Palestinians doubt two-state deal

[subsuelo]

Israel's strategy in negotiations could force the Palestinians to abandon their goal of a two-state solution, a top Palestinian negotiator says.

Ahmed Qurei says they may instead seek a binational solution, that is a single state for Israelis and Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr Qurei told a meeting of the ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank that the Palestinian leadership had been working to establish a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

"If Israel continues to reject this and prevent us from achieve our choice, we will call for the alternative solution for the Palestinian people and their leadership - that is a single binationalist state," he said.
..

The US got behind the two-state formula in 2002, but subsequently it also supported Israel's goal of retaining land beyond the 1967 borders where Israel has settled large populations of its citizens.

BBC - read more

[subsuelo]

1. Two-state is already dead

Time to face the reality and start working out details of the Single State.

Now what to do with all those native Palestinians forced into reservation camps?

[sabbat hunter]

3. Single state

means Israel is dead.

[LeftishBrit]

4. And very likely that many Palestinians are dead, too.

The alternative possibility is that such a 'single state' is controlled and policed tightly by foreign peacekeepers. Even if this could be arranged, a return to de facto colonialism - which this would be - doesn't seem like the most progressive of solutions

The Palestinian negotiator was not saying that a two-state solution *can't* happen; but that certain actions by the Israelis might prevent it. It was a threat - "Your actions may prevent peace from ever happening!" - rather than a recommendation.

[subsuelo]

9. My position is just one step beyond that statement.

That Israeli actions already have prevented a two-state solution. The article posted is just another example that One State is the reality, despite what anybody wants or advocates or supports.

Better to accept that reality now, and focus on what to do about it.

[LeftishBrit]

13. I don't see how they have prevented a two-state solution

If a two-state solution was possible in 1992, it's still possible. Just a bit more difficult, because of more settlements to disband.

[subsuelo]

23. Would you not agree then ...

that at some point, a two-state solution will no longer be workable, if the trends continue (more land grabs by Israel and dead end peace talks)?

[LeftishBrit]

24. I think it will become more difficult

However my view is: whatever may be the arguments about settlements that were created before Oslo, any created *since then* can clearly be disbanded in a peace agreement, because the settlers *knew* that a two-state solution was being considered. (I think many earlier ones can and should be disbanded as well, but it's more clear-cut with the recent ones). Therefore there is no difference between now and 1992 in terms of the principles of a two-state solution, though the logistics on the Israeli side may become more difficult in terms of more people needing to be relocated and compensated.

Moreover, I think the same argument could have been used about many other situations: the end of the British Empire; the dissolution of the Soviet Union (OK, maybe that's a bad example at the moment!); the unification of Germany. Countries do change their boundaries, sometimes after decades or even centuries; and the logistics are often difficult - but if people want it to happen, it can happen.

[wurzel]

8. Not if the Jews maintain political power. How about this solution?

Suppose the Palestinians are given a choice. They can leave and be compensated by the countries largely responsible for this mess. Europe, Britain, USA and Arab Opec countries. Each family will become an instant citizen of one of these countries and given money to settle there. For the Palestinians that choose to stay and be Israeli citizens, the Jews and Arabs could come to an agreement like the early US Southern States did. That is and Arab vote counts for 3/5 of a vote type formula. So that while there is always Arab representation in government they can never be the majority. Meanwhile the Jews agree to true equality under the law for Arabs. And agree that the Dome of the Rock Mosque will stand where it is in perpetuity as a symbol of this covenant.

[azurnoir]

14. Diaspora or Jim Crow?

The first is exactly what what right wingers in Israel and other places want, with emphasis on Palestinians going to OPEC countries, and the second?

[wurzel]

17. Do you have a better solution?

The Palestinians have to face the fact they have lost. I named ALL the countries that should be involved not just OPEC. But the choice is still that of the Palestinians if they choose to go or stay. You are right to be concerned about "Jim Crow" for those who stay . That is why Palestinians must be guaranteed totally equal citizenship with Jews. No "separate but equal stuff".

I have no faith in the good intentions of the Israeli-Jews. But make no mistake they intend to take it all and they will. For a people that has lost their country by conquest it is the best the Palestinians can get. If the Palestinians could win their country back they are entitled to use any means to do so. Without the totally hypocritical label "terrorist". But they can't. They get just enough help from the other Arabs to keep them where they are. Who from time to time find the plight of the Palestinians politically convenient.

And this totally cruel and phony illusion that the Israelis will ever allow a sovereign Palestinian State simply allows the situation to go on and on, and get worse and worse. And the Palestinians will continue to live in the most miserable conditions the Israelis can inflict on them. If you have a better realistic solution I'd like to see it.

Actually the "Dome of the Rock" clause would be completely unacceptable to the Israeli rightwingers.

[LeftishBrit]

16. You think the Palestinians would accept that?

If the Arabs only have 3/5 of a vote how would there ever be equality under the law?

'They can leave and be compensated by the countries largely responsible for this mess. Europe, Britain, USA and Arab Opec countries. Each family will become an instant citizen of one of these countries and given money to settle there'

Even if they were willing to do so - do you seriously think that the countries in question will give the Palestinians 'instant citizenship and money to settle'? Knowing the anti-immigrant bigotry of Britain and other Europaean countries, I'm giving a hollow laugh here. Britain was even rejecting Iraqi asylum-seekers, after we'd helped to create the mess there. And we know how wonderfully the Arab OPEC countries have always treated the Palestinians.

No, there is no way that *at present* a single state could work, without serious injustice to one or more likely both main groups. Maybe one day. But not yet, without a bloodbath.



No

[wurzel]

29. Do they have a choice?

All Israeli laws made would apply equally to all citizens. Period. No exceptions. Written into the constitution. The Israelis-Jews cannot accept an Arab majority in government. That is a given. But they will still have to deal with a huge number of Arab citizens who have a vote and the law. And perhaps if the Israelis actually got the whole country they may begin to act like human beings. Nothing else is going to make them.

These outside countries have to accept their responsibility for the mess through the UN. And if it ended the cause of most of the M.E. conflict today it might be worth it to them. We are talking oil here. The OPEC countries have been able to treat the Palestinians the way they have because of the political fiction of the "promise" of Palestinian State. Without it the leverage is gone. In any case it is the choice of the Palestinians to decide whether to trust the OPEC Arabs or the Israeli-Jews.

The "serious injustice" has already been done. The Palestinians have lost their land. Period. And the "Sovereign Palestinian State" is, and always has been, a cruel hoax from the start. Now it can no longer be sustained. Israeli behavior has made that very clear. No matter what they say.

So for the Palestinians there is no real choice. What they have to think about is their grandchildren. They cannot continue to bring their future grandchildren into the kind of life their grandparents are living today. They are a defeated people. They have to make the best deal they can get. Full citizenship given to the defeated by a conquering people has no historical precedent. If you think they can get a better deal for the next generation then share it.

[pelsar]

39. Lebanon II?

your "plan" is a version of Lebanon...setting the seeds for a massive civil war....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. Would that be acceptable for

the Jewish people who were the latecomers to the land?

[wurzel]

40. I don't know what you mean by "latecomers to the land".

The Jewish people are mostly "latecomers to the land".

[ProgressiveMuslim]

50. Exactly. Would shipping them all elsewhere be an option?

Since they are latecomers and all...

[wurzel]

57. You have no argument from me on that. If it was possible.

But the cuckoos have taken over the nest.

[Behind the Aegis]

58. So you support ethnic cleansing of Jews?

:shrug:

[wurzel]

72. No. I support giving Palestine back to the Palestinians.

Including Palestinian Jews.

[Behind the Aegis]

80. So you support a "limited" ethnic cleansing?

Does this this also mean you would support removing Arabs who aren't Palestinian? What about Darfur refugees who have settled in Israel?

In short, you are basically calling for the destruction/dismantling of Israel, correct?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vegasaurus]

60. Wow.

Imagine the hue and cry if someone started talking honestly about forced removal and ethnic cleansing of Arabs.

Just wow.

I hope the mods see those two posts, because they must be against the rules.

[LeftishBrit]

65. Post 8 *did* suggest (possibly voluntary, but still..) ethnic cleansing of Arabs

That's probably what gave rise to the other posts. Interestingly, that post was not by a pro-Israel poster.

[wurzel]

73. The "ethnic cleansing of Arabs" has already occurred.

The West Bank is the equivalent of doing house cleaning and putting things you can't get rid of but don't want to see again in the cellar.

[subsuelo]

78. Israel even dump sewage on them n/t

[oberliner]

84. Israel dumps sewage on them?

A tad hyperbolic, don't you think?

[oberliner]

83. There are over a million Arabs living in Israel nt

[LeftishBrit]

85. Already occurred? Then how come the percentage of Israeli Arabs in the population is INCREASING?

[number6]

67. talking,..? Israel has done it.

nf

[Behind the Aegis]

69. What a load of propaganda BULLSHIT.

Oh wait..are you talking about when they ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jews?!

[number6]

126. you know its not "propaganda BULLSHIT"

and you know it happened...

"ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jews", you mean moving them off property they squatted on and
took from Palestinian Arabs

[Behind the Aegis]

130. Oh but it is.

and you know it is propaganda, lies, and BULLSHIT. Then again, it fits your hate narrative against Israel, so no amount of truth will persuade you. As for the Gaza "squatters", do check your history book. Jews were there for a long time and forced out during the occupation by EGYPT.

[wurzel]

74. Rules?? Did you actually read your own post?

"Imagine the hue and cry if someone started talking "honestly" about forced removal and ethnic cleansing of Arabs".

It has been talked about dishonestly for years.

[oberliner]

76. You think that the Jews should be shipped elsewhere?

With the exception of whatever Jews were living there before Israel was declared a state?

Am I understanding correctly?

[oberliner]

77. Shipping the Jews elsewhere?

Would you actually support something like that?

Hopefully I am misunderstanding.

[Vegasaurus]

82. I find this disturbing on so many levels

some kind of "progressive".

This kind of thinking, of "shipping Jews elsewhere" or "giving the land back to the Palestinians" scares me.

Sounds like support of either mass ethnic cleansing or mass extermination.

[LeftishBrit]

66. Not acceptable for either group, so back to the drawing board, I'd say!

And neither Jews nor Arabs are 'latecomers to the land' - but even if they were, both groups are there now; and it's important to come up with solutions that take that into account.

[oberliner]

5. Can you describe what this single state ought to look like in your opinion?

Also, how do you envision Israelis and Palestinians being able to work out the details of a single state when neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian leadership desires such an agreement?

[subsuelo]

7. No, I really can't

I'd like to re-state my position before any further discussion if you don't mind.

This isn't about what I 'advocate' or about my support for "One State" or anything to do with my opinion on what's best. I get a lot of responses to my comments regarding the single state situation that show a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. As if I'm here advocating or supporting a One-State 'solution' over Two-State. As if I'm arguing one is better than the other. So, once and for all, for those who are capable of overcoming that misunderstanding, I'm not doing that. I'm not advocating one state, in fact I'm not advocating anything really, other than being honest with the situation as it has become.

So if I'm not advocating "One State", then what am I doing? I'm simply stating the reality that has unfolded on the ground right now. It is headed for a single state in my view, and in fact it already is a single state. There is one established State in the region, Israel, and there are two large reservation camps. There will not be two-states, because it is too late. Israel has captured too much land beyond it's borders, and there will be no agreement as to how much of that captured land Israel can keep. Israel will keep taking more and more and Palestinians will be asked to 'compromise' with less and less. So it's not that I advocate or support anything here. It's just a statement of the reality as I see it, and furthermore I believe others ought to start seeing it too whether we like it or not, lest we continue grasping to some dream that has now passed us by. The question we ought to be placing our attention to right now is what to do with the reality of a single state and two large reservation camps.

So when you ask how do I envision the details, that's pretty much the question that I believe we all ought to be focused on, rather than pretending that the impossible is still going to be achieved some day in the distant future.

[Vegasaurus]

18. Hate to break it to you, Subsuelo

but the status quo, of your single state and two reservation camps, will be the way it is, unless there is a massive war.

It may be hard to swallow, but the Israelis aren't giving up their country, even if it seems unjust to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians could have, and still could have a state.

But they aren't having the state of Israel, not without a bloodbath,

So, the current reality may continue to be the reality, until something awful happens.

That's the true reality.

[subsuelo]

21. Did you read a single word I wrote?

[Vegasaurus]

27. Every word

You are still denying the reality.

Your single state is the death of Israel (and of a lot of Jews and Palestinians).

Sorry that I don't agree that death and destruction is a good way to "solve" this conflict.

Two states is looking unlikely, more because of the infighting between Fatah and Hamas than anything Israel is doing.

If anything, we could end up with three states.

[oberliner]

25. Here is my response as to what we ought to be focused on

I think that we ought to be focused on supporting those Israelis and Palestinians who promote changing the status quo that you describe into one that involves two states - one of them being an independent Palestinian state created more or less along the lines of the 1967 borders with some adjustments agreed to by both parties.

I do not believe that you can definitively claim that "there will be no agreement" regarding the specifics about any kind of land swap or other similar compromise. I do not believe that a two-state solution is impossible. In fact, I believe that it is the only workable solution to this long-standing conflict.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Great post! ITA!

[subsuelo]

36. oberliner, there was a time I would have agreed wholeheartedly

I'm simply of the opinion that a workable two-state deal has passed us by, and that it's time to start dealing with the reality of a single state.

What will be done with these two large reservation camps filled with millions of native people?

[oberliner]

41. I still would like to know what your dream or vision is

You have often asked the question that you pose above. I would like to know what you think should be done regarding the West Bank and Gaza.

[subsuelo]

42. Full return to 67 borders and 2 state plan worked out

[wurzel]

119. What is is about Israeli behavior that gives you such a hope?

I think the Israelis have made it abundantly clear the they will never allow a Palestinian state to come into existence. The rest of the world has made it clear they couldn't care less about a Palestinian state. It may be "workable". But it is not going to happen. It has been a cruel and cynical hoax from the beginning. And the current condition of the Palestinians is largely due to this illusion.

[Dick Dastardly]

28. How so?

I'm simply stating the reality that has unfolded on the ground right now. It is headed for a single state in my view, and in fact it already is a single state. There is one established State in the region, Israel, and there are two large reservation camps. There will not be two-states, because it is too late. Israel has captured too much land beyond it's borders, and there will be no agreement as to how much of that captured land Israel can keep. Israel will keep taking more and more and Palestinians will be asked to 'compromise' with less and less. So it's not that I advocate or support anything here. It's just a statement of the reality as I see it, and furthermore I believe others ought to start seeing it too whether we like it or not, lest we continue grasping to some dream that has now passed us by. The question we ought to be placing our attention to right now is what to do with the reality of a single state and two large reservation camps.

Israel left Gaza so there is less land overall that is part of a settlement than before. The settlements in the WB occupy less than 3% of the WB

so
How is it a reality that has unfolded? How has the 2 state passed by? Can you show us your reasoning of the facts that made you conclude all this? Just stating it without your factual reasoning behind it maens nothing.

Text

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Israel controls far more than 3% of the West Bank...

If you can find a more recent map that shows Israel controls only 3% of the West Bank, I'd like to see it...

Map of Jewish Settlements in the the West Bank, May 2002

As appears from the map, while the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank.

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

[wurzel]

95. At last a voice of reason. I was beginning to despair.

I think the Palestinians have to accept they have lost. And make the best deal they can for their grand children. But they have the right to full support from the Europeans, Americans, and the OPEC Arabs that are guilty of contributing to the sorry mess these people are in. My feelings are the best they can hope for is full legal Israeli citizenship equal to that of Jews (but with certain voting restrictions), or financial and legal help to move elsewhere. The illusion of a Palestinian State is, and always has been, a cruel and cynical hoax. The truth is, and always has been, the Israelis will never allow it. They want it all. They hold all the cards. Under the guise of "negotiations" and "agreements" the Israelis will continue to chip away at the West Bank. And continue to make life more and more miserable and humiliating for the Palestinians who continue to resist while the rest of the world looks the other way.

But in spite of the propaganda to brand these people as "terrorists", the Palestinians continue to have the sympathy of many people, and could make a case for themselves in the UN. Everyone knows they have been shamefully treated. That they are the real victims. They must play on this guilt the same way the Jews rightly played on it after WW11. I see no other real option.

[Vegasaurus]

96. Oh, so the Palestinians are like Holocaust survivors, is that what you are saying?

Do you need a history lesson, or two or three?

There were six million Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust.

Fewer than 10,000 Palestinians have been killed in 60 years of ongoing war with Israel, a war that THEY started.

Meanwhile, their population has increased 30% in ten years.

I will show you some photographs of the skeletons of barely alive Jews when the camps were liberated, and we'll compare them to the (fat) "starving" Palestinians.

Your hyperbole and lack of knowledge knows no bound.

[wurzel]

103. It is not "history" to me.

These events took place during my lifetime. With personal experiences I don't care to share with you.

Jews were not the only people to die in the holocaust. And they weren't "slaughtered", they were murdered.

Terrible things happened to people during WW11, and not just to Jews.

10,000 people dead is a lot of people, even if they were only "Palestinians". And since they have already been replaced in the last ten years why even bother to mention them?

I don't recall saying anything about "starving" Palestinians. Nor did I mention the holocaust. Do you actually take the trouble to read a post before you mouth off?

I did suggest in my post the Palestinians today and the Jews in Europe in the 1930s have something in common. Which is quite obviously the case. And with all your knowledge you must know what that is. So why the stupid ranting?

[Vegasaurus]

104. You said "Jews AFTER WW II"

which means post Holocaust.

The 1930's is not AFTER the war, so I don't know what you are talking about, and clearly neither do you.

Jews were not the only people to die in the Holocaust but they were systematically murdered (six million of them), nearly annihilating worldwide Jewry. You do know that, don't you?

Just how are the Palestinians like the Jews of WWII?

And are you pulling the "Israelis are Nazis" card?

[wurzel]

108. Can you read? Why are you so hysterical?

What I actually wrote was: "They must play on this guilt the same way the Jews rightly played on it after WW11." Ask yourself: What was the guilt? And who were the guilty? Did you read the word "rightly" in the sentence? Clearly you have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about. What this has to do with "pulling the Israelis are Nazis card" is beyond me. I don't recall mentioning the Nazis either. You seem to see all kinds of things that are not in the text. I think it best I just ignore your posts until you have demonstrated you can read and have the common courtesy of paying attention to the post. Especially when it was not addressed to you to begin with. And frankly till you learn some manners.

[Vegasaurus]

117. Ignore all you like

As long as you post with ignorance, I will continue to respond and correct your fallacies.

Whether you read what I write or not is of no concern to me.

I just present facts.

[Vegasaurus]

6. I know this is your favorite meme

but in stating so you realize that you are calling for the obliteration of Israel, don't you>?

Because that's what a single state means.

Dead Jews (and dead Palestinians), and no more Israel.

Would you like to describe how you envision two warring peoples "working out the details" when the Palestinian leadership is still calling for the destruction of Israel?

How do you see them "working out the details" when an Israeli takes his life in his hands just going for a hike near Palestinian territory?

[subsuelo]

10. I'm not "calling for" anything.

Just stating the reality, like it or not.

[Vegasaurus]

11. You haven't answered the questions

How will two warring peoples "work out the details"?

Seriously, how do you see this single state working, if not for the bloodbath that the realists here see.

I don't think you are really calling for a bloodbath, but that is the reality of a single state.

Like it or not.

[subsuelo]

12. What you are asking is what we should all be asking

That's my only point

[Vegasaurus]

19. To half the people that matter, it's a non-question

That's the reality.

Israelis aren't giving up their state.

[subsuelo]

20. Then why keep stealing more and more from the Palestinians?

If a single state is to be avoided at all costs, why keep stealing the land?

[azurnoir]

106. Wow just wow

To half the people that matter, it's a non-question

what a statement, kind of says it all for at least one poster, only half the people in this conflict actually matter the other mmfff.....

[eyl]

111. Your parsing leaves much to be desired

Your point would stand if the original line had read "To the half of the people that matter" - which it didn't

[Vegasaurus]

121. Try not misreading, why don't you

The fact is that Israelis are HALF of the people in this conflict.

They have a state.

They aren't giving up their state without a major war.

So whatever you have to say about it really makes not a bit of difference, since you aren't in either half, and certainly not the half that stands to lose their state under the idiotic "single state" theory.

[azurnoir]

124. And which half are you in? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

123. I don't think anyone was saying that only 'half of the people matter'

What was said was that it's a non-question to half OF the people that matter. Rather different.

In any case, I would say that, unless one has a solution in mind, it's a non-question to virtually ALL the people that matter.

[cali]

26. your opinion is not reality. Why so many people can't grasp that

is an enduring mystery- and an enduring problem.

[subsuelo]

35. No, I am stating the reality.

There is one established State in the region. If you are counting more than that, you need help with math.

One state, two large reservation camps. That is reality. Not opinion.

[Vegasaurus]

37. Yes, there is one Jewish state

and two Palestinian territories.

That is true.

And if the Palestinian leadership doesn't get its act together any time soon, that is all there will ever be.

But there is not ONE STATE for Jews and Palestinians to live in together.

Not now, and maybe not ever, without perhaps the biggest bloodbath this world has ever seen.

[azurnoir]

15. The destruction of Israel

caused by Palestinians along with Palestinians calling calling for the destruction of Israel is your favorite meme, and you know that is what anticivilrights/antidesegrigation people claimed in America back in the '50's and early '60's, "give them Negro's equality and it will destroy America", but looks like we're still here to me. Same thing in South Africa where whites were seriously outnumbered, but did that bloodbath ever happen? No it did not,what did happen is change, one group was no longer top dog.

[Vegasaurus]

22. It's great fun to try to compare your "apartheids"

But there are very few similarities between the situation with the anti-civil rights of blacks in the US and the Palestinians' issues.

I don't remember near constant terrorism by blacks towards whites.

I don't remember black people talking about annihilating the US, killing all the white people and taking the US over as their own country.


So quit the nonsense, will you?

[azurnoir]

43. LOL I missed this gem

Your memory is as usual convenient to say the least, there was little threat of terrorism by Blacks because Blacks were seriously outnumbered and Whites were doing the terrorizing that was early on. When there was a threat of changing demographics a little thing called the "Alabama Appendectomy" was introduced estimates run that between 1/4 and 1/3 of prepubescent Black girls were sterilized via this "programn". Now to bring it to modern times the civil rights movement met with resistance yes but from the end of WW2 in 1945 which could be when the modern movement began to the signing of the civil rights act in 1964 only 19 years passed and Blacks were US citizens so there were legal rights to begin with, not so for Palestinians, whose situation has remained for 60 years and counting since the beginning of their struggle when they were expelled from their homes, had the US acted differently we may well have terrorist acts not to mention another civil war.

[Vegasaurus]

48. There are 4.5 million Palestinian refugees

from an original 800,00 (+/-) original refugees (similar to the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries).

The fact that the continue to live in refugee camps for 60 years can be blamed on many countries, peoples, etc.

There is no reason that they should still be living like this, but for the fact that they have not been allowed to resettle in most Arab countries either (or have been expelled, as in Iraq) or have been treated worse in those countries (ex: kept in dangerous and squalid refugee camps and can't even work in Lebanon) than anywhere.

Pre-civil rights was truly a dark time in American history, but it wasn't aided and abetted by all of the African nations, which is the true analogy to the Palestinian situation.

[Phx_Dem]

51. Here is one Palestinian refugee that understands some of the

problems with resettling:

"Most Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanon are not concerned about returning to Palestine or to Israel because we have been outside of Palestine for 60 years," Rami Abdel Rahim, a 26 year-old Palestinian living in London, said.

"If we returned to the Palestinian territories, we would feel like second class citizens," he added. "We have different accents. We don't have any homes in West Bank and Gaza. For us, it will be more desirable to live in Arab countries and Europe," he explained.

"No one wants to live there, not because we don't like our country Palestine, but because we can't live there," Rahim added. If we all went, it would destroy the Palestinian economy. If we got an opportunity to live in Europe, we would enjoy a good standard of life. We can visit Palestine," he said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3389381,00.html

A one state solution would exacerbate the economic disparities between Israelis and Palestinians even further, if Israel and the OTs became one country, who do you suppose would be able to purchase property and homes that run 200-500 sq/ft? Probably not many Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

79. So now we're back to they're all Arabs so what's the

dif, gee why don't those other Arabs just absorb them? Why has India not just absorbed the Tibetans?
Your "premise" is a simple rewording of why don't they just go elsewhere? That coupled with the favorite excuse of well Arabs treat them worse that the Israeli government; read that makes anything Israel does OK.

Now your second point: "Pre-civil rights was truly a dark time in American history, but it wasn't aided and abetted by all of the African nations, which is the true analogy to the Palestinian situation."

Maybe you were unaware but most of Africa was under colonial rule both before and during the civil rights era making that a moot point, not to mention that Blacks are American citizens unlike Palestinians who are neither Israeli citizens or citizens of any other country.

[aranthus]

55. No it's not.

I understand where you're coming from here, but I think that you're wrong in your assessment of the situation. It's going to be far easier to set up a separate Palestinian state than it is to have a single state that no one wants. The movement of the settlers out of the West Bank is not something to be thought of lightly, but it is not impossible to do, just very costly (in money and probably lives). A single state would be even more costly, and the people of the region know it, and don't want it. None of the issues (borders, settlers, water, Jerusalem), nor all of them combined is as expensive as a single state is going to be. So there will be two states.

As a matter of curiosity, where do you stand on whether one or two states would be a better resolution? I understand you think one state is inevitable, but if it wasn't, which would you prefer?

[number6]

68. Israel destroyed it

this was the two state solution

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story580.html

the 1947 UN partition

[eyl]

70. You ARE aware, are you not

that it was the Arabs who rejected that plan and started a war to try to avert it?

[number6]

125. yes

it was the Arabs who rejected that plan.

but thats what the 2 state plan was, there were many Arab villages in the Israeli area
and they rejected it ....

[LeftishBrit]

71. And you think that the Arabs of that time were rushing to support it?

I think that in any case we have to deal with what's possible now; not with what was done 60 years ago. But if we're going to invoke history, let's not totally rewrite it.

[aranthus]

86. The truth from Arab lips

Before Israel even declared its independence, Jamal Husseini (The Mufti's brother), the Palestinian representative to the UN, told the Security Council, "The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19.

The truth is that the Palestinians started the war that cost them a state. More to the point of the thread, why would the original plan make a two state solution possible, but the current proposed boundaries would would not?

[Violet_Crumble]

88. I'm guessing this *truth* came from some pro-Israel website?

It's just that I haven't encountered many people who have access to security council meetings from that far back. I'm assuming that you wouldn't just post a snippet without reading it in context, so could you post the quote in some context?

[aranthus]

90. Let's cut to the chase.

First, the quote is on the Jewish Virtual Library site in Mitchell Bard's "Myths and Facts". Yes it's a pro-Israel site. However, he's a reputable historian, and I have not seen any evidence that the quote is fabricated. As to context. While it is certainly possible that context could change the meaning of the quote (they may have been talking about who started one particular battle, rather than the entire war), the substance of the quote suggests otherwise. In particular, Husseini states that, "We told the whole world that we were going to fight." That is not suggestive of referencing only one battle, especially given Husseini's position, but rather references the Palestinian and Arab threats to contest partition by force.

Okay, now to the chase. Rather than nitpicking a single quote (posted for effect admittedly), let's deal with substance. Whom do you contend started the war--the Jews or the Palestinians? If you believe it was the Jews, post some evidence instead of simply nitpicking that of others. You don't like the Husseini quote? Fine. Here's another historical account:

"No single incident marked the transition from uneasy peace to outright hostilities. In reaction to the United nations partition resolution, Haj el Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, ordered a three-day general strike of all palestinian Arabs on November 30, 1947. that day a jewish bus was ambushed near Lydda. On December 2 Arab rioters in jerusalem attacked the main Jewish shopping center, beating shop owners and customers and starting fires which burned down most of the buildings." Trevor Dupuy, Elusive Victory, p.20. The first organized military invasion was by a unit of the ALA on January 10, 1948, which went on to attack Kfar Szold. Elusive Victory, p.22.

If you have something substantive, I'd like to see it.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. Myth: Mitchell Bard is a historian....

Truth: He's not. He's a political analyst with a PhD in Political Science. Maybe when you say 'reputable historian' yr actually meaning 'partisan propagandist who uses an overemphasisation on snippets of quotes coupled with glaring omissions to paint a non-stop picture of Israel being faultless and Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims always being to blame for everything'. He's no different than the mirror image 'historians' I've seen online that paint a version of history where Israel is always to blame and Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims are faultless.

Here's a few reasons why anyone who is interested in objective histories of the conflict should approach propagandists like Bard with a huge grain of salt. Apart from having worked for AIPAC, I have some personal experience in how uninterested his site is in correcting factual inaccuracies on their site. A few years back I got a hold of a copy of the Peel Commission's report and found that something on that site about it was incorrect. So I emailed them and pointed out that the report didn't say what they claimed it said about this particular thing, and to this day the incorrect 'fact' is still sitting there. Which is why I'd urge caution when seeing any snippets of quotes on that site..

I suspect that yr idea of substance is something very different from mine. See, I don't view insisting that people MUST blame one group or another as substantive, but just a rather simplistic need some people feel to try to paint the conflict as Good Guys vs Bad Guys. There were a lot of events and different players (interesting that in the rush to blame, the British and their 'contribution' to Palestine rarely rate a mention) involved in the build-up to war, and simply getting hung up on *who started the war* doesn't take into account the complexity of events leading up to it...

[oberliner]

105. Is this an example of you "shooting the messenger" ?

You seem more concerned with credentials over content.

Do you dispute any of Mitchell Bard's findings cited in the post above?

[Violet_Crumble]

107. No I was correcting the claim made by the poster that he's a historian....

As well as urging caution based on my own personal experience of Mitchell Bard's lack of interest in facts. Not sure at all why you'd have a problem with that.

Did you miss where I talked about the habit of some to rely heavily on omissions in order to portray a one-sided view of history? I've seen snippets of quotes from Israeli leaders used in exactly the same way in attempts to portray the conflict as one-sided in the other direction and I doubt you'd ever ask someone pointing out that one-sided and very partisan accounts full of snippets of quotes and omissions that favour a Bad Israel view of history whether they disputed any of the writers findings. So why do it when the mirror image happens?

[Hyuke4]

2. Eternal friction

I see no solution,Its like trying to fit a square pole into a round hole.There will be eternal friction until everything climaxes,snowballs,and engulfs the whole universe.
The Status quo HAS to change for any hope of peace

[pegleg]

30. It's going to be either two state or no state. There realistically is

no other option.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. Sure seems like the current gov't is intent on no state. nt

[sabbat hunter]

38. I would agree

The current Palestinian government (Hamas and Fatah) are intent on no state it seems.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. I was referring to the gov't of Israel, with its insatiable settlement expansion. nt

[sabbat hunter]

45. seems like

you could have very easily been talking about Hamas and Fatah.

[LeftishBrit]

46. The Israeli Right sometimes seems to prefer 'no state'

Hamas and Fatah sometimes seem indeed to be working toward a two-state solution - two Palestinian states!

Hopefully, cooler and wiser heads will prevail in both Israel and Palestine.

[Vegasaurus]

47. At the moment, the best we could hope for is three states nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. No, I'd argue that every gov't in power since 1967 has shown its intentions

through the ongoing settlement drive.

Those facts on the ground are hard to argue with.

You always want to assign that behavior to the "extreme right" but it's actually every party that's ever had power, wouldn't you agree?

[LeftishBrit]

52. I said the right, not the extreme right

Not all governments have been equally bad, by any means, no (e.g Rabin's wasn't). But I think all Israeli governments for a long time *have* had elements of the Right in them: either Likud governments; unity-governments including Likud; or at best Labour governments dependent on support from small right-wing parties as part of a governing coalition.

[Vegasaurus]

53. The best endorsement the "right" or "extreme right" have in Israeli politics

is the continued terrorism and violence from the militant Palestinians.

Those actions feed the "I told you so's" from the extreme right, who have been opposed to every concession that Israel has ever made, sure that they would reduce security.

In nearly every case, they have been correct.

The way to increase the power of Labor and the left wing is to see some results on the Palestinian side.

Many Israelis I know who used to favor the liberal way of thinking have also moved to the right.

[LeftishBrit]

54. I always say...

that every new settlement is a donation to Hamas' campaign to stay in power, and every kassam is a donation to Netanyahu's election campaign.

It's a vicious circle, and everyone is suffering.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

56. And so you agree that settlement expansion has been a feature of every gov't that's had power

since 1967?

Isn't it interesting, that of all the issues upon which the parties choose their coalition partners, this major stumbling block to peace has never been a deal-breaker?

I find that pretty telling. I wonder if the average Israeli gets the what that activity means for Palestinians?

I suppose the flip side of that equation could be Palestinian soft support for terrorism.

[wurzel]

59. It is the Israeli "Palestine Pac-man Policy". No "agreement" will end it.

So what real options do the Palestinians have?

[Vegasaurus]

61. They could stop their violent resistance and declare themselves a state

as they could have done 60 years ago.

There would never have been any of these problems had the Palestinians simply accepted that Jews would live in their midst.

They have always had other options, but have not exercised them,

[ProgressiveMuslim]

62. I'm curious as to what you're basing these new talking points on? nt

[Vegasaurus]

64. Same talking points I have always had

:shrug:

[wurzel]

75. Their "violent resistance" to what?

It was the Arabs that were driven from the land by the Jews. You think the Arabs just decided to "migrate" to the West Bank and Gaza?

[aranthus]

87. To Israel's existence.

What the Arabs decided is to start a war to detroy the future Israeli state and take all of Palestine for themselves. You also need to read some history other than that rewritten by the Arabs and the far Left. The truth is far different.

First to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends. Joseph Schechtman, The Refugee in the World, (NY: A.S. Barnes and Co., 1963), p. 184.

Time Magazine reported on the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) by saying: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

Benny Morris, one of the Israeli "New Historians" who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their people to leave. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: "Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts" (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).

Morris also said that in early May units of the Arab Legion reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, "tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation —— women and children first, the men following weeks later —— occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places."

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re ?enter and retake possession of their country." Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, (London: Penguin Books, 1955), p. 183.


In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

““Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”” The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387.

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies," Filastin (February 19, 1949) (published in Jordan).

"The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in." A refugee quoted in Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954).
There is much more where this came from.

40-60 thousand Arabs left of their own accord. Some (20-30 thousand) were forcibly moved. The rest (most of them) ran from battles and war zones.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. I've got no doubt there's 'much more' where that came from. Here's the link...

http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=121275

Instead of just copying and pasting snippets of quotes from partisan websites wouldn't it make much more sense to do what you urge the other poster to do, and that is to actually read some history that isn't from a partisan source?

I've got 'Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited' in front of me, and I'm going to post a couple of paragraphs from the conclusion as wherever you copied and pasted yr quotes from appears to have done so in a rather selective manner and omitted a fair bit in the process. This is from page 589:

'But if a measure of ambivalence and confusion attended Haganah/IDF treatment of Arab communities during and immediately after conquest, there was nothing ambiguous about Israeli policy, from summer 1948, toward those who had been displaced and had become refugees and toward those who were yet to be displaced, in future operations: Generally applied with resolution and, often, with brutality, the policy was to prevent a refugee return at all costs. And if, somehow, refugees succeeded in infiltrating back, they were routinely rounded up and expelled (though tens of thousands of 'infiltrators' ultimately succeeded in resettling and becoming Israeli citizens). In this sense, it may fairly be said that all 700,000 or so who ended up as refugees were compulsorily displaced or 'expelled'.

and from page 597, mainly coz the constant flow of posts that make out Israel was squeaky clean and had no nefarious intentions of its own is a bit annoying...

'Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish State. From early on he hoped that they would flee. He hinted at this in February 1948 and said so explicitly in meetings in August, September and October. But no expulsion policy was ever enunciated and Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted. He probably wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller' and he did not want his government to be blamed for a morally questionable policy. And he sought to preserve national unity in wartime.'

[aranthus]

93. No it's not.

As I stated in another post, the source is the Jewish Virtual Library. So what? If you have evidence that the site is inherently unreliable simply because it's pro-Israel, then post it. If you think the quotes are fabricated, have at it. Otherwise, yours is an empty critique.

As to Professor Morris. I don't think it is true that, "it may fairly be said that all 700,000 or so who ended up as refugees were compulsorily displaced or 'expelled'," simply because the Israelis would not let the refugees return. It's too big a stretch of the meaning of "expelled". I think it dilutes the moral sense of the word to apply expulsion to situations other than intentional removal of people by coercion. It's like saying all sex is rape; it reduces the stigma of a terrible act. Second, the idea has meaning in the sense that almost none of the Arabs would have left but for the circumstance of the war, but that doesn't tell us very much that is meaningful. Isn't that what happens in most wars? People become refugees and most don't get to return to their homes. So how is this situation different from any other war such that the Palestinians should be allowed to return? Third, you'll notice that he doesn't place responsibility for the "expulsion". Here, context is important. I contend (as do most historians of repute) that the Palestinians started the war with the Jews to prevent the emergence of a Jewish sovereignty in Palestine (whether they did so because they saw the Jews as a threat, because of antisemitism, or some other reason, is not the issue--they started a war to destroy the Israelis). That war created refugees in several ways. Note that I don't deny that the Israelis actually expelled some of the Palestinians. However, most left for other reasons than actual expulsion. The issue for me is not that the Israelis have some responsibility. Instead, it is that the lion's share of responsibility falls on the Palestinians and their Arab allies, who, for the most part, deny any responsibility at all.

As to Morris' statements of Ben Gurion's hopes. Intent is not action. Whatever his desire, the fact is that only a few thousand Arabs were forcibly expelled. Moreover, there wouldn't have been any refugees at all if the Palestinians had not started the war in the first place.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. No, it's not? Are you saying that it's not a partisan source?

I've dealt with yr 'so what?' in an earlier post.

I think Morris makes much more sense than yr attempt to blame the Palestinian refugees for being displaced and expelled. It's the not being allowed to return that's the important factor. As for claiming other people become refugees and aren't allowed to return, that doesn't tend to ring true. Many refugees will remain in the country they sought refuge in, but they are allowed to return home if they want to. A friend of mine was originally a refugee from Vietnam. While her and her family chose to remain here, they've been back to Vietnam a few times in the years since...

[aranthus]

110. No, that is not what I meant.

All I said is that it was JVL, and not the website you listed. It's from Myths and Facts. Of course it's partisan. I didn't say anywhere don't read Arab partisan websites. I just think that people should read from both sides (I don't believe there are very many non-partisans out there).

You're right, I do blame the Palestinians for the refugee status of the Palestinians. Also the Arab states and the Israelis. As Morris points out, they fled because of the war. As you also must know, Morris is not exactly on the bandwagon of blaming Israel for the refugees, nor is he a fan of letting them return. In any event, wars don't just start. Somebody starts them. The reasons for initiating violence and the circumstances that lead up to the start of a war are almost always complex, but that does not change the fact that there is an initiator of the type of violence called war. In this case it was the Palestinians more than anyone else.

As far your anecdote about your friend from Vietnam, that's very nice for her, but hardly comparable. Nor does it establish that the standard response to refugees is to resettle them elsewhere.

Now let's assume that you're correct that it is a mistake to assign blame for the refugee problem. Where does that lead us?
To what solution does that assessment point?

[wurzel]

91. Of course they wanted to destroy the future Israeli state.

If you were an Arab supporting the Palestinian Arabs wouldn't you? Of course the Arab military encouraged the civilian Arab population to leave. Do you imagine they wanted to kill their own people? They were counting on the up till then internationally recognized right of the return of refugees when hostilities cease. "Left of their own accord"? You really believe that garbage? Did the Jews that fled Russia and Germany "leave of their own accord"? Did the Irish that fled the famine "leave of their own accord"?

Just for once to imagine you are an Arab. Then read your post. You will see your own post in a very different light. If you just swallow Israeli propaganda, or Arab propaganda for that matter, without using your own God given brain you won't understand much.

There was a time when Jews were considered the "far left". So such labels don't mean much.

[pelsar]

92. arabs supporting Palestinian arabs?..wow thats a new version...

news flash: the invading arab countries of 48 werent invading for the Palestinians...they were invading to divide up the spoils of successful war against the jews....the locals arabs werent part of the equation.

i guess that also doesnt go well with the "arabs against the evil jewish israelis".....

so perhaps remind me again why jordan occupied the westbank from 48 to 67 and egypt took gaza...did they forget to give the Palestinians self rule?

[Vegasaurus]

97. Those occupations didn't matter

Arab on Arab occupation, violence, murder, etc. never has.

The only occupation that matters is anything by those evil, war-mongering, control the world type JEWS.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. What a stupid thing to say...

Of course those occupations mattered. What I suspect yr issue is is that people dare to criticise Israel for its occupation when you want them to focus solely on prior occupations and ignore what Israel is doing now....

Arab on Arab violence? Evil, war-mongering, control the world type JEWS? Yr obsession with Arabs and Jews is pretty damn creepy...

[Vegasaurus]

102. They do? Those occupations or worldwide misery or genocides perpetrated by others?

When have you ever railed on and on about any other occupation or human rights abuse besides Israel?

Considering that you have no relationship to either Arabs or Jews, I would say YOUR obsession is rather creepy.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. You expect people to 'rail on and on' about occupations long over?

And if you want to see my opposition to other occupations and human rights violations, go back to the old DU when the I/P and FA forums were combined, because I most certainly do oppose other occupations and human rights violations...

Excuse me, but you know fuck all about me or who I have relationships with, and most importantly it's none of yr fucking business. Unlike you in this forum, I don't do the rather creepy thing of conflating the terms *Israeli* with *Jew* or go on about 'Arab on Arab violence' where the ethnicity of the person is the focus rather than the motivation for the action...

[Vegasaurus]

122. Hit a nerve, I guess! NT

[Violet_Crumble]

131. Yeah, I forgot you automatically *know* everything about other DUers...

What about the concept of Mind Your Own Fucking Business are you having troubles grasping? Keep the personal shit out of it and try focusing on the conflict, which to most of the rest of us is the Israel/Palestine conflict, but to you is the Good Jews vs Evil Arabs conflict...

[Violet_Crumble]

100. The spoils of war...

While there was sympathy for and support for the Palestinians on street level in Arab countries, it didn't happen at the military level and wasn't the motivation for the invasion, as the intent was to put an end to the very recently formed Jewish state, and strangle the Arab state before it could come into being and then divvy up the territory between themselves...

[aranthus]

94. Thank you for admitting all my points.

All I have ever wanted is for the pro-Arab side to admit the historical truths that you have. I sincerely thank you for that. The difference between us, of course, is that you believe that the Palestinians and the Arab states were justified in going to war to destroy Israel, while I believe (as I think most decent people do) that the Arab attack was an unjustified war of aggression. As to the "up till then internationally recognized right of the return of refugees when hostilities cease," there certainly was no such "right" then, nor is there now. What the Arabs were counting on was winning the war, killing the Jews and having all of the land for themselves. Did the Arabs leave of their own accord? As I have said elsewhere, they did not if you mean that they would not have left except for the circumstance of the war. But since the Palestinians started the war, it would seem that are primarily responsible for their own refugee status.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

63. Violent resistance or nonviolent resistance, accompanied by world-wide sanctions, boycotts and

divestment.

I vote for the latter!

[wurzel]

112. More "baloney" slicing?

It continues to amaze me how you can insist that each of the multitude of factions must be scrupiously identified so as to excuse the rest. They are all "Israelis" enjoying the spoils aren't they?

[LeftishBrit]

113. They are groups with different political viewpoints

Do you also treat America as a monolith? Do you think that all Americans have the same view, or that it doesn't really matter what the differences are?

How can one *influence* people in the direction of political change if one isn't bothered about what the existing factions are?

[wurzel]

114. Yes . But one group is always being used to excuse another.

So the Israelis can never be held accountable because there is always a group that "disagreed" with whatever the latest outrage is. But collectively they all accept the advantages of the outrage. Including the group that "disapproved". It is called "gaming". I see no such distinctions made by Israelis between Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians. The Palestinians are collectively held accountable for any infraction by any Palestinian group. So why the double standard?

[oberliner]

115. You don't see any distinction being made by Israel between Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians?

That is a really bizarre claim.

Most have argued that Israel is treating the PA in the West Bank as almost a completely separate entity from the Hamas-led Gaza Strip.

Israel has gone out of its way to make a distinction between what it considers to be the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority (Abbas and co.) as opposed to the Haniyeh-led Hamas government.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Israel has considered Hezbollah as being indistinct from the Palestinians. They are a Lebanese group and have little to nothing to do with the Palestinian Authority.

[wurzel]

118. I am talking about this forum. Not the Israelis.

Incidentally, it is clearly in the Israelis interest to distinguish between these groups. And there is the only one reason they do it: Divide and conquer.

I have to wonder if you guys deliberately misinterpret what is being said, or you just don't really bother to read the post.

[oberliner]

120. "I see no such distinctions made by Israelis between Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians"

That is what you wrote. It certainly seems like you are talking about Israelis.

[wurzel]

127. We are combining three different posts.

If you look at the "more baloney splicing" post I was referring to the forum.

In the other posts I was making the obvious point that when it suits the Israelis to call Palestinians all "terrorists" they make no distinctions. And the retaliation is usually collective and indiscriminate. But when it suits the Israelis politically to play off one group of Palestinians against another they very carefully distinguish.

The Pro-Israeli posters on this forum do a similar thing. I frequently see Palestinians refered to collectively as "terrorists" because of something Hezbollah, or Hamas, even some individual Palestinian has done. But when the Israelis commit some outrage the pro-Israeli posters insist that the particular faction of the perpetrator be identified and blamed. (It was the Zionists, or the Likud, or the settlers, or the IDF, or the Herut, or some disturbed individual, or someone from ten other different factions the Israelis seem to have). This somehow always excuses the Israelis in general. It is a double standard I refuse to accept.

[LeftishBrit]

128. I refuse to accept such a double standard either...

but my solution is to reject this sort of 'lumping together' for Palestinians; not to use it for Israelis.

[oberliner]

129. Thanks for the clarification

Although I do not agree with your argument, I did not mean to misrepresent your views.

In my view, although citizens do often pay the price of the acts of their governments, I certainly do not think each individual citizen ought to be held responsible for those actions.

[LeftishBrit]

116. I also disagree intensely with those who equate 'Palestinians' with 'Hamas' or 'Hezbollah'!

Which incidentally is not official Israeli policy - if anything, the government may be going in for the extreme opposite: 'divide and rule' tactics. But some people do take the 'they're all the same' attitude, which I strongly condemn.

I'm an equal opportunity opponent of stereotyping and collective punishment wherever it occurs!

So I don't believe in a 'double standard'. Just one standard applied everywhere.

Moreover: if you want change, surely you want to make common cause with others who want change - which means acknowledging their existence. If people just said, "Oh, all Americans collectively accept Bush's actions; they're/ we're all the same" - how would you get anything new?