PDA

View Full Version : Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel?



punk
Nov 30th 2007, 12:32 AM
Just like the thread asks:

Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel?

If so what are they in your opinion?

If not, some perhaps some indication of how they've managed to be consistently in the wrong for about 60 years now?

Ayala
Nov 30th 2007, 12:53 AM
Regardless of whether or not their grievances are "legitimate", their violence is not agreeable by what I know to be right in the sight of God.

punk
Nov 30th 2007, 01:01 AM
Regardless of whether or not their grievances are "legitimate", their violence is not agreeable by what I know to be right in the sight of God.

Nowhere in the OP is the violence mentioned.

The only thing being discussed here is whether they have grievances, not whether their actions are justified.

Let's not stray off topic:

Do the Palestinians have legitimiate grievances against Israel?

Ayala
Nov 30th 2007, 01:31 AM
It would be like if Native Americans were given a partition of land back from the U.S. Then the U.S. decides it wants to wipe out the Native Americans and take the land for itself again. They go to war and Native Americans repell the attacks. The two forces delve into a gridlock of aggression. The Native Americans impose military force in certain areas as a result of attacks against them. Is the U.S. justified in their fight? Do the Natives have the right to impose military force because of the U.S. attacks? Depending on your outlook, your ideas of justification may be vastly different than mine. (I know my analogy is somewhat simplistic, but I think it demonstrates a basic comparison)

I'm not saying Israel can do no wrong, but I generally tend to side with Israel more often than not.

punk
Nov 30th 2007, 01:38 AM
It would be like if Native Americans were given a partition of land back from the U.S. Then the U.S. decides it wants to wipe out the Native Americans and take the land for itself again. They go to war and Native Americans repell the attacks. The two forces delve into a gridlock of aggression. The Native Americans impose military force in certain areas as a result of attacks against them. Is the U.S. justified in their fight? Do the Natives have the right to impose military force because of the U.S. attacks? Depending on your outlook, your ideas of justification may be vastly different than mine. (I know my analogy is somewhat simplistic, but I think it demonstrates a basic comparison)

I'm not saying Israel can do no wrong, but I generally tend to side with Israel more often than not.

The problem with this analysis is that you are blurring the Palestinians into the Arabs as a whole.

A better analogy would be if outside forces gave the Native Americans a state in about half of Texas, the Native Americans drive Texans out of the areas they are in, but the rest of the US decides it doesn't like Texans much so they are not allowed to leave Texas, but have to move to areas not claimed by the Native Americans. The US then invades to help the Texans (thought it still refuses to let the Texans out), loses, and makes a deal to leave. At this point the Native Americans start building towns on the land the Texans have and drive them to progressively worse land, try divide up the territory so there isn't a coherent Texan homeland, and otherwise make their lives miserable, and claim the rights to all of Texas.

Ayala
Nov 30th 2007, 01:51 AM
The Palestinian exodus is a topic that has arguments on both sides, as to how it happened. Yours is the generally adopted stance of the Arabs. I cannot say with absolute certainty that you are right or wrong, because I was obviously not there for it.

Fenris
Nov 30th 2007, 11:13 AM
Just like the thread asks:

Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel?
No.


If not, some perhaps some indication of how they've managed to be consistently in the wrong for about 60 years now?
Israel's hand has been forced for the last 60 years by the fact that they are a tiny nation surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who want them all dead. Let's not forget the fact that until 1967, the West bank was owned by Jordan and Gaza was owned by Egypt. Why did they not create a Palestinian state then? In the wake of the 1967 war, Israel offered to return all the captured territory in exchange for peace. The response was as follows: (From Palestinefacts.org)Heads of state from eight Arab countries attended a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan held from August 29 to September 1, 1967. The meeting formulated the Arab consensus that formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states participating in the conflict with Israel until the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The resolution adopted September 1, 1967 called for the continued struggle against Israel, the creation of a fund to assist the economics of Egypt and Jordan, the lifting of an Arab oil boycott against the West and a new agreement to end the war in Yemen.
The best remembered action at Khartoum, however, was the adoption of the dictum of "Three NOs" with respect to Israel:

NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel With this resolution, the Arab states slammed the door on any progress towards peace with Israel.



So the real question should be, Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against the other Arab states? The answer, in my opinion, is yes.

Now, do the Palestinians have the right to their own country? Of course they do. Why hasn't Israel provided them with one? Several reasons. First of all, no Palestinian leader seems willing to turn the guns provided to them by Israel and the US against terrorists. When Palestinian terror groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, Al Aqsa Martys Brigade, etc etc) launch attacks on Israel from Palestinian controlled territory, the PA must attack them, disrupt them, arrest them, and convict them, and jail them. To date this has not happened, not one singe time. From 1993 until 2000 Israel pulled out of more and more Palestinian territory and Arafat was unwilling to keep the peace. Even right now, as peace talks go on, the PA arrests Hamas terrorists in the West Bank and then promptly releases them. Why would Israel give them a state from which they would attack Israel with impunity?

A second problem is the Palestinian demand for a 'right of return'. IN 1948 some 700,000 (give or take) Arabs left Israel. Similarly, some 700,000 Jews left Arab countries. Israel absorbed the Jews who left arab countries but the arabs who fled Israel were left in refugee camps where they remain to this day- with their children and grandchildren. The Palestinians want these poor people, along with their descendants, to be allowed to return to Israel.

Now, forget about the fact that every other refugee group created by world war 2 was absorbed into the countries they ended up in. Forget about the fact that the arab nations, with trillions of petrodollars, allowed their brethren to remain in poverty, as stateless people, as pawns. There are now some 6 million of these people. Refugees are normally defined as people forced out of a country- just those people. Not their descendants, who are citizens of the country they are born in- except in this case because their misery gives the arabs a causes belli against Israel (as if they needed one). Israel only has 7 million citizens right now- about 6 million Jews and 1 million arabs. It's preposterous to say that Israel has to accept another 6 million people. For one thing, there's no room. For another, Jews would quickly find themselves a minority in the country- and be forced to rely on the the (unproven) tolerance of their new Muslim masters. As a point of example, arab Christians found themselves a minority in Lebanon one day and were on the receiving end of a most brutal civil war. Do we really need another Lebanon? It also makes a mockery of the statement "Two states for two peoples", because it would really be "Two states for one people"- the Palestinians- who would have a majority of the population in BOTH their new Palestinian state and ALSO in Israel. (They are also a majority of the population in Jordan, but that's another story entirely).


My vision for peace in the region would be based on the following: First, the Palestinians would have to actually arrests terrorists, not just make a 'maximum effort'. A country must be responsible for what occurs within it's borders. Second, they would have to renounce the right of return- unequivocally, in both english and arabic. In return, they would be given Gaza (which Israel already left) and most of the west bank. Israel would annex the large settlement blocs (it's unrealistic to uproot 300,000 people) and Palestine would be given territory from Israel to compensate. The Palestinians would be given portions of east Jerusalem, but not the Temple Mount which is under control of the Waqf anyway.

Having said all that, it's never going to happen because 1)The Palestinians will never arrest their own; Hamas took over all of Gaza because the PA troops, who outnumbered them, refused to shoot back; and 2) They will never renounce the 'right of return'.

Fenris
Nov 30th 2007, 01:43 PM
A speech made by Dan Gillerman, Israel's rep to the UN:

On this day, 60 years ago, the Jewish State was born out of the historic 1947 General Assembly session, where two extraordinary gifts were given to humanity: the gift of a modern state for the Jewish people and the gift of Israel to the world.

I have just come from a commemorative ceremony at Lake Success, where that United Nations, met 60 years ago. You see, throughout history, nations traditionally have been created through war and conquest. Israel, however, was created by UN decree and by the nations of the world. To be there today – representing my Government and my People – was indeed a joyous occasion. So, I wish you all, a Happy Birthday.


Mr. President,


Late last night, I returned from Annapolis. It was a memorable occasion, with representatives from over 40 nations – chiefly among them moderate states of the Arab and Muslim world – committed to supporting the bilateral process between Israel and the Palestinians. The air in Annapolis was filled with the hope that by working together we can realize a peaceful and better tomorrow. I have no doubt that this sense of optimism was felt by all those in attendance.


Yet, back here in New York, standing before this august Assembly – in a place so distant from Annapolis in body, mind, and soul – I cannot help but wonder whether today’s debate will contribute to the spirit, promise, and hope of Annapolis.


After all, this Assembly hall is also the birthplace of the annual 21 resolutions defaming Israel – with a litany of predetermined, impractical, and completely biased conclusions – that have only given the Palestinians a fictitious sense of reality and a discourse of rights without responsibilities, both of which render the United Nations completely incapable of playing a meaningful role in addressing the conflict.

Today – 29 of November – is perhaps the greatest example of how this Assembly continues to stifle hope and faith for peace in our region. According to the calendar of the United Nations, today is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which by definition precludes Israel.


Let me be clear: Palestinian self-determination is a cause Israel wholeheartedly supports. Indeed, at the Annapolis meeting, just two days ago, my Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert said “we will find the right way, as part of an international effort in which we will participate, to assist these Palestinians in finding a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state which will be established in the territories agreed upon between us”.
Over the years, however, the proceedings held in this Hall and at UN centers around the world have corrupted the cause of Palestinian self-determination and transformed it into a denigration and defamation of the Jewish state.


I have been listening carefully to the statements delivered this afternoon. They all focused on Israel, and I know many will focus on Israel later.
The narrative is the same: it is unjust, draining, grossly erroneous, misleading, and – I dare say – viciously boring. It is sadly, yet again, déjà vu, all over again.


The penchant for blaming Israel for the repeated Palestinian failures is so widespread and contagious that the absurdity of it goes completely unnoticed. And today reminds us why: the Palestinian addiction to the culture of victimhood is fed by this world body and specifically many of its Member States – as we just witnessed – who day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, use this international forum for their rhetorical theatrics. Broadway might have been on strike, but the theater on the East River is always open for business.

It is time to close the gap between the reality on the ground and the rhetoric in this Hall now, forever, once and for all.


For us – for Jews and for Israelis – today is not a bitter day at all. We are not downtrodden or haunted by vanquished dreams. Today is a day of great victory and success – victory over oppression and tyranny, and success over the painful tragedies and suffering of Jewish history. Today, we celebrate the resilience of the Jewish people and our eternal bond to the land of Israel, where after so many years of yearning and longing in exile we merited the return to our homeland.

The joy felt on 29 November 1947 is recounted by Amos Oz, one of Israel’s most celebrated writers, and a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature:

“There was dancing and weeping … Bottles of fruit drink, beer and wine passed from hand to hand and mouth to mouth, strangers hugged each other in streets and kissed each other with tears, … frenzied revelers … waved the flag of the state that had not been established yet, but tonight, over there in Lake Success, it had been decided that it had the right to be established”.
Travel to any city in Israel, and you will no doubt find a street named for this very day – כ”ט בנובמבר – the 29th of November – a testament to its importance and significance to our people.


In fact, I live in Tel-Aviv, just yards from a street named after the 29th of November, and my eldest grandson, Ron, as born on this very day nine years ago. It is on his behalf and on behalf of all children of Israel and the children of the region that I stand before you here today.


Distinguished Excellencies, think of the past 60 years, and consider Israel’s many contributions to the world in the fields of science and technology, medicine, art, and culture. A country that has discovered ways to stop deserts from receding; a country that has engineered critical advancements in medicine, cures for illnesses and limbs for the disabled; a country that has endowed the world with rich treasures of art and culture, through its Nobel Laureates, poets, artists, and writers.

Think about where the world would be today without the State of Israel – and I know some in this Hall perversely dream about such a question. But Israel is here to stay, to flourish, and to continue contributing to the advancement of man, progress, and human civilization.

It is then the greatest insult to us, to history, and to this Assembly that while Israel celebrates, others at the United Nations mourn.


Some Member States will note my delegation’s absence from past 29th of November proceedings. We stopped addressing this session because some Member States hijacked and abused the forum for their own political interests and turned it into yet another venue to demonize Israel. We cannot allow that to happen any longer. Today is our day.

It is high time for Israel and for all those committed to peace in our region, to reclaim this day for what it truly means: the peaceful coexistence of two independent states in the region, a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace and security, each fulfilling the national aspirations of its respective people.


Mr. President,


In this regard, it is all the more bewildering that of late the Jewish character of the State of Israel has been called into question. Last week, as Israelis and Palestinians set out for Annapolis, a veteran Palestinian negotiator said “the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity”.

The resolution that gives the 29th of November significance – General Assembly resolution 181 – speaks of the creation of the “Jewish State” no less than 25 times. Even before that, the notion of a Jewish state in the land of Israel was cemented in the 1922 League of Nations British Mandate on Palestine, which put into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to establish a national home for the Jewish people.

The Arab refusal to recognize the existence of our Jewish state has been at the core of the Palestinians’ inability to achieve a state of their own. When the Jews accepted the UN partition plan, the Arabs made a fateful – and indeed fatal – choice to reject it and invade the newly borne Jewish state, rather than coexist with it.


Had the Arabs accepted the UN’s decision, there would have been two states, one Jewish and one Arab, all this time, for the past 60 years. Had the Arabs not rejected the decision, my Palestinian colleague who spoke earlier would have represented a Member State, not just as an Observer entity.

The wrong choices did not end in 1947. We saw them again in 1967, 1973, 2000, and 2005, when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip only to have the Palestinians bring the Hamas terrorists to power. The wrong choices of the Palestinians continue until this very day, when, on average, Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip fire rockets at Israel every three hours.
For their brutal violence, arrogance, and intransigence, Israel has paid an enormous price: with the lives of our people – the Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism: men, women, and children, young and old, doctors and lawyers, artists and scientists, all who would have contributed so greatly to life in Israel and to the betterment of the entire world.


The terrorism we still see today stems from an innate refusal to recognize Israel, a refusal to recognize the Jewish state, and a refusal to recognize the value of our lives. So long as there is a denial of the existential issues, I fear, there can never be an agreement on the territorial ones.

Mr. President,


Annapolis – I hope and believe – represents a new wind of change. Moderate Arab and Muslim states today recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the cause of instability in our region and that the conflict can and will end. They also recognize that the real dangers come directly from Islamic extremism and its champion Iran, who sponsors terrorism around the globe, tries to attain nuclear weapons, denies the Holocaust while preparing for the next one, relentlessly defying the will of the international community.


The Coalition for Peace, which the world saw assembled in Annapolis just two days ago, will support the process between Israel and the Palestinians. But it is also a coalition that will hopefully counter and confront the extremists in Teheran.


I hope that the winds of Annapolis will blow to the north, to this very Hall. For there could be no better time for the nations of the world – and in particular the moderate Arab and Muslim states in this Hall today – to show their commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian process. And there could be no better place than here at the United Nations –where for decades Israel has been discriminated against and singled out, contrary to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter – for Members States to tell Israel and the Palestinians that they support our dialogue.


Mr. President,


Allow me to take you back once more to sixty years ago, to 2 October 1947, when David Ben-Gurion, founding father and first Prime Minister of the State of Israel, two months prior to the General Assembly’s historic vote, said in Jerusalem:

“We will not surrender our right to free Aliyah, to rebuild our shattered Homeland, to claim statehood. If we are attacked, we will fight back. But we will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish cooperation gainful to both. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for the common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals”.
Mr. President, sixty years later, today here, Israel’s message to the Arab nations and the Palestinians has not changed. Shoulder to shoulder for the common good. Now, more than ever, with the winds of change blowing strong from Annapolis, to New York, to the Middle East, to all corners of the earth.


Thank You.

Fenris
Nov 30th 2007, 01:44 PM
Meanwhile, what did Hamas do?


The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that “Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem… there is no room in it for the Jews.”


Regarding the partition decision, Hamas said that “correcting mistakes is nothing to be ashamed of, but prolonging it is exploitation.”

diffangle
Nov 30th 2007, 02:23 PM
No.

Israel's hand has been forced for the last 60 years by the fact that they are a tiny nation surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who want them all dead. Let's not forget the fact that until 1967, the West bank was owned by Jordan and Gaza was owned by Egypt. Why did they not create a Palestinian state then? In the wake of the 1967 war, Israel offered to return all the captured territory in exchange for peace. The response was as follows: (From Palestinefacts.org)Heads of state from eight Arab countries attended a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan held from August 29 to September 1, 1967. The meeting formulated the Arab consensus that formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states participating in the conflict with Israel until the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The resolution adopted September 1, 1967 called for the continued struggle against Israel, the creation of a fund to assist the economics of Egypt and Jordan, the lifting of an Arab oil boycott against the West and a new agreement to end the war in Yemen.
The best remembered action at Khartoum, however, was the adoption of the dictum of "Three NOs" with respect to Israel:

NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with IsraelWith this resolution, the Arab states slammed the door on any progress towards peace with Israel.



So the real question should be, Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against the other Arab states? The answer, in my opinion, is yes.

Now, do the Palestinians have the right to their own country? Of course they do. Why hasn't Israel provided them with one? Several reasons. First of all, no Palestinian leader seems willing to turn the guns provided to them by Israel and the US against terrorists. When Palestinian terror groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, Al Aqsa Martys Brigade, etc etc) launch attacks on Israel from Palestinian controlled territory, the PA must attack them, disrupt them, arrest them, and convict them, and jail them. To date this has not happened, not one singe time. From 1993 until 2000 Israel pulled out of more and more Palestinian territory and Arafat was unwilling to keep the peace. Even right now, as peace talks go on, the PA arrests Hamas terrorists in the West Bank and then promptly releases them. Why would Israel give them a state from which they would attack Israel with impunity?

A second problem is the Palestinian demand for a 'right of return'. IN 1948 some 700,000 (give or take) Arabs left Israel. Similarly, some 700,000 Jews left Arab countries. Israel absorbed the Jews who left arab countries but the arabs who fled Israel were left in refugee camps where they remain to this day- with their children and grandchildren. The Palestinians want these poor people, along with their descendants, to be allowed to return to Israel.

Now, forget about the fact that every other refugee group created by world war 2 was absorbed into the countries they ended up in. Forget about the fact that the arab nations, with trillions of petrodollars, allowed their brethren to remain in poverty, as stateless people, as pawns. There are now some 6 million of these people. Refugees are normally defined as people forced out of a country- just those people. Not their descendants, who are citizens of the country they are born in- except in this case because their misery gives the arabs a causes belli against Israel (as if they needed one). Israel only has 7 million citizens right now- about 6 million Jews and 1 million arabs. It's preposterous to say that Israel has to accept another 6 million people. For one thing, there's no room. For another, Jews would quickly find themselves a minority in the country- and be forced to rely on the the (unproven) tolerance of their new Muslim masters. As a point of example, arab Christians found themselves a minority in Lebanon one day and were on the receiving end of a most brutal civil war. Do we really need another Lebanon? It also makes a mockery of the statement "Two states for two peoples", because it would really be "Two states for one people"- the Palestinians- who would have a majority of the population in BOTH their new Palestinian state and ALSO in Israel. (They are also a majority of the population in Jordan, but that's another story entirely).


My vision for peace in the region would be based on the following: First, the Palestinians would have to actually arrests terrorists, not just make a 'maximum effort'. A country must be responsible for what occurs within it's borders. Second, they would have to renounce the right of return- unequivocally, in both english and arabic. In return, they would be given Gaza (which Israel already left) and most of the west bank. Israel would annex the large settlement blocs (it's unrealistic to uproot 300,000 people) and Palestine would be given territory from Israel to compensate. The Palestinians would be given portions of east Jerusalem, but not the Temple Mount which is under control of the Waqf anyway.

Having said all that, it's never going to happen because 1)The Palestinians will never arrest their own; Hamas took over all of Gaza because the PA troops, who outnumbered them, refused to shoot back; and 2) They will never renounce the 'right of return'.
Exactly! Isn't it questionable how the sea of Muslim/Arab nations surrounding Israel couldn't absorb their fellow Muslims/Arabs(especially since so many properties were freed up from the forced expulsion of Jews)? Also, wasn't it the Arab leaders(not Israeli leaders) that told the Pals to leave their homes in Israel b/c they(the Arabs) were going to attack the Jews?

Fenris
Nov 30th 2007, 03:43 PM
Exactly! Isn't it questionable how the sea of Muslim/Arab nations surrounding Israel couldn't absorb their fellow Muslims/Arabs(especially since so many properties were freed up from the forced expulsion of Jews)? Also, wasn't it the Arab leaders(not Israeli leaders) that told the Pals to leave their homes in Israel b/c they(the Arabs) were going to attack the Jews? Yes, plenty of quotes with sources may be found here (http://www.ujc.org/page.html?ArticleID=121275) amongst other places.

Braves27
Nov 30th 2007, 04:05 PM
It's extremely simple. There's no such thing as a so-called "palestinian", and the arabs that call themselves that have no right to an inch of the land of Israel. Any position other than that is not that of someone who believes in the Bible.




So, no, no matter what was ever to happen, a so-called "palestinian" would never have a legitimate grievance against Israel.

Teke
Nov 30th 2007, 04:20 PM
Just like the thread asks:

Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel?

If so what are they in your opinion?

If not, some perhaps some indication of how they've managed to be consistently in the wrong for about 60 years now?

The Palestinian grievances are like the Arabs. They do not like foreign interference in their political affairs.

As has been said, "The way to break this cycle is for all actors to negotiate a political solution that responds to their legitimate grievances and demands. Everyone involved seems prepared to do this, except for Israel and the United States, who rely on military force, prolonged occupations, and diplomatic sanctions and threats. What will Israel and the United States do when there are no more Arab airports, bridges and power stations to destroy? The futility of such policies should be clear by now, and therefore a diplomatic solution should be sought seriously for the first time."

Outsiders need to stay outside negotiations and let the people progress the way they should be. The middle east is faced with the revolution of modern democratic market society, which can only go forward and not back.

Israel and the US will not change their policies, and weak Arab governments cannot find an effective way to change those policies. This is why they turn to non-governmental organizations to find a solution.

Teke
Nov 30th 2007, 04:26 PM
It's extremely simple. There's no such thing as a so-called "palestinian", and the arabs that call themselves that have no right to an inch of the land of Israel. Any position other than that is not that of someone who believes in the Bible.




So, no, no matter what was ever to happen, a so-called "palestinian" would never have a legitimate grievance against Israel.

Excuse me, but why bring the bible into this. It only proves they are all related. So you believe that relative people should fight amongst themselves.:giveup:

Fenris
Nov 30th 2007, 04:51 PM
As has been said, "The way to break this cycle is for all actors to negotiate a political solution that responds to their legitimate grievances and demands. Everyone involved seems prepared to do this, except for Israel and the United States, who rely on military force, prolonged occupations, and diplomatic sanctions and threats. What will Israel and the United States do when there are no more Arab airports, bridges and power stations to destroy? The futility of such policies should be clear by now, and therefore a diplomatic solution should be sought seriously for the first time."
Negotiation with the Palestinians has been tried many times. It has not worked for two reasons: 1) The Palestinians refuse to uphold any agreements they sign; and 2) No matter what agreements are reached, they always revert back to their maximalist demands.

Perhaps you could explain to us how to negotiate a political solution under those circumstances.

ProjectPeter
Nov 30th 2007, 05:06 PM
When a thread is closed on an issue... you don't just change the title and reopen the same old discussion. Drop it for a while.