Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Was it Ethnic cleansing when Pakistan and India split, swapping populations to segregate two peoples that were not getting along? With over 40 Muslim majority nations for Hamastinians to disperse to, is this really a bad idea? I think it will lead, perhaps long term, to peace. Any other action, I think, would lead to continued attacks on the one Jewish state, endless conflict and ultimately, far more people dying in violence. Not seeing how this otherwise ends. Nuclear power Israel is not going anywhere and unless the Hamastinians are dispersed into some 40 other nations to regain a simple Muslim identity in Muslim majority nations, they will continue to be used as tools for those who gain wealth and power impoverishing them while getting them killed throwing rocks at people defending themselves with super-sonic fighter jets.
The term "ethnic cleansing" is perhaps not 100% accurate for the partition of India, because mass displacement and death were not (for the most part) intended or foreseen by the dissolving British Raj. But that says more about their abominably poor planning and foresight than anything else. The fact is that the partition of India led to a period of extreme suffering: in excess of 14m people displaced, and in the upper hundreds of thousands (at least) dead.
And we cannot even credit Itamar Ben Gvir with ignorance, because he's right there explicitly telling us the aim is expulsion. And his government is the one directing much of the violence.
So yes, he's calling for ethnic cleansing. He's a rabid, racist shitbag.
I think the term can still fit and we may have to come to terms that maybe, in a horrible situation, this is the best way to segregate two peoples that are not getting along:
I am guessing the rate of violence between the two groups of India/Pakistan, has nose dived since that partition. I hope that for the peoples of Israel and a dispersed Hamastinian people as well.
It's also noteworthy that in India, roughly equivalent numbers of people were displaced from the two main communities, whereas the proposal here is for one side to unilaterally kick the entirety of the other out. Plus, in India both communities ended up with a state, and the international security and rights that come along with that-- which Israel's government consistently rejects.
Israel has on many occasions offered agreements that allow for two states to coexist. You (or more likely Sean) may say those offers were terrible and the Palestinians were right to reject them. But a lot of the time, whoever was the authority in Palestine at the time was excluded because they would not agree to acknowledge Israeli statehood. I do not believe there has ever been a talk where Palestinians were interested in an two state solution, it's only ever been "we will have our state, as much as we can have, but we will never acknowledge your legitimacy in Israel."
I'd write that Israel rejects a partition now as the long term open goal of others is to destroy the one Jewish nation on Earth in favor of a people that hold a majority of population of people in over 40 other countries. Side note, Hindus have 3, though one, India, is pretty gigantic and has a huge population that is able to fend for itself. EDIT: Meaning I think India can afford to simply partition while doing so at this point could be suicidal for the small only state of Jews.
I've heard Clinton worked out a deal in which Arafat was offered 95% of their demands and he rejected it stating if he accepted it, his own people would kill him. I infer from this that there are those that see this conflict as a proxy war the goal of which is money, power, and the ultimate destruction of the only Jewish state rather than the well being of the Hamastinians themselves.
Last edited:
I really don't think that giving all neighboring muslim countries huge minorities of Palestinensians who want their land back and pressure their new home to go against Israel is exactly a recipe for lasting piece.
I mean, look at the huge Palestinensian minorities already in Jordan and Egypt and elsewhere and the claimor for the Right to Return. After generations. The grievances won't just go away nor will the people give up their Idendity and home so easily. "Muslim" is not a nationality.
Last edited:
This is a completely one-sided and ahistoric rewriting of the Camp David meetings.
That's not what happened. A proposal was put to him that included the creation of a Palestinian state, but also involved further Israeli annexation of the West Bank, land swaps that hugely favoured Israel, and entirely one-sided demilitarisation. Arafat can be blamed for making no meaningful counteroffer. But the proposal as presented absolutely did not fulfil Palestinian demands.
I literally told you what argument to effectively make for the other side.
Would you care to point to where an authority in Palestine supported Israeli statehood?
Mahmoud Abbas did, in 1993 and again years later. But this is besides the point: Palestine did not simply reject a proposal that fulfilled most of their demands. That didn't happen.
Edit: oh, and Arafat did as well in the 80s.
Last edited:
Perhaps they keep what could be shown to be a false hope and finally, move on? We can hope.
Have Muslims ever been a majority in an internationally recognized nation called Palestine? I don't think so in which case, what is the nationality of the Hamastinians?
While it may not be a nationality, being a majority demographic in a country can curb the likely-hood of a Nazi vs Jew type of genocide against that majority holder. Something worth obtaining.
I've read differently but your statement, "Arafat can be blamed for making no meaningful counteroffer." to me is conclusive. It would be like being a leader of military industrial manufacturer being told they could achieve world peace and that person freaking that such peace would be the end of the grift! Can't have that.
Not Jordanian, not Egyptian, not Syrian ... . They didn't get a recognized state, which is the point. They didn't belong to any recognized state since the multinational Osman empire. They are a nation without a nation state.
The only possible answers are Palestinian (assuming a future two state solution) or Israeli (assuming a one state solution). They don't belong to any other country.
And make no mistake, if Israel really expels them, they won't go to muslim countries only. They are welcome nowhere and would just have lost their roots. They would obviously go to rich coutries to find a new home. You could bet on several hundred thousands of them ending in the US.
Last edited:
There's a strong case to be made that it wouldn't be the end of anything. Why do you think Ukraine rejects Russian demands to fully demilitarise as part of their "peace" proposals? It's because that "peace" would end up being pretty ephemeral and exploitable.
Plus, if Arafat can be blamed for failing to propose realistic offering, then equally so can Ehud Barak.
gorfias. And you certainly implied that the proposals were reasonable and should have been accepted, when you exclusively blamed the Palestinian side for their failure.
Last edited:
Israel made proposals that gave the Hamastinians 95% of the ask. To not have a counter is pretty odd.
What if Ukraine disarms militarily? So what? Japan had to do so for 70 years and appears to be doing dandy. The parallels are there.
I think this conflict in Ukraine goes on because there are Ukrainian leaders making huge graft and corruption bucks in the thing, regardless of the mass death of their own people that is occurring. I understand women are now being sent to serve in combat.
Y'know what happens to the Ukrainians themselves if there is peace? They just don't get to so easily try to keep genociding ethnic Russians. I'd be OK with that.
But they didn't. That was my point. And it's a bit odd to refer to "Hamastinians" since Hamas was not in power at the time, and was never consulted on it.
Japan was the aggressor in an imperial war. Ukraine is the subject of an imperial land grab. Its sort of the opposite situation. If Ukraine disarmed and handed more land to Russia in order to secure peace, it would be invaded again in a few years, and wholly conquered.
Japan was occupied by Allied forces. Stationing a US army or two in Ukraine probably would change the way Russia approaches the situation, but there are some serious downsides.
Pretend you're a world leader. Another country gives you a generous proposal: You get a bunch of desert in exchange for your aquifer, you have no control over your land and sea borders, you don't get your own airspace, you don't get a military and your police is controlled by the other country, and hundreds of thousands of your people have to move in exchange for a couple thousand of the other country's people needing to move.
Your country is not contiguous, made up of three different, unconnected zones. You say that the corridor between these zones, an underground tunnel, should be your sovereign territory. The other country says no, because it would be ludicrous for their country to be bisected by even the tiniest sliver of foreign territory, but your country should put up with not having freedom of movement between it's own territories. You have to accept foreign invasion and policing at any time, but have no such reciprocal rights.
Lastly, most of the other government hates this idea and doesn't want you to have even this, and the plan is written on a napkin
Do you accept?