Likud party officially opposes Palestinian statehood...

[ExciteBike66]

Lots of concern about the continued existence of Israel here, but keep in mind that the dominant party in Israel doesn't think Palestine should exist at all.

Likud also wants to rule from the river to the sea.

[MOMFUDSKI]

1. Well-

There ya go.

[Lovie777]

2. And the other parties of Israel want to live with the Palestinians ........................

[Behind the Aegis]

3. "Likud also wants to rule from the river to the sea."

Wait. Is that bad? Wrong? Because I and others here have been lectured that when it is "Palestine: from the river to the sea." isn't really bigotry, just an expression of a desire to be free.

[yardwork]

11. It's just like Martin Luther King!

[Just_Vote_Dem]

21. LOL!

[David__77]

4. I'm sure that the people in this single state will want their voting rights.

[enid602]

5. Quotes from Golda . . .

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian."—Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, Sunday Times, 15 June 1969 (later parroted by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum)
"How can we return the held territories? There is nobody to return them to."—Meir (March 8, 1969)
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people ... and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them ... they did not exist."—Meir (Sunday Times, June 15, 1969; Washington Post, June 16, 1969)
"Anyone who speaks in favor of bringing the Arab refugees back must also say how he expects to take the responsibility for it, if he is interested in the state of Israel. It is better that things are stated clearly and plainly: We shall not let this happen."—Golda Meir (in a speech to the Knesset, reported in Ner, October 1961)
"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."—Golda Meir (Le Monde, October 15, 1971)

[radicalleft]

8. And before her...

“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.”
— David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

[brush]

10. Just sub in Muslim or Arab instead of Palestinian then.

There, fixed it.

It's so far beyond reality to be against a Palestinian/Arab/Muslim state for the stateless people there.

What, Israel deserves a state but the others don't?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. I'm in favor of a Palestinian state

But let’s not forget they could have had their own country 75 years ago, but they thought it would be better to destroy Israel and keep it all.

[brush]

16. That's water under the bridge now. I'm curious as to what...

was the situation before the UN partition? Hadn't Arabs and Jews lived on that land for millennia, more or less side-by-side but then there was to be a designated country for Jews only?

Perhaps if Israel had adhered to our First Amendment: Freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and the right to redress grievances, maybe the Arab population wouldn't have felt everything was being put in place favoring only Israel.

The UN should've set aside land for a Palestian state too.

Pls don't misunderstand, I'm for impartiality and even-handedness towards both sides in all of this. That seems only fair to me.

[LeftInTX]

17. It was under Ottoman Turk's and then British after WWI.

So, it wasn't a country, but neither was Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or Jordan. It was home to Muslims, Christians and Jews. More Christians than Jews.

[brush]

19. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan all got...

territory from the Ottoman Empire but the Palestinians were left out?

No wonder they're resentful. Seems the UN made a big mistake in not looking out for everyone, and then not anticipating what could result in not drawing borders for the stateless ones.

[radicalleft]

23. They were left out because of the Balfour Declaration

Which was ultimately enacted as the British Mandate for Palestine which sought to offer a "National Homeland for the Jews", which ironically enough was supposed to guarantee the civil liberties of the "Non-Jewish population" which comprised just north of 600k inhabitants at the time.

edit to add: this was done at the end of WW1 which predates the UN...it was enacted by the League of Nations

[brush]

24. Seems that wasn't comprehensive enough.

And decades later the UN didn't quite get it right either.

So much trouble could've been avoided if...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. I agree that it's water I see the bridge

Them whining about not having a country when they could have had one for the last 75 years doesn’t exactly being a tear to my eye.

And the point of Israel was so that Jews would have a homeland .Israel has freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free press. The Palestinians didn’t want two countries, they wanted one, and they didn’t want Jews in it.

Sure give them their own country now, but they should remember that is was their grand-parents and great-grandparents that put them in this position.

[obamanut2012]

20. "Them whining about not having a country when they could have had one for the last 75"

WHINING? And, over 50% are minors. Th majority didn't even vote in the last election held 17 years ago.

Your whole post is very much the "sins of the fathers," ie ancestral sins. You literally just said you agree with that tack.

Good God.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. I didn't mention

The last election, and I said no such thing regarding sins of the father. I’m all for the Palestinians having this own country. My point is that instead of them blaming Israel for not having a country for the last 75 years, they should look to their own immediate ancestors.

You don’t have to agree - makes no difference to me whatsoever, but that’s my opinion.

[radicalleft]

25. wow...

Them whining about not having a country when they could have had one for the last 75 years doesn’t exactly being a tear to my eye.

That's some privlege on dispaly right there! Hey arabs...we are going to take your land that has been inhabited by your family for the past 1000 years or so and create a brand-spanking new Jewish nation...but don't you worry...we'll give you a small piece of it. you don't mind right?

[sabbat hunter]

28. step by step

1) Jews and Arabs had both lived on the land since ancient times. But there was not always peace. Most notably the arab revolt of the 1920s
2) All citizens of Israel do have freedom of religion. All citizens of Israel, whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, etc all have equal rights.
3) the UN did set aside land to be a Palestine. But the surrounding nations of Israel invaded the day after Israel declared independence. Most of the land meant for a Palestine was annexed by Jordan, and Egypt.

[brush]

32. Thanks for this. So many resentments, so many quarrels...

and so many countries looking out to expand their own territory.

It's still an intractable problem 75 years later.

[SocialDemocrat61]

33. Actually the Jews that lived there during ancient times

were Arabs.

[sabbat hunter]

34. No.

Arabs did not come along en masse until later. There were other Semitic people, like the Philistines, Canaanites, etc that lived there, but Arabs did not come along en masse until after the time of Mohamed, and the expansion of the Arab Caliphate.
Jews are a Semitic people, just like the Arabs. But if you do a genetic test, and there are genetic links between Arabs, and Jews, as both are Semitic people.

Jews were mostly forced out of the area by the Romans after the Bar kokhba revolt. But even then some still remained. Jews that were not enslaved, migrated to areas all over the Roman empire, and lands beyond it, including in to Europe, Asia, Africa, and Arabia.

[Igel]

41. They'd lived on the land for 1300 years.

With the occasional anti-Jewish pogrom and a restriction that Jews couldn't own land and a Muslim who sold a Jew land was subject to the death penalty. A couple in the '20s, one or two in the '30s, another in the '40s--and that's just cis-Jordan.

During periods of fervor, Jews had to wear special clothing and not be higher than Muslims. Rituals had to be shielded from Muslim eyes. That led to segregation. Jews could not write in Arabic script--it was sacred. Maimonides wrote in Arabic using Hebrew letters in such a period in "liberal" Spain.

You want apartheid? There you go. Jews under Ottomanic "enlightened" Muslim rule were much worse off than Arab Muslims under despotic Jewish rule in Israel proper. (West Bank--that we might readily agree on. But a lot of the "discrimination" against Arabs in Israel is because the rules for land purchased by Jews for Jews still is unavailable for Arabs; then again, Hamas considers the entirety of Palestine to be waqf land, and therefore never to be owned or possessed by non-Muslims. They're extreme, but there's a lot of land generally considered waqf in Palestine that is/was off limits and would be again if Ottoman law applied fully.)

Even Hebron, with a Jewish population going back 2000+ years, in the '30s or '40s was subject to a pogrom that led to ethnic cleansing. They moved to the safety of Jewish sections of towns and cities. And let's not discuss the 800k or so 'cleansed' Jews from Arab Middle East and North Africa, most of which had similar kind of 2nd-class status, when not at 3rd class, before being refugeed and their lot improved.

That's the Muslim Arab version of living in peace. When you're used to privilege, equality is oppression.

[SocialDemocrat61]

31. Speaking of Gilda Meir

[Igel]

39. It's a question of ethnogenesis.

When did Palestinians stop being indifferent as the distinction between them and Jordanian Arabs? It wasn't salient in 1920. Jordan had no trouble with annexation after 1950. There's the rub. Were there people there? Sure. Were they "a" people, distinct from others? That's a completely different question and goes not to residency but to questions of "identity".

That's what the PRC is facing with Taiwan. In the last couple of generations the Taiwanese have stopped considering themselves, to a large extent, the same as those in the PRC and more a separate people.

It's not hard to find claims from Jordanians even now that they're the same people as the Palestinians, that's why they treated the Palestinians differently from the Egyptians. Culturally, linguistically, not much difference.

Were there (geographic) Palestinians? Sure. The encyclopedia learned my basic geography from in elementary school talked about cis-Jordanians and trans-Jordanians. It was from 1929. (Yeah, it was out of date and I was confused when I didn't see Tanganyika or French Equatorial Africa on the map ... Much less the Orange Free State). There were different ethnicities, but a separate Palestinian ethnicity was invisible to the encyclopedia compilers and their authors.

[Kennah]

6. They have also been a proponent of Greater Israel

On the flip side, there are those who think Israel has no right to exist and there should not be any Jews allowed in the Middle East.

[multigraincracker]

7. Simple solution.

Give everyone a DNA test. Then gather data from bodies in the area from 800 years, or so. All of those with at least 50% match, get to stay.
We will go with nature, not nurture.

[obamanut2012]

22. That would kick out many Israelis on teh West bank

Many of whom are quite recent settlers from Russia, etc.

[radicalleft]

26. And the United States as well

eom

[sabbat hunter]

29. genetics show

That Jews trace their heritage back to the middle east, even if they were recently in places like Russia,

[Bettie]

36. They are the ones who are out killing Palestinians there

and taking more land, illegally every day.

But, they are human beings and, according to the defense minister of Israel, the Palestinians are...not.

So, I guess it's cool for them to just go and burn home and kill the ones who live there, because, well, because they want to.

[multigraincracker]

38. I blame the Right Wing of both sides.

Just like the magas here. Both groups have decent kind Liberals that are against violence and revenge. They are being drowned out by the assholes that are tied to violence and revenge.

[Bettie]

42. Yep, I do too

right wing ideologies are toxic.

[Xolodno]

37. They have done some DNA testing between Palestinians and Jewish People.

And done it several times and the results are the same. They are all kissing cousins. Of course, both sides refuse to acknowledge it. The Jewish side of course wants to call them Arabs so they can eject them to Arab nations and for Palestinians, the idea is reprehensible as they believe they are Canaanites (genetic studies show they actually migrated north and largely occupy what is present day Lebanon) . Its also why the Arab nations don't want Palestinians, they know the truth.

Contrary to myth, Rome did not enslave and disperse everyone. Just those in the province of Judah and anyone else from another province who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time during Passover. That left everyone else that was in Galilee, Samaria, etc. staying put. And even on the far edges the small province of Judah they remained as the occupying Romans still needed various things from the locals and the cost was prohibitive to ship everything there.

After the Muslims took over, Jewish people began to convert to Islam since their religions were similar. And with the advent of the Crusades who didn't just kill Muslims, but Jews and Orthodox Christians as well, the conversion accelerated. And it continued after the Crusades, the Ottoman empire has records of entire Jewish villages converting to Islam. Its only in recent history where the oppressor of Jewish people has reversed from Christians to Islamic Fundamentalism.

After the Romans were evicted during the revolt (and it was only successful because Rome went through five emperors in five years), there was a Jewish civil war between three groups. And they were still fighting when Titus showed up with the Roman army. Seems like that civil war is still going.

[JI7]

9. There are others that disagree and Israel DID agree to 2 state deals multiple times

which was rejected by the other side .

You want to ignore all these facts with "this guy said this, this guy believes this" while ignoring the fact that Israel did agree to 2 state proposals that had been made.

[TheRealNorth]

13. Thats a misrerpresentation of what actually happened

The peace deal fell apart because there was a disagreement on the borders of the two states (based on land annexed by Israel on the West Bank after the Six-Day War), not that the Palestinians didn't want a separate country.

[sabbat hunter]

30. During

Clinton's presidency PM Barak, and Arafat met at Camp David. Arafat was offered all of the WB, Gaza, and split political control of the old city of Jerusalem. Against his advisers recommendations, he turned the deal down.

[TheRealNorth]

35. Incorrect

There was some land captured during the 6-day war that Israel did not want to return. Not saying Arafat shouldn't have taken the deal in hindsight. But I also don't know what the significance of the disputed land was (in terms of religious importance, water or other natural resources, etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Territory
The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. Their historic position was that Palestinians had already made a territorial compromise with Israel by accepting Israel's right to 78% of "historic Palestine", and accepting their state on the remaining 22% of such land. This consensus was expressed by Faisal Husseini when he remarked: "There can be no compromise on the compromise".[9] They maintained that Resolution 242 calls for full Israeli withdrawal from these territories, which were captured in the Six-Day War, as part of a final peace settlement. In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the Green Line borders (1949 armistice lines) for the West Bank but the Israelis rejected this proposal and disputed the Palestinian interpretation of Resolution 242. Israel wanted to annex the numerous settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, and were concerned that a complete return to the 1967 borders was dangerous to Israel's security. The Palestinian and Israeli definition of the West Bank differs by approximately 5% land area as the Israeli definition does not include East Jerusalem (71 km2), the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 km2) and the area known as No Man's Land (50 km2 near Latrun).[8]

Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[8][10] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.[8]

According to Robert Wright, Israel would only keep the settlements with large populations. Wright states that all others would be dismantled, with the exception of Kiryat Arba (adjacent to the holy city of Hebron), which would be an Israeli enclave inside the Palestinian state, and would be linked to Israel by a bypass road. The West Bank would be split in the middle by an Israeli-controlled road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians, although Israel reserved the right to close the road to passage in case of emergency. In return, Israel would allow the Palestinians to use a highway in the Negev to connect the West Bank with Gaza. Wright states that in the Israeli proposal, the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be linked by an elevated highway and an elevated railroad running through the Negev, ensuring safe and free passage for Palestinians. These would be under the sovereignty of Israel, and Israel reserved the right to close them to passage in case of emergency.[11]

Israel would retain around 9% in the West Bank in exchange for 1% of land within the Green Line. The land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified. Additional to territorial concessions, Palestinian airspace would be controlled by Israel under Barak's offer.[11][12] The Palestinians rejected the Halutza Sand region (78 km2) alongside the Gaza Strip as part of the land swap on the basis that it was of inferior quality to that which they would have to give up in the West Bank.[8]

[Nanjeanne]

14. This is a bit simplistic. Yes Israel agreed to a 2 state solution at one point - as did the PLO which is the Oslo

agreement. But prior to that there were many tries/agreements failed etc. by both parties. And after Oslo accord as well.

Let's not forget the dreadful 1994 terrorism - by Jewish extremist who open fired on Muslim worshippers and the terrorist Hamas suicide bombings and killing of Israeli citizens. Then in 1995 when Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist during a peace rally.

Leading to Netanyahu's election and the later agreement between him and Arafat where under the agreement Israel was supposed to begin partial withdrawal from the West Bank while PLO was supposed to crack down on Palestinian violence. That agreement was withdrawn.

The mess with Sharon and Israeli troops reentering West Bank . . . more Palestinian violence. Then Sharon withdrawing troops and dismantling Jewish settlements at which point he was pursuing the two state solution. His heart attack. The election in which Hamas won victory.

Olmart's offer of giving back 93% of territory claimed in the West Bank - but Netanyahu's refusal to honor that. Stalled again.

Trump's initial proposal - but then his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017 and move its ambassadorial mission to that city the following May. Ordering the closure of the PLO office in DC.

And on and on and on. If you are really interested in a factual historical summary - check out Brittanica's page: [link:https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution|]

[sarisataka]

15. Now how are we going to slice this one?

Since Hamas denies the legality of Israel as a country and will only accept all of Palestine. The pro-Palestinian rallies have taken the phrase "from the river to the sea" as a slogan, but that was defended the last few weeks as nearly an expression of freedom and not ethnic cleansing.

Now, apparently, Likud denies that there should be a Palestinian homeland so is "the river to the sea" suddenly a sinister phrase? Does it refer to ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?

How does that comport with the arguments that have been made since the beginning of the month that denied the phrase meant ethnic cleansing?

Additionally, is Likud equivalent to the Jews or Israel? Israel does have elections and can change. I don't believe Hamas believes in elections.

I have not seen any pro-Israel rally that has totally denied a Palestinian homeland this month, claiming Isreal from the river to the sea.I have seen many pro-Palestinian rallies which did adopt the phrase. Or are we applying different standards to Israelis vs Palestinians?

[ripcord]

40. Maybe if the Palestinians hadn't joined the rest of Arabs in 5 wars where the goal was genocide against Israel......

Not the fake kind of genocide they are talking about now but the kind where the Arabs announced their intention to wipe Israel and the Jews off the map. If I were Israel I would never forgive or forget what the genocidal madmen of the middle east tried to do. Every time they thought Israel was weak they attacked, they only stopped because Israel now has nukes and will use them in the face of another Arab attack. The Palestinians have no one but themselves to blame for their current situation.