The Arabs have not been living here As Palestinians for centuries since there was no Palestinian Entity here and only at the end of the 19 the century did. this idea arise. Whilst the Jewish Kingdom and the yearning for return exists for centuries creating a Jewish State.Did the Arabs call themselves Palestinean?! How can you compare?! There were Arabs here and all over the Middle East. We call them Arabs because of a culture based on a Moslem invasion in the 7th century across the Middle East and part of
southern Europe.I believe from Saudi Arabia.
RNS creates a formula giving equal status to Israel and the Palestinians. I believe it is incorrect. Also I highly question whether the majority of Jews believe that the Palestinians have an ideological right to a State.
I think they should never be given that right; why should we continue carving up our tiny Biblical heartland for further terrorist havens with the sole aim of whipping us off the map?
We should never negotiate and bargain with ourselves. We hear nothing and we see nothing from the Arabs that indicate we can reach an agreement that would keep us safe not for just the the short term.
Who is making the rules?! Their were countries who ruled the area. That includes the basis for so called nation states. In any case it is a matter of control of the areas.
Not Palestinians but Arabs.So wht gives Arabs control over areas they had no control of.Anyeay the Jews were there first.WE'RE Back with our religious culture,our language, and proven ancient geneological heritage. The Arab Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem even once.
Even if the Palestinians only arrived at the beginning of the 20th Century, the fact remains that Israel’s international legitimacy derives from the UN Partition Plan, and the UN never gave us the rights to the West Bank.
No the Palestine Mandate was never intended to include Trans Jordan and it didn't even intend the entirety of the area west of the Jordan as the Jewish National Home.
You better go back to school and learn about the Balfour Declaration (penned by an antisemite), historical Jewish presence in the land, etc. In 1922, the League of Nations approved the eventual establishment of a Jewish state throughout the Mandate (including Transjordan). The only reason it was later (illegally and unilaterally) sliced off is because the British wanted to placate the Saudi Emir Abdullah and reward him for his help in defeating the Turks. That region included 75% of our promised homeland (38,000 square miles). Meanwhile, the remaining 25% was opened for BOTH Jewish and Arab settlement but was then retracted regarding Jews via the White Paper. Indeed, the Peel Commission found that Eretz Yisrael was quickly being overrun by Arabs and that these Arabs would quickly displace us!
Indeed, although we sided with the Brits (the Arabs having sided with the Germans), they still refused Jewish immigration and actually went out of their way to signal German forces when migrants arrived and were turned around.
Today, Israel supports 7 million Jews and about the same equal of Arabs. All those lives could have been saved; instead, 6 million died because the Brits/Arabs refused Jewish immigrants.
Sorry to say this but were it not for the Allied victory in World War I, which led to the Treaty of Lausanne, the League of Nations Mandate, and the UN Partition Plan, you would be a citizen of Türkiye. Assuming that Erdogan would have let you immigrate. The Ottoman Empire didn't want to give up the Middle East.
The Palestinians have been in the land for a thousand years or longer. They just didn't call themselves by that term until the 20th century. Nation states did not exist in the Muslim world until the late 19th century. They didn't exist in Christian Europe until early modern times. We lack the historical understanding to appreciate the past.
In that case no people other than Chinese, Hindus, and Jews deserve to have states. You want either anarchy in the rest of the world, of the entire rest of rhe world to be divided up between the atheist Chinese and the polytheistic Hindus.
Indeed, and I repeat: a people are not legitimate unless they've existed for a substantial period of time and have followed basic principles of human morality. Murderous people don't deserve a state of their own, but perhaps pragmatism may dictate they receive one anyway to keep their mischief sequestered to limited boundaries.
The Chinese were also divided into several peoples, and they also engaged in brutalities. You should be aware that withing India there still exist ethnic tensions. But since they're non-white, they all look the same to you.
It's a convenience to lump people together into nation states. And indeed in the most recent period, with many many exceptions, the nation state has been a source of stability, even if many of those nations who've achieved a state don't deserve it.
That being the case, the nation state (especially in the Middle East) can freely engage in monstrous brutalities insured by the morally bankrupt UN who endorse such crimes because the sovereignty of the nation state is sacrosanct and the source of international stability. It's on this altar of stability that Jews are being sacrificed today. If the world community imposes a brutal Hamas/PLO state onto the Arabs, there will be plenty of non-Jewish victims as well.
The international system may have no alternatives, but I see no reason why to defend it with such fervor.
The concept of rewarding the terrorists with another authoritarian dictatorship will neither achieve justice for Arabs, security for Jews, or peace and stability for the morally bankrupt international community.
well according to your definition of legitimacy the Jews are out. Our own tradition teaches we lost the land because we were murderers and were not following basic principles of human morality
That's a claim that could feasibly be made regarding a small percentage (15? 20? 30 at the outside) of "Palestinians." The vast majority immigrated to the area concurrently with mass Jewish immigration in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. And even that small percentage could not conceivably be called "*The* Palestinians", and only arguably called "Palestinians" at all. Nation states or no nation states, they didn't have any sort of unique collective identity particular to Palestine, any more than you do as a Jew to the USA. Their collective identity prior to Jewish immigration was "Arab", full stop.
"The vast majority immigrated to the area concurrently with mass Jewish immigration in the late 19th/early 20th centuries."
No evidence for such mass immigration during those times and in any case it is irrelevant because you are talking about movement within the same country, like me having been born in Philadelphia and now living in New York City.
It isn't even clear that there was an "Arab" identity prior to the 20th century or a "Turkish" identity prior to the 19th. (Or for that matter an "Italian" or "German" identity prior to the 19th.)
Exactly, the UN trampled on our rights. The UN ,a political entity has no real rights. They are as bad as any autocracy. Whose impressed?! We existed as a country way before the UN.
No, Israel's international legitimacy derives from the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations Mandate, both of which preceded the partition plan by almost 30 years. And both of which, according to the international legal principle of uti possidetis juris, applies at the very least to all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea/Sinai Peninsula, if not to Transjordan as well, davka because the 1947 Partition Plan was not accepted by all parties. If it had been, your claim would have a leg to stand on.
So why has the ICJ ruled that Israeli settlements are illegal? Surely they also know a thing or two about international law? And why does every country in the world besides Israel and the US also take this view? No other country agrees with you!
The ICJ is nothing but a political organization with an agenda. "International law" itself doesn't exist as such; it's made up exclusively of treaties of various kinds to which their signatories agree to subject themselves. The ICJ is as much beholden to the nations it supposedly dictates to as they are to it, if not more so. Tell me, is the UN right every time it passes resolutions against Israel? If not, why not? Surely the same international political calculus applies.
But if you're going according to actual principles of these treaties and of international legal theory (again, see uti possidetis juris), not only does the 1947 Partition Plan carry no weight at all, but Israeli settlements are in fact completely legal.
Even if you are right, my point was about the international legitimacy of Israel. Since the vast majority of countries accept the ICJ's position (whether it is right or wrong), it follows that Israel's international legitimacy derives from the 1947 Partition Plan, because that is the position of most of the world's countries. The world does not accept your legal opinion.
Most of the world's countries -- and certainly most of the world's people -- will never grant Israel any "international legitimacy". Maybe if you limit the opinions that count only to the governments of the world's democratic countries, and to a few others with whom Israel has cultivated its own relationships, you'll get to a tenuous advantage for Israel. Otherwise I couldn't care less what the world accepts. By that metric we'd have been long extinct.
"This is just one of several reasons why the Arab leadership did not accept the UN partition plan and why the Palestinian leadership did not accept any peace proposal or even offer any realistic counter proposals. They will not accept that the Jewish People have a right to statehood in their ancient homeland."
Yossi Klein Halevi: "...one of the things I learned in engaging with the Palestinians--is that this conflict can really be boiled down to one question: Who started? And, that's really, I think, a useful way of beginning to approach the question of these opposing narratives.
From the Palestinian side, of course the Jews started. 'We Palestinians were living here peacefully, minding our own business and you began to show up with this crazy idea that you were here 2,000 years ago and saying that this was your land.' You imported the conflict. If you hadn't come, there would be no conflict. That's the ground.
And so, if you accept that point of view, then Israel really has no legitimacy, not only in terms of defending itself, but it's right to exist. If we don't belong here, then there's no such thing as Israeli self-defense. And, that's crucial for understanding a Palestinian rejectionist mindset: You showed up and began settling this land just like a European colonialist, one more wave of colonialism."
Shaul, when people say to me something like what Yossi reports from those Palestinians, here's what I say to them:
Ask a Palestinian, or pretty much any Arab, how long they will struggle to get back “their” land. Another century? Five hundred years? Two thousand? Almost always the answer will be, “As long as it takes. We'll never give up!”
Whether the person I'm talking to is a serious supporter of Palestinian statehood or a naive American college student who cheers Hamas, they accept this likely response without question and call such determination admirable, even heroic. Then I point out that it is only what we Jews have already been doing for two thousand years.
"Then I point out that it is only what we Jews have already been doing for two thousand years."
Yes, YKH makes that point as well:
"Yossi Klein Halevi:...
And so, for the Jews to have been a majority in Jerusalem, I think tells us something very profound about the deep Jewish attachment here. When Palestinians say, 'We showed up, we came,' they're leaving out one crucial word, and that is 'back.' 'We came back.' We had never severed our connection to this land. It was always central in Jewish consciousness. The genius of rabbinic Judaism was to centralize the land of Israel in Jewish religious practice and in Jewish identity, so that wherever a Jew was in the world, you prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. Wherever you were, you prayed for rain in the land of Israel, even if it wasn't--even if it was the rainy season.
I remember growing up in Brooklyn, when, on the holiday of Sukkot where Jews build booths to commemorate the wandering of the Israelites in the desert. And, it always poured on the holiday of Sukkot. And, it was only when I came to Israel that I realized why we built booths, because it is the end of the harvest season. And, farmers--you could see it in the land today--farmers will build these makeshift booths when they're out in the field harvesting.
And so, we internalized the rhythms of the land of Israel, and not only did it become a kind of vicarious identity for us, but the entire focus of the Jewish future was that one day we would come back.
Russ Roberts: Which is a little like being a Red Sox fan until up to 2004--
Yossi Klein Halevi: Until it happens, right? Until they went--
Russ Roberts: It's just important to recognize that the persistent belief and prayer on the part of Jews that we return to the land and that Jerusalem be rebuilt is bizarrely dysfunctional and surreal that Jews scattered around the world--
Yossi Klein Halevi: It's a surreal story. It is a surreal story. But it happened. But it happened--
Russ Roberts: But, it came true, was shocking. Anyway, carry on.
Yossi Klein Halevi: So, when Palestinians say that the Jews started this conflict because we suddenly showed up, the Jewish response is, 'We didn't suddenly show up. There were always Jews here. More Jews came to join them. We were actualizing the core of our identity.'"
Thanks for the additional quote, Shaul. Yossi described our persistent attachment to our homeland — and our unwavering claim to it — much as I would. Clearly, we are on the same page on this aspect of the issue. Our claim is more deeply-rooted in centuries of sovereign and non-sovereign presence, and more impressive for having been sustained over two millennia since.
Note, however, that not despite but because, of the strength of that claim, I believe it's our obligation to compromise with our Palestinian cousins and find a way to share the land. Our superior claim doesn’t give us the right to rule over and, frankly, oppress another people indefinitely. Recreating a state with the borders we think it had in Solomon's time is not worth another drop of Jewish (or Arab) blood. The maximalists on both sides must be ignored. Be grateful for what we miraculously have already achieved and leave the final decision on the borders of the ideal Eretz Yisrael to the Days of the Moshiach.
In any case, it's all a lie. Arabs have been killing each other for centuries. And even there's been plenty on intra-Palestinian violence as well. Arafat's career began when he killed another Arab. Any Palestinian state would commence with a bloody civil war.
"the majority of Israelis recognize the historical connection of Palestinians to this land"
huh? it's one thing to say that SOME of them have been here for a few centuries. But to suggest some type of national historical connection to the land? you might as well believe that Torah study protects everyone else.
How many of the non-Jews in the 16th century were “Palestinians”? How many were Turks? Armenians? European Christians left over from the Frankish kingdoms? Descendants of Mongolian invaders? Descendants of Pharisees, Saduccees, Samaritans and others who were forcibly converted to Islam?
While the concept of Palestinian is a 20th century one, there were essentially no Turks (the Ottomans actually encouraged *Jewish* settlement not Turks), almost no Christians (the Mamluks had expelled them in the 13th century), no Mongols (the Mamluks chased them out as quickly as they arrived), and few Jews (the Crusaders had massacred US). The population was overwhelmingly Muslim, mostly agricultural, and the language was Arabic.
Even if the historical connection started in 1920, it still is a historical connection. 1920 is more than 100 years ago. Anyway, the main point that the Palestinians should be perceived as the rejectionists is correct.
What about Jordan,a Palestinian State! We were deprived by the United Nations of our ancestral home. They gave us a speck. Like Indians on the Reservation,even less.
Because their political independence (if they even want it) is inextricably linked with the fact that they want to murder you and destroy *your* political independence. You seem unwilling to take the Arabs at their word - their honest, unvarnished, consistently expressed word. Your naiivete is no longer becoming, especially after 7 October.
Of course I know that! But it only means that we CAN'T give them political independence in the foreseeable future. It doesn't mean that they are not entitled to the same basic rights that everyone else gets. What is your plan? Annex the land and not give them citizenship?
Yes, my naiive friend, it does. Murderers, rapists, baby decapitators, do not have the same basic right everyone else gets. And a culture that generates, encourages, extolls and justifies such behavior does not have the same basic rights every other culture does.
And all this would hold, only if there were an actual historical claim to the land! But there isn't. It is a land that lay desolate, waiting for Jews to come back. Most Arabs who lived here were destitute, scratching a subsistence out of the earth for a few years, before migrating on. No civilization, no special quality of national character or gift to humanity came from them. They didn't aspire to sovereignty, and always saw themselves as a part of the greater Arab nation. There was no national sentiment before '67, no attempt to become independent while under Egyptian and Jordanian rule. Only when the Jews come along, does suddenly a fantasy of a non-existant past evolve.
Why on earth should they have the same rights as a nation that kept faith with a land for 2,000 years? Why do you insist on not taking your own side in this conflict?
Stop conceding moral ground no one asked you to concede. You will not be considered more "reasonable" because of this (at least, to anyone that matters). You are still a Jewish settler living in the Judean lowlands to most of the world.
"It doesn't mean that they are not entitled to the same basic rights that everyone else gets. What is your plan? Annex the land and not give them citizenship?"
Arabs have 23 states (counting Gaza). 70-ish% of Jordan is Arab. Why create a third one for them in OUR Biblical heartland? Why keep carving up our tiny state? Did appeasement work for the Germans in WWII? No, it always fails. They had their chance in '47.
a) That there is a disagreement as to its status post-Ezra does not change the fact that Trans-Jordan is considered Eretz Yisrael by almost all halakhic measures (Tithes, Shemita, LEvite cities, etc. There is disagreement if burial there is considered burial in E"Y, if Bikurim from there are biblical or rabbinic in nature, and if prophecy and other mystical aspects of E"Y apply there).
b) Reuven and Gad were criticized not for wanting to stay there "rather than enter the land", but because Moshe thought they were shirking the military duties of conquest; as soon as they relieved his fears, their desire to stay on the eastern side of the river was not a problem.
I am amused by the misapprehension of the sin of Reuven and Gad (and half of Menasseh) as being an unwillingness to inhabit and inherit the land, in the minds of those who attack so vociferously and with such scorn calls for resettlement of Gaza.
After all, Gaza is part of Eretz Yisrael according to all halakhic measures.
And then it was part of the Land of Israel for well over a thousand years after that. The original Jewish Agency plan for Israel included parts of Jordan, as of course did the League of Nations Mandate.
Another lie. The League of Nations Mandate had made Trans-Jordan separate. That was always the intention; ever since the British conquest it had been administered separately.
I'm so glad we have someone here so committed to arguing the side of our enemies, even if he seems committed to his own "facts" and then calls others "liars" when, for all he knows, they could be making honest mistakes. (And they're not even doing that.) You seem very...committed, as I said.
To the point: The San Remo Conference of the League of Nations, which gave "Palestine" (which included Jordan) to the Jews, took place in April 1920. The British had tried to hand Syria, which was originally also to be part of "Palestine", to the Hashemites (who were in the process of being kicked out of the Hejaz) only a month before. Due to an earlier illegal and secret agreement, San Remo assigned Syria to the French, who kicked out the Hashemites in July. It was only *after* that, in August, that the British first began making noises of giving Jordan to the Arabs. (This was years after the British conquest, by the way.) They *really* wanted to be nice to the Hashemites for some reason, especially considering that they *also* gave them Iraq, and of course- for obvious reasons- *really* wanted to limit the Jewish state as much as possible. It was only *after* the Hashemites were illegally given Jordan (and all the Jews thrown out) that the League of Nations retroactively ratified the move.
By your definition, you are, um, "lying." But I'll be nice and just say you really don't know the facts, and your soft feelings toward a made-up nation that has been murdering us for many decades probably is the reason you keep making up new ones.
We’ve been doing that for over a hundred years. One could argue that it’s highly IRRATIONAL to believe that continuing to do so would get us anywhere where we’d be better off than going with the truth.
. . . As colonizers of our indigenous homeland (never mind the fact that there has always been a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael, including a majority in Yerushalayim.
According to Arab standards, yes- your existence in the US is illegitimate.
According to American standards, which value the right to life and liberty as fundamental, Palestinian nationalism, which values none of those things, is also illegitimate. Promoting a Palestinian State is un-American.
I'm sorry. I really appreciate all that you do, including your books, but..... The majority of Israelis recognize the historical connection of the Palestinian to this land ?!?!?? What ?!?!?? There is no historical connection. The whole Palestinian narrative is a myth. How can you say such a thing ? Some Israelis buy, or pretend to, into this lie, but the majority know the truth.
Yaakov Yehuda, in the year 1800 there were about 250,000 Palestinian Arabs here, in the year 1900 about 500,000, and in 1947 close to a million. That's why the UN decided on two states. What do you think should have happened to them then? And what do you think should happen to them now?
Good morning. There were Arabs here. Not Palestinians. The difference is crucial. There was no distinct Palestinian identity. The partition plan talked about two states - Jewish and Arab, not Jewish and Palestinian. There was no mention of a Palestinian state, because everyone knew that there are no Palestinians as a distinct identity
Agreed, 100%. They were part of a larger group of Levantine Arabs. None of them had nation-state identities. Now let's return to the question: What should happen to them now?
How about, be absorbed into one of the other three or four countries otherwise occupied entirely by other Levantine Arabs? Countries whose national identities are as contrived as the "Palestinians"?
And how, Yitz, do you see that playing out, seeing as that they don't see themselves as citizens of Jordan, don't want to move to Jordan, and Jordan doesn't want to have them? Are you proposing that Israel should officially invade Jordan and transfer them at gunpoint?
Well, when Jordan occupied the region between '48-67, nobody complained about "Palestinian sovereignty." Instead, they simply swore fealty to the king! Only in '64 did so-called "Palestinian" Arabs begin developing a national consciousness thanks to Arafat's KGB training.
Yes, Jordan doesn't want them now because everywhere they go, they destabilize the region (e.g., Lebanon). So I'm not sure what, exactly, has to happen, but I'm certain of one thing: Arabs don't actually want a state. They enjoy the hundreds of millions in aid. Plus, if they were ever given a state, it'd mean the end of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and an end to their dream of one day conquering ALL of Eretz Yisrael.
What? You're mistaken. Jordan only relinquished Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, etc., after we defeated them in '67 (an Arab-initiated war, mind you). Settlements began after. Area C happened after. How do I know this?
Because between '48-67, the Jews of Judea and Samaria (aka, "West Bank") were ETHNICALLY CLEANSED!!!
Do you deny that there were hundreds of thousands living here? Or do you accept that they were living here, but you think that they didn't have any connection to the land?
In some places in Europe the Jews as a percentage of the population was significantly higher than the percentage of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. We should demand the right of return!!
Right. Some small towns. In no region of Poland or Lithuania or Ukraine was there a Jewish majority.
There are very few areas of significance outside of the Land of Israel that might have even been fifty percent Jewish. Thessaloniki in late Ottoman times. The Bronx about 1950. And even those are questionable. Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the late 19th century.
From the french constitution of 1791: "All persons born in a foreign country and descending in any degree of a French man or woman expatriated for religious reason are declared French nationals (naturels français) and will benefit to rights attached to that quality if they come back to France, establish their domicile there and take the civic oath."
This law remained valid until 1945, when it was abolished - since after the Occupation of France, the French were unwilling to let Germans of Huguenot origin to take advantage of it. In October 1985, French President François Mitterrand issued a public apology to the descendants of Huguenots around the world.
From the Constitution of Poland, Article 52(5): "Anyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland."
Former German citizens who, between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945, were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds and their descendants shall, on application, have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after 8 May 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.
Despite the requirement by general rule for obtaining Spanish nationality after five years of residence in Spain, by royal decree on 20 December 1924, Sephardi Jews can obtain Spanish nationality with two years of residence in Spain. From 1924 until 2015 Sephardi Jews living abroad could also ask the Spanish Government for a conferment of Spanish nationality, but the Government enjoyed full discretion as to the decision whether to grant Spanish nationality. On 24 June 2015, the Spanish Parliament approved the 12/2015 Act, the Law Granting the Nationality to Sephardi Jews, that grants the Spanish nationality automatically to Sephardi Jews living abroad, provided they can prove that they are descendants of the Sephardi Jews expelled in 1492.
On April 12, 2013, the Portuguese parliament unanimously approved a measure that allows the descendants of Jews expelled from Portugal in the 16th century to become Portuguese citizens.
When I was learning in England (before Bexit) some australian and south african bachurim were using this to have EU citizenship and not apply for a visa.
He’s trying to be uber-rational. But Zionism was never rational. Ben-Gurion was not rational. The “rational” members of the Jewish provisional council voted AGAINST declaring a state. BG was the deciding vote “for”.
At the time of the 19th century Aliyot, the Arab population in the land of Israel was very sparse. Mark Twain's description of Palestine at that time is well known. The Arab population only boomed -- through both birthrate and immigration -- thanks to the Jews developing the land. So what you wrote that "most of the Palestinians have been here for centuries" is not true.
The modern prosperity that Israel enjoys today is the result of the Jews working very hard for it for 1.5 centuries.
The also poured in illegally because the British later changed their minds and wanted an Arab-majority region (a population they could easily control/exploit) rather than a successful, nationalist Jewish state.
This is a false statement. To day that an Arab born in Damascus would be illegally moving to Ramallah in 1910 shows that you fail to comprehend that from 1517 to 1923 the area was all part of the Ottoman Empire. That is like saying that I can't live in New York City because I was born in Philadelphia.
Fine. But what about those that migrated illegally after? Moreover, just as Arabs aren't indigenous to our land, so are you not indigenous to North America (sorry, no offense, but it's just a fact).
The Arab population expanded at similar rates across the Middle East, as they did across the world once you started doing basic stuff like introducing antiseptic. If I could find some way to restrict medicine and modern technology to the societies that developed it I would, but I can't and nor can you.
I'm not so sure at all it's not the majority of right-wing israelis who are opposed to any idea of a palestinian state, or whose ideology declares that any palestinian staye would pose an existential threat to Israel, which amounts to the same thing.
It's not for nothing that the strategy you're describing (letting them say no) has been historically successfully used by the left, but is not by the right. They actually have nothing they can offer, even theoretically, that wouldn't infuriate their electoral base.
"(Meanwhile, within our circles, we should be trying harder to make sure that our part of this remains true.)"
The intellectual arrogance here is striking. If I may, it very nicely reflects all that the Woke have done to poison political discourse today. No one who disagrees with me has a legitimate point of view, and "we"- as if no one who disagrees could possibly be reading this- must do all "we" can to correct the thinking of those poor benighted individuals who for some bizarre reason think this exercise in self-delusion is more than a bit mistaken and, frankly, weird.
Give me a break: We're dealing with people who literally believe that we harvest organs off dead terrorists. *Why* on Earth do you think this self-defeating self-abasement will work? Why do think it's *necessary* to even bring it up, especially in the *middle of a war*?
And so was Sharon until they were not. Both said 'yes'. Soft anglo eccentric Slifkin hopes that another Oslo will save his children and grandchildren from having to fight in the endless conflict and uses a typical leftist ploy.
Not sure where in my post you see even the slightest indication that I'm expecting a peace deal. I think it's quite revealing that you are saying that. Sort of like "anyone who disturbs my worldview in any way must be a leftist who wants to give the country away tomorrow."
Don't make me laugh now. If Israel anounces that it's ready to establish a Palestinian state what do you think will happen? Nothing? The world will suddenly realize tht Arabs are the obstacle to peace? The Arab armed resistance will stop? Israel will gain international support?
I'm sorry. I don't understand the relevance to the discussion. If Zionism and BG were not rational, a premise which I totally reject, that makes the Palestinian connection to the land a fact ?
Your article is very one sided. It does not represent the views of Muslims and is totally blasphemous to what is stated in the quaran.
But we don't have much to say about them and their book(s), that is complimentary. See for example אגרת תימן by the רמב"ם where he famously calls their founding leader המשוגע.
And nothing much has changed on their side a thousand years later.
The post begins with and is predicated on the notion that there's a "widespread perception in the world...." But there's an even bigger misperception among Jews, and that is that "the world" is fixated on Israeli issues. "The world", whoever that might be, doesn't care about Israel or, for that matter, Gaza. It's only our own Jewish hubris that makes us think otherwise. How much attention did we pay to Rwanda? How about Yugoslavia, Ireland, or any other country? Nothing at all. So what makes you think "the world" thinks more about us than we do about them?
The other big mistake in the post is the claim that the majority of Israel is only against an Arab state b/c of practical reasons, but if "something" (unexplained) happened to change the calculus, then sure, they'd be all on board. In the first instance, Israel is a right wing country, and growing more so. So the reality is the exact opposite of your claim - the majority would oppose an Arab state ideologically, under any circumstances. And even if it were otherwise, the "practical" concerns you mention are never going away, so who exactly do you think you're fooling with this kind of hasbara? העיני האנשים תנקר?
"the majority of Israelis recognize the historical connection of Palestinians to this land and their right to have political independence alongside Israel"
Since when does a historical connection to a land imply a right to political independence? Does being ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leadership meet the definition of self determination?
We the Jewish people have lived in Israel and have been a country for centuries. We are the only group constituted in language, culture, self identification from ancient times that is connected to this land.Hence our superior rights to this land. We do not and should not be forced to be viewed as interlopers. We are not part of the "colonial" perception.
I have also seen this evidence. It just strenthens my claim that there is no Palestinian ties to the land. However, I think that the problem with the Beduin is much more serious than people realize. It is true that many Beduins join the IDF, the police etc., but the Beduin culture doesn't believe in a state or a goverment. The only law is the tribal law. If you check the situation in the Negev, you'll find total disregard of the law, manifesting in reckless driving, an incredible rate of crime (theft. drugs etc.) and the biggest problem - a "Palestinsation" of the Beduin population.
I'm not debating the number of people. I'm saying that they had NO Palestinian identity. They had no ties to the land. They were nomad Arab tribes, the same as all Arab tribes in the Middle East. Futhermore, they couldn't have had any ties to Palestine, because there is no "P" in Arabic....The imaginary ties were fabricated when the Jews arrived here,especially after the Six Day war. As to the question what to do with them, I have already responded that I have no clear solution. I don't see any alternative, except continue fighting them, while taking our land back, until they understand that they will gain nothing, only lose, fighting us.
Genetic evidence confirms that the majority of Palestinian descent is from Jews who converted to other religions. Ironically, the Arabs who are descendants of nomadic Arabs from other regions (Bedouins) are somewhat easier to get along with.
The Arabs have not been living here As Palestinians for centuries since there was no Palestinian Entity here and only at the end of the 19 the century did. this idea arise. Whilst the Jewish Kingdom and the yearning for return exists for centuries creating a Jewish State.Did the Arabs call themselves Palestinean?! How can you compare?! There were Arabs here and all over the Middle East. We call them Arabs because of a culture based on a Moslem invasion in the 7th century across the Middle East and part of
southern Europe.I believe from Saudi Arabia.
RNS creates a formula giving equal status to Israel and the Palestinians. I believe it is incorrect. Also I highly question whether the majority of Jews believe that the Palestinians have an ideological right to a State.
Correct, there was no Palestinian national identity. That is not as relevant as you think.
People in the Middle East didn't conceive of "nation states". That doesn't mean that they don't have a right to political independence.
I think they should never be given that right; why should we continue carving up our tiny Biblical heartland for further terrorist havens with the sole aim of whipping us off the map?
Okay, so what country's citizenship should they possess?
We should never negotiate and bargain with ourselves. We hear nothing and we see nothing from the Arabs that indicate we can reach an agreement that would keep us safe not for just the the short term.
Jordan. Syria. Egypt. Saudi Arabia. They can return to their respective places of origin just as we have.
Because the UNRWA, the biggest globally-sponsored welfare program for any ethnicity, continually argues their case.
Who is making the rules?! Their were countries who ruled the area. That includes the basis for so called nation states. In any case it is a matter of control of the areas.
Not Palestinians but Arabs.So wht gives Arabs control over areas they had no control of.Anyeay the Jews were there first.WE'RE Back with our religious culture,our language, and proven ancient geneological heritage. The Arab Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem even once.
Even if the Palestinians only arrived at the beginning of the 20th Century, the fact remains that Israel’s international legitimacy derives from the UN Partition Plan, and the UN never gave us the rights to the West Bank.
Under the British Mandate, we were supposed to have Transjordan too! But the British illegally sliced it off for Aravim.
No the Palestine Mandate was never intended to include Trans Jordan and it didn't even intend the entirety of the area west of the Jordan as the Jewish National Home.
You better go back to school and learn about the Balfour Declaration (penned by an antisemite), historical Jewish presence in the land, etc. In 1922, the League of Nations approved the eventual establishment of a Jewish state throughout the Mandate (including Transjordan). The only reason it was later (illegally and unilaterally) sliced off is because the British wanted to placate the Saudi Emir Abdullah and reward him for his help in defeating the Turks. That region included 75% of our promised homeland (38,000 square miles). Meanwhile, the remaining 25% was opened for BOTH Jewish and Arab settlement but was then retracted regarding Jews via the White Paper. Indeed, the Peel Commission found that Eretz Yisrael was quickly being overrun by Arabs and that these Arabs would quickly displace us!
Indeed, although we sided with the Brits (the Arabs having sided with the Germans), they still refused Jewish immigration and actually went out of their way to signal German forces when migrants arrived and were turned around.
Today, Israel supports 7 million Jews and about the same equal of Arabs. All those lives could have been saved; instead, 6 million died because the Brits/Arabs refused Jewish immigrants.
That was before we achieved sovereignty. Where does Americas legitimacy come from. The British colonies? Who voted them into the family of nations?
they also didn't "give" us the rights to Jerusalem. If that's the basis of your legitimacy you've got bigger problems
Sorry to say this but were it not for the Allied victory in World War I, which led to the Treaty of Lausanne, the League of Nations Mandate, and the UN Partition Plan, you would be a citizen of Türkiye. Assuming that Erdogan would have let you immigrate. The Ottoman Empire didn't want to give up the Middle East.
If your grandmother had wheels, she'd be a streetcar.
You must be joking. You have to look to international bodies for approval and recognition?! We are entitled and they have Chutzpah to question it.
Why are we entitled?
First rashi in the torah.
The Palestinians have been in the land for a thousand years or longer. They just didn't call themselves by that term until the 20th century. Nation states did not exist in the Muslim world until the late 19th century. They didn't exist in Christian Europe until early modern times. We lack the historical understanding to appreciate the past.
"The Palestinians have been in the land for a thousand years or longer. "
So, they've been thieves or a thousand years. Big deal.
Under my standards, no people is legitimate till they've existed for three thousand years and have lived an ethical existence for most of that period.
In that case no people other than Chinese, Hindus, and Jews deserve to have states. You want either anarchy in the rest of the world, of the entire rest of rhe world to be divided up between the atheist Chinese and the polytheistic Hindus.
Your ideology is REALLY silly.
Indeed, and I repeat: a people are not legitimate unless they've existed for a substantial period of time and have followed basic principles of human morality. Murderous people don't deserve a state of their own, but perhaps pragmatism may dictate they receive one anyway to keep their mischief sequestered to limited boundaries.
The Chinese were also divided into several peoples, and they also engaged in brutalities. You should be aware that withing India there still exist ethnic tensions. But since they're non-white, they all look the same to you.
It's a convenience to lump people together into nation states. And indeed in the most recent period, with many many exceptions, the nation state has been a source of stability, even if many of those nations who've achieved a state don't deserve it.
That being the case, the nation state (especially in the Middle East) can freely engage in monstrous brutalities insured by the morally bankrupt UN who endorse such crimes because the sovereignty of the nation state is sacrosanct and the source of international stability. It's on this altar of stability that Jews are being sacrificed today. If the world community imposes a brutal Hamas/PLO state onto the Arabs, there will be plenty of non-Jewish victims as well.
The international system may have no alternatives, but I see no reason why to defend it with such fervor.
The concept of rewarding the terrorists with another authoritarian dictatorship will neither achieve justice for Arabs, security for Jews, or peace and stability for the morally bankrupt international community.
well according to your definition of legitimacy the Jews are out. Our own tradition teaches we lost the land because we were murderers and were not following basic principles of human morality
That's a claim that could feasibly be made regarding a small percentage (15? 20? 30 at the outside) of "Palestinians." The vast majority immigrated to the area concurrently with mass Jewish immigration in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. And even that small percentage could not conceivably be called "*The* Palestinians", and only arguably called "Palestinians" at all. Nation states or no nation states, they didn't have any sort of unique collective identity particular to Palestine, any more than you do as a Jew to the USA. Their collective identity prior to Jewish immigration was "Arab", full stop.
"The vast majority immigrated to the area concurrently with mass Jewish immigration in the late 19th/early 20th centuries."
No evidence for such mass immigration during those times and in any case it is irrelevant because you are talking about movement within the same country, like me having been born in Philadelphia and now living in New York City.
It isn't even clear that there was an "Arab" identity prior to the 20th century or a "Turkish" identity prior to the 19th. (Or for that matter an "Italian" or "German" identity prior to the 19th.)
Israel's international legitimacy derives from the wars of 1948 and 1967. Tired of hearing Israel was 'given' by the UN - it was paid for in blood.
Does the international community agree?
Exactly, the UN trampled on our rights. The UN ,a political entity has no real rights. They are as bad as any autocracy. Whose impressed?! We existed as a country way before the UN.
But the world accepts the UN's view.
Educate them instead of listening to their narrative.
No, Israel's international legitimacy derives from the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations Mandate, both of which preceded the partition plan by almost 30 years. And both of which, according to the international legal principle of uti possidetis juris, applies at the very least to all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea/Sinai Peninsula, if not to Transjordan as well, davka because the 1947 Partition Plan was not accepted by all parties. If it had been, your claim would have a leg to stand on.
So why has the ICJ ruled that Israeli settlements are illegal? Surely they also know a thing or two about international law? And why does every country in the world besides Israel and the US also take this view? No other country agrees with you!
The ICJ is nothing but a political organization with an agenda. "International law" itself doesn't exist as such; it's made up exclusively of treaties of various kinds to which their signatories agree to subject themselves. The ICJ is as much beholden to the nations it supposedly dictates to as they are to it, if not more so. Tell me, is the UN right every time it passes resolutions against Israel? If not, why not? Surely the same international political calculus applies.
But if you're going according to actual principles of these treaties and of international legal theory (again, see uti possidetis juris), not only does the 1947 Partition Plan carry no weight at all, but Israeli settlements are in fact completely legal.
Even if you are right, my point was about the international legitimacy of Israel. Since the vast majority of countries accept the ICJ's position (whether it is right or wrong), it follows that Israel's international legitimacy derives from the 1947 Partition Plan, because that is the position of most of the world's countries. The world does not accept your legal opinion.
Most of the world's countries -- and certainly most of the world's people -- will never grant Israel any "international legitimacy". Maybe if you limit the opinions that count only to the governments of the world's democratic countries, and to a few others with whom Israel has cultivated its own relationships, you'll get to a tenuous advantage for Israel. Otherwise I couldn't care less what the world accepts. By that metric we'd have been long extinct.
"This is just one of several reasons why the Arab leadership did not accept the UN partition plan and why the Palestinian leadership did not accept any peace proposal or even offer any realistic counter proposals. They will not accept that the Jewish People have a right to statehood in their ancient homeland."
https://www.econtalk.org/yossi-klein-halevi-on-the-palestinian-israeli-conflict/
Yossi Klein Halevi: "...one of the things I learned in engaging with the Palestinians--is that this conflict can really be boiled down to one question: Who started? And, that's really, I think, a useful way of beginning to approach the question of these opposing narratives.
From the Palestinian side, of course the Jews started. 'We Palestinians were living here peacefully, minding our own business and you began to show up with this crazy idea that you were here 2,000 years ago and saying that this was your land.' You imported the conflict. If you hadn't come, there would be no conflict. That's the ground.
And so, if you accept that point of view, then Israel really has no legitimacy, not only in terms of defending itself, but it's right to exist. If we don't belong here, then there's no such thing as Israeli self-defense. And, that's crucial for understanding a Palestinian rejectionist mindset: You showed up and began settling this land just like a European colonialist, one more wave of colonialism."
Shaul, when people say to me something like what Yossi reports from those Palestinians, here's what I say to them:
Ask a Palestinian, or pretty much any Arab, how long they will struggle to get back “their” land. Another century? Five hundred years? Two thousand? Almost always the answer will be, “As long as it takes. We'll never give up!”
Whether the person I'm talking to is a serious supporter of Palestinian statehood or a naive American college student who cheers Hamas, they accept this likely response without question and call such determination admirable, even heroic. Then I point out that it is only what we Jews have already been doing for two thousand years.
"Then I point out that it is only what we Jews have already been doing for two thousand years."
Yes, YKH makes that point as well:
"Yossi Klein Halevi:...
And so, for the Jews to have been a majority in Jerusalem, I think tells us something very profound about the deep Jewish attachment here. When Palestinians say, 'We showed up, we came,' they're leaving out one crucial word, and that is 'back.' 'We came back.' We had never severed our connection to this land. It was always central in Jewish consciousness. The genius of rabbinic Judaism was to centralize the land of Israel in Jewish religious practice and in Jewish identity, so that wherever a Jew was in the world, you prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. Wherever you were, you prayed for rain in the land of Israel, even if it wasn't--even if it was the rainy season.
I remember growing up in Brooklyn, when, on the holiday of Sukkot where Jews build booths to commemorate the wandering of the Israelites in the desert. And, it always poured on the holiday of Sukkot. And, it was only when I came to Israel that I realized why we built booths, because it is the end of the harvest season. And, farmers--you could see it in the land today--farmers will build these makeshift booths when they're out in the field harvesting.
And so, we internalized the rhythms of the land of Israel, and not only did it become a kind of vicarious identity for us, but the entire focus of the Jewish future was that one day we would come back.
Russ Roberts: Which is a little like being a Red Sox fan until up to 2004--
Yossi Klein Halevi: Until it happens, right? Until they went--
Russ Roberts: It's just important to recognize that the persistent belief and prayer on the part of Jews that we return to the land and that Jerusalem be rebuilt is bizarrely dysfunctional and surreal that Jews scattered around the world--
Yossi Klein Halevi: It's a surreal story. It is a surreal story. But it happened. But it happened--
Russ Roberts: But, it came true, was shocking. Anyway, carry on.
Yossi Klein Halevi: So, when Palestinians say that the Jews started this conflict because we suddenly showed up, the Jewish response is, 'We didn't suddenly show up. There were always Jews here. More Jews came to join them. We were actualizing the core of our identity.'"
Thanks for the additional quote, Shaul. Yossi described our persistent attachment to our homeland — and our unwavering claim to it — much as I would. Clearly, we are on the same page on this aspect of the issue. Our claim is more deeply-rooted in centuries of sovereign and non-sovereign presence, and more impressive for having been sustained over two millennia since.
Note, however, that not despite but because, of the strength of that claim, I believe it's our obligation to compromise with our Palestinian cousins and find a way to share the land. Our superior claim doesn’t give us the right to rule over and, frankly, oppress another people indefinitely. Recreating a state with the borders we think it had in Solomon's time is not worth another drop of Jewish (or Arab) blood. The maximalists on both sides must be ignored. Be grateful for what we miraculously have already achieved and leave the final decision on the borders of the ideal Eretz Yisrael to the Days of the Moshiach.
"If you hadn't come, there would be no conflict."
Sound like a vacuous tautology.
In any case, it's all a lie. Arabs have been killing each other for centuries. And even there's been plenty on intra-Palestinian violence as well. Arafat's career began when he killed another Arab. Any Palestinian state would commence with a bloody civil war.
"the majority of Israelis recognize the historical connection of Palestinians to this land"
huh? it's one thing to say that SOME of them have been here for a few centuries. But to suggest some type of national historical connection to the land? you might as well believe that Torah study protects everyone else.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present
How many of the non-Jews in the 16th century were “Palestinians”? How many were Turks? Armenians? European Christians left over from the Frankish kingdoms? Descendants of Mongolian invaders? Descendants of Pharisees, Saduccees, Samaritans and others who were forcibly converted to Islam?
While the concept of Palestinian is a 20th century one, there were essentially no Turks (the Ottomans actually encouraged *Jewish* settlement not Turks), almost no Christians (the Mamluks had expelled them in the 13th century), no Mongols (the Mamluks chased them out as quickly as they arrived), and few Jews (the Crusaders had massacred US). The population was overwhelmingly Muslim, mostly agricultural, and the language was Arabic.
Don't forget Arameans, Circassians & Bosnians.
The evidence is in and it's mostly the latter, though in most cases they were probably already some kind of other religion even before Islam.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/more-than-kin-less-than-kind-jews
How many of the palestinians of today are all those things?
Even if the historical connection started in 1920, it still is a historical connection. 1920 is more than 100 years ago. Anyway, the main point that the Palestinians should be perceived as the rejectionists is correct.
What about Jordan,a Palestinian State! We were deprived by the United Nations of our ancestral home. They gave us a speck. Like Indians on the Reservation,even less.
Why would they not also give political independence to the Palestinian Arabs, of whom there were about as many as Jews at the time?
Because their political independence (if they even want it) is inextricably linked with the fact that they want to murder you and destroy *your* political independence. You seem unwilling to take the Arabs at their word - their honest, unvarnished, consistently expressed word. Your naiivete is no longer becoming, especially after 7 October.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/hamas-palestinians-pogrom-israel
Of course I know that! But it only means that we CAN'T give them political independence in the foreseeable future. It doesn't mean that they are not entitled to the same basic rights that everyone else gets. What is your plan? Annex the land and not give them citizenship?
Yes, my naiive friend, it does. Murderers, rapists, baby decapitators, do not have the same basic right everyone else gets. And a culture that generates, encourages, extolls and justifies such behavior does not have the same basic rights every other culture does.
And all this would hold, only if there were an actual historical claim to the land! But there isn't. It is a land that lay desolate, waiting for Jews to come back. Most Arabs who lived here were destitute, scratching a subsistence out of the earth for a few years, before migrating on. No civilization, no special quality of national character or gift to humanity came from them. They didn't aspire to sovereignty, and always saw themselves as a part of the greater Arab nation. There was no national sentiment before '67, no attempt to become independent while under Egyptian and Jordanian rule. Only when the Jews come along, does suddenly a fantasy of a non-existant past evolve.
Why on earth should they have the same rights as a nation that kept faith with a land for 2,000 years? Why do you insist on not taking your own side in this conflict?
Stop conceding moral ground no one asked you to concede. You will not be considered more "reasonable" because of this (at least, to anyone that matters). You are still a Jewish settler living in the Judean lowlands to most of the world.
"What is your plan - annex the land and not give them citizenship"?
"No plan" is better than a bad plan, and is itself often the best type of plan.
"It doesn't mean that they are not entitled to the same basic rights that everyone else gets. What is your plan? Annex the land and not give them citizenship?"
Since when is citizenship a basic right?
Well put. This post is remarkably naive at the very best.
Arabs have 23 states (counting Gaza). 70-ish% of Jordan is Arab. Why create a third one for them in OUR Biblical heartland? Why keep carving up our tiny state? Did appeasement work for the Germans in WWII? No, it always fails. They had their chance in '47.
One hundred percent of Jordan is Arab.
He meant Palestinian, obviously.
There *were* Jews in Jordan, but they were all kicked out in 1922.
Jordan is not part of the Land of Israel. Reuven and Gad were criticized for wanting to stay in what is now Jordan rather than enter the land.
These two statements are factually incorrect.
a) That there is a disagreement as to its status post-Ezra does not change the fact that Trans-Jordan is considered Eretz Yisrael by almost all halakhic measures (Tithes, Shemita, LEvite cities, etc. There is disagreement if burial there is considered burial in E"Y, if Bikurim from there are biblical or rabbinic in nature, and if prophecy and other mystical aspects of E"Y apply there).
b) Reuven and Gad were criticized not for wanting to stay there "rather than enter the land", but because Moshe thought they were shirking the military duties of conquest; as soon as they relieved his fears, their desire to stay on the eastern side of the river was not a problem.
I am amused by the misapprehension of the sin of Reuven and Gad (and half of Menasseh) as being an unwillingness to inhabit and inherit the land, in the minds of those who attack so vociferously and with such scorn calls for resettlement of Gaza.
After all, Gaza is part of Eretz Yisrael according to all halakhic measures.
And then it was part of the Land of Israel for well over a thousand years after that. The original Jewish Agency plan for Israel included parts of Jordan, as of course did the League of Nations Mandate.
Another lie. The League of Nations Mandate had made Trans-Jordan separate. That was always the intention; ever since the British conquest it had been administered separately.
I'm so glad we have someone here so committed to arguing the side of our enemies, even if he seems committed to his own "facts" and then calls others "liars" when, for all he knows, they could be making honest mistakes. (And they're not even doing that.) You seem very...committed, as I said.
To the point: The San Remo Conference of the League of Nations, which gave "Palestine" (which included Jordan) to the Jews, took place in April 1920. The British had tried to hand Syria, which was originally also to be part of "Palestine", to the Hashemites (who were in the process of being kicked out of the Hejaz) only a month before. Due to an earlier illegal and secret agreement, San Remo assigned Syria to the French, who kicked out the Hashemites in July. It was only *after* that, in August, that the British first began making noises of giving Jordan to the Arabs. (This was years after the British conquest, by the way.) They *really* wanted to be nice to the Hashemites for some reason, especially considering that they *also* gave them Iraq, and of course- for obvious reasons- *really* wanted to limit the Jewish state as much as possible. It was only *after* the Hashemites were illegally given Jordan (and all the Jews thrown out) that the League of Nations retroactively ratified the move.
By your definition, you are, um, "lying." But I'll be nice and just say you really don't know the facts, and your soft feelings toward a made-up nation that has been murdering us for many decades probably is the reason you keep making up new ones.
I sleep well at night.
We’ve been doing that for over a hundred years. One could argue that it’s highly IRRATIONAL to believe that continuing to do so would get us anywhere where we’d be better off than going with the truth.
Your right your a Sheygitz or worse.
Most Arabic surnames are from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., proving their TRUE places of origin.
Yitz, many, not "most." Again, there have been over 200,000 Palestinians here for over 200 years.
Right.
. . . As colonizers of our indigenous homeland (never mind the fact that there has always been a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael, including a majority in Yerushalayim.
My name is English. Does that mean my existence in the US is illegitimate?
According to Arab standards, yes- your existence in the US is illegitimate.
According to American standards, which value the right to life and liberty as fundamental, Palestinian nationalism, which values none of those things, is also illegitimate. Promoting a Palestinian State is un-American.
The United States supports the existence of nation states whose national identity is far newer than "Palestinian".
This is an first-class post! I was saying exactly the same thing at the Shabbos table last night. Glad we agree!
I'm sorry. I really appreciate all that you do, including your books, but..... The majority of Israelis recognize the historical connection of the Palestinian to this land ?!?!?? What ?!?!?? There is no historical connection. The whole Palestinian narrative is a myth. How can you say such a thing ? Some Israelis buy, or pretend to, into this lie, but the majority know the truth.
Yaakov Yehuda, in the year 1800 there were about 250,000 Palestinian Arabs here, in the year 1900 about 500,000, and in 1947 close to a million. That's why the UN decided on two states. What do you think should have happened to them then? And what do you think should happen to them now?
Good morning. There were Arabs here. Not Palestinians. The difference is crucial. There was no distinct Palestinian identity. The partition plan talked about two states - Jewish and Arab, not Jewish and Palestinian. There was no mention of a Palestinian state, because everyone knew that there are no Palestinians as a distinct identity
Agreed, 100%. They were part of a larger group of Levantine Arabs. None of them had nation-state identities. Now let's return to the question: What should happen to them now?
I'll note that you used the word "now".
As per your own words, " When asked if we are supportive of a Palestinian State, we should reply, “Absolutely, and we look forward to the day..."
In other words, we should do nothing now.
How about, be absorbed into one of the other three or four countries otherwise occupied entirely by other Levantine Arabs? Countries whose national identities are as contrived as the "Palestinians"?
For security reasons, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria should be granted Jordanian citizenship and move into the Palestinian state there.
And how, Yitz, do you see that playing out, seeing as that they don't see themselves as citizens of Jordan, don't want to move to Jordan, and Jordan doesn't want to have them? Are you proposing that Israel should officially invade Jordan and transfer them at gunpoint?
Well, when Jordan occupied the region between '48-67, nobody complained about "Palestinian sovereignty." Instead, they simply swore fealty to the king! Only in '64 did so-called "Palestinian" Arabs begin developing a national consciousness thanks to Arafat's KGB training.
Yes, Jordan doesn't want them now because everywhere they go, they destabilize the region (e.g., Lebanon). So I'm not sure what, exactly, has to happen, but I'm certain of one thing: Arabs don't actually want a state. They enjoy the hundreds of millions in aid. Plus, if they were ever given a state, it'd mean the end of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and an end to their dream of one day conquering ALL of Eretz Yisrael.
They HAD Jordanian citizenship and the Israeli Settlement Enterprise helped convince Jordan that it was never going to be able to rule the area again.
What? You're mistaken. Jordan only relinquished Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, etc., after we defeated them in '67 (an Arab-initiated war, mind you). Settlements began after. Area C happened after. How do I know this?
Because between '48-67, the Jews of Judea and Samaria (aka, "West Bank") were ETHNICALLY CLEANSED!!!
Yes, their numbers grew only because the British didn't stop illegal Arab immigration into Eretz Yisrael.
Do you deny that there were hundreds of thousands living here? Or do you accept that they were living here, but you think that they didn't have any connection to the land?
Are we entitled to a Polish state or other political entity in Europe because we lived in Europe over 1,000 years!?
In some places in Europe the Jews as a percentage of the population was significantly higher than the percentage of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. We should demand the right of return!!
I have got news for you.Ben Gurion did not invent Zionism!? Something Some Jews forget.
Where in Europe was the population 90 percent Jewish?
My grandparents' shtetl, for starters.
Right. Some small towns. In no region of Poland or Lithuania or Ukraine was there a Jewish majority.
There are very few areas of significance outside of the Land of Israel that might have even been fifty percent Jewish. Thessaloniki in late Ottoman times. The Bronx about 1950. And even those are questionable. Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the late 19th century.
From the french constitution of 1791: "All persons born in a foreign country and descending in any degree of a French man or woman expatriated for religious reason are declared French nationals (naturels français) and will benefit to rights attached to that quality if they come back to France, establish their domicile there and take the civic oath."
This law remained valid until 1945, when it was abolished - since after the Occupation of France, the French were unwilling to let Germans of Huguenot origin to take advantage of it. In October 1985, French President François Mitterrand issued a public apology to the descendants of Huguenots around the world.
From the Constitution of Poland, Article 52(5): "Anyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland."
Former German citizens who, between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945, were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds and their descendants shall, on application, have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after 8 May 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.
Despite the requirement by general rule for obtaining Spanish nationality after five years of residence in Spain, by royal decree on 20 December 1924, Sephardi Jews can obtain Spanish nationality with two years of residence in Spain. From 1924 until 2015 Sephardi Jews living abroad could also ask the Spanish Government for a conferment of Spanish nationality, but the Government enjoyed full discretion as to the decision whether to grant Spanish nationality. On 24 June 2015, the Spanish Parliament approved the 12/2015 Act, the Law Granting the Nationality to Sephardi Jews, that grants the Spanish nationality automatically to Sephardi Jews living abroad, provided they can prove that they are descendants of the Sephardi Jews expelled in 1492.
On April 12, 2013, the Portuguese parliament unanimously approved a measure that allows the descendants of Jews expelled from Portugal in the 16th century to become Portuguese citizens.
When I was learning in England (before Bexit) some australian and south african bachurim were using this to have EU citizenship and not apply for a visa.
Genius response there!
Not ancient history, but the Arabs do have ties going back a few hundred years. This is not nothing.
He’s trying to be uber-rational. But Zionism was never rational. Ben-Gurion was not rational. The “rational” members of the Jewish provisional council voted AGAINST declaring a state. BG was the deciding vote “for”.
At the time of the 19th century Aliyot, the Arab population in the land of Israel was very sparse. Mark Twain's description of Palestine at that time is well known. The Arab population only boomed -- through both birthrate and immigration -- thanks to the Jews developing the land. So what you wrote that "most of the Palestinians have been here for centuries" is not true.
The modern prosperity that Israel enjoys today is the result of the Jews working very hard for it for 1.5 centuries.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present.
The also poured in illegally because the British later changed their minds and wanted an Arab-majority region (a population they could easily control/exploit) rather than a successful, nationalist Jewish state.
This is a false statement. To day that an Arab born in Damascus would be illegally moving to Ramallah in 1910 shows that you fail to comprehend that from 1517 to 1923 the area was all part of the Ottoman Empire. That is like saying that I can't live in New York City because I was born in Philadelphia.
Fine. But what about those that migrated illegally after? Moreover, just as Arabs aren't indigenous to our land, so are you not indigenous to North America (sorry, no offense, but it's just a fact).
The Ottoman census records have survived and say otherwise.
And the British thought the Arabs to be even less controllable than the Jews. I have literally been reading Winston Churchill about this.
The Arab population expanded at similar rates across the Middle East, as they did across the world once you started doing basic stuff like introducing antiseptic. If I could find some way to restrict medicine and modern technology to the societies that developed it I would, but I can't and nor can you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Time_Immemorial
A debunked work.
Not. The overall thesis was upheld. Consistently.
Not even close.
Whose refutation are you relying on? Norman Finklestein? Noam Chomsky? Some other עוכר ישראל? Maybe a Holocaust denier here or there?
I'm not so sure at all it's not the majority of right-wing israelis who are opposed to any idea of a palestinian state, or whose ideology declares that any palestinian staye would pose an existential threat to Israel, which amounts to the same thing.
It's not for nothing that the strategy you're describing (letting them say no) has been historically successfully used by the left, but is not by the right. They actually have nothing they can offer, even theoretically, that wouldn't infuriate their electoral base.
"(Meanwhile, within our circles, we should be trying harder to make sure that our part of this remains true.)"
The intellectual arrogance here is striking. If I may, it very nicely reflects all that the Woke have done to poison political discourse today. No one who disagrees with me has a legitimate point of view, and "we"- as if no one who disagrees could possibly be reading this- must do all "we" can to correct the thinking of those poor benighted individuals who for some bizarre reason think this exercise in self-delusion is more than a bit mistaken and, frankly, weird.
Give me a break: We're dealing with people who literally believe that we harvest organs off dead terrorists. *Why* on Earth do you think this self-defeating self-abasement will work? Why do think it's *necessary* to even bring it up, especially in the *middle of a war*?
I'm not talking about people who believe that we steal organs. I'm talking about the normal people and political leadership of the west.
Normal people don't care what happens to the Palestinians. The only people who care hate us already.
Slifkin has learned nothing from 7/10 and he belongs to the type of people like Shimon Peres that never will.
Shimon Peres was one of the leaders of the Settlement Enterprise.
And so was Sharon until they were not. Both said 'yes'. Soft anglo eccentric Slifkin hopes that another Oslo will save his children and grandchildren from having to fight in the endless conflict and uses a typical leftist ploy.
Not sure where in my post you see even the slightest indication that I'm expecting a peace deal. I think it's quite revealing that you are saying that. Sort of like "anyone who disturbs my worldview in any way must be a leftist who wants to give the country away tomorrow."
Don't make me laugh now. If Israel anounces that it's ready to establish a Palestinian state what do you think will happen? Nothing? The world will suddenly realize tht Arabs are the obstacle to peace? The Arab armed resistance will stop? Israel will gain international support?
And you wonder why very few English speakers want to make Aliyah.
I don't, but the security situation is just one of the reasons.
I'm sorry. I don't understand the relevance to the discussion. If Zionism and BG were not rational, a premise which I totally reject, that makes the Palestinian connection to the land a fact ?
Gut Voch.
Your article is very one sided. It does not represent the views of Muslims and is totally blasphemous to what is stated in the quaran.
But we don't have much to say about them and their book(s), that is complimentary. See for example אגרת תימן by the רמב"ם where he famously calls their founding leader המשוגע.
And nothing much has changed on their side a thousand years later.
Just over 900 years ago Jews and Arab Muslims were fighting together against the Crusaders. Unfortunately the Crusaders won. :(
The post begins with and is predicated on the notion that there's a "widespread perception in the world...." But there's an even bigger misperception among Jews, and that is that "the world" is fixated on Israeli issues. "The world", whoever that might be, doesn't care about Israel or, for that matter, Gaza. It's only our own Jewish hubris that makes us think otherwise. How much attention did we pay to Rwanda? How about Yugoslavia, Ireland, or any other country? Nothing at all. So what makes you think "the world" thinks more about us than we do about them?
The other big mistake in the post is the claim that the majority of Israel is only against an Arab state b/c of practical reasons, but if "something" (unexplained) happened to change the calculus, then sure, they'd be all on board. In the first instance, Israel is a right wing country, and growing more so. So the reality is the exact opposite of your claim - the majority would oppose an Arab state ideologically, under any circumstances. And even if it were otherwise, the "practical" concerns you mention are never going away, so who exactly do you think you're fooling with this kind of hasbara? העיני האנשים תנקר?
"the majority of Israelis recognize the historical connection of Palestinians to this land and their right to have political independence alongside Israel"
Since when does a historical connection to a land imply a right to political independence? Does being ruled by a corrupt authoritarian leadership meet the definition of self determination?
We the Jewish people have lived in Israel and have been a country for centuries. We are the only group constituted in language, culture, self identification from ancient times that is connected to this land.Hence our superior rights to this land. We do not and should not be forced to be viewed as interlopers. We are not part of the "colonial" perception.
I have also seen this evidence. It just strenthens my claim that there is no Palestinian ties to the land. However, I think that the problem with the Beduin is much more serious than people realize. It is true that many Beduins join the IDF, the police etc., but the Beduin culture doesn't believe in a state or a goverment. The only law is the tribal law. If you check the situation in the Negev, you'll find total disregard of the law, manifesting in reckless driving, an incredible rate of crime (theft. drugs etc.) and the biggest problem - a "Palestinsation" of the Beduin population.
I'm not debating the number of people. I'm saying that they had NO Palestinian identity. They had no ties to the land. They were nomad Arab tribes, the same as all Arab tribes in the Middle East. Futhermore, they couldn't have had any ties to Palestine, because there is no "P" in Arabic....The imaginary ties were fabricated when the Jews arrived here,especially after the Six Day war. As to the question what to do with them, I have already responded that I have no clear solution. I don't see any alternative, except continue fighting them, while taking our land back, until they understand that they will gain nothing, only lose, fighting us.
Genetic evidence confirms that the majority of Palestinian descent is from Jews who converted to other religions. Ironically, the Arabs who are descendants of nomadic Arabs from other regions (Bedouins) are somewhat easier to get along with.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/more-than-kin-less-than-kind-jews