International [Arab-Israeli Conflict, v4] Israel Sets Goal of Doubling the Jewish Population on the Golan Heights

i feel this presupposes that there was an equitable and possibly peaceful settlement option available.

There was not. See below.



There is only one thing the Arab States would have hated more than having a stable Israeli State in their midst and that would be having stable Israeli and Palestinian States in their midst.

The Arab nations would have never supported either and would always seek to divide and conquer the two by using the desire for Statehood by one to make the other fight them. During the Khartoum Summit the Arab leaders specifically stated they would shift to use the Palestinian DESIRE for statehood as a weapon against Israel and to use oil money to fund them to battle the Israeli's. The Arab leaders never said they would actually support the creation of a Palestinian State and they would not. Thus why they never created one when the chances were there.
Peace is possible without a Palestinian state. If they would be accepted under one state with equal rights they would take it. The Israelis don't want a Palestinian state or equality with Palestinians in one state. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Sure the Arab neighbors haven't always been the best allies for the Palestinian cause but at least Jordan was willing to integrate them into their citizenry. Yes Israel has an Arab-Israeli population that have civil and political rights but I'm talking about the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
 
Here's what wiki says on the consequences of the massacres.

Both sides committed massacres but one side was far, far more effective at using those massacres to expel the other. If the power relations were equal why was it that the sum total of this period was a mass exodus of Palestinians and not Israelis?

The fact that the Palestinians fled while the Israelis didn't can be attributed to a number of reasons:

- The Israelis had really no where to go, a few years prior they were facing the gas chambers in Europe and I'm sure that was used as a rallying cry to stay and fight or forever be afraid back in Europe.
- The Arabs believed they had safe havens in nearby Jordan, Syria and Egypt and believed they could return once the fighting was over
- The Israeli troops were more effective at instilling fear in their opponents
- The Arabs were not as organized, cohesive and "broke" easier

I'm sure there are more as this is much too nuanced to pin down to one factor. In the end, both committed atrocities, both committed massacres and the Arabs left first.

Pretty fucking laughable that you'd say this all while being aware of Israeli massacres of Arabs. There really is little doubt over whether or not Israelis expelled Palestinians from their ancestral homes, even Yitz Rabin admits it. Any doubts there may have been early on can be easily explained with recourse to the note before that chapter; his admission wasn't in the first edition.

I'm not contesting that the Israelis expelled Palestinians, I'm saying there were many factors involved that need to be addressed instead of painting just one side of the story.

Same reason the Zionists didn't build Israel in Uganda, their ties were to Palestine. Except unlike the Zionists their ties were continuous for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years. Either way they want to return to their home in Israel. Some of them have been displaced twice by both Arab-Israeli wars.

Umm what?? Jordan had control of the West Bank, the West Bank was part of the "Palestinian homeland". Why didn't they request a state in the West Bank while Jordan had control of it?

And again, just because they are distinct doesn't mean the two state solution is the only answer. Jordan didn't need to create a Palestinians state because they integrated the majority of their Palestinian population into their citizenry. That is also an alternative for Israel if the Zionists don't want the two state solution which does seem to be the case. But even that is unacceptable for the Zionists. They want the status quo where they can slowly eat away at Palestine's remaining natural capital until the Palestinians are stuck on reservations.

Being able to integrate seamlessly shows that they are not that distinct from each other. Same ethnicity, same language, same religion, same customs...
 
Last edited:
Peace is possible without a Palestinian state. If they would be accepted under one state with equal rights they would take it. .
Doubtful.

The Israelis don't want a Palestinian state or equality with Palestinians in one state.
And the Palestinians don't want an Israeli State and equality with the JEws. But more importantly the Arabs want either to have a State and they are the ones who control the conflict.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
They have all been thrust into an impossible position told to make peace when the group who controls the strings and does not want peace is not at the table.


Sure the Arab neighbors haven't always been the best allies for the Palestinian cause but at least Jordan was willing to integrate them into their citizenry.
lol. I call that the most polyanna'iish spin possible. The Arabs have been the worst neighbours possible for the Palestinians only using them as pawns and spending billions to keep them in limbo and use them solely as a tool to try and destabilize Israel to continue the wars they lost prior just as they said they would do in the Khartoum Summit.

Yes Israel has an Arab-Israeli population that have civil and political rights but I'm talking about the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
i am too but if we fail to take into the account the greater regional issues and understand who is the true puppet master of the conflict NOTHING any one does or suggest will ever result in peace.

Israel does not hold the keys to peace through any type of land for peace negotiation. Why? Because the Arabs never want a Israeli or Palestine State on their borders. NEVER. If Israel and the Palestinians made peace and the Palestinians got a State the very next day that State would look next door to the Arab nations and say 'Now lets deal with the disputed territories you hold and get you to give back that land' And much of that land has oil so they won't allow it and they will pay billions to factions within Palestine to ensure they never get a deal done. Ignore the Arabs and their motivation and there will never be a peace.
 
Doubtful.

And the Palestinians don't want an Israeli State and equality with the JEws. But more importantly the Arabs want either to have a State and they are the ones who control the conflict.
Of course the Palestinians want to live equally with Israelis, they're increasingly asking for it in the wake of the failure of the two state solution. Its the Israelis who are unequivocally the impediment to that solution.
lol. I call that the most polyanna'iish spin possible. The Arabs have been the worst neighbours possible for the Palestinians only using them as pawns and spending billions to keep them in limbo and use them solely as a tool to try and destabilize Israel to continue the wars they lost prior just as they said they would do in the Khartoum Summit.

i am too but if we fail to take into the account the greater regional issues and understand who is the true puppet master of the conflict NOTHING any one does or suggest will ever result in peace.

Israel does not hold the keys to peace through any type of land for peace negotiation. Why? Because the Arabs never want a Israeli or Palestine State on their borders. NEVER. If Israel and the Palestinians made peace and the Palestinians got a State the very next day that State would look next door to the Arab nations and say 'Now lets deal with the disputed territories you hold and get you to give back that land' And much of that land has oil so they won't allow it and they will pay billions to factions within Palestine to ensure they never get a deal done. Ignore the Arabs and their motivation and there will never be a peace.
Lol at the Arabs being the impediment to peace. The two most powerful Arab countries Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are allying with Israel against Iran. Both have tried to throw the Palestinians under the bus to get favor with Israel. Jordan does a better job sticking up for the Palestinians but even they're warming up to Israel. The idea that the Arabs are still this existential threat to Israel or even harbor a desire to be is a perspective that is decades old, they've largely united with Israel against the Persian threat.
The fact that the Palestinians fled while the Israelis didn't can be attributed to a number of reasons:

- The Israelis had really no where to go, a few years prior they were facing the gas chambers in Europe and I'm sure that was used as a rallying cry to stay and fight or forever be afraid back in Europe.
- The Arabs believed they had safe havens in nearby Jordan, Syria and Egypt and believed they could return once the fighting was over
- The Israeli troops were more effective at instilling fear in their opponents
- The Arabs were not as organized, cohesive and "broke" easier

I'm sure there are more as this is much too nuanced to pin down to one factor. In the end, both committed atrocities, both committed massacres and the Arabs left first.
That's what it was in addition to forced expulsions as admitted by an Israeli Prime Minister who was complicit in the expulsion. There's no d bate here, the Zionists ethnically cleansed the Palestinians off of their ancestral homeland.
I'm not contesting that the Israelis expelled Palestinians, I'm saying there were many factors involved that need to be addressed instead of painting just one side of the story.
It was primarily the result of Zionist ethnic cleansing, that's what matters.
Umm what?? Jordan had control of the West Bank, the West Bank was part of the "Palestinian homeland". Why didn't they request a state in the West Bank while Jordan had control of it?
Pay attention, I'm telling you why, They didn't because they decided to integrate most Palestinians. Something Israelis could do but won't because they don't want to lose a Jewish majority in their demcracy.
Being able to integrate seamlessly shows that they are not that distinct from each other. Same ethnicity, same language, same religion, same customs...
First of all, I didn't say it was seamless and it certainly wasn't. You'd know that if you knew the history of the region, the Jordanian monarchy and the Palestinians fought in a brief civil war in 1907. So yeah, hardly seamless.

Either way, it wouldn't prove anything. Palestinians are considered a unique diaspora in Jordan and still retain ties to historic Palestine. Arab-Israelis are not the same as Ashkenazim Israelis even though they both have Israeli citizenship. What an obtuse thing to say.
 
That's what it was in addition to forced expulsions as admitted by an Israeli Prime Minister who was complicit in the expulsion. There's no d bate here, the Zionists ethnically cleansed the Palestinians off of their ancestral homeland.

Did you even look at the other points or just the one that suited your narrative? Here are the others:

- The Israelis had really no where to go, a few years prior they were facing the gas chambers in Europe and I'm sure that was used as a rallying cry to stay and fight or forever be afraid back in Europe.
- The Arabs believed they had safe havens in nearby Jordan, Syria and Egypt and believed they could return once the fighting was over
- The Arabs were not as organized, cohesive and "broke" easier

Do you believe these could be part of the story as well?

It was primarily the result of Zionist ethnic cleansing, that's what matters.

Why is that the only thing that matters? Why aren't you looking at the factors and the reasons as to why the Arabs decided to run.

Pay attention, I'm telling you why, They didn't because they decided to integrate most Palestinians. Something Israelis could do but won't because they don't want to lose a Jewish majority in their demcracy.

Ahh so if Muslims hold Palestine then all is fine, if the Israelis hold it then it's suddenly occupied land. From 1948 - 67 the "Palestinians" didn't care if they had a state or not, just that Muslims controlled the region. I agree with you on Israel wanting a Jewish majority, their intentions are no secret.

First of all, I didn't say it was seamless and it certainly wasn't. You'd know that if you knew the history of the region, the Jordanian monarchy and the Palestinians fought in a brief civil war in 1907. So yeah, hardly seamless.

Either way, it wouldn't prove anything. Palestinians are considered a unique diaspora in Jordan and still retain ties to historic Palestine. Arab-Israelis are not the same as Ashkenazim Israelis even though they both have Israeli citizenship. What an obtuse thing to say.

You've still never told me what makes them different. In the last thread, I gave the reasons as to why I believed they were the same, you retreated with "Agree to disagree". So are you going to back up your statement as to why you believe they are distinct enough to be considered a different country?

Edit: Here was my last post in that thread

As for the people of the modern Levant, looking at this from a social science framework they are extremely close in all major facets:

Ethnicity - Majority Arab with spatterings of Persian, Turkish, Greek and others

Language - Levant Arabic with local variations and colloquialisms

History - The region and the people were defined by the kingdoms/empires that occupied the land. The region had the same Canaanite/Isrealite, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenist, Roman, Mamluk Sultanate, Umayad Caliphate, Ottoman Empire periods. There was obviously a little variation but for the most part the history is shared.

Religion - Majority Sunni Arab with spatterings of Christianity, Shia and others

I think our argument is on the word "distinct" I just don't see the Levant (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine) pre WW1 different enough to be called distinct countries. In fact I would see the regions within Spain and Italy as being more distinct from each other.
 
Did you even look at the other points or just the one that suited your narrative? Here are the others:

- The Israelis had really no where to go, a few years prior they were facing the gas chambers in Europe and I'm sure that was used as a rallying cry to stay and fight or forever be afraid back in Europe.
- The Arabs believed they had safe havens in nearby Jordan, Syria and Egypt and believed they could return once the fighting was over
- The Arabs were not as organized, cohesive and "broke" easier

Do you believe these could be part of the story as well?
Yes but the primary reason is the deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Israelis.
Why is that the only thing that matters? Why aren't you looking at the factors and the reasons as to why the Arabs decided to run.
Because it was by far the primary driver
Ahh so if Muslims hold Palestine then all is fine, if the Israelis hold it then it's suddenly occupied land. From 1948 - 67 the "Palestinians" didn't care if they had a state or not, just that Muslims controlled the region. I agree with you on Israel wanting a Jewish majority, their intentions are no secret.
What are you going on about? The Israelis can take the land if they also take the people and give them citizenship and equal rights. Of course, they don't want equality with the Palestinians at all.
You've still never told me what makes them different. In the last thread, I gave the reasons as to why I believed they were the same, you retreated with "Agree to disagree". So are you going to back up your statement as to why you believe they are distinct enough to be considered a different country?
What makes them different? The fact that they lived in Palestine and were forcibly removed, in some cases twice, by the Israelis from their ancestral home. Living through displacement and refugee status, the experience of statelessness, that is what has largely defined the Palestinians.

At this point there's no doubt whether or not they are a distinct people; they are and even the Zionists know this at this point.
 
Yes but the primary reason is the deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Israelis.

Because it was by far the primary driver

In your opinion what impact did the other factors listed play in the Arabs running?

What are you going on about? The Israelis can take the land if they also take the people and give them citizenship and equal rights. Of course, they don't want equality with the Palestinians at all.

My thesis is that the Palestinians didn't exist as a cohesive people until their struggle with Israel began. I believe their identity was created as a counter to Zionism by the Arab leaders and they did not care about a state of their own unless Israel occupied the land. It is evident by the fact that they could have declared their state in 48-67 in the West Bank but chose Jordanian citizenship instead

What makes them different? The fact that they lived in Palestine and were forcibly removed, in some cases twice, by the Israelis from their ancestral home. Living through displacement and refugee status, the experience of statelessness, that is what has largely defined the Palestinians.

At this point there's no doubt whether or not they are a distinct people; they are and even the Zionists know this at this point.

Oh so their entire identity is based on their struggle with Israel? This is you admitting that they had no identity before the late 19th century.
 
In your opinion what impact did the other factors listed play in the Arabs running?
Some effect but ti was mostly the deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing by the Zionists that drove the first Palestinian exodus.
My thesis is that the Palestinians didn't exist as a cohesive people until their struggle with Israel began. I believe their identity was created as a counter to Zionism by the Arab leaders and they did not care about a state of their own unless Israel occupied the land. It is evident by the fact that they could have declared their state in 48-67 in the West Bank but chose Jordanian citizenship instead
At this point what does it matter? Israelis didn't exist as a cohesive people before that time frame either and yet you don't question the ties of the Zionists to the land. There are definitely Israelis and Palestinians now.
Oh so their entire identity is based on their struggle with Israel? This is you admitting that they had no identity before the late 19th century.
Its debatable as to whether or not it existed before the late 19th century(I think it did) but its not debatable that the struggle with Zionism was the primary driver of the Palestinian identity. The shared experience of the Nakba and the Six Day War are a collective scar they bear that other Arabs don't. Being displaced and perpetually stateless is not something Egyptians have experienced.
 
Some effect but ti was mostly the deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing by the Zionists that drove the first Palestinian exodus.

All were factors, the terror campaign that the Arabs played didn't work on the Israelis because:

1) They had no where else to go and had the Holocaust as a rallying cry
2) They were more cohesive and did not break

Why is this so difficult to admit that the situation of each group played a part on why the terror campaigns worked or didnt?

At this point what does it matter? Israelis didn't exist as a cohesive people before that time frame either and yet you don't question the ties of the Zionists to the land. There are definitely Israelis and Palestinians now.

It matters because it's been fed that the "Palestinians" as a distinct COUNTRY have been living in the region for centuries when in fact it was Levantine Arabs just like the Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese that were living there. There was no country or people called Palestine, it was a region that was inhabited mainly by Arabs that went through various occupations by different people and empires.

Its debatable as to whether or not it existed before the late 19th century(I think it did) but its not debatable that the struggle with Zionism was the primary driver of the Palestinian identity. The shared experience of the Nakba and the Six Day War are a collective scar they bear that other Arabs don't. Being displaced and perpetually stateless is not something Egyptians have experienced.

Well we tried to debate their identity in the other thread but you bowed out. As for their struggle with Israel, I think we both can agree that they are a distinct people now because of it and I really do feel for the Palestinian people today that don't care about politics and just want to live a peaceful life. History, the Israelis and their brethren didn't do them any favors.
 
All were factors, the terror campaign that the Arabs played didn't work on the Israelis because:

1) They had no where else to go and had the Holocaust as a rallying cry
2) They were more cohesive and did not break

Why is this so difficult to admit that the situation of each group played a part on why the terror campaigns worked or didnt?
I never denied this, the issue is you are reluctant to admit the very relevant fact that the violence and displacement has always been overwhelmingly in one direction. Instead of admit this very basic fact you continue to try to obfuscate with this "all sides" BS in order to try and justify Zionist war crimes.
It matters because it's been fed that the "Palestinians" as a distinct COUNTRY have been living in the region for centuries when in fact it was Levantine Arabs just like the Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese that were living there. There was no country or people called Palestine, it was a region that was inhabited mainly by Arabs that went through various occupations by different people and empires.
So what is your point here? Is this is the same old Newt Gingrich "Palestinians are an invented people" BS?
Well we tried to debate their identity in the other thread but you bowed out. As for their struggle with Israel, I think we both can agree that they are a distinct people now because of it and I really do feel for the Palestinian people today that don't care about politics and just want to live a peaceful life. History, the Israelis and their brethren didn't do them any favors.
That was about the nature of the 19th century Palestinian identity. I bowed out because you didn't seem inclined to agree and I felt I was already going around in circles over there. But into the 20th century there is no doubt, there definitely were Palestinians by then.

And again, remember that the Israeli national identity doesn't have deep ancestral roots either, it was a product of the late 19th century and only really emerged in the 20th century.
 
I never denied this, the issue is you are reluctant to admit the very relevant fact that the violence and displacement has always been overwhelmingly in one direction. Instead of admit this very basic fact you continue to try to obfuscate with this "all sides" BS in order to try and justify Zionist war crimes.

The violence no, it was proportional as my link shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

- The conflicts in the Palestinian Mandate looked to be proportional.
- The casualties looked proportional to the population but much more Arabs displaced in the Civil War.
- 1948 Arab-Israel war. 6,373 killed (about 4,000 troops and 2,400 civilians) -Israeli, Between 12,000 and 20,000 (troops and civilians)among which 4,000 soldiers for Egypt, Jordan and Syria with much more Arabs displaced

The displacement a hard YES it was in one direction and part of it was due to the factors I gave.

Is this fair?

So what is your point here? Is this is the same old Newt Gingrich "Palestinians are an invented people" BS?

My point is they started out as Levantine Arabs, basically the same people as the Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians at the time. And through the conflict with Israel they have become their own people and developed a Palestinian identity.

That was about the nature of the 19th century Palestinian identity. I bowed out because you didn't seem inclined to agree and I felt I was already going around in circles over there. But into the 20th century there is no doubt, there definitely were Palestinians by then.

And again, remember that the Israeli national identity doesn't have deep ancestral roots either, it was a product of the late 19th century and only really emerged in the 20th century.

They claim the Hebrew identity that originated from the ancient kingdom of Judah and was dispersed throughout the world before returning. Obviously a lot of time has passed and no one really believes they are the direct descendants. They are different and I don't know how strong their claim holds up to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Hardly, name one instance where ISIS has attacked Israel. I'll go grab a snack.

Google is your friend, but ISIS never attacked Israel. Israel has been supporting ISIS. Use your google again and check back.



You're full of shit. Let's take a look at the article you posted...

"Israel stood by our side in a heroic way,” said Moatasem al-Golani, spokesman for the rebel group Fursan al-Joulan, or Knights of the Golan. “We wouldn’t have survived without Israel’s assistance.”

Fursan al-Joulan is the main rebel group coordinating with Israel, according to fighters. It first made contact with the Israeli military in 2013 and Israel soon began sending cash and other aid, fighters said.

The group had just launched an offensive against regime forces in southwestern Quneitra province, which encompasses the Syrian side of the Golan, according to the spokesman Mr. Golani, who uses a nom de guerre.

The fighters carried wounded comrades to a border point where they were met by Israeli soldiers speaking Arabic, said Mr. Golani. Relatives of the wounded men pleaded for help and ambulances soon arrived to take the injured to hospitals in Israel. The moment was a turning point that opened communication between Israel and the moderate faction of opposition fighters, he said.

Fursan al-Joulan is part of the Free Syrian Army group, who've gotten support from the U.S, France, Britain and Germany in the past. They're were created by moderate ex Syrian Army generals who want Assad out and they also fight ISIS.

The brigade joined a "quick response unit" of 600 fighters alongside other moderate and jihadist groups on 8 July 2014 to fight the Syrian Army and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Aleppo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Division_(Syrian_rebel_group)


An Islamic State affiliate also has carved out a pocket of control on the south end of the Syrian Golan and clashes with rebels at times. Its fighters exchanged fire with Israeli forces last year.

  • 2012: Syrian rebel group the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade, which has a presence in the divided Golan Heights near Israel’s border, forms and later declares allegiance to Islamic State. It then joins with other groups to form the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, an offshoot of Islamic State.
  • November 2016: An Israeli airstrike kills four Khalid ibn al-Walid militants in Syrian Golan after Israeli soldiers come under fire.


So not only are they helping rebel groups who are battling ISIS and Assad, they've also attacked ISIS targets when provoked.. Stop making shit up.
 
The violence no, it was proportional as my link shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

- The conflicts in the Palestinian Mandate looked to be proportional.
- The casualties looked proportional to the population but much more Arabs displaced in the Civil War.
- 1948 Arab-Israel war. 6,373 killed (about 4,000 troops and 2,400 civilians) -Israeli, Between 12,000 and 20,000 (troops and civilians)among which 4,000 soldiers for Egypt, Jordan and Syria with much more Arabs displaced

The displacement a hard YES it was in one direction and part of it was due to the factors I gave.

Is this fair?
Your own figures show it was disproportional with the Israelis killing 2-3x as many Arabs. Discounting the troops of the Arab armies and the Israelis you have 2,400 civilians killed on the Israeli side and 8,000 to 16,000 civilians killed on the Arab side. So no, I wouldn't agree it was proportional. Then you add in the campaign of terror and displacement by the Israelis and we can see how disproportionate the affair was in general.
My point is they started out as Levantine Arabs, basically the same people as the Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians at the time. And through the conflict with Israel they have become their own people and developed a Palestinian identity.
And again, so what? Israelis where just Ashkenazim Jews from Europe before the late 19th century so they have even less claim to the region based on identity.
They claim the Hebrew identity that originated from the ancient kingdom of Judah and was dispersed throughout the world before returning. Obviously a lot of time has passed and no one really believes they are the direct descendants. They are different and I don't know how strong their claim holds up to scrutiny.
A completely horseshit claim next to the claim of the Palestinians, based on their continuous existence on the land for hundreds if not thousands of years.
 
Of course the Palestinians want to live equally with Israelis, they're increasingly asking for it in the wake of the failure of the two state solution. Its the Israelis who are unequivocally the impediment to that solution.

Lol at the Arabs being the impediment to peace. The two most powerful Arab countries Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are allying with Israel against Iran. Both have tried to throw the Palestinians under the bus to get favor with Israel. Jordan does a better job sticking up for the Palestinians but even they're warming up to Israel. The idea that the Arabs are still this existential threat to Israel or even harbor a desire to be is a perspective that is decades old, they've largely united with Israel against the Persian threat.

That's what it was in addition to forced expulsions as admitted by an Israeli Prime Minister who was complicit in the expulsion. There's no d bate here, the Zionists ethnically cleansed the Palestinians off of their ancestral homeland.

It was primarily the result of Zionist ethnic cleansing, that's what matters.

Pay attention, I'm telling you why, They didn't because they decided to integrate most Palestinians. Something Israelis could do but won't because they don't want to lose a Jewish majority in their demcracy.

First of all, I didn't say it was seamless and it certainly wasn't. You'd know that if you knew the history of the region, the Jordanian monarchy and the Palestinians fought in a brief civil war in 1907. So yeah, hardly seamless.

Either way, it wouldn't prove anything. Palestinians are considered a unique diaspora in Jordan and still retain ties to historic Palestine. Arab-Israelis are not the same as Ashkenazim Israelis even though they both have Israeli citizenship. What an obtuse thing to say.
No the Palestinians do not want to live in peace with the Jews.

Yes the only thing worse to the Arab States than a stable Israel on their borders is a stable Israel and Palestine on their borders. They will continue to funnel billions to Palestinian leadership to ensure any peace is rejected not matter what reason they have to find to do it.

The enemy of their enemy is always the Arabs friend as their goal is always to make their enemies fight one another so the Arabs do not have to do it themselves. They learned their lessons well after getting their asses handed to them in the 5 Days War amongst others.

You are very naive if you do not think the Arab money is fueling almost all the conflict in the region. They stated definitively that they would change their battle tactic against the Jews by fueling and using the Palestinian desire for a homeland as a weapon against the Jews. You lose that weapon if they get a homeland and worse the new Palestinian State would then turn to the Arab nations and say 'you are next now we got our disputed lands from Israel, you must return our disputed too.' And much of that land is actually valuable as it has oil. The Arabs have no desire to become the next bad Palestinian oppressor with the UN and world community pushing them to give back disputed lands and need to keep that focus on Israel which means they must make sure there is no deal.

Arafat did not get billions as a public servant paid to resolve the dispute. He was paid to ensure it never was.
 
Your own figures show it was disproportional with the Israelis killing 2-3x as many Arabs. Discounting the troops of the Arab armies and the Israelis you have 2,400 civilians killed on the Israeli side and 8,000 to 16,000 civilians killed on the Arab side. So no, I wouldn't agree it was proportional. Then you add in the campaign of terror and displacement by the Israelis and we can see how disproportionate the affair was in general.

That's 8,000 - 16,000 troops and civilians not just civilians, the "Palestinians" had troops as well. The reason for the disparity comes down to a multitude of factors. Throughout history we've seen examples of a smaller force routing and destroying a much larger force because they had better leaders, tactics, equipment and will (including viciousness) . All of them came into factor here.

And again, so what? Israelis where just Ashkenazim Jews from Europe before the late 19th century so they have even less claim to the region based on identity.

For pages and pages in the other thread you were arguing that the Palestinians were a distinct people before the conflict, distinct enough to be called a country. I'm glad you finally have conceded.

A completely horseshit claim next to the claim of the Palestinians, based on their continuous existence on the land for hundreds if not thousands of years.

It doesn't really matter now does it, they're on the land and I don't think they are leaving anytime soon. The Palestinians should take the next deal which is offered or they'll get squeezed even further.
 
Last edited:
Arafat did not get billions as a public servant paid to resolve the dispute. He was paid to ensure it never was.

YRozg.gif


Just like Rabin he would have been assassinated if he tried to negotiate real peace.
 
Last edited:
No the Palestinians do not want to live in peace with the Jews.

Yes the only thing worse to the Arab States than a stable Israel on their borders is a stable Israel and Palestine on their borders. They will continue to funnel billions to Palestinian leadership to ensure any peace is rejected not matter what reason they have to find to do it.

The enemy of their enemy is always the Arabs friend as their goal is always to make their enemies fight one another so the Arabs do not have to do it themselves. They learned their lessons well after getting their asses handed to them in the 5 Days War amongst others.

You are very naive if you do not think the Arab money is fueling almost all the conflict in the region. They stated definitively that they would change their battle tactic against the Jews by fueling and using the Palestinian desire for a homeland as a weapon against the Jews. You lose that weapon if they get a homeland and worse the new Palestinian State would then turn to the Arab nations and say 'you are next now we got our disputed lands from Israel, you must return our disputed too.' And much of that land is actually valuable as it has oil. The Arabs have no desire to become the next bad Palestinian oppressor with the UN and world community pushing them to give back disputed lands and need to keep that focus on Israel which means they must make sure there is no deal.

Arafat did not get billions as a public servant paid to resolve the dispute. He was paid to ensure it never was.
The problem is you are not paying attention. The regional picture has changed dramatically and now the Arabs are slowly aligning with Israel itself. Both Sisi and MBS, arguably the strongest Arabs in the world right now, have tried to strong arm the Palestinians into a shit deal to curry favor with the Israelis who they need as a counterweight to Iran. Syria is not at peace with Israel but they are crippled, hardly a threat anymore. Even Hezbollah has lost a lot of manpower.

The idea that its the Arabs in general or the Palestinians in particular in the way of peace is ridiculous. I linked you to an article showing the growing support of a one state solution among Palestinians, that only grows by the day. The Palestinians want peace in one state, its the Israelis who would never accept that as it means equality with the Palestinians in the remaining territories and that is antithetical to the Zionist project which requires Jewish supremacy in Israel.
That's 8,000 - 16,000 troops and civilians not just civilians, the "Palestinians" had troops as well. The reason for the disparity comes down to a multitude of factors. Throughout history we've seen examples of a smaller force routing and destroying a much larger force because they had better leaders, tactics, equipment and will (including viciousness) . All of them came into factor here.
Exactly, the Palestinians were never the same threat to the Israelis as the other way around.
For pages and pages in the other thread you were arguing that the Palestinians were a distinct people before the conflict, I'm glad you finally have conceded.
I don't know what concession you're talking about, I haven't conceded shit to you.
It doesn't really matter now does it, they're on the land and I don't think they are leaving anytime soon. The Palestinians should take the next deal which is offered or they'll get squeezed even further.
Sure now its too late but that doesn't change the fact that the creation of the state of Israel was a historic injustice,one that should never have happened.
 
That's 8,000 - 16,000 troops and civilians not just civilians, the "Palestinians" had troops as well. The reason for the disparity comes down to a multitude of factors. Throughout history we've seen examples of a smaller force routing and destroying a much larger force because they had better leaders, tactics, equipment and will (including viciousness) . All of them came into factor here.



For pages and pages in the other thread you were arguing that the Palestinians were a distinct people before the conflict, distinct enough to be called a country. I'm glad you finally have conceded.



It doesn't really matter now does it, they're on the land and I don't think they are leaving anytime soon. The Palestinians should take the next deal which is offered or they'll get squeezed even further.

The palestinian expulsion number is a little inflated but yes more of them were expelled then jews. But then because arabs and muslims are NEVER the bigger people morally they go and did the same thing to jews right after 1949 and they lost. Then arab countries from iraq to morocco started to persecute jews and support the message that they need to go. So then roughly 800,000 jews from arab countries leave for Israel. In these cases there was no forced state expulsion but many other actors probably with covert state support and fellow muslims helped to make jews uncomofrtable.
The problem is you are not paying attention. The regional picture has changed dramatically and now the Arabs are slowly aligning with Israel itself. Both Sisi and MBS, arguably the strongest Arabs in the world right now, have tried to strong arm the Palestinians into a shit deal to curry favor with the Israelis who they need as a counterweight to Iran. Syria is not at peace with Israel but they are crippled, hardly a threat anymore. Even Hezbollah has lost a lot of manpower.

The idea that its the Arabs in general or the Palestinians in particular in the way of peace is ridiculous. I linked you to an article showing the growing support of a one state solution among Palestinians, that only grows by the day. The Palestinians want peace in one state, its the Israelis who would never accept that as it means equality with the Palestinians in the remaining territories and that is antithetical to the Zionist project which requires Jewish supremacy in Israel.

Exactly, the Palestinians were never the same threat to the Israelis as the other way around.

I don't know what concession you're talking about, I haven't conceded shit to you.

Sure now its too late but that doesn't change the fact that the creation of the state of Israel was a historic injustice,one that should never have happened.

what you are saying would be true if it was not for the islamic supremacy preached everywhere in saudi arabia and egypt. Saudis still fund anti jew anti christian stuff in mosques around world. It is temporary alliance with Israel but the ideologues dont see it forever happening. Even a shit palestinian state is okay with them because they likely do not see it as forever thing. They probably thinking

´´first let get all help we can to get rid of Iran then once it gone and syria no other form of islam can rival us in middle east and north africa then we go after israel´´´..

I mean that is what any smart person in there shoes probably think
 
Exactly, the Palestinians were never the same threat to the Israelis as the other way around.

It's easy to say after the ass kicking, but before hand:

https://www.aljazeera.com/focus/arabunity/2008/02/200852518398869597.html

"The advisors to President Quwatli and King Farouq, for example, were telling them that this will be a piece of cake for the Syrians and Egyptians [respectively]," Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst and author of Shukri al-Qawatli's biography,The George Washington of Syria, said.

""The Jews, who constituted only around 20-25 per cent of the population, were not perceived as a serious threat by most of the Arabs,"

I don't know what concession you're talking about, I haven't conceded shit to you.

Me: My point is they started out as Levantine Arabs, basically the same people as the Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians at the time

You: And again, so what?

So are you conceding that they thought of themselves as Levantine Arabs and not distinct Palestinians when the conflict started.

Sure now its too late but that doesn't change the fact that the creation of the state of Israel was a historic injustice, one that should never have happened.

There are a lot of things I believe should never have happened but they did, life isn't fair. Israel is here to stay, what should the Palestinians do next?
 
It's easy to say after the ass kicking, but before hand:

https://www.aljazeera.com/focus/arabunity/2008/02/200852518398869597.html

"The advisors to President Quwatli and King Farouq, for example, were telling them that this will be a piece of cake for the Syrians and Egyptians [respectively]," Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst and author of Shukri al-Qawatli's biography,The George Washington of Syria, said.

""The Jews, who constituted only around 20-25 per cent of the population, were not perceived as a serious threat by most of the Arabs,"

That's in reference to the Arab nations surrounding Israel, not the Palestinians themselves. Why do you continue to conflate the two? Very misleading and dishonest of you.
Me: My point is they started out as Levantine Arabs, basically the same people as the Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians at the time

You: And again, so what?

So are you conceding that they thought of themselves as Levantine Arabs and not distinct Palestinians when the conflict started.
I didn't concede shit, I was merely asking what the relevance of that statement is. I don't want to get into the historic Palestinian identity, I'm confining myself to the modern conflict. Like I said even if that is true, keyword being if, its even more true for the Israelis who were just Russians and Poles who moved to Palestine and not some primordial group of Israelis.
There are a lot of things I believe should never have happened but they did, life isn't fair. Israel is here to stay, what should the Palestinians do next?
I've mentioned my suggests multiple times. Suffice to say I don't have faith that the Zionsits will allow them to have their own state or to be equals within one state and would prefer to maintain the status quo so as to continue displacing Palestinians for their own ends.
 
Back
Top