Palestine 'may abandon two-state solution'-- Dr.Erekat says.

[Mosby]

Ramallah - paltoday - Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat warns that continued expansion of Israeli settlements could force the Palestinian Authority (PA) to abandon the two-state solution.

"Successive Israeli governments have destroyed any chance of reaching a two-state solution," said Erekat on Wednesday, noting that PA must start searching for 'other options'.

"A Palestinian state without Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as its capital would be meaningless. The Palestinian people haven't excluded other options, including the option of a one-state solution," he told reporters in Ramallah.

He said it was time for acting PA chief Mahmoud Abbas to 'tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option'.

http://paltoday.com/english/news.php?id=35968

[mix]

1. The one-state solution is inevitable, but

how that "equality" between Muslims, Jews, and Christians would be achieved is another question entirely.

[Mosby]

2. The one state "solution" is never going to happen

The frequent calls from Palestinian supporters for one state is a negotiating tactic, albeit a very poor one.

[mix]

3. There is some truth to it being a negotiating tactic,

but with no chance of a viable Palestinian state, the territories (and Gaza) remain under de facto Israeli sovereignty. Reform and integration, along with continued conflict, will occur along those lines.

[Ken Burch]

5. Building more and more settlements(almost all of which are illegal)

is a bad and suicidally reckless negotiating policy too.

As is the insistence by the Israeli side on being seen as "the winners" and on humiliating the Palestinian leadership. All this tactic can ever achieve, as the rise of Hamas proves, is the replacement of one set of leaders with another set that it inevitably worse. The most important thing in Arab culture is not being seen as having been shamed. If the Israeli government actually wanted peace, it would respond to this, sensibly, with a "no humiliation, no shame" policy.

But that would mean giving up the addiction to war for war's sake that is endemic among Israel's political and military leadership, almost all of whom seem to see the "existential crisis" as the organizing principle of their society for some twisted reason.

[pelsar]

will you please just stop it...you simply have no idea what your talking about...

The most important thing in Arab culture is not being seen as having been shamed. If the Israeli government actually wanted peace, it would respond to this, sensibly, with a "no humiliation, no shame" policy.

where did you learn this?...arab culture 101?

may is suggest you take arab culture 202 and learn how "being shamed' by israel is not the most important issue.

i though PM straighten you out about arafat being a corrupt and that was why he lost support ....nothing to do with your premise of israeli "shamming" him...

[Ken Burch]

15. They don't do what they do out ot antisemitism

They would do everything they do if anyone else treated them like this. And you know it.

You have got to let go of the bullshit myth that this is about "hating Jews".

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Wow! That's lots of straw you got there.

Keep repeating it maybe someone will buy into it.

[Ken Burch]

24. No straw. You were implying a position that Palestinians don't take

Nothing made up at all. And you know it.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. PLENTY of straw! You were implying a position pelsar (and otehrs) took (take), but didn't (don't).

All made up, as per usual.

[pelsar]

54. huh?...where did that come from? anti semitism?....from outerspace?

i cant find anywhere in my post anything about jews or anti semitism....

is this one of those cases where if you can't defend an argument, you just make up a new one and pretend it was written?....or maybe you've got your posts mixed up..that happens, because your reply is soooooo not relevent, i can only assume you were writing on different forum or something.

[bstender]

69. i think it will

as it is the only viable scenario. Thinking in terms of Israel coexisting is clearly off the table, leaving one state. it will occur in a vastly different political landscape however. One much less, shall we say, pure. more like the real world. it most likely will be accompanied by a vastly different, as in bankrupt, USA. The bright side could be that it serves as the last great human experiment with institutionalized racism.

[LeftishBrit]

4. The one-state solution is at present impossible..

and I think the Palestinian negotiators know it; they are using it as a 'stick' to make Israelis more inclined to consider other possibilities.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. It's definately being used as a tactic...

And I don't think there's anything wrong at all with waving that stick and giving a reminder that it will get to a point where a two-state solution becomes impossible...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. The two-state solution at present is also impossible; we're left with one-state apartheid

where only Israeli Jews have full rights.

Let's describe reality accurately.

[Mosby]

42. It's unlikely right now because the Palestinian leadership

refuse to sit down and negotiate a permanent settlement.

That's the unfortunate reality PM.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. That makes it sound like Nutty is champing at the bit to arrive at a viable two-state solution...

I'm pretty sure that's not the case, and what you said came across as blaming the Palestinians entirely for the refusal of the current Israeli govt to cease settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I can understand the reluctance to enter into any negotiations when Israel refuses to even make that concession beforehand...

[Mosby]

51. Netanyahu said he would negotiate.

and settlement expansion has never prevented negotiations between the two sides in the past, only very recently has it become a Palestinian precondition.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. What's he supposed to be wanting to negotiate?

Sorry. bit it's totally ridiculous for even a hardline RW govt like that to think that continuing to expand settlements isn't a huge impediment. And good on the Palestinians for making that a precondition, especially after Israel has repeatedly come up with preconditions galore themselves in the past....

[Recursion]

72. How many states are there now? One

Clearly a one-state solution is possible; it's what everybody lives in right now.

[oberliner]

76. There are lots of states there now

Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc.

The question is whether or not the Palestinians ought to have their own independent state.

Most people believe they should.

[Recursion]

84. Sigh

I forgot I have to spell things out for you.

There is one state between the river Jordan and the Med, south of Lebanon and north of Sinai. The question is whether there will continue to be one state in that region, or whether there will be two. People who say one state is somehow impossible seem to be overlooking the fact that there is currently a one-state solution.

[oberliner]

91. There is not a "one-state solution" - the fact that there is no Palestinian state is the problem

The problem is that the Palestinian people are denied statehood.

The current situation is the problem.

A solution to the problem would be to create an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, therein end the occupation and solving the problem.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Yet again....

..."Israel made us do it."

Some things never change.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. That's not what was said in the article...

That quote appears nowhere in the article that I can see...

[Behind the Aegis]

8. It wasn't a quote from the article, nor did I claim it was.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Where's the quote from, then? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

12. It's called an "irony quote."

[Violet_Crumble]

13. But who are you quoting?

Yrself? If so, I don't agree with the conclusion you've drawn from the article, as warning Israel that support for a two-state solution will cease if it continues to carry out settlement activity in the West Bank is a negotiating tactic (that's if you can call anything that goes on nowadays *negotiating*)

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I am not quoting anyone, which is why it is called an "irony" quote.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I added a bit to my post as you were answering, bta...

"You probably missed it as I wasn't quick enough to get in before you popped in and replied."

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Doesn't change my response.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Fair enough n/t

[Ken Burch]

19. It's also an irony quote because, ironically, it has nothing to do with ANYTHING

any Palestinian thinks.

It was just gratuitous bashing of an oppressed people.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Says the creator of strawmen.

[Ken Burch]

25. You've slandered me every time you've made that accusation

And no, no Palestinian says(and the article didn't say)"Israel made me do it".

[Behind the Aegis]

44. It isn't "slander." Look it up.

While you are there, look up strawman.

[Kurska]

11. Everyone knows the death of the two state solution would result in mass violence.

Once again the Palestinians push the specter of war onto both populations and they will be applauded as freedom fighters when it war comes.

[Ken Burch]

17. If you want the two-state solution to live, tell the Israeli government

to stop stealing Palestinian land and to stop persecuting Palestinian.

What right do you have to demand that Palestinians support a two-state solution when all the Israeli government ever gave them for this support was abuse, humiliation and repression?

It's time to admit that this has never been all the Palestinians' fault and that this has never been about the European sin of antisemitism. Nothing Palestinians do has ever been comparable to what the Nazis did.

[Kurska]

23. I am the strongest supporter of Palestinians getting their own state as it is possible

to be.

I however support with the same ferocity the right of Jews to have their own state, for Kurds to have their own state and for Chechens to have their own state. I find the tyranny of one peoples forcing another peoples to unwillingly participate in their state absolutely deplorable. I however, also understand that as of now the Palestinians getting their state is entirely dependent on their willingness to let the Jews keep their state. To create a state for Palestinians while significant portions of their leadership continuously calls and acts upon open attempts to destroy Israel would just lead to more bloodshed and brutal warfare that would make Operation Cast lead look like a pacifist convention.

[azurnoir]

38. As soon as it's possible and when will that be?

what preconditions would you have the Palestinians meet and what would that state be?

[shira]

40. that's a good question for you too....should Israel unilaterally withdraw now from the W.Bank?

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Only if they don't want a one state solution.

If they want a single state then they should stay by all means.

[shira]

52. and if the W.Bank turns into Gaza, so be it?

[Crunchy Frog]

63. They could always maintain a military presence, but get rid of the settlements.

That would seem to me to be a much more sensible option than continuing to use their own civilians as human shields.

If the choose to keep the settlements, there WILL be a one state solution eventually.

[azurnoir]

62. Depends on what the Palestinians decide

as for myself I would prefer that an international force be in place to protect all parties involved

[IDFbunny]

110. You also support Taiwans' independence?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. How can you say that with a straight face, when Israel refuses the SLIGHTEST compromise,

including halting the settlements that the ENTIRE WORLD acknowledges are illegal.

Your ignorance is truly staggering.

[oberliner]

33. Israel removed every settler and settlement from Gaza

Did that not represent even the slightest compromise?

[JDPriestly]

26. War without end. While the Palestinians proudly pout, the Israeli mouse eats the cheese.

What fools! Many a people have proudly pouted themselves into nonexistence. When will the Palestinians wise up and compromise in exchange for getting some of their land back. They have not won an inch of land by military means. What makes them think they have any alternative to the two-state solution? The more they struggle the behinder they get.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Calling the Palestinian people fools is as bad as the poster who called Israelis cowards...

Sweeping negative generalisations of either Israelis or Palestinians is wrong...

[JDPriestly]

66. I have been watching this conflict since the early 50s.

True, I am generalizing, but based on years and years of observations. It's disheartening.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. I don't care how long you've been watching it for. What you said was a nasty generalisation...

And it was every bit as ugly as the sweeping generalisations about Israelis that are made in this forum, so stop trying to justify it...

[JDPriestly]

97. Reality speaks for itself.

[Ken Burch]

29. There is no justification for Israel to get a single inch of the West Bank

It would be more than enough to have the pre-1967 lands. There was never anything legitimate, progressive, or positive about the settlements.

And it goes without saying that a Palestinian state without all the West Bank would have to fail.

The compromise is accepting Israel's existence(as Palestinians did, once and for all, in 1994). There's no reason for anyone to act like that didn't count.

[oberliner]

32. What about East Jerusalem? The Jewish Quarter?

Would you say that there is no justification for Israel to retain any portion of East Jerusalem? And would that include the Jewish Quarter?

[azurnoir]

35. where the Shepherd Hotel stands?

that Jewish Quarter?

[oberliner]

39. Do you seriously not know what the Jewish Quarter is?

That is sort of surprising.

[azurnoir]

45. I was asking what you consider to be the Jewish Quarter n/t

[oberliner]

46. Your statement is baffling to me

The Old City of Jerusalem is divided into four quarters. The Muslim Quarter in the Northeast, the Christian Quarter in the Northwest, the Armenian Quarter in the Southwest, and the Jewish Quarter in the Southeast.

Here is a map from Britannica Online:



Have you never heard of this before?

[azurnoir]

53. nice map however didn't there used to a Moroccan Quarter

also whatever happened to that? do you consider the area of Jerusalem where the Shepherd Hotel is located to be the a part of the Jewish Quarter

[oberliner]

58. Here is another map that may help you further

The Jewish Quarter is in the south-eastern corner of the Old City, as delineated by the above map.

[azurnoir]

59. Your dodging my question I do not need another map n/t

[oberliner]

65. I am not dodging any question

Your question (if it is meant seriously) just demonstrates that your grasp of the geography of Jerusalem is quite poor. The area with the old hotel you are talking about is not even located in the Old City.

The Jewish Quarter is the area in the south eastern portion of the Old City outlined in the maps I've provided. It is not a concept that I've invented; there is nothing outside the Jewish Quarter that I consider part of the Jewish Quarter.

[pelsar]

55. i find you posts fascinating in an imaginative way....no basis in fact yet....

you write as if you actually KNOW something....

you actually wrote:

its goes without saying that a Palestinian state without all the West Bank would have to fail.

Really...and why does it go "without saying"...are there no countries smaller than the westbank?...landlocked?

what is this definitive economics that you can somehow actually declare something definitive (did you take a course in econ?...and did the professors explain to you the econ is more guess work and art than actual science and they can't even always agree on why events happened let alone predict the future)

......so what are the actual economics behind your statement?
ok just kidding, i know you don't have anything...i know you believe it, i also know, its just a belief based on nothing more than a belief....

so why don't you write instead of stating a non existent fact, just write "I believe"...and then when you write about santa clause coming to save the world, i'll won't even comment on your posts...well maybe the more humorous ones.....

[JDPriestly]

67. The 1994 compromise was a big step. A Palestinian needs to

emerge who can lead and prove to the Palestinian people that compromise will get them further than this "struggle" in which they are mired. Unfortunately, due to things like assassinations and terrorist attacks and impatience and fear, the progress toward peace has reversed in recent years.

Actually, in Alsace-Lorraine, it took WWII to resolve a somewhat similar struggle over culture and land. I hope it does not require some horrible catastrophe like a world war to resolve the problems in the Middle East. That's actually the choice. Learning to trust each other and work together toward peace or some unforseen catastrophe that resolves the issues once and for all.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. What compromise have they not made? What hoop have they not jumpted through?

What part of the any agreement has Israeli implemented?

[Crunchy Frog]

64. The Native Americans did a pretty good job of "pouting themselves

into nonexistance". Wow, I all of a sudden feel so proud to be an inheritor of the people who "took the cheese" from them. :sarcasm:

[IDFbunny]

111. Why is three state never given consideration?

Gaza and West Bank will never be in sync again.

[excess_3]

34. Palestine declared independence in 1988

what is this guy talking about?

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Where are you heading with this? That Palestine is a sovereign state?

If so, that'll be interesting....

[azurnoir]

37. Erekat is very correct in assement

continued settlement expansion will destroy any chance of the so called 2 state solution, which IMO is exactly the purpose of the continued expansion as it seems for Israel 2 states already exist they are Israel and Jordan, polls in Israel keep claiming that the Israeli public support a Palestinian state "soooomeday" but not too detail as to what that imaginary state would be comprised of

[shira]

41. how does expansion within settlement blocs encroach on any more territory since 1994?

the built-up area of the settlements take up less than 2% of W.Bank land......so how again is the 2 state solution compromised by this? What has really changed since 1994?

[azurnoir]

61. So the settlement blocs will only be expanding upwards?

and the discussion or at least my comment was hardly limited to the settlement blocs

[JDPriestly]

68. The point of the expansion is to have something to trade in

negotiations over disputed lands. That is my view as one who has negotiated small settlements.

[varelse]

47. Israel never adopted it

what's to abandon? Seriously. :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Makes sense to me. Pretty much stating the obvious IMHO.

[proteus_lives]

57. One state is endless war.

Neither side is suicidal enough to go for it.

[bstender]

70. no

There is intense hatred on both sides, valid hatred for so many killings by both sides. But that wrongness is accepted and made permanent by a two-state arrangement.

there can be only one.

by 'one' i mean nation, not a nation for Jews-only, not for Arabs only. it is a democratic nation of human beings. not at all what the founders of Israel had in mind when they came to town. but they simply have to be discredited once and for all. nudged back into the shadows of history along with all the other racist extremists who have disturbed the peace through time and everyone can go about their lives again. fucking ridiculous that they get so much deference, they are religious wingnuts, nothing more.

[cali]

71. not gonna happen

It's so absurd to think that there's any chance of a kumbaya 1 state solution. At least in the near future.

And the rest of your post is simply hateful and ignorant. Israel's founders were not rooted in religious ideology.

[Recursion]

73. *shrug* it worked in the past

It hasn't always been a hotbed of violence; Jews and Muslims did historically live there under one government without a lot of friction.

[oberliner]

75. When was this? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Surely yr not going to try to pretend there was never a time where there was little friction? n/t

[Recursion]

78. From about 800 to about 1900 in our calendar

There were some external conquests but the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian communities seemed to get along pretty well among themselves most of that time.

[oberliner]

79. They were living under a colonial dictatorship with little to no civil rights

Leaders were not democratically elected and society generally had no resemblance to the modern-day regional realities.

They certainly were not living under any kind of representative government.

And there actually was a fair amount of friction, alleviated primarily due to the near total segregation of the communities during that time.

There are currently about 5 million Jews and 5 million Muslims (and smaller numbers of Christians and others) living in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

There has never been a circumstance in human history that in any way resembles Jewish and Muslim populations of these sizes living harmoniously together in an independent state.

The notion that this could happen in, to use Qaddafi's term, "Isratine" is absolutely ridiculous as most rational people have repeatedly pointed out.

[Recursion]

80. Andalus and Oxiana

You need to broaden your study of history :)

[oberliner]

82. Well at least now I know you are just joking around!

Seriously, though, I would like to hear more details about your vision for the future in the region.

[Recursion]

83. Umm... no. Look up "Andalus"

Since you apparently have no idea what that is.

[oberliner]

85. Wow - you weren't joking

Kind of stunning.

[Recursion]

86. OK, I'll humor you

What ethnic and religious strife are you pretending happened in Andalus before the Christians invaded?

[oberliner]

90. Seriously inconceivable to me that you are asking this in earnest

Please educate yourself.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. That's a bit nasty and hypocritical of you, Obie...

Yr always asking other people questions, yet you ignore the questions that me and others ask you and in this case get a bit nasty and arrogant (who are you to tell other posters to go educate themselves when you've admitted in the past that yr knowledge of the conflict isn't fantastic?).

[Recursion]

96. I'm not asking, I'm calling his bluff

He's just making shit up now.

[oberliner]

100. I would respectfully encourage to read the books suggested below

I think it might help broaden your understanding.

[Recursion]

95. WTF are you talking about?

Andalus was one of the most peaceful and successful states in the past few millenia. I wonder if you even know what it's called now?

[oberliner]

98. I can suggest some books that might help you get more informed

Here is a starting point:

Sunlight and Shadow: The Jewish Experience of Islam by Lucien Gubbay

Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict by Norman Roth

I believe much (if not all) of the above books are available to read for free on Google Books.

All the best in your studies!

[Recursion]

101. ROTFL

Have you even read those? I have.

[IDFbunny]

112. You read the Disnified version of al Andalus

Dhimmitude was practiced in Andalusia where ONLY Muslims ruled and the Christians and Jews paid a tribute for peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

92. Yet again, yr incorrect...

You really need to read posts properly because after a few instances like this where you act as though the poster has said something different to what they said, I'm starting to suspect you do this on purpose.

The post did not say anything about what form of government, and it's really quite silly of you to demand that a modern liberal democracy have existed centuries ago for you to admit that people lived together with little friction between them....

[oberliner]

99. "You are" can be contracted as "you're"

Hope that helps!

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Yes, and you could also try addressing the topic for a change...

Seeing as how I've typed 'yr' ever since I arrived at DU, I'm not sure why you've taken to ignoring every question I ask you about the I/P conflict in favour of repeatedly making silly and petty comments about how I type a word...

[cali]

87. so what? this isn't then. it's now. and sorry, but the Jews lived as second class citizens.

[aranthus]

113. Excuse me?

Where, when and under what circumstances has there been peace between Muslims and other religions in Muslim countries where Jews and Christians were also treated as political and social equals? Or are you suggesting that Israeli Jews should accept dhimitude as the price of peace?

[bstender]

81. daft?

Cali says: "Israel's founders were not rooted in religious ideology."

oh ok, i'll bite. please educate me, Zionism is not a religious ideology?

[aranthus]

88. No. Zionism is not a religious ideology.

Zionism is a political ideology. The fundamental primicple is that the Jewish nation is entitled to a state of its own, in its ancient homeland in Israel.

[bstender]

103. reply

i formed a reply last night to a post that is now removed. (i can't for the life of me think of what was objectionable, but the rules here are quite arbitrary so i'm not surprised, sadly)

you have made a similar but more succinct point, i'll paste in that replay and add a reply to you below:

"thank you for your patient reply, i've taken it to heart. I do not wish to misrepresent Israel's founding and appreciate your corrections.

Be assured that i have not lumped all of Zionism's founders as you say, (it was "Israel's founders"). your statement implies disrespect in general but I respect the brilliant and beautiful Jewish culture immensely.

Conflating Zionism with any alleged misdeeds of any followers of Zionism is a fallacy, and this fallacy would carry further to any influence they may have had in the creation of Israel, therefore irrelevant.

Please explain where this doctrine of a biblical title to the land of Israel fits in to the founding, and where that stands today. That and the doctrine of Jewish ethnic superiority i consider religious fundamentalism and a serious impediment to resolution of this ongoing human rights tragedy. "

your statement of zionism suggests an entitlement to land...this is based on what non-religious doctrine?

[pelsar]

105. its easy to see where your confused....

start with this...your simply wrong:

doctrine of Jewish ethnic superiority.

..of course if you BELIEVE that is an essential part of zionism/israel...then i understand there is little that will change your mind. However, the base your missing is that zionism was not a religious movement but a secular one, based on a multitude of socialistic values (that exclude your "ethnic superiority belief."

if you can't accept that, then i'm afraid your living in your own little world that probably fits the narrative that you "like best"...

[bstender]

107. i already acknowledged

"that zionism was not a religious movement but a secular one" in my reply. and that it was a separate and irrelevant statement. i'm not arguing about what is Zionism iow, the poster mis-quoted me. i was speaking of the founding of Israel specifically.

I did ask for some clarification on those how the doctrines of there being a biblical deed to the property, and that the Jewish people are of a higher form than non-jewish people figure into the story of both the founding and the continued expansion and occupation. obviously not part of the official position, but how significant a part of the dynamics are these beliefs? (which where it becomes religious extremism)

can you address those beliefs directly? how prevalent are they? how significantly do they affect the continuing conflict?

[pelsar]

109. zionism above all was practical...

it was based on the belief the antisemitism, which is irrational, is not going away and that the jews needed to defend themselves as opposed to keep on trying the same failed formula of depending upon the host country to protect them.

the place.....the zionists looked over the globe, in the end the jewish history made the most sense. Since jews were a varied lot kept together by their culture and history, it made sense to make the jewish state based on their own history... a place where all the jews could identify with, a place where jews were still living since when the romans kicked them out. More so the land was not a country but occupied with absent landowners, so the land could be bought and political pressure could be applied to the occupier.

you might call it "going back home.......you might have noticed that its a based on the jewish culture...not a whole lot of racial superiority in that. However because its about going back home and its in the bible, the religious also got on board to help the jews that went.

btw zionism wasn't very successful until after WWII, when the worlds jew quotas were all filled and about 100,000 jews still languished in DP camps). In 48 israel took them all in.

as far as your asking about Jewish people being a higher form....thats standard for any religion and it has little to do with day to day israel.

The settlers, though a minority in both outlook and number, understand the political game (israel has a multiple party system-good in theory, sucks in real life). and use it to their advantage. For the most part they are religious and believe god has their back.....and they saw the 67 war as god doing them a favor. For the less religious the westbank and gaza were simply the spoils of war as well as further strengthening their roots to their own history.

the summary is: israel is by far a cultural jewish secular country.....the religious elements simply play a smart political game and use the system to their advantage. However when push comes to shove, they lose every time.

some examples: shopping malls by law are supposed to be closed on saturday.....no matter how hard the religious try,....they are ignored
the gaza pullout was against gods will ...or so they claimed....they were ignored and it went far faster then planned
every so often they threaten the hotels if they have new years parties....always ignored.
they tried to change the routes of planes as they claimed they were desecrating jewish cemeteries by flying over them (this was my favorite).....ignored

the settlements have an element of security in them, you can believe that or not, buts whats important is that most of the secular believe that, hence here is no pressure to remove them. nothing to do with religious superiority

[aranthus]

108. Answer

bstender>Please explain where this doctrine of a biblical title to the land of Israel fits in to the founding, and where that stands today.

It is one of the motivations for Jews to return to the Holy land, but it is not used as a justification. I know of no major Zionist organization or person who claimed or still claims that the Jews had a right to a state in Israel because the Bible says so.

bstender>That and the doctrine of Jewish ethnic superiority i consider religious fundamentalism and a serious impediment to resolution of this ongoing human rights tragedy. "

As another poster has already stated, in this belief you are simply wrong, and show that not only do you not know anything about Zionism, you don't know about Jews either. There simply is no such thing as a "doctrine of Jewish ethnic superiority."

bstender>your statement of zionism suggests an entitlement to land...this is based on what non-religious doctrine?

To clarify, I did not mean an "entitlement to land" as in ownership. I meant an entitlement to sovereignty over land, and not ownership. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is about which group shall have sovereignty where, and not about ownership of land per se. Sovereignty is a moral claim, whereas title to land is largely a legal claim. So to answer your question directly, the most important non-religious bases for a Jewish claim to sovereignty over a part of the Holy Land are:

1. Actual sovereignty. The Jewish people constituted a separate national community in Palestine, had a majority in certain areas, and were exercising the powers of a state in all but name at least as early as 1947.

2. Historical connection to the ancient homeland. Israel is where the Jews became the Jews.

3. Historical sovereignty. There have been only three indigenous sovereign states in the Holy Land. All have been Jewish.

4. Continuous Jewish presence for about three thousand years.

The primary reasons for a Jewish claim to the Holy Land are historical, political, and cultural. Not religious.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recursion]

94. No, it was good old 19th-century "liberal" nationalism

"Liberal" in the sense that word was used back then. Think Germany in 1848.

[bstender]

104. interesting

the notion of colonizing any relatively unarmed territory was less controversial back then. mostly by virtue of the 'what are you gonna do about' and 'get over it' school of realism i assume. no doubt some religious sauce to make it go down easier for the squeemish.

[pelsar]

106. is reading history books so difficult these days?

try....start with Theodor Herzl, the guy who started it...it might help educate you...of course it might not if your preference is not to be ....

[azurnoir]

60. delete wrong place