- This topic has 63 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
In theory, if Israel would agree to create a state for the palis, what would happen. Would it actually be more beneficial to Israel since if the other side has a legitimate state and continue to launch rockets and terror, the Israelis could respond full force since even a single attack would be considered an act of war?
At this point, it would probably just mean more launch bases for attacks.
If they would have stuck to the UN partition plan and given them a state in 48…we probably wouldn’t be in this mess now. Just nationalistic, territorial garbage
The Arabs didn’t want a partition. They want the whole thing. The so-called Palestinians won’t recognize Israel. There was an idea was that their land be Jordan and the Jews get Israel but the BH British changed their minds.
“People tend to forget that the doctrine of territories for peace was used by [Adolph] Hitler in [year] 1939, when he declared that he would leave Europe in peace if territories in Poland that Germany lost in World War I were ceded to Germany.”
SOURCE: Moshe Arens, former Member of Knesset and Israeli Minister of Defense, HaAretz, 2004/1/22
===================================
Retired Lt General Tom Kelly
(Chief of Operations of the 1991 Gulf War) said:“I cannot defend this land [Israel] without that terrain [the West Bank]…
Without the West Bank, Israel is only 8 miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible.”
SOURCE: The Jewish Connection Magazine, 2012 January 6 edition, page 14, article titled: The 2012 Arab Street Driven Security Requirements written by retired Ambassador Yoram Ettinger
===================================
“J-Street and Peace Now and practically the entire Democratic Party and all of Western Europe take it as axiomatic that a new State of Palestine would bring peace.Voices who point out that Israeli concessions in the past to Palestinians has brought less, not more, peace have been drowned out.”
SOURCE: Large majority of Palestinians say the conflict should continue even AFTER they get a state
elderofziyon on blogspot dot com 2019/09===================================
Abdul Hameed al Ghabin [Saudi writer and political analyst] said:“How can we achieve peace if the Palestinian people remain without a place to call home?
The answer is simple:Jordan is already 78% of historical Palestine. Jordanians of Palestinian origin constitute more than 80% of the population according to U.S. intelligence cables leaked in 2010. Jordan is essentially already the Palestinian Arab state.
The only problem is, the King of Jordan refuses to acknowledge this.”
SOURCE: A new Saudi perspective for peace by Abdul Hameed al Ghabin, 2019/8/21
JNS dot org===================================
Jonathan S. Tobin said:“As our Evelyn Gordon wrote in a prescient COMMENTARY [magazine] article published in January 2010, by signaling its willingness to withdraw from some territory, the Israelis did not convince anyone of their good intentions.
To the contrary, such concessions reinforced the conviction that Israel was a thief in possession of stolen property.
The reaction from the Palestinians and hostile Europeans was not gratitude for the generosity of the Israelis in giving up land to which they too had a claim, but a demand that it be forced to give up even more.
Land-for-peace schemes and a belief in two states on the part of Israelis has always led most Palestinians to believe that their goal of forcing the Jews out of the entire country was more realistic, not less so.”
SOURCE: article titled: Israeli Peace Gestures Not Only Don’t Work. They Make Things Worse by Jonathan S. Tobin, 2015 March 31, Commentary Magazine
===================================
Sarah N. Stern said:“Like many Jewish organizations, J Street is seduced by lofty slogans like ‘pro-Israel/pro-peace’. These words are intended to give the impression that all that Israel has to do is immediately withdraw from the territories, and then peace would ultimately break out.
This ignores the empirical evidence of what happened after the withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May of 2000, giving Hezbollah and their 150,000 missiles easy striking distance to Israel.
It also ignores the internally gut-wrenching Gaza withdrawal of 2005, where the land has been used to launch thousands of rockets [more than 10,000 rockets] and incendiary devices launched from kites and balloons, making life for those on Gaza’s neighboring communities a living hell and destroying thousands of acres of Israel’s agricultural land.”
SOURCE: Notes on the J Street conference by Sarah N. Stern (President of the Endowment for Middle East Truth), 2019/10/31, from JNS dot org
Lake, that’s not true. The Arabs felt threatened by the zionists. The grand mufti told Hitler to carry out the final solution after seeing what he considered to be representatives of the “Jewish” people being cold murderers. Arab attitude towards Jews changed radically after the first wave of oath-breakers arrived.
Avirah, go learn some history (even from non-Israeli sources). Stop with your outrageous lies! The Arabs officially rejected the partition plans a number of times.
Avirah ,the Arabs started the violence and were responsible for the most of it. The Jews only responded. Shame on you!
>>>In theory, if Israel would agree to create a state for the palis, what would happen.
Put it this way. I’ve read many, many anti-Israel arguments and comments. I’ve never seen anyone even TRY to make an intelligent argument claiming that Israel has the ability to have peace by making concessions and giving away land to the Palestinians.
Even the antisemitic one dimensional pro Arab arguments rewriting history claiming that Israel is 100% at fault for the current situation , the Arabs were just minding their own business until vicious Jews/Zionists came and started up with them etc… still don’t try to intelligently and credible argue that Israel today could change the situation if they wanted to
At the very minimum, the Palestinians will regard any state that doesn’t include all of the West Bank including Jerusalem (based on the 1949-1967 borders) as being simply a transitional state en route to a Palestinian state based on the 1914 borders (i.e. an Islamic state including everything between the Jordan and the sea).
A single state solution might work if it includes at least all Arabs in the region (and perhaps including Turkey and Iran), such that Israel is recognizing that it is part of what is securely an Islamic state, with Israel preserving autonomy for itself including its own military. Such a confederation would enable the Palestinians to stop being state-less. However most Israelis would not accept the strictures of living in an Islamic state (e.g. no gay rights).
Hopefully, Netanyahu will be smart enough to craft some nominal changes in the status quo with the stated intent of keeping the door open to some limited partition/self government to avoid triggering retaliatory actions in the U.S. Congress and EU. However, as the Palestinians have shown over and over, they will consistently refuse rational offers of some concessions that do not provide the immediate and total “territorial independence” demanded by their most extreme elements and an existential threat to EY.
I’ve heard the likes of this Avira type nonsense a hundred times. That the Arabs were our best friends until the ‘zionists’ showed up. It is a complete blindness to thousands of historical facts and accounts. This is ignorance at its very height on par with the levels of deceipt that are themselves driving Jew hatred and holocaust denial. It is also horrific slander and denial to that thousands of Jews slaughtered in Iraq during WWII
edited
Again Israel would’ve taken the 48 partition plan but the Arabs didn’t even want that. Jordan is the real so-called Palestine
I never said the Arabs were justified or right, i stated what caused their hatred, which had previously not been there.
The zionists weren’t “defending” themselves when they destroyed dozens of villages, massacring women and children in places like deir yassin – i definitely learned history, but not zionists version of it where they, like all other nationalists, including Germany, Japan, try to whitewash their history
I’m not getting it from Arabs either; the historican community is in agreement about this; Israeli historians themselves acknowledge now that the states original version of self defense, honor of arms, etc, was not true, and that both Arabs and zionists targeted innocent people.
Avirah, Der Yasssin happened after almost 30 years of Arab attacks and in response to the murder of thousands Jews that had been slaughtered right before that! Historians you are getting it from are the revisionist, or lefty of anti-Semitic types. Again shame on you!
Avirah, and the expulsion from the rst of the Arab villages happened shortly after Der Yassin — during the Israeli independence war. The Arabs were asking for it — big time.
The Zionists definitely reitz upped the Arabs. This is valid and something Zionists wouldn’t admit. Not every Jew who moved to EY in the 2nd and 3rd waves were ideological zionists; they wanted to leave Europe where it was dangerous and after WWI very unstable. The British thankfully offered to give them land where they could leave peacefully. The British bit off more than they could chew and brought instability to every place they occupied. Jews wanting to return to their homeland isn’t provoking Arabs. The Arabs wouldn’t accept any deal that allows Israel to exist. It’s they who need to fix it. Jews gave back most of Chevron, Gaza, West Bank, what more needs to be done?
Mdd, why did the arabs almost never bother the old yishuv, for centuries?
Because they weren’t militant and secular.
The Arabs didn’t “start” it; foreigners came to their area and looked as though they were going to take over. The chalutzim started it.
It’s not “lefty” historians, it’s literally the government archives on their website, when they released information that was previously kept classified.
The only ones who hold fast to the “Israelis were right and innocent” stance are the far right, ben gvir types. Even religious zionsits like aaron Lichtenstein’s chevra admit to zionist atrocities
Why are you surprised that a group which killed its own, as in the altalina, and were said by rav chaim to he rotzchim in the 1910, would kill goyim unjustly? Why jump to defend them?
Avirah, I said they did not start the violence. The Altalina was kind of killing be’din malkus. I do not accept everything Reb Chaim said, and even him -you have to know how far he meant. Again, I do not deny the Der Yassin — but you have to look at the context! Why just jump to accuse other Jews — “bo u’ree ma bein poshei Yisroel le’neviey Umos ha’Oilam…”! I know many of them were reshoim ben adam le’Mokom, but you do not have to slander them like that! Comparing them to the Nazis and the Japanese invaders!
Also, Avirah (of Phylistyn?), your claim that thet never bothered the old Yishuv is sheker. They never bothered them the way the later bothered the Zionists.
Buddy, when you “flipped out” you lost your “balance” a bit. Time to work on it.Be’din Malkus? This is a shalton hakofrim. They’re ratzchanim. Rav Chaim is right. These people are nicer to Arabs than Yiddishkeit.
They didn’t bother the old yishuv as much because they were respectful and didn’t come to be kovesh the land forcefully. The Torah that spread in the Old Yishuv is unmatched and these Zionists want to destroy it by drafting people into the army.
>>>Mdd, why did the arabs almost never bother the old yishuv, for centuries?
They didn’t? That isn’t the picture you get when reading about life in Eretz Yistoel in the 1800s. But of course when neither group had any interest in ruling there was less friction.
>>>The Arabs didn’t “start” it; foreigners came to their area and looked as though they were going to take over. The chalutzim started it.
By that logic the main Arab issue should have been with the British Mandate who indisputably came as foreigners and did – not just looked they would – take over
>>>It’s not “lefty” historians, it’s literally the government archives etc.
Not really. In any conflict you going to find ways to fault some of the behavior of some on both sides but no serious unbiased historian agrees with the “Arabs were minding their own business… the Zionists came… the Zionists then did… that you are trying to peddle.
>>>Why are you surprised that a group which killed its own, as in the altalina, and were said by rav chaim to he rotzchim in the 1910, would kill goyim unjustly?
Without going into the details or defending anyone they didn’t just open fire on a rival group because they were blood thirsty. Most countries would have acted similarly during the Altalena story. The reason Rav Chaim (allegedly) gave for calling Zionists Rotzchim would be true about most secular Jews. No reason to single the Zionists out.
>>>Why jump to defend them?
Because those who make these type of arguments are usually using them to justify murdering Yidden today over seventy five years later. As Rav Yakkov Kametsky said the Neturey Karta who run around doing Arab propaganda are Rodfim
MDD, why would anyone take seriously your “disagreements” with Rav Chaim, considering that you “do not accept everything Reb Chaim said”.
And what’s wrong to compare the Zionists to the Nazis, considering that the Zionists teamed up with the Nazis during the Holocaust to accomplish their mutual goals.
“If they would have stuck to the UN partition plan and given them a state in 48…we probably wouldn’t be in this mess now. Just nationalistic, territorial garbage”
Are you saying that the Israelis rejected the UN partition plan in 48? I guess I wouldn’t expect better from someone who gets their history from “The Empty Wagon”
>>>can anyone give attention to the question, if pali got their own state,…Would it be better for Israel to give them a country in that case?
Look at the Lebanon wars and the Gaza wars for the answer to that question. There is no way Israel can just obliterate or even successfully win a war against a hostile neighboring country that is constantly attacking them.
“can anyone give attention to the question, if pali got their own state, and continued to attack Israel, would that give Israel a valid excuse to obliterate their land since it would mean war? Would it be better for Israel to give them a country in that case?”
Just because you are being attacked does not mean you can “obliterate” a whole society.
Also you didn’t mention who would be controlling this Palestinian state. There would be a significant difference if it’s Abbas or Hamas.
Don’t be so confident that Israel can just obliterate a country. They are still under the norms of International Law. They had a miracle in 1967. Since them they haven’t been as successful in warfare. The EU UN Arabs Russia and China would not let it happen. They also wouldn’t want to ruin the Abraham Accords.
rightwriter- I think that you just are glossing over too many major details that would play out if Israel actually fully withdrew and gave the Palestinians a state. How would the decision affect and divide Israeli society How would Palestinian society react? Will there be war between Hamas and Fatah or will there be a unitary government? What are the borders of this Palestinian state? What was done with the Israeli settlers in the West Bank? Are they annexed with Israel? How is Gaza and the West Bank connected? Who controls Jerusalem? Is the separation wall destroyed? Who controls the water supplies? etc.
There’s a reason there have been numerous summits and talks and yet this conflict is still unsolved. Nothing here is simple.
rw, the rules of law allow for attacking military even if they behind population, but do not allow attacking population at large. Bibi and Trump seem to have the right idea – work with other Arab countries that have plenty of other reasons to cooperate with Israel. This will eventually decrease Palis role as a symbol of Arab/Muslim unity (as they ignore all Arab-on-Arab atrocities) and will bring Palis to accept some reasonable co-existence.
Ujm and Avira, there is such an issur as limud kategoriya on Klal Yisroel. Namely, if a group of Jews (even if they are reshoim and even if we are talking about only the people of one town) do something wrong, it is forbidden to mention it unless there is big toeles in doing so. For sure, it is forbidden to make up slander about them.
bravo
mdd, it is mutar to speak about reshoim,
rotzchim, poshim apikorsim, ain anu maaminim…
mdd, I bet you have no problem putting down charedim who dont go to the army or college, and learn all day.
I bet you think theyre backward, illiterate parasites who smell bad.
did you even take a moment to internalize what he said to see if it applies in any way before hurling insults back? He mentioned a halacha, he didn’t call you names.
#sameoldstuffjustdifferentthread
Avira, the halochah applies to speaking about the Chareidim also. Obviously. Try to read what I wrote — it is a din about a tzibur.
where is this halacha stated, that theresd a difference between a rasha and a group of reshoim? haven’t seen it in chofetz chaim, but it’s been a while since i’ve been through the whole sefer.
never heard of it before
I remember seeing it in the Chaftez Chaim’s seforim. I have to go back and find the exact places. Also, the mekoros from Chazal. The famous case of Eliyahu ha’Novi when he said that bnei Yisroel violated your bris and killed your neviim. He was obvously talking about reshoim. And the case of Hoshea ha’Novi from the beginning of perek Ha’isha in Pesochim. He was also talking about the reshoim.
About Eliyahu — it is in Rashi in Melochim 1, perek 19, on the posuk 16. There is also a Zohar about this episode which says that even though there is not a better tzadik than Eliyahu in all the generations, but he became very bad in the eyes of HKBH when he said kategoriya on the Jewish people.
About a group: Maybe you mean Chofetz Chaim 10:12?
general principle, when making aveira about a group that is impossible to identify (say, using false weights for many customers), the teshuva is to provide public services, such as water fountains. So, maybe providing free seforim to tzahal will work …
Mdd, we see from yeshaya saying LH about the ENTIRE klal yisroel was wrong, even though he included himself with them.
We don’t have a source about a group of reshoim being in a different category. We see by adas korach that they were grouped together and called an evil group
“why did the arabs almost never bother the old yishuv”
Well there was a pogrom in Hebron in 1517 that resulted in the death or expulsion of the old yishuv there. Ottoman census records in the next decade show zero Jews had returned.
Then in 1720 the Ashkenazi yishuv of Jerusalem were expelled and their synagogue was destroyed. For almost a century Ashkenazi Jews were officially banned from Jerusalem. The actual “Old Yishuv” we think of today was founded by the students of the Vilna Gaon in the early 19th century.
Then in 1834 there were pogroms all over the Holy Land — Tzfat, Ramla, Lydda, Jaffa, Acre and Tiberias. Lots of dead Jews. 🙁
The idea that the Arabs always got along with pre-Zionist Jews just isn’t accurate.
There was Ottoman empire that enforced the law. See a book by Simon Sebbag-Montefiore “Jerusalem” for a good overview and references to history of the city, you might find references to this question there.
Modern, no one said everything was perfect before the zionists came, but it was nothing compared to Europe. After the zionists came, it got worse than Europe too
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.