Israeli right winger endorses one state solution!

The Israelis had a right to a state of their own even though they held only ~30% of the population
Click to expand...

7% of the population. The 30% was after immigration from Europe increased in the early 1900s.

ispalpopchart1.gif


http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636

History doesn't begin in 1948
 
It doesn't actually - when were the borders decided? Where are they? Who accepted them?
 
Well, I'll stick with my assumption until otherwise. I think this is the a priori position, no?
 
All right: so what are the borders you're referring to? On what basis were they selected?
 
There are no borders Geoff. This is why there is no state of Palestine. There is only Israel and the gradually reducing occupied territories moving toward the inevitable one state.
 
So there were no borders decided at Partition? This is a bit harder to believe. Or are you saying there are no moral borders? Or just that the borders weren't agree to by Palestinians?

Anyway, this is kind of getting off the point we had back there - someone said "30%" and you said "sure, in 1948" and I said "well, yes, but that's when Partition was" and then we got here somehow. I understand I'm a senseless reactionary, of course, but it would be helpful to know whether you mean the entire thing morally.
 
I believe the inhabitants were not involved in the partition at all, and neither side accepted the borders imposed upon them, if immigrant Jews can be considered a side against 90% of local inhabitants

The point is that we are discussing the state of natives of Palestine [all religions] and what constituted partition of their land, and whether it was acceptable to the people living there - whether it has ever been accepted and if not, then what is the future of such a state?
 
GeoffP said:
So there were no borders decided at Partition? This is a bit harder to believe. Or are you saying there are no moral borders? Or just that the borders weren't agree to by Palestinians?

Anyway, this is kind of getting off the point we had back there - someone said "30%" and you said "sure, in 1948" and I said "well, yes, but that's when Partition was" and then we got here somehow. I understand I'm a senseless reactionary, of course, but it would be helpful to know whether you mean the entire thing morally.
Click to expand...
Sam is failing to use the English language because she thinks it makes for dramatic effect. She's wrong. Yes, there were borders - despite the borders being drawn without the foresight of Jewish or Muslim inhabitants.

S.A.M. said:
The point is that we are discussing the state of natives of Palestine [all religions] and what constituted partition of their land, and whether it was acceptable to the people living there - whether it has ever been accepted and if not, then what is the future of such a state?
Click to expand...
What is this Palestine you keep speaking of? They are not a people....did they magically become a native people somewhere between the Ottomans and the British?

hypewaders said:
Careful, we'll sound radical: Palestine- Dead; Long Live Israel.
Israeli_Flag.gif
Click to expand...
We can actually agree on this.
 
CheskiChips said:
What is this Palestine you keep speaking of? They are not a people....did they magically become a native people somewhere between the Ottomans and the British?
Click to expand...

palestine refers to the land palestinian refers to the people. I know its hard to keep these things straight when your to busy pushing bigoted notions that have zero basis in facts but you should still try.
 
Give me a minute to catch up. My crucible is stone cold & cracked, and lost somewhere ( I think I was throwing it at you) but welcome back. Good thing, there are lots of quick-heat Israeli ones around.
 
John Mearshimer in The American Conservative:

The sad truth is that Israel has been brutalizing the Palestinians for so long that it is almost impossible to break the habit. It is hardly surprising that Jimmy Carter said last year, “the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than human beings.” They are, and they will be for the foreseeable future.

Consequently, there is not going to be a two-state solution...

This situation is very dangerous for the lobby. The real problem is not dual loyalty but choosing between the two loyalties and ultimately putting the interests of Israel ahead of those of America. The lobby’s unstinting commitment to defending Israel, which sometimes means shortchanging U.S. interests, is likely to become more apparent to more Americans in the future, and that could lead to a wicked backlash against Israel’s supporters as well as Israel.

The lobby faces yet another challenge: defending an apartheid state in the liberal West is not going to be easy. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Israel has become like white-ruled South Africa—and that day is not far off—support for Israel inside the American Jewish community is likely to diminish significantly. The main reason is that apartheid is a despicable political system that is fundamentally at odds with basic American values as well as core Jewish values. For sure there will be some Jews who will defend Israel no matter what kind of political system it has. But their numbers will shrink over time, in large part because survey data shows that younger American Jews feel less attachment to Israel than their elders, which makes them less inclined to defend Israel blindly.

The bottom line is that Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term because it will not be able to depend on the American Jewish community to defend such a reprehensible political order.

...many Israelis view the Palestinians with contempt if not hatred. Neither the Palestinians nor any of Israel’s immediate neighbors are powerful enough to deter it, and the lobby will remain influential enough over the next decade to protect Israel from meaningful U.S. pressure.

Remarkably, the lobby is helping Israel commit national suicide while also doing serious damage to American security interests.

http://amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00010/
Click to expand...

Where are the American "liberals" on this issue?

" The bottom line is that Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term because it will not be able to depend on the American Jewish community to defend such a reprehensible political order."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top