Lieberman's party proposes ban on Arab Nakba

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on June 24, 2012 at 6:51pm

I still like what White Hall -- Great Britain's Foreign MInistry -- is proposing, that both the Palestinians and Mizrahim just drop their claims.  Because holding on to them is first of all unrealistic, and second of all just holding up the process of enacting a two-state solution.  The only the thing the United Nations General Assembly did in 1947, was to vote for the partition of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state.  But when we get into what were the determining factors for the Palestinians to be today in the West Bank and Gaza, then it can be like getting into the Khazar theory, an extension of "armchair activism."  With the West Bank settlements there should still be the option of returning the settlers back to the pre-1967 borders, or letting them stay and become citizens of Palestine.  Because the given is both Israel is always going to have an Arab minority, and Palestine is going to have a Jewish minority.  That can be a future subject to look at is the 1929 massacre in Hebron, because their were 19 Arab families who took get risk to hide 432 Jews when that happened.  Going back to the subject coexistence, it is going to have to be there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on June 25, 2012 at 12:44am

Tim/ Are you familiar with the law of contracts and if you are than you will realize that the partition plan died an inglorious death as a result of one party not signing on to that plan and in fact violently opposing it through a war of annihilation. The only agreement that is still valid is therefore the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine voted on and agreed to by all parties. That calls for a Jewish Homeland in all of Palestine East of the Jordan River. For clarification that means the pre 1967 borders as  well as Judea and Samaria and Gaza. That is the prevailing law that the UN should adhere to. BTW both houses in the USA voted for this agreement and ratified it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on June 25, 2012 at 5:18pm

That is Israeli democracy for you.  Remember when Ariel Flatto-Sharon started his own party.  He was wanted in France for embezzlement charges.  So his party got elected into the Knesset, and as a member he could avoid extradition back to France to face embezzlement charges.  So it is like American democracy, you can accuse of someone you do not care for to be nothing but a petty criminal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on June 25, 2012 at 9:53pm

Tim  There really is no Democracy in its purest sense in the world, in fact I am not sure what that word means, The Communist system , if enacted verbatim would have been the closest but human foibles got in the way and it failed miserably. The USA, France, The UK and 1930 German Democracy have had a miserable track record on Human Rights and White Collar Criminal Behaviour as well as self enrichment.

So what would you suggest we institute instead? Everything else is much, much worse.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on June 25, 2012 at 10:41pm

If you are breaking this down on the Israeli model, all legal age adults there have the right to vote, unless there is some type of criminal restriction, like in other democracies, criminal probation.  If the West Bank were to be annexed and become a part of Israel, then the citizens there, irrespective if they are Jewish, Arab, or other type of minority such Circassian or Armenian, would fall under the legal right to vote, as with all other citizens of Israel.  You can say the Palestinians can go along with that, just like the Circassians and Armenians.  But these two groups of people do not have a history of being restive in any of the Middle Eastern countries.  But the Palestinians have been.  Belgium is divided up into two linguistic groups, Flemish and Walloon.  Extremist elements on both sides have applied for separate membership into the European Union.  But Belgium has never had referendum to put partition up to a vote.  The reason why is that is would be a fiscal nightmare to partition the country into a Dutch-speaking state and a French-speaking state.  So despite all the threats from nationalist elements in both groups, Belgium still stays together as one kingdom, like it has since 1830.  Could that apply to Israel and the West Bank?  But they are not as deeply economic integrated with each other as the Flemish and Walloons are in Belgium.  It would not be a fiscal nightmare for the two to separate.  So politically they can do so, and this would lead the Palestinians to do something like voting for succession from Israel.  The only way that could be negated, is if Israel did not allow them to vote in Israeli elections, and then the international condemnation against Israel would be so great, that it would be like apartheid in South Africa.  For Israel does not deserve it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on June 26, 2012 at 12:48am

In Israel, you have two groups that cannot or will not co-exist whether in peace or otherwise. You have Arab villages and towns and Jewish villages and towns. Co-existence in Jaffa, Haifa, acco and other mixed towns is tenuous at best, with both communities eyeing the other with suspicion.

At best we can have is autonomous enclaves where Arab town and villages have their own mayor and civil administration and likewise the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria. Gaza should be either reunited with Egypt or declared a Palestinian State. All UNWRA services have to be suspended and all refugees born in countries outside of Israel to be declared citizens of these states.

This, at present is probably the best that can be attained.  Almost like the Native Indians in the USA and Canada. The difference is that just like the natives the jews cannot go to another country while there are at present 22 Arab States with the same language, history and customs and religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on June 26, 2012 at 3:21am

Indian reservations in the Canada and the United States, are complex political entities.  They are suppose to be nations within a nation.  Indian reservations have their own license plates, schools, and law enforcement, but still pertain to the overall society they live in, such as paying taxes and correctional systems.  Only 7% of Montana's population is Native American, but they make 45% of the prison population.  I would love to see the dismantling of UNWRA, because it such an archaic agency of the past.  Gaza originally was under Egyptian administration, then Egypt relinquished control over it.  When Israel did the same thing, then Egypt did not resume control over it, because Gaza is just as much as a headache for them as it is for Israel.  When we look at autonomy within Jewish or Arab towns and villages, it is hard to determine what that level of autonomy should be.  Just like the Indian reservations in Canada and the United States.  No one is calling for the expulsion of Native Americans, Jews, or Arabs, but it is the level of autonomy to be allow?  Because if Jewish or Arab town and villages have their own autonomy, they will still have to answer to a supreme authority, just like Indian reservations do now.  So these entities all have autonomy, but who is going to be the supreme authority, e.g,, taxation, defense -- because that area of the world is so small and condensed -- foreign policy?  The model can be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but once again, the Welsh, Scottish, Manx, Cornish, and English all have their own geographical area to live in.  God Save the Queen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on June 26, 2012 at 2:22pm

BTW-Indians in Canada do not pay any taxes if they live on a reservation. Each area is controlled by a Tribal Council, not unlike any city.I am not sure that there are levels of autonomy and autonomous state fall under the main power, in this case Israel, for security and foreign policy, taxation.

The Indians have no where to go as they are the original people in N,A the Arabs have 22 other states as I said previously.If they cannot co exist on this small area than just move on.

At least we seem to agree on Welfare UNWRA

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Upham on June 26, 2012 at 8:25pm

I was not aware of that about Indians in Canada.  I am sure regulations concerning them are different in both the United States and Canada.  If we are looking at relocating Arabs to other countries, I do not think it would be voluntary though.  So it would have to fall under the category of forced removal.  When Meir Kahane had that in his Kach party, the party got banned by the israeli Supreme Court, and never ran in an Israeli election.  So this returns us back to the subject of coexistence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Igor Gonev on June 27, 2012 at 2:58am

Tim

".If they cannot co exist on this small area than just move on." 

 

What I am saying is that they should be honest enough to say we do not want to live amongst Jews and prefer to live under the rule of our own people in other Arab countries, Some are in fact doing that and others are prevented from selling to Jews and moving on through the death penalty imposed on selling any land to Jews.

The question than should be how do you force a hostile population to co exist with you on such a small piece of land without committing National Suicide?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page