Interesting poll that was done and it begs to ask the question - has anyone asked the Palestinians what they want? And why?
And what about that poll in WB, Gaza and Silwan?...
And what did the poll say for those who live in the West Bank what they would like? Or how about those in Gaza under siege? What did the poll say about those being evicted from their lands in Silwan? What did that poll say about the number of Israelis supporting transfer?
And why is it that so many Palestinian Jerusalemites have maintained their status as residents and not Israeli citizens?
And what did the poll say about the reasons why such a high percentage of Palestinian from East Jerusalem have refused Israeli citizenship? Granted there has been a nominal increase, in applications for citizenship. Compare this to the revocation of Palestinian Jerusalemites residency in the thousands in 2008. What I want to see is Government figures of the actual number of Palestinian Jerusalemites who are citizens and who are residents?
Wiki gives some figures
But I wanted some from UNISPAL, BADIL and PASSIA but no real figures. I'll have to keep looking..
PASSIA > Facts and Figures for Jerusalem, 2007
The fact of the matter is that Israel, the occupying entity, is more prosperous than the Palestinian one.
It would be like asking an Indian about living in Britain rather than India during the British Empire. Some would answer in Britain. Palestinians are economically under the strong influence and control of Israel.
Thus trying to act smug and toot the horn of the Israeli man's burden versus his poor Semitic relation, the Palestinians makes no sense. It harks to the old British and European idea of superiority and how the occupied would love to be them. There is nothing civilized in subjugating others and building walls, annexing their lands. People want to take care of their families. When people say they want an unbiased opinion often want to hear the opinion that fits their agenda, and ignore that things don't happen in a vacuum, that there is an occupation, economic circumstances, uncertainty. Many people are afraid of change. Many German Jews didn't want to leave Germany after 1933. It didn't mean they were right and shouldn't have fled. It's just an opinion poll where a minority are not so certain they would be better off under the Palestinian leadership in terms of their well-being. We would need to know more about the questions asked.
Give me a break about your disgust. You should save your disgust as Norman Finkelstein would say for your own Apartheid state that demolishes peoples homes in front of their children on their own land! That's what your state does. In 1933, people were not wearing stars in Germany. That came later. My point was Jews also voted for Adolf Hitler and were deluded into supporting him. British Indians in some cases if polled in some areas would have preferred to be part of the British Empire or some Algerians would have preferred to be part of occupying France or the same for Morocco. It doesn't make the colonialism correct.
Some slaves in America maybe had misgivings about being freed as slaves. It doesn't change or wash away the sins of the occupation is the point. Your country talks about
transferring Arab-Israelis, has destroyed an Arab-Israeli village. Is that being a role model, a paradigm of tolerance? Save your disgust for the crying Palestinian children left without homes after they are destroyed. That's where your disgust should be.
The contention that Jews supported Hitler would insinuate that they were morons. Even the most rabidly nationalist Jews in the Weimar period--the Deutschnationalen--shied away from Hitler because of his racist policies.
According to Ernest Hamburger, a former Weimar legislator and board member of the postwar Leo Baeck Institute, 60 percent of German Jews supported the Centre Party and a further 30 percent supported left-wing parties in the elections of 1932 and 1933. Historian Donald Niewyk also points to the centre and left as recipients of Jewish voter support.
Let me raise two brief points.
1) My comments were intended as corrective to Basil's arguments. Quite simply,on two points he was wrong. To let them stand uncorrected would give credence to them, so I spoke up. That is scarcely a validation of what he was arguing.
2) Your point about comparing the two situations, while emotionally understandable, is not validated in practise, for any two objects, be they material or metaphysical, can be subject to a process of comparison. If I choose to compare oranges and zebras, I may find more differences than points of intersection, but that is no impediment to undertaking the comparison. The only recourse when faced with a comparison one finds objectionable is to point out its fallacies, not to belittle the person making the argument.
I have to disagree on the second point.
It is an attempt to use genocide for political gain... It is discussing and bares zero comparison.....
The problem with the poll is this done while Palestinians are under occupation, there is not much of a state, Palestine is in shambles, divided and 1/3rd is not the majority. The question is how were these polls conducted? How were the questions asked? What was the methodology. Was there a political reason behind doing this? I suspect that. Palestinians do not like the Israeli occupation including in East Jerusalem, but they are not sure about being under the Palestinian Authority.
They feel insecure either way. They are not glorifying Israel, be certain of that.
Occupation is such an ugly word and yes Palestine has been occupied for well over 2000 years and yet no one claimed ownership to it other than the Jews: not even Jordan that has been in occupation of this land between 1948 and 1967.
I submit that rather than bandy about catch phrases without any meaning or substance we call this area disputed. It was agreed by the formulators of 242 in 1967 that Israel may in fact have a better claim than either Jordan and Egypt and the Palestinians did not even warrant a mention by the UN. How do you explain that?