Palestinian Territories

The word "race" is wrong here. There are only a few races in the world: White, Black, Olive, Indian, American Indian, East Asian, and Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander. A better word here is "ethnicity".

Concerning Israel: There is also no "Israel" ethnicity. The dominant ethnicity of Israel is Jewish. The Jews have been in existence for at the minimum 2500 years, as verified by historians. According to their traditions they have been in existence for 3800 years.

Concerning Palestine: The Palestinian identity has really only existed since the 1950s and 1960s. It previously refered to any inhabitant of Mandatory Palestine, regardless of whether they were Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Druze and regardless of whether they were Zionist, Zionist-affiliates, or opposed to Zionism. (For example, the right-wing Israeli newspaper "The Jerusalem Post" used to be called "The Palestinian Post", even though it was run entirely by Jews.) The Palestinian identity applies to those people who historically identified as Levantine Arabs. The Levantine Arabs are an amalgam of different Levantine peoples who began to acquire a new homogenous Arab identity in the days of the Islamic Caliphates. The Levantine Arab identity coalesced roughly 800-900 years ago. Prior to that there were numerous different ethnicities such as Aramean, Phoenician, Canaanite, Samaritan, Moabite, Ammonite, etc. whose descendants were subsumed into the Levantine Arab identity. Since they were disunited, it would be unfair to consider them one ethnicitiy.

Jews (as a unified idenity) have existed for at least three times as long as Levantine Arabs (as a unified identity).

General Overview of Demands

At one extreme, Palestinians would like the Israelis to move out of Palestine and give back the land they have taken since 1948. A more moderate demand is for Israelis to give back only the land they have taken since 1967. The most basic demand in Gaza is for Israel to end its blockade of the Gaza coast. Even small fishing boats have been attacked by the Israeli navy.

Specific Discussion of Demands

1) Hallowed Land: Palestinian Moslems consider Jerusalem holy because of Mohammed ascending to Heaven on the Buraq over Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The Arabs want to ensure maintenance and access to the sites which they feel have been limited by the Israelis who arbitrarily close off access to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. The City of the Jerusalem is considered by many Palestinians to be their city and representative of their historical identity.

2) End of the Palestinian Exodus & UNRWA: This is probably the most thorny issue between Israel and Palestine. During the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9 (in which Palestinian militias also participated), many Palestinians were forced out of their homes by Israeli soldiers due to brutal atrocities. In addition, many left because they feared similar outcomes. Also Arab leaders encouraged the exodus, because they believed that they could destroy Israel and safely return all of the Palestinians after the conflict. However, this did not happen and a large number of Palestinians (some estimate four million) are in UNRWA Refugee Camps and there is a large Palestinian Diaspora. They have not forgiven Israel for not allowing them to return after the War and greatly desire the Right for Palestinians to return to what is now Israel.

3) End of the Occupation of the West Bank & Gaza: In 1967, Israel fought the Six-Day War against the Arab States and took over control of the West Bank and Gaza. These territories did not come under Israeli Civil Authority and have been instead militarily controlled. Palestinians who live in these territories have to contend with Israeli checkpoints, military provisions, and incoming settlers (from the Hallowed Land section). This occupation is perceived by Palestinians to be a repression of their Right to a State and their ability to lead normal productive lives. Settlers in the territories act in a very cavalier fashion (similar to cowboys in the Wild West) and steal property owned by Palestinian families for generations in the name of Religious Zionism. Zionist Squatters are a huge problem in cities like Hebron where these individuals have "liberated" over a quarter of the city from its Palestinian inhabitants and begun to drive a wedge into those communities.

4) End of the Blockade of Gaza & Dependence of the West Bank: Due to the militancy of Hamas, Israel has found it necessary for defense to form a blockade around Gaza and to only allow certain materials into the territory. This has resulted in a Human Relief Crisis in the Gaza where the average Palestinian caught in the struggle barely has enough food, heat, and light to adequately survive. On a different token, the West Bank (as controlled by the Palestine Authority) is a patchwork of separate unconnected jurisdictions. As a result, the West Bank leaders depend on Israel for defense coordination, tax collection, and assurances of safety from settlers. This creates a secondary occupation-dynamic where the Palestinian government is bound to the desires and wishes of the Israeli people in addition to its actual constituency. Palestinians in both cases want governments that are able to make their own decisions without an Israeli say-so to lift a finger.

Answer 1

The militant wing of Hamas is more traditional of other paramilitary groups like FARC in Columbia or the IRA in Ireland. It has rockets, guns, and a military-style command structure. It does not operate in cells or primarily use bombs as a method of attack like Al-Qaeda does. Additionally, like the IRA, Hamas has a political wing and performs civil administration.

Answer 2

For Israelis, hamas is a terrorist organization because it terrorizes them by targeting non-military targets. For the world at large, they are not terrorists (yet) because they have not (yet) executed acts of terror targeting anyone but Israelis (and Jews). Al-Qaeda is defined world-wide as a terroist organization because it has executed terrorist acts around the world.

Hamas is also a militant organization because it sees itself as engaged in war against Israel. It has attacked military targets, not only civilian ones. Al-Qaeda - although it sees itself as ideologically at war with the west - has not really "done battle" in what one could define as a "military sense". it has never initiated a military battle, but is being sought by military forces, though not as a combatant; its status at present is probably more that of a fugitive from the law.

Answer 3

Because the main stream media is extremely liberal, and does not recognize a terrorist organization when they see one. They are both terrorist organizations, who use terror to accomplish a goal.

Answer 4

Possibly because Hamas is a political party in a sovereign nation while Al-Qaeda is not a government entity.

The middle class is the name given to the group known as middle America.

This is a question asking for opinion, and so naturally, there will be dissenting opinions. This is my view on the matter.

Answer

The US should have a key role in moderating the discussion between Israelis and Palestinians. As the largest financial beneficiary of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the US has a unique ability to leverage both countries and has the military power to back any tenuous solution with peacekeepers. However, the US should not impose a solution on the two countries, but rather help facilitate developing the tools, providing the spaces, and leading the initiatives that allow Israelis and Palestinians to find a solution. The US should also use its diplomatic clout to dislodge states that have adopted attitudes strongly favoring one side at the expense of the other, such as the Arab States, from this position.

Some of these moderating thoughts that the US should advocate in its relationships with both Israel and Palestine include:

1) Mutual Recognition: Israel would need to recognize a completely independent and sovereign Palestinian Government that would fully control a certain amount of the former British Mandate of Palestine (most likely Gaza and the West Bank). Israel would also have to confer on this state the unambiguous nature of being correct and necessary for Israel. Conversely, Palestine would have to recognize the Right for Israel to Exist as a Jewish State occupying the remaining amount of the British Mandate of Palestine (most likely 1949-Israel). Both sides would have to recognize the historical and emotional value that the land also has to the other.

2) Israeli Reparation Payments: Israel dispossessed many Palestinians of their property, either by malicious activities that took place during the Arab-Israeli Wars or by Ben-Gurion refusing to let Palestinians who left return after the 1948-9 War. Israel needs to pay the Palestinian government reparations for the land that was taken in this way.

3) Israeli Withdrawal from the Settlements: Israel must withdraw from the Settlements to provide Palestine with a viable infrastructure and complete sovereignty. The Settlers must return to Israeli territory. The buildings, however, should be left as partial payment of the above-mentioned reparations.

4) Palestinians Concession of the Right of Return:Recognizing the State of Israel as a Jewish State is meaningless if Palestinians en masse are allowed to Return to Israel. Therefore, Palestinians (and their backers) must abandon the notion that they can ever return to Israeli territory. Palestinians should leave the refugee camps and become proper citizens in this new country of Palestine.

5) Internationalization or Sharing of Jerusalem:Palestine and Israel both want Jerusalem and the only way to solve this is either divide the city East/West respectively and divide the Old City or Internationalize the City or some combination of Internationalization and division. Neither side will rest until it can assure its followers that its holy sites will be protected.

6) Liberal Thought: Just in general, people have to be willing to compromise and live with that compromise.

Answer 1

The premise about partitioning Israel is that the Israelis are on occupied land. Given that Israel's neighbors have been trying to wipe her off the map ever since the country was born, why would the country agree to giving up its territory?

There are a few inconsistencies about the entire theory. In no other country in the world does a foreign dissident group claim territory. The "Palestinians" of the region are simply Arabs, many of which are provable foreign nationals having citizenship in the surrounding countries. In your country, since when does an illegal immigrant claim rights to your land, complete with the demand for a separate government? Did this immigrant ever apply for citizenship? Did this immigrant participate in building the wealth? Or did this immigrant take part in war, hide his wealth, terrorize his neighbors, then demand that he be given his own country simply because he happens to be on it?

The fact is that the territory that the Palestinians are claiming is NOT part of a pre-existing country. When the land was partitioned by the Balfour Declaration, there WERE no Palestinians. Palestine is a legal fiction. The name Palestinian was pretty much invented for illegal immigrants in the late 1960s by the group headed by Arafat. The group, the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was formed in 1964, just before the Six-Day War, to promote the "rights" of those who fled to other countries at the demand of their leaders in 1947. Since that war, the people who lost...the ones who were trying to conquer Israel...have been trying to demand another piece of this little country as a "solution" to the very real fact that they couldn't do it with military might.

Notice that the surrounding countries, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, were the original combatants. They mounted an attack on the nascent state in 1948. In 1967, Egypt and Syria planned to end Israel and gathered troops prepared to eliminate Israel. Even so, despite overwhelming odds, Israel won against ALL the agressors in the Six-Day War, gained territory, and made peace with some of the defeated countries. Since direct confrontation did not have the desired effect of wiping Israel off the map, the group PLO was born.

Forty years have elapsed since the Six Day war. Israel has not EVER tried to gain more territory, has even given Egypt back some of the territory gained, yet is pressured to partition off about a quarter of it's land to this legal fiction whose charter plainly states it's purpose is to annihilate the country.

The 1967 "borders" which the Palestinians claim are ceasefire lines...NOT borders. If Israel agreed to those borders, there would be less than 10 miles between the sea and the inland border at it's narrowest point. This is clearly indefensible, and a ridiculous demand on a very small country. The carving out of two divisible regions with Israel having territory between them is also another land grab. In time, this "country" would claim the land between the two areas as "defensible territory", thus further carving up what land Israel has.

In no other place in the world does there exist a legal refugee problem like the Palestinian one. This fiction has gone on for over 60 years and is fueled by the refusal of the host countries to give citizenship to the people born on it's soil. Those Arabs who fled Israel at the demands of their leaders are still considered refugees of a fictitious country that never existed."Palestine" in the Ottoman empire was not a country, it was a land region. The modern countries of Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan were also regions, but were created by the League of Nations Mandate System. Note on a map how straight the border lines are?

The Partition Plan is simply another attempt to justify the long, ongoing plan to wipe Israel off the map. Since the Arabs cannot do it militarily, they are attempting to do it with fictions. A wise man once said that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it. The Arabs who say that they are Palestinians have been doing this for 40 years. People are believing it.

If they were actually looking for a political solution, it would have happened 30 years ago when Arafat was offered EXACTLY what is being petitioned in the UN today. He refused, then mounted a planned campaign of terror in Israel. The terror attacks continue today, from both regions where the (now splintered PLO) political parties maintain control.

Frankly, why would Israel give way when the history of the controversy shows that the Palestinians are not negotiating in good faith, there is no indication that they will honor their treaties, or even that they will honor the boundaries they themselves set up? The expulsion from Gush Katif of the Israeli farmers show starkly that giving up land for peace is a losing proposition. Gush Katif was an agricultural region in the Gaza strip that was evacuated 6 years ago as a peace attempt. They left behind working greenhouses, complete INTACT villages...a billion dollar industry with a market in Europe. The Palestinians had been employed in that industry so they knew how to run the business. When the Palestinians got the territory? They destroyed the greenhouses, set fire to the empty villages...and set up bombing stations to fire over the current border into Israel. An agricultural business destroyed.

So the partition plan is simply a political attempt to do what the combined might of many countries could not do...defeat Israel.

Answer 2

The question as posed is a little confusing. There is Israel, the current country which operates a civil law government in 78% of the former British Mandate of Palestine and uses legal military occupation over 13% or so of the remaining 22% of the former British Mandate of Palestine which is considered to be the State of Palestine by the United Nations. As opposed to Answer 1, the lands of the State of Palestine are not a legal part of Israel and therefore could not be subject to any partition of Israel.

Any partition of Israel is wholly unnecessary. The country of Israel has a number of political groups with different agendas, but there is no real pull for separatism or division. Even the Israeli Muslim Arab minority, as much as they believe that the Israeli regime needs to reform in certain ways, does not believe in secession or separation and actively contributes to the Israeli economy.

There are also several other issues with Answer 1. First, while the name "Palestinian" was created post-hoc, the people did exist. When the British took a census at the beginning of the Mandate Period there were over five times as many Muslims as Jews and the majority of them were Arabs. That these Muslim Arabs did not use the term Palestinian to refer to themselves, does not deny their connection to the land. On a similar note, prior to Israeli independence, the Jewish population in the British Mandate of Palestine was called Palestinian Jews or the Yishuv, not Israelis, but this does not illegitimize the Israeli Jewish State. Once it is clear that Palestinians exist and that they have a historic and legal claim to parts of the former British Mandate of Palestine, one can support their claims to parts of their historic homeland without requiring anything burdensome from Israel.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is understandable that Israel, being of holy significance to 3 major religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and being one of the most fought-over and conquered pieces of land in the history of mankind, will spark a monsoon of debate, as to who owns what. But, the fact remains that the capital of Israel was proclaimed by the Israeli government in 1950 and this capital is Jerusalem. The issue is that in 1950, Israel did not have sovereignty over East Jerusalem because it was occupied by the Jordanian military as a result of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.

The issue that a lot of international groups have with the Israeli Declaration that Jerusalem is its capital is that the city defined by the Israelis as Jerusalem contains both de jure Israeli territory (West Jerusalem) and the de jure non-Israeli territory (East Jerusalem) which is owed, theoretically, to a Palestinian State under the current interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242. UNSC Resolution 478 crystallized the international stance on this issue. If Israel, like East Germany, claimed that half of a city was its operating capital (i.e. West Jerusalem - but East Berlin in the German case), many international observers would have fewer objections to recognizing it as the capital of Israel. However, as the official Israeli capital contains territory that is not technically Israeli, many organizations and countries prefer to treat Tel Aviv, a city that is unequivocally Israeli and the site of David Ben Gurion's Declaration of Independence, as the working capital. Therefore, all embassies in Israel are in Tel Aviv.