relations b/w 2 governments. And the talk here is Israel Palestine where Palestine right now is on the recieving end because of their stubborn attitude.

 

[HalBass9]

Repeating this if its not clear and you can make your rhetoric statements apologist language etc but it doesnt change the facts.. Britain partitioned the land in 1948 ( just like they did Ind and Pak) into a jewish israel and islamic palestine. Palestine was not happy with the % land they got. So, they decided to go for all or nothing , they took the "risk" to go to war and once they did that all options were off. They then lost the war and the same in in 67. So, who is the aggressor? You initiate the war, you lose it comprehensively and then you want the land back . So if this was reversed, all you guys would have been yelling " but the jews and israel lost the war and the land they initiated " . See the hypocricy.

Your argument hinges on a baseless and speculative premise, accusing others of hypocrisy for a situation that exists solely in your imagination. You suggest that if the roles were reversed, if Palestinians had committed acts of killing, displacement, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, then it would be entirely acceptable for you to condemn them. However, when Israel is held accountable for actual, documented actions, you deem such criticism hypocritical. This logical inconsistency is both intellectually dishonest and transparently biased.

Furthermore, your understanding of the historical context is remarkably superficial. The true aggressor in this situation was the British government, which, driven by pro-Israeli sympathies and European settlers in the land of Palestine, initiated the displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Israel's current actions are merely a continuation of this egregious violation of human rights, perpetuating the original injustice.

Your effort to rehash familiar talking points adds neither depth to your argument nor demonstrates any real empathy for the cause. Instead, it highlights a predictable and superficial understanding, one that many have already recognized and dismissed. This lack of originality and insight not only undermines your position but also exposes a glaring inability to engage meaningfully with even the most straightforward issues. Genocide remains genocide, and ethnic cleansing is still ethnic cleansing, no matter how you attempt to rationalize or obscure the reality.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Diversionary tactics as usual. And using kids to depict this or derogatory language against kids is never acceptable. SM is full of these vile things and thats fine - it an individuals opinion. What matters is the relations b/w 2 governments. And the talk here is Israel Palestine where Palestine right now is on the recieving end because of their stubborn attitude.

2 wins with one shot.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Israel is an expansionist state, their goal was to wipe out Palestine which they successfully achieved. They have expanded territory into Syria, and will have their eyes on eventually taking more land to house the rest of the Jewish diaspora around the world.

I am not sure why anyone is still under the impression that they ever had any intent to let Palestine come back into existence.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

2 wins with one shot.

He was bang on to be fair.

 

[Champ_Pal]

He was bang on to be fair.

That must've brought a smile to your face too.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Agree , again some posters are clueless of history not Jews not only lived under Muslim rule for centuries, they moved there often for safety . Palestinians have only ever seen occupied & apartheid under Jewish regimes

 

[Stewie]

Repeating this if its not clear and you can make your rhetoric statements apologist language etc but it doesnt change the facts.. Britain partitioned the land in 1948 ( just like they did Ind and Pak) into a jewish israel and islamic palestine. Palestine was not happy with the % land they got. So, they decided to go for all or nothing , they took the "risk" to go to war and once they did that all options were off. They then lost the war and the same in in 67. So, who is the aggressor? You initiate the war, you lose it comprehensively and then you want the land back . So if this was reversed, all you guys would have been yelling " but the jews and israel lost the war and the land they initiated " . See the hypocricy.

It’s funny you mention this. I think it’s hypocrisy that now the narrative is there was no Palestine. So if two countries went to war, and one lost, does that mean their right to sovereignty and to govern themselves should be taken away along with their land?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That must've brought a smile to your face too.

I wish I was a more religious guy because hindutva posters keep proving those verses from the Quran again and again.

 

[IMMY69]

"In 1936, as Europe was preparing for war, the Supreme Muslim Council in Palestine, led by Amin al-Husayni, instigated the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine in which Palestinian Arabs rioted and murdered Jews in various cities.[27] In 1937 Amin al-Husayni, who was wanted by the British, fled Palestine and took refuge successively in Lebanon, Iraq, Italy and finally Nazi Germany."

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jaffa riots of 1921​

Jaffa riots - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1920 Nebi Musa riots​

1920 Nebi Musa riots - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anti-Zionist riots
Anti-Zionist riots erupted in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1939. These eventually culminated into a full-scale rebellion from 1936 to 1939.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-206581/

That area was always a flash point. There was never peace.

Take off your extremist goggles for one moment

 

[IMMY69]

Agree , again some posters are clueless of history not Jews not only lived under Muslim rule for centuries, they moved there often for safety . Palestinians have only ever seen occupied & apartheid under Jewish Zionist regimes

They are not just posters but extremists...

 

[sweep_shot]

Agree , again some posters are clueless of history not Jews not only lived under Muslim rule for centuries, they moved there often for safety . Palestinians have only ever seen occupied & apartheid under Jewish regimes

It is why I stopped responding to them or correcting them. It is pointless because they are extreme Islamophobes.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I wish I was a more religious guy because hindutva posters keep proving those verses from the Quran again and again.

I only show what is written. I don't tap dance my way out of anything.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Take off your extremist goggles for one moment

Extremist?

Somebody said that Holy land was all peaceful under Islamic rule. I only showed them how peaceful it was until 1900's.

I didn't even want to dig deeper into the past.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Jews have a history of 3000 years in that land.

Palestinians are Arabs who settled there with the Arab armies. There were no Muslims or Arabs in holy land before Arab invasion of Jerusalem. Most Palestinians have Egyptian, Syrian and Arab ancestry. They settled there during Mamluk and later Ottoman rule.

Jews started resettling in holy land under British rule.

Both Jews and Arabs have claims on that land. There was no Palestine before 20th century. They both have to learn to live in peace. I support 2 nation or 3 nation idea and permanent boundary between them.

In all those 3000 years Jews continued to live there and as far as I am aware they were never part of any mass expulsion. It was called Palestine for 3000 years as well, I don't think it was called israel until mid 20th century.

 

[RexRex]

Jews have a history of 3000 years in that land.

Palestinians are Arabs who settled there with the Arab armies. There were no Muslims or Arabs in holy land before Arab invasion of Jerusalem. Most Palestinians have Egyptian, Syrian and Arab ancestry. They settled there during Mamluk and later Ottoman rule.

Jews started resettling in holy land under British rule.

Both Jews and Arabs have claims on that land. There was no Palestine before 20th century. They both have to learn to live in peace. I support 2 nation or 3 nation idea and permanent boundary between them.

This is correct.

This is what leading Palestinian politician Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi (Ottoman mayor of Jerusalem) wrote to Zadok Kahn, chief rabbi of France: “No one can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine. It is historically really your country."

Israel is the holiest land for Jews and Christians whereas the holiest land for Muslims is Mecca.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This is correct.

This is what leading Palestinian politician Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi (Ottoman mayor of Jerusalem) wrote to Zadok Kahn, chief rabbi of France: “No one can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine. It is historically really your country."

Israel is the holiest land for Jews and Christians whereas the holiest land for Muslims is Mecca.

These are not Israelites , they are European & other ethnicities mainly Ashkenazi . Netanyahu is polish . Check their DNA .

But if you believe a holy book which also says idol worshipers should be wiped out is an estate agent book too , then you should agree if one day a stronger power demands your land & house because he has a book too , to go happily to a refugee camp?

 

[HalBass9]

This is correct.

This is what leading Palestinian politician Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi (Ottoman mayor of Jerusalem) wrote to Zadok Kahn, chief rabbi of France: “No one can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine. It is historically really your country."

Israel is the holiest land for Jews and Christians whereas the holiest land for Muslims is Mecca.

While their right to exist has not been contested, what is being challenged is the self-proclaimed right of European settlers to engage in ethnic cleansing against populations that have inhabited the region for thousands of years, including both Christians and Muslims.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

True such guys should have campaigned for a land in Europe or America instead of Palestine.

These are not Israelites , they are European & other ethnicities mainly Ashkenazi . Netanyahu is polish . Check their DNA .

But if you believe a holy book which also says idol worshipers should be wiped out is an estate agent book too , then you should agree if one day a stronger power demands your land & house because he has a book too , to go happily to a refugee camp?

 

[Champ_Pal]

This is correct.

This is what leading Palestinian politician Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi (Ottoman mayor of Jerusalem) wrote to Zadok Kahn, chief rabbi of France: “No one can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine. It is historically really your country."

Israel is the holiest land for Jews and Christians whereas the holiest land for Muslims is Mecca.

Exactly.

Islam's holy land is 900 miles away from Jerusalem. Not even close to their holy site Mecca.

Muslims should make big hearts and leave that tiny peace of land to Jews. They have so much land to choose in Arabia. So much of uninhabited land. They can live peacefully anywhere in Arabia.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Exactly.

Islam's holy land is 900 miles away from Jerusalem. Not even close to their holy site Mecca.

Muslims should make big hearts and leave that tiny peace of land to Jews. They have so much land to choose in Arabia. So much of uninhabited land. They can live peacefully anywhere in Arabia.

Alaska, Canada, Russia have some great space too. Better for the people with European genes. Ashkenazi Jews

 

[Champ_Pal]

These are not Israelites , they are European & other ethnicities mainly Ashkenazi . Netanyahu is polish . Check their DNA .

But if you believe a holy book which also says idol worshipers should be wiped out is an estate agent book too , then you should agree if one day a stronger power demands your land & house because he has a book too , to go happily to a refugee camp?

Sephardic Jews make up 55% of Israel's population.

Ashkenazi make up 45% of Israel's population.

With regards to Ashkenazi, they are anywhere between 60-80% European. They are still Jews and have 30% ancestry from Middle East.

Genetic studies of Jews - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can still tell most Jews of Europe apart from real white Europeans. The difference is the 30% of Near east ancestry of European Jews.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Alaska, Canada, Russia have some great space too. Better for the people with European genes. Ashkenazi Jews

Most Palestinians look nothing like Arabs either. They could easily pass off as Italian or Greek or some Eastern Euro. I am sure they can easily survive in Alaska and Canada too.

Russia kicked out the Jews. So no place for Jews in Rooski land.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Sephardic Jews make up 55% of Israel's population.

Ashkenazi make up 45% of Israel's population.

With regards to Ashkenazi, they are anywhere between 60-80% European. They are still Jews and have 30% ancestry from Middle East.

Genetic studies of Jews - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can still tell most Jews of Europe apart from real white Europeans. The difference is the 30% of Near east ancestry of European Jews.

Both are European, so according to your data 100% are European.

What the heck are they doing in the Middle East?

Are you Jewish & believe God has given them this land ? As it’s a strange position for atheist , as you have confirmed. You are not making any sense .

 

[Champ_Pal]

Both are European, so according to your data 100% are European.

What the heck are they doing in the Middle East?

Are you Jewish & believe God has given them this land ? As it’s a strange position for atheist , as you have confirmed. You are not making any sense .

Europeans will never consider Ashkenazi as their own. No one considers Einstein as a white man.

Jews have a country now in Israel and they can invite whoever they want in their country. In this case, it’s Askenazi Jews.

If Pakistan tomorrow invites all Palestinians in their lands, who are Indians to object to it?

 

[cricketAXEpert]

An FYI. Israel is not giving up any land. FWIW - Palestine and Arab nations initiated a war against Israel and didnt want the 2 nation plan in 1948 and 1967 and lost both times. So you initiate a war, lose and then want the land.. Hope you see the logic or lack of in this. hamas and Palestine goal that they get the entire land is delusional dreams. Israel is going nowhere. Palestine should still work out a 2 state Gaza West Bank option and live peacefully. This dream of getting the entire land will keep ending in more misery.. Could have been resolved in 2000 Camp David as well but no , they want the entire land that they lost in a war they initiated.. Pot calling the kettle black. Take tough decisions - work out a 2 state option - give a better life for your citizens - good education healthcare quality of life etc and move on.

Palestinian should have accepted the 1948 partition plan and moved on. They should have forgiven the Nakba and moved on. However that is all history. Palestinians since early 80s have agreed to the 2 state solution. Which was revisited and signed under Oslo agreement. Where Palestinian state will comprise of West Bank and Gaza strip. However an Israeli majority never wanted to give back the West Bank. And since 90s to this date has followed a policy of denial of Palestinian statehood. Not only did they did nothing towards a 2 state solution but instead continued to make settlements on the land they promised to give back to Palestinians. Annexing a land is one thing Israelis are not willing to share the land with a Palestinian population.

They are two solutions, 2-state solutions which is based on ending the occupation and going back to 1967 borders.
The other is 1-state solution which is giving equal rights to Palestinians (same rights as given to Jews). Israelis are not willing to give anything even close to equal rights to Palestinians. in fact they practice an extreme form of Apartheid. The only thing Israelis want to for Palestinians is ethnic cleansing, they want them to leave the land they have lived in for centuries. Or live as second class citizens forever under the thumb of Israelis.

 

[RexRex]

These are not Israelites , they are European & other ethnicities mainly Ashkenazi . Netanyahu is polish . Check their DNA .

But if you believe a holy book which also says idol worshipers should be wiped out is an estate agent book too , then you should agree if one day a stronger power demands your land & house because he has a book too , to go happily to a refugee camp?

It wasn't their land. It was British territory and before 1920 it was Ottoman territory.

 

[RexRex]

While their right to exist has not been contested, what is being challenged is the self-proclaimed right of European settlers to engage in ethnic cleansing against populations that have inhabited the region for thousands of years, including both Christians and Muslims.

How do you think European Jews immigrated to Palestine in the late 1800s ?

Was it by pointing a gun at the heads of the local inhabitants in the area, like how British came to India ?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

It wasn't their land. It was British territory and before 1920 it was Ottoman territory.

Lol.. It's just like saying India was never a territory for Hindus as Moghuls ruled it and way before Mauriyans were the emperors.

 

[RexRex]

Lol.. It's just like saying India was never a territory for Hindus as Moghuls ruled it and way before Mauriyans were the emperors.

India was british territory till 1947 and so they get to decide to what happens there; that is why they broke the land into two pieces - one of which is called Pakistan.

 

[deltexas]

Both are European, so according to your data 100% are European.

What the heck are they doing in the Middle East?

Are you Jewish & believe God has given them this land ? As it’s a strange position for atheist , as you have confirmed. You are not making any sense .

Jews had been there thousands of years. But the thing is Britain partitioned it in 1947 and Palestine took their chances as in they wanted the whole land and took that risk and then lost the war badly. And now after losing you expect Israel to givevthe land back especially after you reject the 2 state option?

Ind didn't have any Muslims a few hundred tears back. Then mughals invaded and converted some to muslims. Then British came and partitioned ind.. si should Hindus get all ind back and no place for muslims now because it was tgat way thousand years back.. All you pak and ban citizens will create a big hubris here. Its like demanding akhand bharat for hindus.. so why the double standards towards gaza and Palestine ?? Just because it's a Muslim nation?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Lol.. It's just like saying India was never a territory for Hindus as Moghuls ruled it and way before Mauriyans were the emperors.

and Mauryans preferred Brahminsm. What's your point.

Its a rhetorical question, your posts have that unique quality of not having any point.

 

[ElRaja]

one state solution is only real solution, however if Israel grants Palestinians citizenship they will become a minority in their own country in a generation or two so they'll never do it. the fighting will continue till Israel has driven out a significant proportion of arabs out of those lands, then they'll take em over and you'll get a one state solution that might be viable for 3 or 4 generations.

Israelis and Palestinians hate each other too much for them to live together, generational trauma cannot be erased with politics. even if it were, there would be no Israeli in their right mind willing to share political power with Palestinians, it would become an ungovernable cesspit of attritional politics.

so most realistic outcome will the eventual one state solution with a significant minority of second citizen status palestinians.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Europeans will never consider Ashkenazi as their own. No one considers Einstein as a white man.

Jews have a country now in Israel and they can invite whoever they want in their country. In this case, it’s Askenazi Jews.

If Pakistan tomorrow invites all Palestinians in their lands, who are Indians to object to it?

You’re running away .

Acc to you 100% of Jews in Israel originate fr Europe .

Palestinians didn’t invite to be occupied & their land taken .

Youre debating is so poor it’s embarrassing responding .

 

[KingKhanWC]

Jews had been there thousands of years. But the thing is Britain partitioned it in 1947 and Palestine took their chances as in they wanted the whole land and took that risk and then lost the war badly. And now after losing you expect Israel to givevthe land back especially after you reject the 2 state option?

Ind didn't have any Muslims a few hundred tears back. Then mughals invaded and converted some to muslims. Then British came and partitioned ind.. si should Hindus get all ind back and no place for muslims now because it was tgat way thousand years back.. All you pak and ban citizens will create a big hubris here. Its like demanding akhand bharat for hindus.. so why the double standards towards gaza and Palestine ?? Just because it's a Muslim nation?

Might is right is your argument. Then accept if I can take your house & send you & your kids to refugee camps you’d think it’s fair ? Lol

Muslims didn’t send exile any community in India. Another p poor point .

Stink to rss lectures.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Palestinians are a weak people who got bullied off their land. All the crying won't change anything. Until the Muslims are more powerful than the West and Israel nothing will change.

 

[deltexas]

Lol.. It's just like saying India was never a territory for Hindus as Moghuls ruled it and way before Mauriyans were the emperors.

Will you agree that it should be given back to hindus completely because there were no muslims a few hundred years back ? For akhanda bharat. See how silly the argument looks

 

[RexRex]

Until the Muslims are more powerful than the West and Israel nothing will change.

Don't forget your close ally China #uighurlivesmatter

 

[RexRex]

Muslims didn’t send exile any community in India. Another p poor point .

Who started the 1948 Arab-Israeli war which led to the Nakba ?

 

[RexRex]

Ind didn't have any Muslims a few hundred tears back. Then mughals invaded and converted some to muslims. Then British came and partitioned ind.. si should Hindus get all ind back and no place for muslims now because it was tgat way thousand years back.. All you pak and ban citizens will create a big hubris here. Its like demanding akhand bharat for hindus.. so why the double standards towards gaza and Palestine ?? Just because it's a Muslim nation?

Yeah it's a simple equation.

> The Brits controlled India and decided to split it into two - India and Pakistan, much to the anger of indian nationalists at the time. But Indians put away their objections and reluctantly agreed to it.

> The Brits controlled Palestine and decided to split it into two - Israel and Palestine, much to the anger of many in that area. Instead of accepting the solution with grace , all the Arab states decided to declare war & attack Israel instead of accepting partition.

^ Look at the different reactions in these two scenarios.

 

[deltexas]

Might is right is your argument. Then accept if I can take your house & send you & your kids to refugee camps you’d think it’s fair ? Lol

Muslims didn’t send exile any community in India. Another p poor point .

Stink to rss lectures.

Might is right?? Well Palestine didn't agree to British partition plan. So they decided might is right and decide not to accept it - and decide to attack Israel in 48 and 61 and then lost miserably.. They thought they could overpower tiny israel and win but lost. So who's the aggressor here?? And now they want the "whole" land back? Not partial but whole land?? Its funny- the aggressor goes to war - loses and then says I want the whole land back now and claims the victim mentality. The irony.

Coming to your analogy. If a bunch of thigs or goons attack my house after refusing to accept an offer given to them- thinking they are more powerful and take the whole house - and then lose against me and now I get control of the house as they were the aggressor. And then they later continue to threaten me and terrorize me regularly and claim the victim mentality.. thats the logic we are talking about here..

And regarding muslims exiling in ind. Take a look at how Kashmiri pandits were driven off their homeland by Kashmiri muslims. Yet you didn't see any Kashmiri pandits taking arms guns weapons erc and threaten to kill Kashmiri muslims.. thats the difference.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Might is right is your argument. Then accept if I can take your house & send you & your kids to refugee camps you’d think it’s fair ? Lol

Muslims didn’t send exile any community in India. Another p poor point .

Stink to rss lectures.

Might has always been right. Your own Islamic empires conquered half of the known world at that time and spread the Islamic faith everywhere.

They did not do that singing Ghazals and music. They used their superior army and military tactics to conquer.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Might has always been right. Your own Islamic empires conquered half of the known world at that time and spread the Islamic faith everywhere.

They did not do that singing Ghazals and music. They used their superior army and military tactics to conquer.

I’d say they liberated the people as there wasn’t much resistance in India /

It might is right, I’m sure you’re ok with the resistance killing occupiers & perhaps one day someone using nuclear weapons to take out the other side in the holy land .

 

[Champ_Pal]

Palestinians are a weak people who got bullied off their land. All the crying won't change anything. Until the Muslims are more powerful than the West and Israel nothing will change.

Bullies always bully and they have been bullying for the entire known human history. This is why countries have armies to defend. If they cannot defend themselves, they form alliances.

In Hamas and Palestinians case, their alliance is weak No major power wants to join them. Iran is a mediocre nation and they are the only one to support Hamas militarily. The rest of the Arab world is neutral. China does not give 2 hoots about Palestinians. Same with Russia. They have their own headaches.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I’d say they liberated the people as there wasn’t much resistance in India /

It might is right, I’m sure you’re ok with the resistance killing occupiers & perhaps one day someone using nuclear weapons to take out the other side in the holy land .

Americans also think they are liberating Middle East countries from a backward culture. But Arabs don’t share the same view as Americans.

 

[HalBass9]

Americans also think they are liberating Middle East countries from a backward culture. But Arabs don’t share the same view as Americans.

American government or ordinary American citizens?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

and Mauryans preferred Brahminsm. What's your point.

Its a rhetorical question, your posts have that unique quality of not having any point.

It wasn't their land. It was British territory and before 1920 it was Ottoman territory.

You are always in haste @rpant_gabba . Read the comments I replied too first. What was the religion of ottomons? Answer this first and then come back again.

 

[big_gamer007]

You are always in haste @rpant_gabba . Read the comments I replied too first. What was the religion of ottomons? Answer this first and then come back again.

If you identify empires based on Religion then Jews got right over the land more than Muslims as Jews ruled that area before Islam even came into existence.

Muslim arguments generally fall flat and all they are left to do is pick and choose points from contradictory views.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Americans also think they are liberating Middle East countries from a backward culture. But Arabs don’t share the same view as Americans.

I think you have difficulty understanding simple points . I’ll make it easier .

If someone comes to your house & says his family lived there 1000 years ago & you & your family must leave . He has more power , you’d smile & walk off , as might is right ? Lol

 

[IMMY69]

If you identify empires based on Religion then Jews got right over the land more than Muslims as Jews ruled that area before Islam even came into existence.

Muslim arguments generally fall flat and all they are left to do is pick and choose points from contradictory views.

What has religion got to do with owning land?

 

[big_gamer007]

What has religion got to do with owning land?

The entire conflict is due to religion.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I think you have difficulty understanding simple points . I’ll make it easier .

If someone comes to your house & says his family lived there 1000 years ago & you & your family must leave . He has more power , you’d smile & walk off , as might is right ? Lol

The situation you described has been happening for thousands of years and will happen for a thousand more years.

This is why countries have armies to fight the invaders and protect both land and its people. Palestinians have its army too. But they are weak.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The situation you described has been happening for thousands of years and will happen for a thousand more years.

This is why countries have armies to fight the invaders and protect both land and its people. Palestinians have its army too. But they are weak.

Imo they are as people much stronger , braver & more resilient than most people inc most most from sub continent . The huge difference in military power , decades of occupation but still no 3rd Jewish temple . While 40k Brits conquered India quickly . Freedom only a matter of when not if .

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If you identify empires based on Religion then Jews got right over the land more than Muslims as Jews ruled that area before Islam even came into existence.

Muslim arguments generally fall flat and all they are left to do is pick and choose points from contradictory views.

They should have called it israel then. Why did they wait until the 20th century to change it from Palestine?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Imo they are as people much stronger , braver & more resilient than most people inc most most from sub continent . The huge difference in military power , decades of occupation but still no 3rd Jewish temple . While 40k Brits conquered India quickly . Freedom only a matter of when not if .

Israel can build any temple in their country. I am sure it is only out of respect for other’s beliefs they are stopping themselves from doing it.

40k Brits ruled over 400 million in subcontinent. We all know the reasons. Brits came with superior weapons and tech. Subcontinent rulers were still living in medieval times. Naturally Brits beat the hell out of all empires and kingdoms in Indian subcontinent.

 

[big_gamer007]

They should have called it israel then. Why did they wait until the 20th century to change it from Palestine?

Who are “they”?

 

[KB]

Yeah it's a simple equation.

> The Brits controlled India and decided to split it into two - India and Pakistan, much to the anger of indian nationalists at the time. But Indians put away their objections and reluctantly agreed to it.

> The Brits controlled Palestine and decided to split it into two - Israel and Palestine, much to the anger of many in that area. Instead of accepting the solution with grace , all the Arab states decided to declare war & attack Israel instead of accepting partition.

^ Look at the different reactions in these two scenarios.

However, the point of comparisons is not only to consider similarities but also to understand the differences. Here, the differences are rather critical.

First a point of clarification. The partition plan in 1947 was not a British plan per se. Britain, unsurprisingly, was unable to square the circle between its promise, as expressed in the Balfour declaration, of a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ while at the same time not harming the ‘rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’

So the matter was referred, in February 1947, to the newly formed United Nations (UN). On 26 September 1947, Britain announced a unilateral exit from Palestine on 14 May 1948. It was, of course, the British that had made the Zionist dream of a Jewish homeland possible. So it is ironic that the British were in large part forced out of Palestine by terror tactics used by the Irgun and Lehi. Though the leaders of the Jewish Agency criticised these underground groups, it could be argued that a precedent had been set of achieving political goals through terrorism.

The UN Partition Resolution, a major milestone towards the realisation of Israel, passed on 29 November 1947. American Zionists put considerable pressure on Harry Truman. Truman had said that he never “had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance.” Late in the day, the US performed a u-turn, abandoning its stance of non-intervention and applying pressure on other UN members to support the partition plan.

Palestinian Arabs constituted two thirds or 1.2 million of the population of the lands. Arabs owned 94 per cent of the total land area. Yet, the UN partition plan proposed that the Jewish state would get 55 per cent of Mandatory Palestine comprising 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs; the remaining land would be a Palestinian state, made up of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Jerusalem would be placed under international control.

Given what has transpired it is easy to assert that the Arabs should have taken the deal. But that is abusing the benefit of hindsight. Is it really that surprising that the Arabs rejected the partition plan that was so evidently inequitable? It is very well saying that, in contrast, Indian nationalists accepted partition, “putting away their objections,” but the Congress would never have accepted partition if it led to India getting such an unfair outcome, where it would end up with less territory than Pakistan, despite a larger population of non-Muslims.

There are other differences. The partition of India transpired with the consent - however, reluctant - of the British, the Congress and the Muslim League. The partition of Palestine was imposed on Palestinians. The basis of partition was different, too. In India, division was generally at a sub-district level - tehsil and even the level of thana. If the same basis was applied in the case of Palestine, the Jewish state would have been very small indeed: the Jewish community was only a majority in one of the sixteen sub-districts - Jaffa. Then there is the matter of a settler component to Jewish settlement, which has been mentioned by other posters, so I will not repeat the point here.

My final point is not about comparisons, but more a general one, which I have said elsewhere, but will repeat here. I don’t subscribe to the ahistorical view that the Palestinian-Israel conflict is a continuous struggle between Arabs and Jews extending back into the mists of time. Rather it is something rooted in the modern era and that can only be understood in the age of nationalism. It is also a problem, in many ways, that was created in Europe.

As Sholomo Avineri - an Israeli political scientist - said: "European nationalism in the 19th century made Jews strangers or foreigners for the first time. Whatever you say about the Middle Ages, Jews then were viewed as the “other”, but not as alien. Modern European nationalism therefore created a different identity for the Jews. And when Jewish nationalism developed, it was very much a mirror image of European nationalism.”

 

[Bhaijaan]

I know this won't be a popular view, but I believe the only way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to reinstate Palestine and grant Jews living in Palestine equal citizenship rights. This would mean Jews becoming Palestinian citizens, with representation in the Palestinian parliament. I know many will see this as a radical idea, but I think it's the only way to truly address the root causes of the conflict.

I also believe that Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be encouraged to relocate within Israel's recognized borders or become Palestinian citizens. I know this will be a difficult pill to swallow for many, but I think it's essential for creating a truly sovereign Palestinian state.

Some will say this is unrealistic, that it's too much to ask Israel to give up its claims to the land. But I think it's the only way to achieve true peace and coexistence. The current situation is unsustainable, and we need to think outside the box to find a solution.

Many will disagree with me, but I think this is the only way forward. Let's put aside our preconceptions and consider a new path, one that prioritizes reconciliation and coexistence over territorial claims and divisions.

Israel deserves the Jewish homeland that belonged to them 5000 years ago when the world had two major great religions Hinduism and Judaism. The best of the best.

The Muslim diaspora must be safely and with mutual consent reallocated to the 50 Muslim countries around the world. They cannot have everything.

Palestinian occupants must be

 

[The Bald Eagle]

They should reinstate it for the sake of their own survival as occupiers rarely last

 

[RexRex]

The UN Partition Resolution, a major milestone towards the realisation of Israel, passed on 29 November 1947. American Zionists put considerable pressure on Harry Truman. Truman had said that he never “had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance.” Late in the day, the US performed a u-turn, abandoning its stance of non-intervention and applying pressure on other UN members to support the partition plan.

This is not an excuse. Backroom politics and pressure is all speculation. Even so, jostling for votes happens for every UN resolution, this is nothing unique. The fact remains that a world represented body like the UN General Assembly voted for the partition plan; that is as fair as it gets.

Palestinian Arabs constituted two thirds or 1.2 million of the population of the lands. Arabs owned 94 per cent of the total land area. Yet, the UN partition plan proposed that the Jewish state would get 55 per cent of Mandatory Palestine comprising 500,000 Jews and 400,000 Arabs; the remaining land would be a Palestinian state, made up of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Jerusalem would be placed under international control.

Given what has transpired it is easy to assert that the Arabs should have taken the deal. But that is abusing the benefit of hindsight. Is it really that surprising that the Arabs rejected the partition plan that was so evidently inequitable?

You've left out very important details here. To quote a historian -

"In terms of the division of land, the Jewish state received somewhat more
than the Arabs, but only if one counts fully the Negev Desert, which was deemed
uninhabitable and uncultivatable. If the Negev is excluded or substantially
discounted, the usable land allocated to the Arabs was larger than that allocated to
the Jews. Moreover, much of the land allocated to the Jewish state was originally
swamp and desert land that had been irrigated and made fertile by Jewish labor and
investment. The land allocated to the Arabs was also contiguous with and proximate
to Transjordan, whose population has always been predominantly Palestinian"

Even then, it doesn't matter .. Arabs rejected the very existence of a separate Jewish state. They would've never accepted ANY partition plan. Otherwise they would have offered their OWN plan.

The partition of India transpired with the consent - however, reluctant - of the British, the Congress and the Muslim League. The partition of Palestine was imposed on Palestinians.

This is not an excuse either. Given that the Jews and Arabs could not come to a consensus, the next best solution was for the British to leave the decision to a neutral body like the UN .. which is what happened.

Then there is the matter of a settler component to Jewish settlement, which has been mentioned by other posters, so I will not repeat the point here.

Is it not true that most of the jewish immigration came about due to land purchases made from Ottoman landlords and Arab absentee landlords. So what do you mean by settler component ?

 

[deltexas]

This is not an excuse. Backroom politics and pressure is all speculation. Even so, jostling for votes happens for every UN resolution, this is nothing unique. The fact remains that a world represented body like the UN General Assembly voted for the partition plan; that is as fair as it gets.



You've left out very important details here. To quote a historian -

"In terms of the division of land, the Jewish state received somewhat more
than the Arabs, but only if one counts fully the Negev Desert, which was deemed
uninhabitable and uncultivatable. If the Negev is excluded or substantially
discounted, the usable land allocated to the Arabs was larger than that allocated to
the Jews. Moreover, much of the land allocated to the Jewish state was originally
swamp and desert land that had been irrigated and made fertile by Jewish labor and
investment. The land allocated to the Arabs was also contiguous with and proximate
to Transjordan, whose population has always been predominantly Palestinian"

Even then, it doesn't matter .. Arabs rejected the very existence of a separate Jewish state. They would've never accepted ANY partition plan. Otherwise they would have offered their OWN plan.



This is not an excuse either. Given that the Jews and Arabs could not come to a consensus, the next best solution was for the British to leave the decision to a neutral body like the UN .. which is what happened.



Is it not true that most of the jewish immigration came about due to land purchases made from Ottoman landlords and Arab absentee landlords. So what do you mean by settler component ?

The thing is not fancy or popular to get into the actual facts. Way easier to just post on FB or tiktok and say genocide, Israel occupier, Palestine victim mentality etc etc.. Gets you more eyeballs and less backlash etc. The fact is Palestine "rejected" the 2 state option and wanted "all" of it. So took the risk and went to all out war and lost badly. Twice they did that and lost. Best chance was in 2000s for a 2 state option but no , again they wanted the "whole" land from the river to the sea.. Good luck on that ! They will never get the "full" land. All Arab nations are on board with it except maybe Iran and Hamas. Its like Ind wanting Pak and Ban back as part of an Akhand Bharat concept. Never happening . So unless Palestinians understand their reality - they will continue to keep getting by Israel and peace is a pipe dream. Hamas says "all" land is Palestines and Israel should not exist . So good luck with that.

 

[deltexas]

They should reinstate it for the sake of their own survival as occupiers rarely last

Post # 75 has the perfect answer for you.

 

[KB]

This is not an excuse. Backroom politics and pressure is all speculation. Even so, jostling for votes happens for every UN resolution, this is nothing unique. The fact remains that a world represented body like the UN General Assembly voted for the partition plan; that is as fair as it gets.

My point here was twofold: one was to point out that the balance of power had shifted from Britain to the the US and it was therefore not correct to say that “Brits controlled Palestine and decided to split it into two.” Secondly, it was to point out that pressure was applied. To me this not a matter of speculation, but based on historical evidence, though of course how this ‘backroom politics’ is characterised is a matter of personal opinion. It is also quite relevant to our understanding as it is clear that the israeli movement had a significant advantage in its connections and understanding of global politics. As Rashid Khalidi notes: “Complementing its origins in Europe among well-educated, assimilated Jews such as Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, the movement also drew on deep roots and extensive connections in the United States…David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, later the second president of Israel, had spent several years at the end of World War I working for the israel cause in the United States, where Golda Meir had lived since childhood. Meanwhile, no members of the Palestinian leadership had ever visited the United States.”

You've left out very important details here. To quote a historian -

"In terms of the division of land, the Jewish state received somewhat more
than the Arabs, but only if one counts fully the Negev Desert, which was deemed
uninhabitable and uncultivatable. If the Negev is excluded or substantially
discounted, the usable land allocated to the Arabs was larger than that allocated to
the Jews. Moreover, much of the land allocated to the Jewish state was originally
swamp and desert land that had been irrigated and made fertile by Jewish labor and
investment. The land allocated to the Arabs was also contiguous with and proximate
to Transjordan, whose population has always been predominantly Palestinian"

For the sake of full disclosure, you are quoting Alan Dershowitz, who is or was a law professor not a historian. He is also a controversial figure but people can do their own research into him.

Leaving this aside, it does not change the thrust of the argument: the inequitable allocation of territory proposed by the partition plan. I also think there is a bigger omission in my original post, which I will come to. The Negev was of strategic interest and its Jewish population was less than one per cent. And if we are going to start discussion quality of land, then there is an argument to say the best lands were given to Israel - most of the fertile coastal plains and all of interior plains. This covered most of the citrus producing areas - citrus was the key export at the time. I therefore stand by original point that the distribution was unjust.

Coming to what was missing from my post (and is therefore a valid criticism of my original post) was that this inequity was in part driven by an envisaged need to make room for Holocaust survivors.

While I accept this, it still does not change the fundamentally “inequitable distribution” of the partition plan. And so, to quote (a proper) historian, Martin Bunton, in summary:

“the areas proposed for the Jewish state comprised 55 per cent of Palestine’s territory, including vital water supplies, most citrus plantations (both Arab and Jewish), and the largely unpopulated Negev desert, even though Jews constituted only 33 per cent of Palestine’s population and owned less than 10 per cent of the total land area. This inequitable distribution was determined in large part by the anticipated need of the new Jewish state to absorb hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors. The population embraced by the proposed frontiers of the projected Jewish state comprised approximately 500,000 Jews and a very large minority of 400,000 Arabs. The proposed Arab state, on the other hand, was almost entirely Arab.”

Is it not true that most of the jewish immigration came about due to land purchases made from Ottoman landlords and Arab absentee landlords. So what do you mean by settler component ?

Most of the Jewish presence, at the time of the partition plan, was of recent origin. As stated above and in my original post, very little of the land - less than 10 per cent - was owned by the Jews.

On the settler point, in comparison with the partition of India, I repeat what I wrote elsewhere. A majority of Muslims - indeed millions and millions of Muslims - already lived in the areas that eventually made up Pakistan. They were not settlers or colonisers in any respect. Although ‘settler-colonial’ is controversial in pro-Israel quarters, before the word attained negative connotations, many Zionists freely used the word ‘colonisation’. The Zionist leader Leo Motzkin for instance: “Our thought is that the colonisation of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country.”

 

[RexRex]

For the sake of full disclosure, you are quoting Alan Dershowitz, who is or was a law professor not a historian. He is also a controversial figure but people can do their own research into him.

Leaving this aside, it does not change the thrust of the argument: the inequitable allocation of territory proposed by the partition plan. I also think there is a bigger omission in my original post, which I will come to. The Negev was of strategic interest and its Jewish population was less than one per cent. And if we are going to start discussion quality of land, then there is an argument to say the best lands were given to Israel - most of the fertile coastal plains and all of interior plains. This covered most of the citrus producing areas - citrus was the key export at the time. I therefore stand by original point that the distribution was unjust.

Alan Dershowitz is not some crank though. Sure he's pro-Israel but he's a Harvard professor and trained in the art of dealing with facts. His own books are based on the works of Israeli and other historians, so he doesn't make stuff up as you try to imply here.

Again, Palestinians/Arab States vowed to never agree on ANY partition plan. ANY. They refused to accept the very existence of a Jewish state. So your point about unjust land distribution is pointless and irrelevant to our discussion. Edward Said later regretfuly said that Arabs should have presented their own partition plan.

On the settler point, in comparison with the partition of India, I repeat what I wrote elsewhere. A majority of Muslims - indeed millions and millions of Muslims - already lived in the areas that eventually made up Pakistan. They were not settlers or colonisers in any respect. Although ‘settler-colonial’ is controversial in pro-Israel quarters, before the word attained negative connotations, many Zionists freely used the word ‘colonisation’. The Zionist leader Leo Motzkin for instance: “Our thought is that the colonisation of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country.”

Israelis may have freely used the word 'colonisation' but the fact remains that they did not 'conquer' Palestine with swords or guns; they legally purchased land from existing Arab and Turk landlords of that time. Colonisation implies the use of force and weapons. Whereas with Pakistan, we know for sure that the religion of Islam came in to India through the method of military conquest.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

By delaying ceasefire , Israel is just waiting for a disaster