I have to wonder what brownie points thinks he is winning by saying, "But let Israel take care of "THEIR" Palestinian problem and everyone throws a fit."
Exactly, its the miserable, inhumane, and unjust way the Israel treats the Palestinian people that has the world up in arms about Israeli. The world has ignored the stench coming from Israel for too long as it is and now the world is finally waking up that this mistreatment by Israel has got to stop.
As the world already knows, only two ways forward, either a separate viable Palestinian State or assimilate the Palestinians into Israel will full voting rights and proper compensation.
And my guess is, in future peace talks, Hamas will have a seat at the table regardless if Israel likes it or not.
So much fail in a single post. You really need to read some history rather than waste everyone's time spouting off your particularly inaccurate form of propaganda and revisionism. Sure you have an agenda, but why not not keep the discussion within the bounds of what actually is the case and what led up to the current circumstances?
1. The occupants of the geographical area that is the State of Israel was not homogeneous in terms of racial or religious orientation nor in the cultural makeup. It was a mixture of Christian, Jewish and Muslim inhabitants.
2. There was no "Palestine," nor did anyone, including the inhabitants of the Palestine administrative region or of Trans-Jordan, the two legally defining governance bodies coming from the British Mandate For Palestine, nor the countries that boundaried that area, nor even the subsequent groups that fought to destroy the Israeli state, NOBODY considered there was or ever would be a "Palestinian" state or claim to nationhood.
Here we start understanding how little LEGAL claim the so called "Palestininans" have in their ever so violent efforts to wrest control of a land that never was considered to be self-governing to begin with.
From Wiki,
The
British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the
Palestine Mandate and the
British Mandate of Palestine, was a
legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the
League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.
[1] The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft
Covenant of the League of Nations and the
San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal
Allied and associated powers after the First World War.
[1] The mandate formalised
British rule in
Palestine from 1923–1948. With the League of Nations' consent on 16 September 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas,
Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous
Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from Hijaz, in accordance with the
McMahon Pledge of 1915.
[1] Transjordan was exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home.
[2][1] The preamble of the mandate declared:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the
declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
[3]
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct
Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."
[4]
3. After World War II, spurred by the genocide against Jews of Europe, when things finally started moving forward toward implementing the actual formation of a State of Israel, there was a massive effort to legally purchase land in the British administered area. No one was thrown out in the process, they were bought out with cold, hard cash.
4. Even as the State of Israel was conceived as a Jewish homeland, it never was going to be a nation that was exclusively Jewish. How could it be? The land represented not only the history of the Jews, but also the Christians and the Muslims. NOTHING was planned to eliminate the diversity of belief,
unlike what occurs in nations under Islamic theocracy.
5. The areas surrounding the British Mandate also had large populations of Jews and Christians living among the Muslims. It is important to note that. As populations were shifted by the tides of war the population mix included more and more Jews.
What came next? Again from the same Wiki reference -
The Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence on 14 May. The
State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognised by the
Soviet Union, the United States, and many other countries, but not by the surrounding Arab states. Over the next few days, approximately 700 Lebanese, 1,876 Syrian, 4,000 Iraqi, 2,800 Egyptian troops
invaded Palestine.
[99] Around 4,500 Transjordanian troops, commanded by 38 British officers who had resigned their commissions in the British army only weeks earlier (commanded by General
Glubb), invaded the
Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs (in response to the Haganah's
Operation Kilshon[100]), as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel. The partition plan required that the proposed states grant full civil rights to all people within their borders, regardless of race, religion or gender.
6. With this first war against the new State of Israel, TWO populations were displaced.
The first, the antecedents of the so called "Palestinians" in the new nation, a PORTION of the local Muslim population, left to avoid the fighting and to seek refugee status in one of the surrounding Muslim dominated regions. MANY stayed, endured the birthing pain, and are and have been part of Israel's subsequent history. It is important to note that NO ONE was forced to leave by the new Israeli State.
The second, the Christians and the Jews in the surrounding areas, were FORCED to leave THEIR homes, businesses and farms in the subsequent period. Their land and goods were confiscated and they have as much claim as anyone in such circumstances. Yet, who cries for them?
7. The original refugees, their children, their grand children, even their great-grandchildren have not lived in the area they vacated for 65 years. None of them own property there, most never did own the properties they vacated. They have no personal connection to it any more than any descendant of an emigrant has to that relative's place of origin.
8. Getting back to LL's contention that the State of Israel must be taken apart by the repatriation of these voluntary refugees and all of their millions of descendants, that is no solution at all.
These masses of people have settled and done what they would for 65 years. They have made a place for themselves, however inadequate, that has been home for longer than most any of us have been alive.
It is time for them to build where they sit, not pine for a place that their grandparents abandoned decades before they themselves were born.
Admittedly, they have done a piss-poor job, they are the worst of neighbors and the most corrupt and self-centered of populations in the world. But that seems to be the fate of all who grow used to living off welfare and the misplaced generosity of others rather than their own labor.
9. Why fight for land that cannot be shared with any chance of success by those that would claim it as their right after 65 years? Where would all of the millions of current residents go? Would those who were displaced by the Muslim governments also be able to reclaim their lost land and 65 years of lost use?
We need an out of the box solution. There is plenty of land that can become a real home for a New Palestine. Unlike the Zionists, the Palestinians are not going to buy their homeland. They will have to be given it in another fit of generosity by someone elses money.
How about it, George Soros? Put your money where your mouth is and give half your fortune to buying a country for Palestinians, sorry lot that they are. I continue to suggest Africa, a land of opportunity with plenty of land for sale.
10. As mentioned by Zebo above, there are two major Palestinian (Gaza and West Bank population) factions at war with Israel, each claiming to represent the Palestinian cause each willing sacrifice the weak and the helpless to enrich themselves.
Hamas is currently the more adamant that the State of Israel must be destroyed and all Jews liquidated at approximately the same time they would destroy their Palestinian rivals, Fatah.
The Fatah umbrella group, with their own, somewhat slower plan to eliminate Israel and the Jews, is willing to make accommodations, even as they fight the Hamas for ruling power and thus the flow of your generous donations.
That just happen to flow to personal Swiss bank accounts à la Arafat, one of the greatest thieves in modern history. Think of what all those BILLIONS of dollars could have done for the Palestinian refugees if Arafat and then his successors hadn't stolen them for their personal enrichment. Think how much better off the Palestinians would be if they actually ever saw the donated cash and trade goods flowing to the Hamas and Fatah used for relief and economic development rather than weapons and personal enrichment. Why don't you point THAT out when you urge support of these criminal enterprises, LL?
Let's not forget the other players in the mix, paragons of human rights? Iran, along with their puppets Hamas and Hizballoh, with plans to conquer the rest of the Islamic world right after they destroy Israel. Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabism, the scourge of moderation. Turkey, ever tempted by Islamic radicalism, now intent on rejecting the secularism that distinguished them. NONE of them have any record of supporting human rights in their own regimes, but LL and buddies dare to point to Israel as the most democratic and tolerant nation in the region as a singular offender. Ludicrous.
There are possible solutions, certainly not the "destroy Israel" proposals laid out by LL and buddies, but they will come only from enlightened leadership. And such leadership is not apparent in the violence bent Palestinian factions, not in the least. Until it is, it is best for them to be isolated as pariahs and not blame any nation that seeks relief from the insanity they bring. And that includes Egypt and Jordan and not just Israel.
Facebook
Twitter