Actually I agree here. What Jews do best is both wildly incorrect and uncalled for. It must get confusing for some when even Israel wants to conflate Jewish people with the Israeli state.
In my world, "come to Palestine" doesn't mean "bulldoze your house with the belongings inside and steal your property for my own". I think there is a substantially different name for that. And, no, the different name for that applies regardless of who does it. The US and other nations backed the establishment of Israel, and what they got is 50 years of humanitarian crime.
Nonesense! its recognized Jews to be of equel rights to Arabs, it recognized their work in the land and their needs as a nation, you forget that 1947 was just 2 years away from a formal suggestion to make Jordan the Arab state, things were not as dramatic as they sound today , countires and borders were fromed left and right on Ottoman land, Europe was also being divided at that time, many refugees, no one thought about the "catastrophy" that some Arabs AND Jews BTW ! will need to relocate to their own state borders, (*)(*)(*)(*) happens, as long as there is an agreement ppl can and do relocate. It was rejected by both sides Hbendor and I disagree, he is a hard right winger and I was a leftie, might still be one.... I do want a Palestinian state from moral, legal and economical reasons I think it will be the best option, Ive been in the west bank many times, its mostly a vacant land empty hills and forests - enough to built a small country there - so I dont belive in evacuating the settelments near Jerusalem FOR a Palestinian state, there are some (dont know how many exactly) that are located deep in the WB and keeping them will indeed prevent a state so I am in favour of evacuating them even without an agreement. I dont think we can reach an agreement because Jerusalem issue will never be solved, the Temple mount is not shared by all religions so costudy on the city shouldnt be either - there cant be a shared ownership because there is none at its root. unfourtently the Quran does mention Jews by name (no such reference to an existing enemy in the OT and NT) so once again I dont think PEACE is possible. On a possible solution, I would like to see small steps of economic nature, containing the fighting, containing settelment building if possible ( Jerusalem OK by me but not those deep inside, but that's probebly NOT how the Pal see things), I would like very much to be able to trust Gaza and allow them better lives, I was told that when I was a child Israelis traveled to Gaza to do shopping, I'd love it to be the case again. But if that gets (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, I'd support one sided retreat as last resort, I think one sided retreat even if we get sanctioned will be better than annexing the WB, dont recall anyone wanting to annex Gaza but maybe Hbendor will correct me about that. The only thing that will make me reconsider annexation will be the collapse of Jordan, if that happenes perhaps pasrt of WB can go to former Jordan and part of it to Israel.
That's a false statement, when Jews and Arabs migrated to Palestine anywhere between 1890 - 1947 - Ottoman and Mandate era's -NO HOUSE WAS BULLDOZED AND NO PROPERTY WAS STOLEN" When war broke immidiatly after 181 was voted - atrocities of ethnic nature happened to both sides, Jews were ethniclly cleansed from Jerusalem area as well, not just Arabs. So in any case your statemnet is false, got a good ring to it - but false.
So, are you trying to argue that those crimes justify the current ethnic cleansing of West Bank? Or, are you suggesting that ethnic cleansing should be considered no big deal? Or, what?
Im saying there is a tendecy for the anti-Israeli group to mix facts together from diffrent eras to show a false reality, this forum would have much more quality to it if we all talked to the point and not just screaming hate and false statements, want to discuss future Palestine ? great, cannot be done without taking responsibility for past actions thou, do that and all you get is defensive posts instead of agreements.
No you're wrote quite right. Up to 1947 no houses were bulldozed etc. That all happened after. Some 400 villages. Alot of your parks today are previous Arab villages.
Indeed. Are you aware that area C of the West Bank is not an area of no man's land next to Israel's territory intended for protection but is in fact infused throughout the entire west bank? One can see why they remain pissed off. The question is. When you Israelis by comparison have it so good and get to enjoy the fruits of both your own and Palestinian land why are you and your Israeli pals so pissed off? You have a passport. Can holiday anywhere and move anywhere. It's a quandry.
Well no. Jewish Europeans were given access to Palestine. Arabs were not given access to Europe. That's just for starters. Arabs were abused by un resolution 181. That's why they're so keen ever since to have legislation made in their interest since the West did the same previously. What do you think we should or can say to HBendor and friends like Yetzerhara and Borat? You clearly don't like us bashing Israel yet aren't so bothered about arabs being bashed. What would you like us to say when HBendor tells us that it's all Jewish land and that Palestinians must move to Jordan?
The way I would put it is that we have to get over the history to a large extent. There are limits to how far back we can go. There have been many injustices in the past. For example, in the case of Israel/Palestine the people living in the region were given no input into the drawing of borders of their own lands - borders that put them (or their countrymen) in a different state and didn't bother to consider statehood for the remainder. That was outrageous and could rightly be considered a cause for war. But, the fact of the matter today is that Israel is a permanent state, regardless of whether it was formed legally. Even the leadership of Gaza and West Bank agree with that. Yet, we have yahoos bashing each other over that, which is totally counterproductive.
While arguably a vote should have occurred based upon the proposal by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181 that proposed the division of Palestine into an Arab nation and a Jewish nation (with Jerusalem becoming an international city) there was never a vote by the people living in Palestine. At best there was the rejection of the proposal by the Supreme Muslim Council and Arab leaders, representing 68% of the people living in Palestine (i.e. the Arab population) that rightfully declared that UNGA violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. So yes, there should have been a vote but arguably the "partition plan" contained in UNGA 181 would have been rejected based upon the demographics of the people living in Palestine in 1948. Yes, there were conflicts between the Arabs and the Jews but we need to remember that the Arabs were attempting to preserve the Nation of Palestine that had been provisionally recognized as a sovereign nation by the League of Nations at the end of WW I (Article 22) and that had been carried forward in the United Nations Charter (Article 73). But all of this is past history that cannot be changed. In establishing peace between the Palestinians (i.e. all those living in the West Bank, E Jerusalem, and Gaza) and the Israeli Jews (living in the internationally recognized borders of Israel that does not include the West Bank, E Jerusalem, and Gaza) we need to be addressing today and tomorrow and not the past.
Yes, they were but this access was for them to become a part of Palestine sharing it as a homeland with the existing population. Unfortunately this access was granted without the consent of the People of Palestine and that violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The British Mandate for Palestine never established a mandate for a Jewish State in Palestine. I've not read of any immigration restrictions for Arabs seeking to immigrate to Europe at the time. Can a source be provided for this claim? Actually they weren't abused by UNGA Resolution 181 that was only a proposal subject to the approval of the people living in Palestine at the time. There was never a popular vote although the representatives for the Arabs, that represented 68% of everyone living in Palestine, rejected that proposal. The Arabs were "abused" but it was by the Zionist immigrants to Palestine that started a civil war to tear Palestine in two so they could create a Jewish State of Israel and it had absolutely nothing to do with UNGA 181 that had never been voted on by the residents of Palestine and was never accepted by the representatives of 68% of the population of Palestine. Once again this is all in the past, it cannot be undone, and is therefore irrelevant to establishing peace today between Palestine and Israel.
Peace Index: Israeli Jews: 71.5% Israeli control of territories not occupation The Peace Index – April 2016 (N=600) 2-3/5/2016 http://www.peaceindex.org/indexMonthEng.aspx?num=304 1. What is your position on conducting peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Strongly in favor 24.1/60.1/30.1 Moderately in favor 33.8/11.3/30.0 Moderately opposed 19.6/6.0/17.3 Strongly opposed 14.7/8.8/13.7 Don’t know/Decline to answer 7.7/13.8/8.8 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 2. Do you believe or not believe that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will lead in the coming years to peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Strongly believe 5.7/21.2/8.3 Moderately believe 15.0/15.7/15.1 Moderately do not believe 34.8/13.3/31.2 Do not believe at all 42.8/43.6/43.0 Don’t know/Decline to answer 1.7/6.2/2.5 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 3. Soon the current government will have served for one year. How do you rate its achievements so far in each of the following areas? Running Israel’s security affairs Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 11.1/22.4/12.9 Moderately good 37.8/19.6/34.7 Not so good 29.5/10.9/26.4 Not good at all 19.4 31.0/21.3 Don’t know/Decline to answer 2.2/16.2/4.6 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 Running Israel’s economic affairs Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 6.3/20.4/8.6 Moderately good 29.7/31.6/30.0 Not so good 38.9/13.9/34.7 Not good at all 22.2/27.9/23.2 Don’t know/Decline to answer 2.9/6.2/3.4 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 Running Israel’s relations with the countries of the world Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 6.6/18.9/8.6 Moderately good 24.1/37.3/26.3 Not so good 32.9/7.3/28.6 Not good at all 31.6/17.3/29.3 Don’t know/Decline to answer 4.8/19.2/7.2 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 4. Overall, what grade would you give the current government for its performance so far from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent)? % General Public % Arabs/% Jews/ 0- 10.3/22.6/7.9 1- 2.7/4.6/2.3 2- 6.1/5.9/6.2 3- 8.8/1.3/10.3 4- 6.3/4.1/6.8 5- 16.6/19.0/16.1 6- 14.0/9.3/15.0 7- 16.3/6.4/18.2 8- 9.5/7.1/10.0 9- 3.0/0.4/3.6 10- 4.5/14.1/2.6 Don’t know/Decline to answer 1.8/5.1/1.1 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 5. How do you rate each of the following officials’ performance so far? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 9.5/9.8/9.5 Moderately good 30.3/19.3/28.5 Not so good 28.4/10.2/25.4 Not good at all 28.4/48.0/31.6 Don’t know/Decline to answer 3.4/12.8/5.0 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 Defense Minister Moshe (“Bogie” Yaalon Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 15.8/13.0/15.4 Moderately good 41.7/20.2/38.1 Not so good 26.1/6.4/22.8 Not good at all 9.7/25.4/12.3 Don’t know/Decline to answer 6.6/35.0/11.3 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 7.1/15.9/8.5 Moderately good 40.9/29.3/39.0 Not so good 33.8/5.3/29.0 Not good at all 10.8/17.4/11.9 Don’t know/Decline to answer 7.5/32.2/11.6 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 Opposition leader Isaac (“Buji” Herzog Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 2.6/10.9/4.0 Moderately good 12.4/17.3/13.2 Not so good 35.5/7.0/30.8 Not good at all 37.5/29.8/36.2 Don’t know/Decline to answer 12.0 34.9/15.8 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 28.1/10.8/25.2 Moderately good 42.5/14.3/37.9 Not so good 13.4/6.8/12.3 Not good at all 3.1/14.9%/5.1 Don’t know/Decline to answer 12.8/53.1/19.5 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 Police Commissioner Roni Alsheikh Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Very good 17.6/12.7/16.7 Moderately good 38.3/13.0/34.1 Not so good 15.9/8.6/14.7 Not good at all 4.8/14.6/6.4 Don’t know/Decline to answer 23.4/51.1/28.0 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 6. Two weeks ago Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that “the Golan will remain part of the state of Israel forever.” Some claim Netanyahu had to make the declaration because of international deliberations on Syria’s future, and some claim Netanyahu did not have to make the declaration because it needlessly stirred up international talk about the Golan’s future. In your opinion, did Netanyahu have to make or not have to make such a declaration about the Golan? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% I’m sure he had to 29.5/24.6/28.7 I think he had to 21.3/5.2/18.6 I think he didn’t have to 17.7/7.5/16.0 I’m sure he didn’t have to 24.1/52.6/28.8 Don’t know/Decline to answer 7.4/10.1/7.9 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 7. To what extent do you fear that you or one of the people important to you will be harmed in the current wave of terror attacks? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Greatly fear 26.1/62.4/32.1 Moderately fear 38.2/10.5/33.6 Don’t fear so much 22.3/6.3/19.6 Don’t fear at all 10.2/19.5/11.7 Don’t know/Decline to answer 3.2/1.3/2.9 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 8: Do you agree or disagree with the assessment that the current terror wave is in a downward trend? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Strongly agree 7.9/29.4/11.4 Moderately agree 42.0/21.4/38.6 Don’t agree so much 31.8/5.0/27.3 Don’t agree at all 13.9/3/9.5 18.2 Don’t know/Decline to answer 4.4//4.7 4.4 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 9: In your opinion, would it now be appropriate or inappropriate to renew the political negotiations with the Palestinian Authority? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Not appropriate at all 26.3/25.8/26.2 Not so appropriate 22.6/10.5/20.6 Moderately appropriate 30.5/11.7/27.4 Very appropriate 13.4/41.9/18.2 Don’t know/Decline to answer 7.2/10.2/7.7 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 10: Which of the following two things is more important to you: that in the state of Israel there will be a Jewish majority or that Israel will be the only sovereign in the whole area of the historical Land of Israel? % Jews It’s more important to me that there be a Jewish majority in the state of Israel 52.4 It’s more important to me that Israel be the sole sovereign in the whole area of the historical Land of Israel 21.9 (Do not read) The two things are important to me to the same extent 19.0 (Do not read) Neither of them is important to me 2.7 Don’t know/Decline to answer 3.9 Total 100.0 11: Which of the following two things is more important to you: that a peace agreement is reached with the Palestinians or that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people? % Jews It’s more important to me that a peace agreement is reached with the Palestinians 27.5 It’s more important to me that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people 48.2 (Do not read) The two things are important to me to the same extent 16.1 (Do not read) Neither of them is important to me 5.5 Don’t know/Decline to answer 2.6 Total 100.0 12: In your opinion, is it right or not right to define Israel’s control of the territories as an “occupation”? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% I’m sure it is 12.0/69.7/21.6 I think it is 10.7/1.8/9.3 I think it isn’t 21.6/1.1/18.2 I’m sure it isn’t 49.9/14.2/44.0 Don’t know/Decline to answer 5.7/13.2/7.0 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 13. In a recent speech, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that “President Obama has not been a friend to Israel,” which Trump called “our great friend…in the Middle East.” In your opinion, if Trump is elected the next American president, will he or will he not be committed to safeguarding Israel’s security? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% I’m sure he will be 17.7/52.5/23.5 I think he will be 44.5/9.1/38.7 I think he won’t be 17.8/5.4/15.7 I’m sure he won’t be 5.5/5.3/5.5 Don’t know/Decline to answer 14.4/27.7/16.6 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 14: The Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, wrote in a letter for Passover that the United States should be “ready and able to block any international effort to isolate or attack Israel.” To what extent do you trust her to implement those words if she is elected U.S. president? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Don’t trust her at all 13.8/10.8/13.3 Don’t trust her so much 31.0/9.5/27.4 Moderately trust her 36.2/11.0/32.0 Strongly trust her 12.1/47.1/17.9 Don’t know/Decline to answer 6.9/21.6/9.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 15: Which of the two candidates, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be better from the standpoint of Israel’s interests if elected? Jews % /Arabs %/General Public% Donald Trump 31.2/ 14.1/ 28.4 Hillary Clinton 40.3/ 26.8/38.0 (Do not read) Both to the same extent 4.8/29.0/8.9 (Do not read) Neither of them 6.1/2.8/5.6 Don’t know/Decline to answer 17.5/27.3/19.2 Total 100.0/100.0/100.0 The Peace Index: April 2016 Date Published: 09/05/2016 Survey dates: 02/05/2016 - 03/05/2016 This month’s Peace Index survey focused on assessments of the government’s and its officeholders’ performance after a full year in office, and on certain aspects of Israeli-Palestinian relations. In the past two months we have also looked into the Israeli public’s preferences regarding the next U.S. president from the standpoint of Israel’s interests. The government’s performance: After a full year of the current government’s tenure, the public’s assessments of its performance in three main spheres—security, economy, and foreign relations—turn out to be medium and lower. Of the three, the highest positive assessment goes to the security sphere: about half (49%) of the Jewish public regards the government’s performance there as good, with an identical rate viewing its performance in this sphere as not good. In the other two spheres, assessments are considerably lower: only 36% think the government is doing a good job of managing Israel’s economic affairs, and in foreign relations only 31% assess its performance as good. The overall grade that the Jewish public gives the one-year-old government for its performance stands at 5.1 on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent). The Arab public gives a lower overall grade of 4.6 on the same scale. A segmentation of the Jewish public’s assessments by voting reveals an especially positive assessment of the government’s performance in the security sphere by Shas and Torah Judaism voters (68% - good) as well as Likud voters (63%). The lowest numbers for its performance in this area were found, as expected, among Zionist Union and Meretz voters (37% and 32% respectively). Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett have been criticizing the government from the right, and their disparagements are reflected in the relatively low rates of positive assessment of the government’s security performance among the voters for their parties: 55% of Bayit Yehudi voters approve of the government’s performance in the security domain and only 46% of Yisrael Beiteinu voters. In the economic arena, positive assessments are most common among Shas (64%), Bayit Yehudi (62%), and Torah Judaism (54.5%) voters, which may hint at which sectors are benefiting from the government’s economic policy. Another interesting finding here is that only about one-fourth of the voters for Kulanu, the finance minister’s party, approve of the government’s economic performance. And as for foreign relations, the highest rate of those viewing the government’s performance as good was found among Bayit Yehudi voters (68%). Far behind were Likud and Torah Judaism voters, of whom 45% see a good performance in this area. Assessment of the senior officeholders’ performance: We presented the interviewees with a list of six senior officeholders—Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yaalon, Finance Minister Kahlon, opposition leader Herzog, Chief of Staff Eisenkot, and Police Commissioner Alsheikh—and asked them to assess their performance. At the top of the scale are the three security officeholders on the list: the chief of staff (71% of the Jewish public assessed his performance as good), the defense minister (57.5%), and the police commissioner (56%). Interestingly, among Zionist Union voters the rate positively assessing Yaalon is higher than among voters for his own party, Likud (65% and 58% respectively). As for the other officeholders on the list, none had a majority assessing his performance as good. In descending order come Finance Minister Kahlon (48% of the Jewish public viewed his performance as good), Prime Minister Netanyahu (40%), and opposition leader Herzog (15%). That is, the assessments of the two leaders—of the government and of the opposition—are the lowest, though it is hard to ignore the especially low grade for the latter’s performance. Indeed, even among the voters for Herzog’s party, the Zionist Union, only 29% gave him a positive grade on this question. The rate of Arab interviewees who had no clear opinion on this issue was so high that we cannot offer data here on this sector’s distribution of opinions. Netanyahu’s declaration on the future of the Golan: About two weeks ago, at the cabinet meeting held for the first time on the Golan Heights, Netanyahu declared that “the Golan will remain part of the state of Israel forever.” We wanted to know the public’s position on whether, given the talks on Syria’s future being held in the international arena, he was right to make this declaration, or not right because the statement needlessly drew international attention to the question of the Golan’s future. The replies indicate that about half of the Jewish public (51%) are sure or think Netanyahu was right to make the declaration, 42% believe the opposite, and the rest do not know. That is, a majority, though small, holds the view that Netanyahu acted rightly in this regard. Here the disparity by party voting was huge: whereas among Likud, Shas, Yisrael Beiteinu, and particularly Bayit Yehudi voters a majority of about two-thirds or higher backed Netanyahu, among Kulanu, Yesh Atid, Zionist Union, and Meretz voters the majority saw his statement as inappropriate. Among the Arabs a clear majority (60%) took that stance. Personal security situation: On the question “To what extent do you fear that you or one of the people important to you will be harmed in the current wave of terror attacks?,” 64% of the Jewish public responded that they greatly or moderately fear it. When this question was presented last month, the rate came to 69%, meaning that this month saw a slight decline in the fear of terror attacks. Likewise, when asked: “Do you agree or disagree with the assessment that the current terror wave is in a downward trend?,” the majority of the Jewish public (50%) answered positively while 46% replied negatively. A segmentation by parties or political camps did not yield a clear-cut picture here. In the Arab public the rate of those who fear being harmed is much higher—about three-fourths, even though the rate who think the terror wave is waning is almost identical to the rate among the Jews. The negotiations with the Palestinians and their goals: The Jewish public is divided on whether it is currently appropriate or inappropriate to renew the political negotiations with the Palestinians, though the rate of those who think the present time is inopportune (49%) is a bit higher than the rate who think the opposite (44%). When it comes to the goals of the negotiations, however, it turns out that the distribution of opinions is much clearer. On the question “Which of the following two things is more important to you: that a peace agreement be reached with the Palestinians or that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people?,” 48% of the Jews regarded Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people as more important than reaching peace (only 27.5% preferred that goal). Sixteen percent answered that the two goals are important to the same extent, and 6% responded on their own initiative that neither of the two is important to them. These findings apparently show that, in the view of the majority of the Jewish public, Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people is a necessary (though not necessarily sufficient) condition for reaching a peace agreement. We found an even clearer distribution of opinions on the question of what is more important: that Israel have a Jewish majority or that Israel be the sole sovereign in all of the historical Land of Israel. Fifty-two percent responded that it was more important to them that the state have a Jewish majority, with only 22% opting for sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel as more important (for 19% the two objectives are important to the same extent). Is there an occupation? In this context it is interesting to sere the unequivocal slant of the public’s positions on the question of whether it is right or not right to define Israel’s control of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria as an “occupation”: a large majority of the Jewish public (71.5%) believes it is not an “occupation”! Exactly that rate in the Arab public thinks the opposite. The leading candidates in the U.S. presidential elections—who is better for Israel? “In your opinion, if Trump is elected the next American president, will he be committed to safeguarding Israel’s security?” Sixty-two percent of the Jewish public responded positively to that question. On a similar question about Hillary Clinton: “To what extent do you trust her that, if elected U.S. president, she will block any attempt to attack or isolate Israel?,” 48% answered in the affirmative and 45% in the negative. Seemingly, if one compares the responses to the two questions, the public prefers Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton from the standpoint of Israel’s interests. However, the findings signify that the picture is not really clear. Forty percent think it will be better for Israel if Clinton is elected, while 31% prefer Trump. In the absence of additional data, it is hard to explain the apparent contradiction in the response patterns on the three questions. The relatively small gap between the two candidates on the question of the presidency, along with the high rate of “Don’t knows,” may indicate that the Jewish public is not enthused with either of the two candidates in terms of Israeli interests. It is also possible that the Israeli public is influenced by the mood in the United States, where the picture of the public’s preferences is likewise unclear at present. The Peace Index is a project of the Evens Program for Mediation and Conflict Resolution at Tel Aviv University and the Guttman Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research of the Israel Democracy Institute. This month's survey was conducted by telephone on May 2-3, 2016, by the Midgam Research Institute. The survey included 600 respondents, who constitute a representative national sample of the adult population aged 18 and over. The maximum measurement error for the entire sample is ±4.1% at a confidence level of 95%. Statistical processing was done by Ms. Yasmin Alkalay. http://www.peaceindex.org ________________________________________ IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
This is an interesting poll (not a vote), but instead of addressing all of the questions, let's just address those responses that related to peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis with the understanding that the poll was conducted in Israel. So 57.9% of Israeli Jews, 71.4% of Israeli Arabs, and 60.1% of the Israeli general public favor peace negotiations. That's a good sign for peace. When it comes to whether those peace negotiations will actually result in peace there isn't quite as much optimism because only 20.5% of Israeli Jews, 36.9% of Israeli Arabs, and 23.4% of the Israeli general public believe that will occur. This takes us back to the OP because "peace" has to be based upon the following proposition: Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. Both the Israeli government and the Palestinian government must agree to this because it's the only way that peace is achieved. By necessity it also requires the withdrawal of the Israeli military from the Palestinian territory because Israel is not respecting the "territorial integrity" of Palestine so long as it maintains a military force of occupation in that territory. So we know that in Israel the people are very concerned and don't have much hope for peace because Israel is apparently unwilling to respect the "territorial integrity" of the nation of Palestine. I can understand why the Israeli people (Jews, Arabs, and General Public) are skeptical overall that peace can be achieved by negotiation because Israel demands that the Palestinians respect the "territorial integrity" of Israel but will not reciprocate by respecting the "territorial integrity" of Palestine. Peace has to be a two-way street but that's not occurring based upon Israeli demands for the acquisition of lands in the Palestinian territory.
DR. Phyllis Chesler writes Israel--Not Apartheid; Islam--Nothing but Apartheid https://phyllis-chesler.com/articles/op-ed-israel-not-apartheid-islam-nothing-but-apartheid
Could be, When my grandpa and grandma finally came here from Cypress camp from Bulgaria, they were offered a house in Jaffa, my grandpa said he will not take a house of an Arab like the Germans took their home and business, he bought abit of land in Rishon le zion and built his house there, we could have been rich today but Im proud of my late grandpa .
The whole WB area was no man land since the ceace fire treaty with Jordan in 1968 and till Osslo, area C is an Israeli controlled area who's future was to be determined, dont think its written anywhere that area C will at some point go to a Palestinian state. I can understand them and I cant at the same time, I can understand what they want and how the feel, I cant understand their choice of violence back when we did have a peace process during Rabin and Barak mainly, I can understand their concerm from a brother civil war with Hamas but at the same time if they wont do it - dont attack us if WE are forced to do it instead. I think both nations see this as a transsion years, something we need to hold our breath and cross, but not toward a mutual goal, they want a state with Jerusalem, we (Gov) want as much of the WB as possible and make Jordan the Pal state - at least that's what I think teh right wing wants, they dont discuss goals- just dangers.
Jewish Europeans were not exactly given access to Europe either, you might have read about a lil' thing called the Holocaust, was a biggie back then for Jews most of all. go ahead and send the Syrian refugees back to Assad with a clear conscience, I remind you the Jewish settelment already existed, those refugees didnt create it they just sought their own kind after being hunted by ALL of Europe. Arabs were not abused in 181, that didnt lose anything up untill 181 was voted in fact they gained jobs and most Arab immigration was due to Jewish immigration. Arab nationalism was abused but what can I say, if its a matter of support then we got more of it, if 181 was to give the whole land to the Jews and make Jordan a Pal state - I would say it was abusive to the Arabs, but is was about dividing - by the way due to the fact Arabs rejected jewish immigration - not because the Jews pressed for indipendance from them, Arab violence due to immigration was the fuse. Dont know what Yetzerhara and Borat are saying, I think "moving" Palestinians to Jordan is simply not possible and I cant picture Israeli soldiers doing it either, its a fantasy, even if Jordan falls and a Palestinian state will be declared to include parts of Jordan - it still wouldnt shift ppl from Judea toward Jordan.
Its a permanent state because we have our enemies in check, it was always their goal to destroy regular living here since the mandate years so no more Jews will come, reasons changed throu the years and immigration reasons turned into revenge for what we did to them, then after Olso as a political tool, but the fact is, terror is working, its a great tool once you justify it in your eyes. what we are being asked to do can boost it to a level that will reduce our security to levels as we had decades ago, so from my perspective at least - no withdrawal without dealing with our enemies. child terrorists, wicked propaganda and racist hatred based of religous texts = a very real possibilty they lie and withdrawal will be used against us, so while I do not oppose an agreement based on land withdraw - I will never agree to withdarw on "good faith" of my enemies without an agreement.
Nor by ppl lived in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or any other former Ottoman empire lands, no tribe or ethnic was asked, no Jews or Arabs were asked in Palestine either. I remember 181 very diffrently, I remember it talking about an Arab state as well where they can practice decisions for their own destiny from dusk till dawn. lol, that sounds like freedom throu oppression, are you arguing the Jews and Arabs were not distinct enough to be considered TWO diffrent nations by 1947 ? I can give you legal reasons to justify Jewish indipendance but I think we can conclude that faster with common sense, in 1936 for example the Arabs boycoted all Jewish wares, so much that the Jews had to biuld their own harbour and effectivly creating their own INDIPENDANT ECONIMY - and that was in 1936 mind you and due to Arab deeds, so Arabs most of all saw Jews as diffrent nation, there was no logical reason to ask Arabs about Jewish indipendance of Jews on Arab indipendance in Palestine. Palestine was only a sovereign state as a British mandate, the British were the sovereign power, not the local Jews or Arabs, they did infact offered alternative gov's but that didnt work out, hence 181. You call me a murderer and a theif today on account of that so it does matter still. more over, you want us to act. Im sorry but like I said I cannot live in a reality were someone can do its upmost to kill me, forcing me to great losses just to survive for deacdes on and on and then just when HE decides he will get what he was offrered 70 years ago before he decided to kill, compleatly disrgarding my losses. no. Im willing to look at the future but it will be from Oslo start point, not 1947. that's the price of pushing peace decades on IMO.
Well, I certainly won't deny that terrorism has worked in specific cases. It worked in South Africa as Mandela overturned the government there. It worked in Ireland, where terrorist groups made significant advances in representation. BUT, I'd point out that while these tactics can easily be seen as criminal, the resulting solutions were solutions to very real problems for which one can not even start to imagine some other direction for resolution. AND, I'd also point out that the crushing power of Brits and the government of South Africa could not win. Period. End of story. The catch here is that as long as there were disenfranchised people in Ireland and South Africa, there would be resistance. It really didn't matter how many were slaughtered. I think Israel needs to remember that. How many wars has Israel fought against Palestinians? How much progress toward peace has war and ethnic cleansing caused? Israel's policies are a failure. And, they are labeling Israel as a criminal nation in a way that will last for centuries. What is the motivation for Israel to allow the very basics of human necessity in Palestine? Today, Israel (and its citizens) get huge benefit from ethnic cleansing - stealing whole regions specifically for Jews who want homes, farms, water, and space for their industry. Why would Israel EVER decide to stop ethnic cleansing when Jews benefit so significantly? Yes, ethnic cleansing does result in having enemies. But, as long as the USA protects Israel both politically (where the UN, etc., can't ask for humane treatment or even representation of Palestinians due to our veto) and militarily (where the USA can give Israel such gigantic arms and guarantees that Israel is free to take full advantage of neighboring lands - under the pretext that Israel is a "friend". (Quotes, as even the head of Mossad has pointed out that Israel is a national security problem for America.) Nobody is asking Israel to agree to withdraw on "good faith". ALL negotiations have gone very much farther than that, not even requiring a return of all stolen property!!
Much of what you state is erroneous so let's start at the beginning. Palestine was created as a provisionally recognized sovereign nation under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and was never a part of the sovereignty of Great Britian that was assigned the role of "administrative Mandatory" over it with the sole responsibility of establishing a modern government in the newly created nation. Unfortunately, as a colonial power, Great Britain was an extremely poor choice because it had no experience in actually creating a modern government. Great Britain grossly over-stepped it's authority in administering it's role as the Mandatory under the provisions of Article 22. UNGA did propose a territorial division between the Jews and the Arabs but fundamentally ignored that the population of Palestine was homogenous with Jews and Arabs living throughout the territory of Palestine. In point of fact more Arabs were living in what became Israel than Jews which is why the "Zionist Jews" used numerous acts of coercion to force the Arab residents to flee as refugees and then denied them the "right of return" to their homes and villages at the conclusion of the 1948-49 civil war that created Israel. If the estimated 400,000 to 700,000 Arabs that fled as refugees had been allowed to return then the total population of Israel would have been predominately Arab. It was because the indigenous population of all of Palestine was mixed that a popular vote on UNGA Resolution 181 was necessary but it never occurred. I have never, nor would I ever, call you a murderer although we know historically that there has been murder committed by both sides of the conflict. No one is asking you to live in fear but instead the proposition is for both the Israelis and Palestinians to live free from fear based upon the following proposal. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. In short the Palestinians will live within their internationally recognized borders, ending all claims or states of belligerency with Israel and will acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Israel and the right of the Israelis to live in peace within their internationally recognized boundaries (borders) free from threats or act of force. In return the Israelis will live within their internationally recognized borders (which requires Israel to return to it's internationally recognized borders), ending all claims or states of belligerency with the Palestinians and will acknowledge the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Palestinians and the right of the Palestinians to live in peace within their internationally recognized boundaries (borders) free from threats or act of force. The Palestinian Authority as gone one step further than simply being willing to adopt the above by proposing a "international" military force, preferably NATO, to occupy a buffer zone (predominately within the Palestinian territory) to ensure against any acts of aggression by either the Palestinians or the Israelis so long as is necessary to establish and ensure the peace between the two independent nations. In short both the people of Israel and the people of Palestine would be able to live without fear of being attacked.
Is that a DELIBERATE misinterpretation? I believe it says: "under Israeli occupation, Israel and a state of Palestine cannot coexist."
