Palestinian Christians Refuse To Be Pushed Off Their Land

[Dinner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

Hell, with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire there was another partition and population exchange as well. You have to separate the warring parties and put them in their own side of the line and, no, during such a process property rights aren't going to be respected because doing so is antithetical to the whole purpose of a population exchange to begin with. That's reality and the sooner we admit that hard truth the sooner a lasting peace can actually happen.

[Fake Boris]

Israel soldiers speak out

SERGEANT, ANONYMOUS
Paratrooper, 2002, Nablus
We took over a central house, set up positions, and one of the sharpshooters identified a man on a roof, two roofs away, I think he was between 50 and 70 metres away, not armed. I looked at the man through the night vision – he wasn't armed. It was two in the morning. A man without arms, walking on the roof, just walking around. We reported it to the company commander. The company commander said: "Take him down." [The sharpshooter] fired, took him down. The company commander basically ordered, decided via radio, the death sentence for that man. A man who wasn't armed.

I saw with my own eyes that the guy wasn't armed. The report also said: "A man without arms on the roof." The company commander declared him a lookout, meaning he understood that the guy was no threat to us, and he gave the order to kill him and we shot him. I myself didn't shoot, my friend shot and killed him. And basically you think, you see in the United States there's the death penalty, for every death sentence there are like a thousand appeals and convictions, and they take it very seriously, and there are judges and learned people, and there are protests and whatever. And here a 26-year-old guy, my company commander, sentenced an unarmed man to death.

[Al B. Sure!]

When Jewish people repeatedly reject peace offers and instead decide to support terrorism then get back to me. Until then Palestinians

They don't need to resort to terrorism. Terrorism is the tool of the short side of the asymmetric power equation. Before the creation of the state of Israel, Jews formed terrorist organizations (Irgun, Haganah and Lehi) and conducted terrorist acts against the British administration and Arabs. They did this for the same lack of power reasons behind all insurgency and terrorist movements.

[Fake Boris]

Don't overwhelm him with reason.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually the Israelis were willing to accept it, but the Arabs rejected it.

The Israelis were allowed to participate with the sub-committees which drew up the plan, the Arabs (Palestinians) weren't. They would have insisted that they had the same rights as white people, which clearly would have been obstructionist.
One reason that Great Britain abstained from voting on the plan was because they knew the population counts were grossly inaccurate. The UN committee estimatated that in the region reserved for Israel there would be 600,000 Jewish inhabitants and 500,000 Palestinian inhabitants. The British estimated that there were actually over 1,000,000 Palestinians livijng in the area. In order to ensure a Jewish majority the Israelis would have to do something about all those extra Palestinians ...and they did.

[Ben Kenobi]

So the Indians did not own India. They were given India?

In what sense did "India" exist prior to 1947?

The Kenyans did not own Kenya. They were given Kenya?

In what sense was there a 'Kenya' prior?

The Indonesians did not own Indonesia. They were given Indonesia?

Indeed, they were. Indonesia had never existed in any way, shape or form prior to independence.

If these are your best examples, they are terrible examples. India and Indonesia are vast, vast countries that group together peoples that prior had no such relationship with one another. Kenya is smaller, but again, the definition of 'Kenya', doesn't date back prior to the 19th century.

Are you really on another planet with regards to the basis of de-colonialism?

I am amused that you're defending self determination in the creation of states that actually destroyed the self determination of many smaller peoples. Indonesia is especially bad for this.

Does anyone else understand what I am trying to say and can give me some support so Ben can understand?

What makes you think the reason I disagree with you is because I don't understand your point?

The British were free to do as they liked Just as they were free to do as they liked in India?

Indeed, they were free to govern India as they saw fit.

Just as European colonial powers were free to do as they liked in Africa?

Yep. That's how it works.

The entire post-WW2 era in the Third World has been an attempt to correct the wrongs of letting Europeans 'do as they liked'!

And how is it working? Post-colonial Syria is a ****hole. Post-colonial South Africa is a ****hole.

There needs to be a statute of limitations on native autonomy.

LOL

Self-determination doesn't have an expiration date.

but given that there are untold numbers of Palestinians alive today who were around in Palestine prior to 1947, we haven't reached that point yet. Maybe it takes a century before we start saying tough luck, but we're not that yet.

I find it amusing that all of a sudden you don't like self-determination when it affirms the rights of Jews to have their own country.

And besides, going back to biblical claims would be silly given that Palestine (or Canaan) was NOT the Jewish homeland. They were invaders, as the Book of Joshua indicates, after all.

And? So are the Palestinians. The whole area was Christian.

So what?

It means that South Africa, is indeed a homeland for the Boers. They have just as much a right to live there as anyone else.

Should Black South Africans be excluded from the political process of South Africa?

Should White South Africans be stripped of their land?

Were the Boers 'free to do as they like' in their political organization and enfranchisement?

It is their country. That it has been taken away from them is not justification for the process by which it occurred. If you're using South Africa as a model then Israel is wholly justified in creating settlements to protect their land.

[Dinner]

They don't need to resort to terrorism. Terrorism is the tool of the short side of the asymmetric power equation. Before the creation of the state of Israel, Jews formed terrorist organizations (Irgun, Haganah and Lehi) and conducted terrorist acts against the British administration and Arabs. They did this for the same lack of power reasons behind all insurgency and terrorist movements.

Everyone knows that there were some Jewish terrorist organizations, 70 years ago, but the fact is they were not in charge nor were they supported by the majority. They pretty much got marginalized and forced to give up violence (though they were welcomed back into the political system if they did renounce terrorism and several former PMs got into politics originally that way). Palestinians have never done that to their own militants and instead glorify terrorism at every opportunity and actively attack, or even seek to kill, anyone who speaks out against terrorist organizations like Hamas. Even when the PLO officially gave up terrorism on paper they have deliberately turned a blind eye to their members continuing to launch terrorist attacks.

They chose this for themselves, they could have gotten off the war bus at any time and been better off as a people but they decided not to. This is all the result of the choices they have made so I don't feel sorry for any of them. If there ever is a two state solution then there simply must be a partition and population exchange which will mean former ownership of land on the wrong side of the partition lines won't matter. That makes stuff like the OP rather meaningless in my mind because it is going to happen any way eventually. You have to, you have to separate the two sides and make sure that each population ends up in their own respective state and, no, the 1947 borders won't be where the line is drawn.

[Ben Kenobi]

Have the descendants of the Dutch settlers been in South Africa as long as the Bantu peoples ? No. How about the San and the Khoi ? Again, no.

Were the Bantu in Cape Colony as long as the Boers? No. Cape Colony!= South Africa. There's a reason it was divided into small pieces before the formation of the Union of South Africa.

This is my point. South Africa is the conglomeration of many different groups of people into one state. From what I can see, the Boers have a solid claim to Cape Colony. That they have been dispossessed of Cape Colony while at the same time all the other homelands are still there, strikes me as rather unfair.

Boers should have self-determination same as every other people.

Who, for instance ?

What, now or before? There's a ton of Zimbabweans in South Africa. Plenty from all over Africa that have moved into South Africa for work.

White folks have gone from about 22 percent of South Africa to just 9 percent.

If that happened to black folks, anywhere, we'd be calling it genocide.

[C0ckney]

Genetic studies show that Palestinians are in general more closely related to the original population of the area than are Israelis.

this is not surprising, but of course that is the least serious problem with such argument.

[C0ckney]

It's never ok but I think that oerdin doesn't do it out of malice but out of exasperation (as he sees it)

he came into this thread, and without even bothering to read the article, made some assumptions its subjects and started calling both them and palestinians in general names. having being ridiculed for his stupidity and ignorance he then moved on to making some stupid and ignorant comments on the general situation, combined with racial abuse towards the palestinians. when called out on this, he then tried to excuse his views saying that he was frustrated with the palestinians and their 'rejection of peace' ( ), as if he, personally, had been involved in the peace process. he then continued to post the same ridiculous bull****, combined with more racial abuse.

and why is that?

Oerdin is a racist POS

oncle boris put it very well.

[Al B. Sure!]

Everyone knows that there were some Jewish terrorist organizations, 70 years ago, but the fact is they were not in charge nor were they supported by the majority. They pretty much got marginalized and forced to give up violence (though they were welcomed back into the political system if they did renounce terrorism and several former PMs got into politics originally that way). Palestinians have never done that to their own militants and instead glorify terrorism at every opportunity and actively attack, or even seek to kill, anyone who speaks out against terrorist organizations like Hamas. Even when the PLO officially gave up terrorism on paper they have deliberately turned a blind eye to their members continuing to launch terrorist attacks.

They chose this for themselves, they could have gotten off the war bus at any time and been better off as a people but they decided not to. This is all the result of the choices they have made so I don't feel sorry for any of them. If there ever is a two state solution then there simply must be a partition and population exchange which will mean former ownership of land on the wrong side of the partition lines won't matter. That makes stuff like the OP rather meaningless in my mind because it is going to happen any way eventually. You have to, you have to separate the two sides and make sure that each population ends up in their own respective state and, no, the 1947 borders won't be where the line is drawn.

How nice of the Israelis to renounce terrorism when they have a half million man military equipped with the latest weapons. How very nice that they renounced terrorism when they were on the strong side of the asymmetrical power relationship with their enemy.

And Ben's version of history is frankly disgusting.

[Bereta_Eder]

Al b. You never were at a far leftie gathering I guess.
Neither did I but they are amazing at concentrating whole essences of meaning in one simple phrase. such as:
suicide bombers are the poor man's F16s.

(use it at your peril, it is a bit disturbing and roughs some feathers)

[Dinner]

How nice of the Israelis to renounce terrorism when they have a half million man military equipped with the latest weapons. How very nice that they renounced terrorism when they were on the strong side of the asymmetrical power relationship with their enemy.

And Ben's version of history is frankly disgusting.

They renounced it long before they had a large army.

Oh, and I normally skip over Ben's posts.

[regexcellent]

Israel doesn't use its army to attack civilians. It doesn't bomb nightclubs, restaurants, and hotels. It doesn't shoot missiles at school buses or kidnap teenagers. It doesn't fire mortars and ballistic rockets at populated areas to inflict mass casualties. What it does do is take every measure possible to kill its enemies without killing noncombatants.

There is no legitimacy whatsoever in the tactics employed by the Palestinians.

If it's not okay, why is it okay to say the same things about Palestinians?

You have absolutely no standing to complain about this sort of thing, Albert Speer.


The Palestinians (back then just "Arabs") could have had the 1947 borders in 1947. They could have had the 1967 borders in 1967. They could have had the 1993 borders in 1993. They rejected all of them.

The reality is that they're not actually willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state at all no matter where its borders lie. They're not any happier about the prospect of 1947 borders now than they were then and that's why they do everything they can to avoid the peace process.

[Al B. Sure!]

Al b. You never were at a far leftie gathering I guess.
Neither did I but they are amazing at concentrating whole essences of meaning in one simple phrase. such as:
suicide bombers are the poor man's F16s.

(use it at your peril, it is a bit disturbing and roughs some feathers)

You don't need to be a far leftist to understand the point. Fourth generation warfare where states lost the monopoly on combat power to non-state actors and where the lines between war and politics and civilians and combatants has become blurred has been part of US military theory since 1989.


The notable thing about Palestinian militancy is that it is relatively new. We didn't see the emergence of terrorist organizations such as Black September until the 1970's nor a Palestinian Intifada until 1987, forty years after their disenfranchisement!

Why is this? Why did it take so long? Prior to the 1970's, the Palestinians relied on the conventional militaries of the Arab states of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. After successive military defeats to the Western-backed and technologically-superior IDF and the very likely development of Israeli nuclear weapons by the 1970's, the Arab states ceased conventional military operations against Israel and have remained in a state of peace since the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

No longer capable of relying on the Arab conventional militaries, the Palestinians were now deep underdogs and if they were to obtain independence, they had to rely on terrorism and insurgency, as all non-state actors in an asymmetrical power relationship with a state military must do.

Some of the Arab (and Iranian) governments provided support to these organizations because they could no longer challenge now nuclear Israel in a conventional war. Their only avenue to oppose Israel was through support of non-state actors.