Kushner's "deal of the century" falls flat on it's face

That is so... today. But many Jews don't support that.
Historically it's their country. They feel you can put
whatever you want on their temple mount, but it's
still their mount. I marvel at how Israel respects the
desire of the Arabs to control that mount.

As an aside. In Australia more and more national
parks, rock climbing areas, water ways etc are being
claimed by Aborigines as 'sacred' and off limits to
white people. This is respected by many liberal lefties.
Same lefties feel the Jews have no connection to the
temple mount.

 

Israel was GIVEN to the Jews by President Truman to atone for the 6 million Jews that died in concentration camps during WW2. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. Truman did no such thing.

The British opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.

 

Probably never since they aren't facts! Facts and opinions are different.

 

Which one isn't a fact? Let me know and I will amend it.

 

I wonder if Americans today can GIVE land to the indigenous Indians?
It used to be Indian land many moons ago - how many years is it before
the Indians no longer own their land?

ps there were always some Jews in Palestine, for maybe 4,000 years.
The beginning of the return to Israel began in 1897 with Herzel.

 

Try, Iran is a Democratic nation!. And no voting for a list of American stooge candidates isn't a Democracy!

 

You didnt source. So there is no problem.

There would be 10 time Arabs since if the Jews didn't go ethnic cleansing to thieve their stuff.

 

Let's see who didn't pay any attention. Twice, because we've already had this conversation before.

This is what you wrote:

The report you quoted is for a period of 6 months - from December until end of May 1948. The title of the report clearly says so. It's not an analysis of all the data for the whole period of the war. Furthermore, selectively quoting a phrase - the three dots in the middle make one wonders what was left out - from a report as representing the absolute and all encompassing truth, context be damned, it's a losing proposition from start.

I'm quite sure we'll see more posts using this selective quote in the future. Not because failure to understand the critique above, but because this is the only available source - as biased and distorted as it is - for the "oy vey Arabs were ethnically cleansed to thieve their properties" fans.

 

Logical fallacy alert, and yes, this is exactly the reason why the points in my post are important. The prevalent narrative today is that bad Zionists stole Palestinians' land, as underlined by the unproven premise in the loaded sentence in your post. Proving this narrative false is important.

I beg to differ. Attacks against Israel and Jews - including vicious terror attacks - are justified by the "evil Jews stole Palestinians' land" narrative. Proving this narrative false is paramount.

Following the two world wars, 4 brand new Arab states were created for the population of the former Ottoman empire. Jordan was created by the British for the Hashemite tribe of the Arabian Peninsula, which until then knew no other home and had no place to go. Please don't tell me Arabs have nowhere else to go.

One look at contemporary events in other regions during the birth of modern Israel will show that the world actually didn't care about people who knew no other home and had no place to go being forced out of their homes by the civilized world. Focusing only on Israel and only on Arabs in Palestine is the height of hypocrisy (world's, not yours). Furthermore, this argument loses its edge when the fabled right of return is claimed for descendants of Palestinian refugees, who know no other homes than Arab countries and have no place to go.

I'm not in favor of transfer though. I don't think people should be forced to live on a territory, or to leave a territory, just because they belong to a certain community. However, the situation requires a realistic approach, and frankly one can't realistically expect sides in a conflict to act in a self destructive manner just to make an ideological point. I'm in a freakishly tight spot here.

In short, while I generally agree with the kind of "no other home" argument you're making, I'm also well aware that this argument wasn't used in any other conflict or event in or around the period of time in which modern Israel was born. Not only wasn't it used, but huge forced migrations took place without the international community batting an eye. As I said, hypocrisy at its best and brightest.

Palestinians were already given autonomy on parts of the lands they claim, pending further negotiations. To show their eternal gratitude and commitment to a durable peace, they started a war and are gifting us with random rocket attacks for 18 years (necessary reminder - the rocket attacks started several years before Hamas took over Gaza, during Fatah rule).

Yes, Israel has choices. So do Palestinians, still.

 

I didn't mention Iran. That nation is a theocracy.
If you mean IRAQ, then yes, nominally it's a democracy. Not a perfect democracy
because no country is. But it's no longer a dictatorship. Under Hussein it was the
closest an Arab nation has gotten to becoming a Totalitarian nation.
Recall that journalist who threw a shoe at Bush Jnr? If I was Bush (for starters I
wouldn't occupy an Arab country!) I would have caught the shoe and proclaimed
that now Arabs were free to insult their leaders.

 

IMO, you're trying to delegitimize Palestinians with misinformation about their history. The fact is that most Palestinians can trace a continuous family presence in Palestine back further than can most Israeli Jews. That said, I go with a provable fact that most Arabs and most Jews living in Israel know no other home and have nowhere else to go.

I'm aware of the concern you expressed because I've been confronted many times by Palestinians or their supporters with suggestions that "Jews should go back to where they came from." Well, three-quarters of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. Many have no citizenship right in any other country.

West Bank Palestinians at one time had Jordanian passports. No longer. Israel knew Jordan would withdraw those passports when it signed a peace deal with Jordan.

You don't prove the narrative false with misinformation, and Palestinians have a hard time justifying blowing up people riding a bus or eating a meal with a "they stole our land" narrative.

West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are persona non grata in other Arab countries. You may think they should be welcome, but they're not.

Fair or not, the vast majority of people living west of the Jordan River are stuck where they are.

Some Israelis unwisely talk about forcing Palestinians out if the West Bank and Gaza. I think doing something like that could present an existential threat to Israel itself.

Fair or not, hypocritical or not, we are where we are. Palestinians aren't going to put Israeli Jews in boats heading west, and Israelis are fairly well stuck with the Palestinians living west of the Jordan River. I don't think the two peoples will get along in one state.

I'm well aware of the "Three No's" and the obvious futility of that approach. Palestinians will have to make other choices if they want their own country. The "Three No's" will only get them at best a protectorate.

 

Or, they kick them out to Jordan, Lebanon and Syria to be with their brothers. Case closed.

 

No, it could be "Israel closed." Israel can go ahead and try a forced diaspora of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, but it doesn't seem like a smart move. Why risk everything when things are going well for the country.

 

They wouldn't "try". They'd be quite succesful at it.
And there isn't 5 millions palestinian refugees either. They inflate their number by adding the descendants of refugee to the original number. Those descendant have the nationality of where they were born, not the one of their parents. A descendant born in Canada or France is canadian or french not palestinian. You don't see this with other nagtionality, only the palestinian get to use this.

 

It's an Israeli source, who is indeed bias and supporting the Israeli/Jewish narrative. And you got nothing to dispute.

 

And into this clustermuck, rides Jarrod, on his gleaming horse of cash, completely ignoring the generations-old, seemingly intractable political/social and identity issues, waving promises of cash if only the Palestinians would stop being unreasonable terrorist arses and start thinking like a good real estate developer should.

Such sophomoric nonsense is ideal fodder for the citizens of trumpland. Yet another perfect example of dear leader's genius and ability to hire all the best people.

 

Please prove your assertion that most Palestinians can trace a continuous family presence in Palestine back further than most Israeli Jews. Oh, and please share your knowledge of their history, while you're at it.

Meanwhile, in the 19th century:


The above is an excerpt from a New York Times article titled Surveying Palestine. It can be downloaded and viewed offline here:
https://www.nytimes.com/1875/10/13/...ion-narrow-escape.html?searchResultPosition=1

If the Algerians mentioned in the article settled in Palestine, their descendants are pure native indigenous-from-time-immemorial Palestinians, while descendants of Jews who settled in Palestine in the same period of time are vile Zionists stealing Palestinians' lands....right?

All Iraqi Jews can trace a continuous family presence in Iraq back further than all Arabs. So what? Are Iraqi Jews a different Jewish nation, deserving a country in Iraq?

Can't you see that most of your arguments - all the arguments of the so-called pro-Palestinians - are based on the presumption that Jews, and only Jews, should be held to different standards and are expected to think and act differently from any other humans on Earth?

Jordan began revoking Palestinians' citizenship in the 80s, long before the peace treaty.

 

Did you know that Palestinian businessmen attended the conference in Bahrain? One of them was arrested by a very displeased PA upon return:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nded-bahrain-conference-haaretz-idUSKCN1TU0L7

Well...lure the best people he did, the dear leader. Too bad the best people are not in charge, though.

 

Consider...

Based on Jewish Agency statistics from 1947, Deborah Bernstein estimated that 77% of Arab population growth in Palestine between 1914 and 1945, during which the Arab population doubled, was due to natural increase, while 23% was due to immigration. Bernstein wrote that Arab immigration was primarily from Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Egypt.​

The overall assessment of several British reports was that the increase in the Arab population was primarily due to natural increase. These included the Hope Simpson Enquiry (1930), the Passfield White Paper (1930), the Peel Commission report (1937), and the Survey of Palestine (1945). However, the Hope Simpson Enquiry did note that there was significant illegal immigration from the surrounding Arab territories, while the Peel Commission and Survey of Palestine claimed that immigration played only a minor role in the growth of the Arab population. The 1931 census of Palestine considered the question of illegal immigration since the previous census in 1922. It estimated that unrecorded immigration during that period may have amounted to 9,000 Jews and 4,000 Arabs. It also gave the proportion of persons living in Palestine in 1931 who were born outside Palestine: Muslims, 2%; Christians, 20%; Jews, 58%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)​

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. You're wrong about who came to Palestine when, but I'll say again that I believe it doesn't make any difference because most of the Jews and most of the Palestinians know no other home and have nowhere else to go.

The point is that Israel knew when they made peace with Jordan that the West Bank Palestinians weren't going to be Jordanians. Put another way, Jordan didn't sign with Israel only to have Israel a few decades later drive West Bank Arabs into their country.

 

Yes, I am suggesting that before the ink was even dry on the plan that created the state of Israel that the ethnic-cleansing and pogroms by Zionist militias had already begun. By the time the other Arab nations got their poop together to mount a defense of the Palestinians, the war for greater Israel was well under way.

Further, I am suggesting that there is no evidence that Egypt's troop movements in 67 were any way offensive and in fact the Israel leadership were dismayed that Egypt may not attack. In fact, Begin is on record as admitting the fact that the Israeli's wanted a war with Egypt and were trying to justify an attack by playing the victim:

"Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.co...ttack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

 

I see no reason to believe the Arabs couldn't have had the original UN partition as a permanent solution if they had been willing. They took a chance on defeating Israel and lost.

I hope your boy knows more about foreign policy than he does about economics.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/07/22/are-you-prepared-for-a-recession/​

We may indeed have a recession, but not for the reason he suggests. Hammond doesn't understand how--or why--the labor market changed and the participation rate dropped.

 

Israelis will not at this point agree to live in a unitary state with Palestinians. Their political cultures are too different for Israel to even consider the idea.

Israel would be smart, IMO, to set up a Palestinian protectorate in the West Bank and Gaza with a land bridge for transit between the two through the Negev Desert. There's no way at this point they're going to allow a sovereign Palestine in the West Bank. Israel is barely more than ten miles wide at that point.

 

Meaning what? It was a homeland many hundreds of years ago? Zionists were even looking at other places as a Jewish homeland. There were very few Jews living in Palestine a hundred years ago--not even enough to fill a football stadium for an NFL game.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present​

Because they annexed Jerusalem?

They have been good stewards of the Old City, much better than the Arabs before 1967.

If Australians give them the option to get worked up over their ancestors, they will. If they had been given something else, they would have taken that. As is the case with indigenous peoples in North America, they will eventually become another ethnic/racial group in a larger society. Rather than encourage them to live in a past none of them know, they should be honored as founding peoples and helped to overcome the discrimination they still experience. Just my opinion.

It's all religious BS, but that's what animates a lot of folks.

 

Jacob, back in the Bronze Age, spoke to his son Judah. From Judah
would come a line of kings, ruling a Jewish nation. Judah would protect
the Law. All this UNTIL THE MESSIAH comes.
Until........ No more.
But various other writers spoke of a second return to Israel. That was
crazy because the Jews hadn't lost their homeland once, let alone
twice. Jesus echoed this prophecy when he said the Jews would be
driven out of their land and lose their temple UNTIL THE GENTILE
TIME IS FULFILLED. That sounded crazy to the Jews in frozen
Russia of Napoleon's time - a sub-tropical Palestine, back in their
hands! So the Jews just broke their glasses and cried "next year in
Jerusalem!" Though few believed their broken temple would ever be
back in their hands.

What I told you is 100% factual.

 

So, where's the evidence for a Guiding Hand of history? And what if the Zionists had chosen Argentina instead of the Middle East?

There is no personal god that gave anything to anyone, including Palestine to Israel. That said, I'm very sympathetic to Jewish people who have suffered much in their history for nothing more than declining to assimilate. A safe haven is a logical solution.