Middle East Conflict

[Prestwich_Blue]

Doesn't matter who was there first.

Glad we cleared that up. So the Palestinians have no more claim that anyone else.

 

[Metal Biker]

Here we go again.

Doesn't matter who was there first. Existing homes were bulldozed with photo frames still on walls, clothes and sleeping mats strewn in occupied rooms, their occupants chased out of their homes to seek refuge elsewhere. It's their homes. Doesn't matter if their Palestinians or Israelis or Christians, they were driven out against their will. 27000 homes were demolished. Adding insult to injury, those who lost their homes are not allowed to build or apply for new ones.

I bet 300BC where you live now, some civilisation call it their home. Might as well they claim their right too and bulldoze you out of your house.

There's no point in bringing this up. before Judaism there was paganism in the same lands, surely they have stronger claims based on this logic.

By that same logic, the Palestinians can no longer hold claim to 'their' land as another group has been established after them, by whatever means. (Don't forget that the Jews were conquered by Alexander the Great, the Romans before evntually being expelled from their homes in Israel entirely after Muslim conquest of 638)

Both can hold the claim of it being 'their land' and the Israelis have developed on 'their' land. It's a moot point which annoyingly keeps getting brought up. The only way I can see this issue even beginning to be resolved is for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Arab League acknowledging the existance of Israel and their established borders. Only then can the International Community put pressure on Israel to stick to those established, agreed upon borders.

 

[cucumberman]

Glad we cleared that up. So the Palestinians have no more claim that anyone else.

The one that has most claim is the one whose house stood there. During the 1948 conflicts and onwards, If it was an Israeli's house then he has the right to stay. If it was a Palestinian's house then it's their right to stay.

To systematically dismantle whole villages and communities is oppression regardless of who lives in them. It just so happens that in this instance the majority are Palestinians

If it were the other way around, Palestinians demolishing thousands of Israelis houses to steal their lands to make way for Palestianians from Russia, Poland, US, Morocco, then resolutions must be made to have these lands be returned to Israelis.

 

[Metal Biker]

The one that has most claim is the one whose house stood there. During the 1948 conflicts and onwards, If it was an Israeli's house then he has the right to stay. If it was a Palestinian's house then it's their right to stay.

To systematically dismantle whole villages and communities is oppression regardless of who lives in them. It just so happens that in this instance the majority are Palestinians

If it were the other way around, Palestinians demolishing thousands of Israelis houses to steal their lands to make way for Palestianians from Russia, Poland, US, Morocco, then resolutions must be made to have these lands be returned to Israelis.

It wasn't a Palestinians house either, it technically 'belonged' to the British, who inherited it from the Ottomans.

 

[west didsblue]

I'm sensing a number of people on here do not recognise Israel's right to exist...

That's disconcerting.

Me too.
I wonder if they feel the same way about the USA, Australia, Tibet, Pakistan, Crimea etc etc

 

[cucumberman]

By that same logic, the Palestinians can no longer hold claim to 'their' land as another group has been established after them, by whatever means. (Don't forget that the Jews were conquered by Alexander the Great, the Romans before evntually being expelled from their homes in Israel entirely after Muslim conquest of 638)

Both can hold the claim of it being 'their land' and the Israelis have developed on 'their' land. It's a moot point which annoyingly keeps getting brought up. The only way I can see this issue even beginning to be resolved is for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Arab League acknowledging the existance of Israel and their established borders. Only then can the International Community put pressure on Israel to stick to those established, agreed upon borders.

They are not holding claim to their lands. They are holding claim to their dignity and livelihood, and their future survival. You need to speak to more Palestinians, there are several out and about in the university. More than a house, they want to walk free, not along narrow separation walls. They want to have access to clean water, education and employment, they want to be able to travel without having to try a dozen times to get approval. They want legitimacy.

And the Hamas-Fatah unity has already recently proposed a two state solution, but it has not been accepted by Israel. This is not the first, The two state solution has been repeatedly suggested by Palestine in 1970s in the UN meeting (vetoed by US, rejected by Israel), in their presidency declaration in 1980s (rejected by Israel), in the three way US mediation in 2000s (withdrawn by Israel), in 2006 by Hamas to US (non response due to no negotiations with terrorists policy), in 2010 during the Obama administration (hampered by illegal Israel settlements).

Granted Israel refuses to entertain the idea of 1967 borders, Palestinian rights to return and Jerusalem as the capital, but Palestine has for the past years pushed for two state solution. A majority of Israeli and Palestinian citizenry are for two state solutions.

 

[cucumberman]

It wasn't a Palestinians house either, it technically 'belonged' to the British, who inherited it from the Ottomans.

Were you there when they built the house with their bare hands? Did you help with the brickwork?

Points like yours...what point does it make other than for argument's sake?

 

[Metal Biker]

They are not holding claim to their lands. They are holding claim to their dignity and livelihood, and their future survival. You need to speak to more Palestinians, there are several out and about in the university. More than a house, they want to walk free, not along narrow separation walls. They want to have access to clean water, education and employment, they want to be able to travel without having to try a dozen times to get approval. They want legitimacy.

And the Hamas-Fatah unity has already recently proposed a two state solution, but it has not been accepted by Israel. This is not the first, The two state solution has been repeatedly suggested by Palestine in 1970s in the UN meeting (vetoed by US, rejected by Israel), in their presidency declaration in 1980s (rejected by Israel), in the three way US mediation in 2000s (withdrawn by Israel), in 2006 by Hamas to US (non response due to no negotiations with terrorists policy), in 2010 during the Obama administration (hampered by illegal Israel settlements).

Granted Israel refuses to entertain the idea of 1967 borders, Palestinian rights to return and Jerusalem as the capital, but Palestine has for the past years pushed for two state solution. A majority of Israeli and Palestinian citizenry are for two state solutions.

This is the same Hamas that, only last year, released an additional charter which stated: "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and "calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.

Oh yes, I see what you mean, absolutely they approve of a two-state solution. A living, Palestinian state and a dead Israeli one.

 

[Metal Biker]

Were you there when they built the house with their bare hands? Did you help with the brickwork?

Points like yours...what point does it make other than for argument's sake?

You're claiming their right to live there is based upon houses built on 'their lands'. We've already established there were Jewish lands way before the Palestinians arrived and you pooh-poohed that notion even though the Jews were expelled from Israel by force, yet I don't hear you clamouring for their right to remain in houses originally stolen from them.

The debate on this often descends into "who was there first, has more rights to live there" and it is not addressing the issues. The 'holocaust deniers' use their argument to invalidate the reason for the creation of the state of Israel, so that it can be extinguished on the grounds there was no validation to support it's existance. It always devolves into finding ways of invalidating Israel's right to exist and finding excuses to bolster that particular claim. If you cannot address the Israeli's right to live on the exact same spot of land as well as championing the rights for Palestinians then it's clear you have a bias that is unfavourably misguided towards addressing Palestinian concerns and disregarding Israeli ones.

I don't believe a two-state solution is achievable or possible, and given the circumstances the state of Palestineshould be absolved into the state of Israel, with all Palestinians being granted equal rights as Israelis, mosques to be recognised and approved, segregation laws abolished and for Palestinians to embrace an Israeli nationality encompassed with their Palestinian identity: A Union.

We had to in Britain; England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (for a time) were all expected to abandon their national and even religious identities to become "British", yet rights for Catholics were given equal standing in Protestant communities and we were all striving towards the same goals. It can be achieved over time, clinging on to outdated notions of 'this land is my land, this land is your land' only serves to add fuel to fire of hatred and division.

 

[cucumberman]

You're claiming their right to live there is based upon houses built on 'their lands'. We've already established there were Jewish lands way before the Palestinians arrived and you pooh-poohed that notion even though the Jews were expelled from Israel by force, yet I don't hear you clamouring for their right to remain in houses originally stolen from them.

The debate on this often descends into "who was there first, has more rights to live there" and it is not addressing the issues. The 'holocaust deniers' use their argument to invalidate the reason for the creation of the state of Israel, so that it can be extinguished on the grounds there was no validation to support it's existance. It always devolves into finding ways of invalidating Israel's right to exist and finding excuses to bolster that particular claim. If you cannot address the Israeli's right to live on the exact same spot of land as well as championing the rights for Palestinians then it's clear you have a bias that is unfavourably misguided towards addressing Palestinian concerns and disregarding Israeli ones.
.

You are applying one logic to two different circumstances. The Palestinian settlement were legitimate because they built on unoccupied land. The Israeli settlement is not as it breaks the Geneva convention and international laws as validated by more than a dozen international bodies from the UN arms, to the Red Cross, to the US Administration. Further, the Palestinians were at that point in time local to the land. The expansion of the Israel settlement is in light of the influx of Israelis from Poland, Russia, Iraq, Morocco, Turkey, US. They are not indigenous to the land nor were they homeless in these other countries. They can build settlementS in lands within the 1967 borders, but not in the occupied lands. Because 1) it's against international law, 2) they were displacing a population indigenous to the area to compensate for a population that decided and excited to move into the new state. You saying that they have the right to build in these occupied lands is saying that you are right and the other organisations are wrong. Even Israel has forcefully moved Israelis out of settlements in Gaza in recent times. Surely you are not saying that they are wrong as well?