UKH

Summary below by Hussein Ibish

1) Palestinians get the trappings of statehood but no state whatsoever

2) Israel will maintain all security control, including over coastal waters, airspace, electromagnetic spectrum and everything.

3) Palestinians must recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" without any definition of what that means legally or practically

4) Israel will annex all settlements, the Jordan Valley and other areas in perpetuity, Palestinians there not entitled to Israeli citizenship nonetheless

5) Israel will have extraterritorial jurisdiction over all Jewish Israelis in the "Palestinian state" who will remain citizens of Israel and subject only to Israeli jurisdiction in all things, including zoning and planning.

6) It's not clear, but it looks like Palestinians in the small triangle of land transferred by Israel will probably lose their Israeli citizenship as well

7) the Palestinian "state" will be demilitarized, and unable to enter into agreements with other states or join multilateral institutions without Israeli permission 8) Israel can even veto the entry of Palestinian refugees into the Palestinian state

9) Palestinian refugee status will cease to exist and UNRWA will be disbanded

10) Palestinians can only have this limited, compromised autonomy if they meet a series of complex hurdles to the satisfaction of Israel

11) The Palestinian state mainly exists to enforce counterterrorism Those are the main points that jumped out at me on first scan. I recommend Appendix 2C as particularly ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence.

It's worth noting also that the US hasn't talked to the Palestinians for over a year.

Trump couldn't even make sense in the announcement speech or pronounce the name of the one of the holiest sites in the world. 

It's an utterly disfunctional administration doing yet something else incompetently. But really no surprise by now.

I think points 4 and 5 are particularly offensive.

The whole thing is offensive. And lets face it the only reason Trump is talking about it is to distract from his trial

Yup, definitely.

It should be noted though that this does mark a move to a more moderate stance by Trump. From what I remember, before he was in favour of a 1 state solution - i.e. there is no Palestinian state at all. It's not close to a realistic solution but remember, this is Trump, the very fact that he moved _slightly_ in a logical direction is a cause for celebration. (Though, for the record, I think the odds are 5 times as high that he will make the situation significantly worse than make it any better... that might even be his plan in view of the above).

Assuming the summary is reasonably correct, I can't see how anyone would possibly think that this would lead to a peaceful solution.

I'm a supporter of Israel (as many of you probably know), but this is basically just "you lie down there and we'll walk all over you". It's ludicrous.

Unlike Trump, Netanyahu is pretty intelligent, so he must know that this plan has less than zero chance of getting anywhere. Presumably he's just spouting forth with Trump to bolster the Israel/USA relationship.

A further thought, regardless of the practicality, realism, etc. of this plan, it appears to not offer the Palestinians any dignity if they (zero chance) accepted it. To the Palestinians accepting this plan (or anything similar) would surely feel like they were just saying "yes sir, no sir". That makes it totally unacceptable. For a peace plan to have any chance, it has to give both sides the room to examine, negotiate, accept, reject, etc. with dignity and without loss of face.  

Jared Kushner, son-in-law and senior adviser to the President, says the White House's Middle East plan is "a great deal" and Palestine should "for once do something rational and negotiate" and that if Palestinians reject it they'll blow an opportunity like their “track record of blowing every opportunity that they’ve had in their past.”

You can really hear the disdain in his language for the Palestinians. 

Well they really did blow better opportunities in the past.

Arafat rejected one deal (or at least the basis on which to negotiate the fine detail) which gave virtually all the territory behind the green line, and Abbas did the same later - I think this one was about 95% of behind the green line but the other 5% was taken from Israel proper to compensate/balance.

There may have been other features of those "deals" that were unacceptable but they were miles better than the "deal of the century".

I think maybe Trump's thinking it's like a business negotiation. Here's my starting position but I know I'll have to move because it's far too radical/expensive/extreme/whatever, and that he knows that the plan as presented here is just the opening gambit. But in this case it'll just cause the Palestinians to go, you've got to be kidding, f**k off.

Hindsight makes everything obvious, regarding blowing better opportunities in the past. I would think that accepting a deal in which most of one's ancestral homeland will belong to a country which didn't exist circa 70 years ago, and has expanded through the use of military force, must be a challenging step to take for just about anybody - regardless of what would seem to be pragmatic to anybody looking on from the outside. Especially when the emotions relating to the unfairness of loss, and grief, and wrongs done against one's family and people through the use of military force are factored in.

Edit: I've taken most of a month to get over how I felt about a sis in law refusing to wear her seat belt behind my brother, a couple of hours after the 3 of us had been to visit my Mum's grave, it triggered all kinds of feelings, I had one or 2 unsettling dreams about loss and have occasionally wanted to shout at her (additionally to in the car) for risking me having an extra plot in a graveyard to visit - I'm chilled now thankfully but such feelings run deep. I can't begin to imagine how deeply emotions go for Palestinians. It's not anything for the likes of us to be critical of if they didn't take a deal then, in the hope of  a better one.

It's just trump trying to buy the Jewish vote in the next US election. 

I cant claim to be an expert in these matters, by any stretch, with internet articles and Wikipedia being my only sources if information so I wonder if someone more learned on the subject can distil (I know, tricky) how a group of nations (the UK included) can simply 'give' a land to a group of disperse people whilst completely ignoring the people who were on that land in the first place. 

Thereafter, the people given this gift of place then further incur sanctions on those original people, stop them living a normal life and force them into poverty and despair and further encroach onto un-owned land with no international resistance.  How can this be allowed in the 21st century?

Also to try and retain some of the evangelical Christian vote. 

That is a false assumption.

By 1948, the Jewish and Arab populations of the area under the British mandate west of the Jordan were similar. The Jewish population lived (mainly) on land that had been bought (often at inflated prices) from the previous owners who are now known as Palestinians.

The UN offered a two state partition plan which was rejected by the surrounding Arab states and the local Arab population.

The British (that's us unless you're a foreign user of UKC - will that still be allowed after Friday 😁) basically got fed up and left which precipitated a war out of which the modern state of Israel's internationally accepted borders were the result.

The control of the other areas (Gaza until recently, the West Bank, the Golan heights) happened as a result of the six day war in 1967.

Just one more point, Jordan decided they didn't want the West Bank back (they eventually went for peace treaty without getting it back). Having the local population (Palestinians) back would have been troublesome and would have destabilised Jordan, maybe even resulting in regime change.

It's happening elsewhere in the world and always has been, just usually with countries that aren't so wealthy or prominent, so everyone just ignores it. Zimbabwe for example. 

Bit on an oxymoron isn't it "peace plan" ?

What about steal plan ?

You may well be right about how the populace felt, but it's more likely that the rejections were on the personal political level of the leaders at the time (ie would they still be in charge once a state was established, etc)

Probably a factor behind this

Probably an even bigger factor

USA and Australia being other examples

And recently Russia of course.

Unfortunately I think that Netanyahu will take this USA "endorsement" as a reason to annexe some chunks of the disputed territory.

I can only see that as being counter-productive towards a peaceful solution

You missed off the bits about taking full blame for everything, paying massive reparations and only being allowed an air force equipped with gliders.

Oh, silly me, I was getting confused with the treaty of Versailles.

Without even going into the detail of the deal, if I were to choose an international leader to help broker an intelligent peace deal that may be acceptable to all parties, I'm not sure I'd choose Trump.

The fact that the USA still considers that it has some sort of right to make these ludicrous propositions tells me all I need to know.

Who are NOW known as Palestinians, come on Michael!!

You can do better than this, look at some old atlases and tell me there isn't a place labelled Palestine, or are you trying to assert people living in Palestine weren't called Palestinians?

They're supporting Israel to the tune of $3bn a year, they own Israel really, it's only sad they don't act a little more fairly, they have a lot of leverage, but have chosen to us it against the Palestinians.

It's all very sad.

That's the only kind of thinking he can do.  When he says 'a great deal' he means a great deal for him when he's negotiated back to it from an outrageously one-sided deal for him.

Unfortunately, not everyone appreciates being treated like this, and only Trump would think that announcing a deal not even discussed with the counter-party was likely to go well.

And the Balfour agreement stated what about the people who were living there at the time?

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

1917

That's my point.  I know why they feel they have such a big say in what happens, but it's all very "colonial", and as long as this persists, the problem is far from being solved - at least in my opinion.

As you say, very sad indeed.  

I was agreeing with you

Israel is one of the world's richest countries and could likely cover the loss of US funding with a minimum of fuss if it ever occurred. It's just mutually convenient for both them and the US to get the, primarily military, funding. 

Supposedly the one thing the Israelis have agreed to whilst the deal is in place is the cessation of expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. With the corollary being that if the Palestinians don't negotiate/agree to deal settlement expansion will continue at an accelerated rate.

Essentially agree to the deal or we'll keep expanding to the point that "the state of Palestine" can never exist. 

Please remember that by no means all Israelis agree with Netanyahu and whatever he proposes. In fact Netanyahu could end up in jail (?) due to his alleged illegal activities.

What's going on is mainly because of extremists who currently have control - both within the region and outside.

Unfortunately for the entire region, extremists on all sides most probably keep the situation in a state of continual animosity, simply in order to maintain their power bases.

It's impossible to know what the reasons may have been for wanting to stay in charge, though, they could have been to do with wanting to see things through to a particular goal, the best outcome for one's people (as seen at the time).  Even if Arafat (sp) hadn't been personally affected, he'd have carried the experiences of Palestinians with him, in having absorbed people's emotions or witnessed what had happened to them.  I slightly get the sense we have different perspectives on the situation.

I don't think it is, or at least it's a lot more complex than that as Jewish Americans don't vote in a particular "bloc-y" way. Generally on Middle East issues evangelical Christians form more of a bloc, are considerably bigger a group than Jewish Americans, and with the exception of Florida IIRC, are MUCH more important in Pennsylvania and the Mid West States which are the battleground states.

I've come to the conclusion that the easiest way to think of virtually all Trump announcements and policies (very much not the same) is that they are just trolling, aimed at "owning the libs". His base loves that, and only by motivating them to ever higher levels of arousal can he expect to win this autumn.

It's always difficult to know how much leadership decisions are based on personal wants/needs (hunger to be in and maintain power) and how much on altruism for the populace.

We have enough trouble trying to see that now with Boris, much harder for middle Eastern leaders who don't necessarily think in a Western way.

You're well aware that Balfour was superceded by the UN partition plan.

Also, the "best endeavours" didn't manage to get from the UK across the Mediterranean to action on the ground wrt establishing a national home; again as I'm sure you're aware.

Quite a few appear to be from fox and friends or other similar shows he watches. Someone did a match of his tweets to whatever the presenters were waffling about and there was a close correlation.

I agree. It's like he's good at creating 'the mood music' for them to tap into, so they feel positive about him and vote for him. I think Cameron did similar with a disenchanted sentiment when he came out with 'Broken Britain' and 'Britain is broken, and it's up to us the Conservatives to fix it'. I think sentiment isn't something to be overlooked, it's a part of the cynical art of politics.

As a society, we tend to assume in the West that our way (liberal democracy and capitalism) is the best way and that the world would be a better place if everywhere adhered to that. Rather a culturally arrogant assumption methinks, but maybe all societies think like that.

You stated the indigenous people are "now" known as Palestinians, what where they known as in 1948, and what were they known as in 1917?

This is an unbelievably garbled version of the truth. The Israelites (pre-1948) were simply the biggest tribe of Palestinians, i.e. those indigenous to Palestine. Of course, many Israelis now do not have this Palestinian ancestry because they are Jews who've settled from different part of the world, particularly Europe, and most particularly, Russia.

'Israel' is a completely modern invention, first dreamt up by the Zionists in the late C19th, but not realised until after WWII. Until 1948, it had been called Palestine since biblical and Roman times (and probably before).

PS. At all the early schools I went to from he mid 50s to the late 60s, we always had what were called 'Divinity' lessons - I think once a week. Basically, the whole history and teaching of Christ. I think it may have been part of the curriculum by law (?) The point I want to make is that always on the wall there was a map of (biblical) 'Palestine'.

Totally, when i say "the Israelis" of course i mean the current Israeli government. That being said apparently Benny Gantz , the leader of the main opposition party, as former head of the Israeli military, has similar views to netanyahu when it comes to security, if possibly a little less likely to blame/demonise Iran for everything. Gantz by all accounts was given a full briefing of the plan in advance of its announcement and gave it his blessing. So whilst he's likely not quite as bad as netanyahu, he's definitely no reformist voice of positive change either. 

With a heavily doubt claim that in some old biblical book it said the state of Israel was established in 1000BC -ish

 Ancient tribes of Assyrian or Babylonian Empires ruled most of that area before them. But then go back farther, Egyptians. 

I have an old atlas, published in 1879. In that, the lands now considered to be Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza) and the land currently considered to be Israel are shown as being part of Syria.

I'm not sure that picking your own preferred point in time is particularly helpful. 

Before 1900 there were few Jews in what is now Israel. There was then significant immigration over the next 40 years so by 48 there would have been a mix of immigrants and indigenous (ie born there) Jews. I think the Jewish population was similar to the Arab population by 48 but there's a big difference between pre-1948 and "by 1948".

Modern Israel is of course a modern invention. But of course there was also biblical Israel. Not many are disputing its existence.

Your school map would be at the time of Jesus so Roman so Palestinia.

No academically accepted historians dispute that there was an ancient kingdom of Israel.

How accurately that matches with what's in the Bible, hmm. It didn't come out of nowhere so presumably there's some basis to what's written there. But don't forget that the Bible wasn't trying to record history (except maybe in bits like Chronicles). Its purpose was mainly (old testament at least) a guide to how to live and moral values (which aren't always apparent if you just look at the Bible on a literal level).

1948, they might have been called Palestinians by then.

1917, I don't think the indigenous Arab population would have referred to themselves as that.

I thought, and a quick read on wikipedia sort of supports this, that "Palestinian" wasn't a term used much before the Mandate, people were Arabs, or their tribe, or Syrians of Palestine and so on. Then in the 1920 to 48 period, Palestinian was used for all people living in Palestine: Arab, Jewish; Muslim, Christian, Jew. After 48 Israelis became "Israeli", so Jews and I guess some Israeli Arabs stopped using the term, (although my friend definitely always refers to herself as Palestinian although she has Israeli citizenship and travels on an Israeli passport) and Palestinian became the name for the Arabs who lived in the West Bank and Gaza, and the refugees who didn't get citizenship in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. And it is the term of choice for many Arab Israeli citizens. 

Dates, links, not Jewish scholars please. 

Summary.

 Early and Middle Bronze Age - Canaanite city-states ... surrounded by ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Minoan Crete, Syria, and ancient Egypt, which ruled the area in the Late Bronze Age. 

In this period a tribe for want of a better word emerged, the Israelites, who according to present day Jewish historians established the United Kingdom of Israel in 1020 BCE.  which split between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Assyrian Empire conquered the region 700 BCE, then the Neo-Babylonian Empire in c. 627 BCE.

The latter destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and deported Jewish leaders to Babylonia. 

In the 330s BCE, Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire, including Palestine.

100BCE it progressively became a state of rome, with local Jewish revolts. Province of judea was created. 

And on it goes, as the Roman empire christianises that's when it became the centre of Christianity. 

600 AD Muslim conquest of region sees them take control and build Dome of the Rock.....

Then the era of the crusades and power changes within the caliphate, Egyptians, the Tulunids, Ikhshidids, Fatimids.... the Ottamans from 1500-1800. 

Historically over the last 3500 years it has spent proportionally very little time in what you might call Jewish or Israeli hands, and given that all religions are bollocks there can't be any fictional sky being claim to it either. 

So no one tribe or religion has any more right than another to live there, even if they are friends with the USA or have nuclear weapons. Borders that were drawn should be respected and Israeli land grabs should see them stood in front of the UN or similar explaining themselves. 

I do understand what your saying, but to go back to your post,

"By 1948, the Jewish and Arab populations of the area under the British mandate west of the Jordan were similar. The Jewish population lived (mainly) on land that had been bought (often at inflated prices) from the previous owners who are now known as Palestinians."

You were discussing how the Jewish population had bought land, at inflated price, from the previous owners now know as Palestinians.

It seem to me that at the time of these over inflated sales, you yourself have noted they'd be called Palestinians.

You could argue that a general term of Arabs was more likely but in the same manner as you'd call people from Greece, Greeks, if you were educated it would be more likely you'd call people from Palestine, Palestinians; Arabs if you didn't care or weren't bothered.

I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick, but it's an often trotted out falsehood, the there is, and never was, anywhere called Palestine, which lends legitimacy to the settler expansionism and de-humanising of the Palestinian people.

It might be one of those simple forum mistakes that wouldn't happen in real life conversations and once again discussion of Israel / Palestine has a lot to do with semantics and language used.

I'm not sure what your term "who are now known as Palestinians" was for, it read as an attempt to try and blur the original people who lived there, obviously that may not be the case. At the time of the sales that's what they were know as, Palestinians.

Cheers.

That's quite a disturbing statement on some levels.  If we were talking about the history of pre-Colonial West Africa, would you require that evidence you would consider come only from scholars not of African descent?

Not really. If you want to claim the state of Israeli was established on a given date, and that they some how have more right to 'own' that land than others, or justify the removal of others existing homes... then I'd expect an unbiased source of information. Not something tied religiously, politically, etc to those with something to gain. The location is irrelevant, be it the ME, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, Crimea etc. Etc. 

Ps. I despise all religions equally.  

Ultimately it does not matter what the indigenous population called themselves; they are human beings. Huge numbers of Palestinians (estimated at upwards of 1m) were displaced by the Zionist migration and the subsequent creation of the Israeli state. The victims of the Palestinian diaspora have all been continually denied the right of return in contravention of numerous UN resolutions.

Hundreds of thousand also remain held in the largest prison of the modern world for no reason other than being an inconvenience to the Israeli governments policy of securing Greater Israel.

This proposed great "deal" is merely the framework for international recognition and legalisation of the Greater Israel project. It should be condemned by all who have any sense of humanity for the Palestinians and who actually hope for a final peaceful settlement.

It's worth reminding ourselves of the truth of the settlement of Palestine by the Israelis.

http://i.giphy.com/3o7ZeCFTqUSE4hTCr6.gif?fbclid=IwAR0__WkUyhdNhDeRv9SUXPIW...

One thing is a historian making a claim about history and another thing is a politician making a political claim. There might be some overlap, but most in the two sets don't overlap at all. What you are saying is you won't trust a British or German or an American historian if their family happens to be Jewish.

No. That's not the same thing. I said that I wouldn't trust those who make historical claims because they have something to gain from their biased view point. 

So if a Jewish scholar claims that a religious document of theirs states that a specific Israelite state was formed on X date and that's why they think they deserve to flatten existing Palestinian homes.  Then I would suggest they are only producing deliberately biased information that supports their cause. 

A Jewish person will likely have bias towards Israels stance? 

The problem is the whole intertwining of religion in politics and the fact that, just as you have done, the minute anyone suggests that Israel and/or the Jewish community take a very bias position towards land ownership, folk start calling or suggesting they are anti Zionist etc. 

I agree, sadly I think the recent "peace" deal might be a ploy in which they'll water down what's been suggested and still control just about everything, while appearing to give up lots of stuff.

It's all bullshit and our government, and many others, are colluding in it. There massive support for the Israeli government for all sorts of weird reasons from the fundamental Christians waiting for Armageddon and the perfect red cow, to the circulatory money within US politics.

We need strong leaders in many countries before it'll be sorted and I don't mean strong in the sense of "lets go to war", but "let's find a solution", a new Nelson Mandela if you like, but there doesn't seem to be much hope of that at present.

I'd agree with your thoughts. Just a small point- I don't think Palestinians within small triangle of land have Israeli Citizenships (to lose).. I think Arabs with Israeli citizenship are solely within Israel 'proper', not in West Bank or Gaza.

This peace plan is not a plan and not about peace.

I guess you and I can't have an opinion on the British empire then, because we would probably just be trying to make sure that our taxes don't need to spent on paying reparations for the crimes of colonialism?

And this "they" seems to include all Jews everywhere - because you won't accept that a Jewish scholar can have a legitimate view of ancient middle eastern history.  

The Holocaust was perhaps the ultimate legitimizing reason for the formation of Israel - so by your logic should Jewish historians not work on the holocaust also?

I am genuinely surprised that you can't see how extreme your position appears.

But that's history, done and gone, it can't be changed. Differing perspectives of course, but Israel, the two state solution, that's the future. The decision and viewpoints should be heard from all sides, and not just those who are bias and have skin in the game on only one side.

They can have as many views as they like, but they might be bias. Should we only have Putin's view on the Crimea? Some dodgy Generals view on Yugoslavia? China's view on Taiwan or to get? Only certain tribes in Rwanda? 

A solution won't ever be found in the Middle East if it's always based around the Israel/USA view point. You'd think recent history around the middle East and North Africa would have taught them something by now. 

I give up..  you are doing the norm, anyone who questions Israel or their scholars viewpoint on history must be anti Zionist blah blah blah..  this is why no solution will ever be found there. 

Your original comment about not being willing to accept "Jewish scholars" was when you were asking Michael for dates and links about an Israelite Kingdom about 3000 years ago! I'm not sure why that isn't "history, done and gone, it can't be changed."

You didn't say anything about Israel, Israeli scholars, and definitely not "their scholars" (by which I take it you mean historians either paid for or at least sympathetic to the Israeli government). You said "Jewish scholars", and now you seem to saying any Jewish historian is going to be biased towards the Israeli government or at least state. I've read a number of Israeli historians who definitely aren't that and of course plenty of non-Israeli Jewish historians who aren't biased. Don't you get how saying all Jews are bias towards  Israeli government policies makes Jewish people feel uncomfortable? I'm sure you criticised Corbyn when he put his foot in his mouth suggesting British Jews didn't understand British irony or English sense of humour or whatever it was.

If borders are to be respected then you shouldn't start or precipitate the start of wars. If you do, then you should accept that you may end up with less than you started with. Expecting to get back to the starting point afterwards seems a bit crazy. The only place that's happened in recent times is in the Middle East (at least as far as I'm aware).

Please note I'm really talking about Syria, Jordan and Egypt here. The aspirations of the Palestinians and the rights and wrongs of the settlements in the West Bank are almost separate from that, but they do follow on from the various wars.

I think what I'm saying is that borders should be respected but that doesn't mean they should be set back to 1948 borders.

They should be negotiated and agreed by the appropriate parties.

However the borders in Trump's plan just don't look sensible, viable or equitable to me.

ON Radio 4 other day (jeremy Bowen I think) said Trump wants Christian evangelical vote, who are much more pro Republican, and strongly  pro Zionist than Jewish Americans (who have traditionally voted Democrat ), and also lots more of them.

I wasn't trying to imply that the Palestinians weren't indigenous to the area, merely that they weren't always known as Palestinians.

Also that nationalistic aspirations were a relatively recent phenomenon - probably because nationalism wasn't necessary in an environment where huge swathes of desert separated the settled areas so it wasn't so much in the cultural ethos.

Not sure I've expressed that very well.

Regardless of the history and nomenclature there is now a problem because there are a lot of unhappy people who are not getting a fair deal. The difficulty is finding a solution that will work.

You are asking me to provide links to something I'm saying doesn't exist. How am I meant to do that?

Your history précis seems reasonable. Over the last 2000 years (since the last Jewish state), Jews have constantly aspired to return to that land.

How much previous occupancy one needs to have before having any "return rights" (if any) is obviously a point that can be discussed but for the current situation it's a moot point as it's already happened.

I suspect that the inflated land prices were largely market forces...

All of a sudden there's loads of people desperate to buy something that was previously seen as pretty worthless (barren land). Result is higher prices to get as much as you can from an unused asset. 

Whilst the gist of that animation has some validity, there are several glaring inaccuracies so to call it "the truth" is not correct.

For example, it shows Gaza in 2012 as having no settlements in it but considerable bits of "green" settlements in 2014. Since Gaza was evacuated by Israel in 2005, this cannot be correct.

That is my understanding, and I think you'll find that the majority of them want to stay in Israel 'proper', whilst greatly sympathising and supporting those in West Bank, etc.

A few points:

1. I don't know where you get the 1m from. The generally accepted figure is that in 1948 approximately 500,000 Arabs left the territory that is now Israel proper (1948 borders) and did not return. Unresolvable arguments continue about whether they were pushed out or told (by the Arab countries) to get out of the way whilst the Arab country armies "crushed the Jews".

2. At the same time (i.e.48-49) approximately 500,000 Jews were forced out of the surrounding Arab countries into Israel. In Israel those immigrants were absorbed into the country. By contrast, the Palestinians were kept in refugee camps by the surrounding Arab countries. Why, to use the Palestinians as a political weapon against Israel (and the west?), and because they didn't want the Palestinians to become citizens in their own country and maybe destabilise it.

3. There is more than one type of UN resolution. The vast majority of those resolutions that you are "referring" to are the "non-binding" type. Personally, I think the UN is a pretty useless institution; when Gadaffi was in power, Libya was (for a time) chair of the UN human rights committee (FFS).

I presume you mean Gaza. Gaza was evacuated (the Israeli settlements in it) by Israel in 2005. The existing agri/horticulture was left in place - presumably machinery was removed but the plants themselves were left. First thing the Palestinians did - trashed the whole lot. What a missed opportunity to straight away improve the local economy for the Palestinians. The problem in Gaza is Hamas, their position and actions have left the Israeli government with "brute force" as their only option because nobody's managed to find anything else that works. Everything less drastic that's been proposed has too high a security risk factor for a right wing Israeli government. Hamas are well aware of this but they maintain absolute power in Gaza in a brutal (when necessary) fashion.

There are also many things about Gaza that are unseen. Things like where do you think their nurses and doctors are trained? In Israel actually. The whole situation is incredibly complex, and will not be solved by the simplistic sound bite solutions that a lot of people sound off with.

I'm not sure I agree with your "framework" assertion (a Greater Israel would lead to demographic problems) but I agree with you that I cannot see how Trump's deal can possibly lead to a "final peaceful settlement".

The current descendents of the Israelites who lived there circa 3000 years ago, have as much right to live there as the descendents of Persians, ottomans, Syrians, Babylonians etc who have also resided there for the past 4000 years, from a time before the Israelites tribes even claimed it for themselves. It's just cherry picking a time in history that best suits them. 

He's already hooked them with his anti womens rights, anti abortion stance. 

If those other people had also consistently asserted a desire to return to the area after being forced out, then I would agree with you.

Not sure I disagree with you even without that caveat, but as I said, moot point.

I got the impression that Palestinians who gave seen their land taken, fenced or walled in and homes bulldozed weren't exactly leaving willingly? 

Israel was encouraging people from the Jewish diaspora to migrate to the country. Your assertion that all Jews who migrated from Arab countries to Israel were "forced out" is untrue. You have every right to support Israel, but please stick to verifiable facts rather than trotting out propaganda 

We were discussing "claims" based on previous residency from non-recent history. You seem to have switched to recent times (1967 onwards). Different argument.

Maybe "forced" is too strong a word. Would you accept that conditions for Jews in those Arab countries became significantly worse because of the 48 war and declaration of independence. And the availability of a place that would welcome them (ie. Israel) gave them a viable option to move.

My main point was the contrast between the Arab countries (with relatively huge populations) making a refugee problem of 500,000 Palestinians, whilst Israel (with a relatively tiny population) absorbing and integrating 500,000 Jews moving in the opposite direction.

In recent times, imagine the difference if Turkey (for example) had said to the Syrian refugees, come and live here, we will integrate you into our country, and get you working and contributing to our economy, and you will become Turkish citizens.

If only both sides had done that throughout this conflict, then the situation would be very different, and we possibly wouldn't be having forum debates like this.

Given that a tribe or clan of Israelites, based only on the extremely limited records, had a state established there between 1000 and 500BC, are you suggesting it's acceptable to apply this rule globally? 

I think many indigenous tribes of the USA, nz, South America and Australia would welcome the news. Not to mention some serious border changes in Europe. It would be an interesting exercise, but I would imagine most folk won't be too impressed. 

It was in Israel's interest to welcome Jews even its 'raison d'être'. Israel has always considered itself a homeland for Jews and so these immigrants have never been considered refugees. You seem to think of 'Arabs' as a unified people, but an Arab is just someone who speaks Arabic. Admittedly a common language leads to a certain cultural convergence but there is no reason for Arabs from the Gulf states or from Algeria to feel any more obligation towards Palestinian refugees than you or I. This whole Jews vs Arabs narrative is one of the main reasons the Israel/Palestine conflict remains unsolvable. When it comes to identity, especially national identity, geography is a much healthier parameter than religion or even language. Given the present facts on the ground (hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, significant Arab-Israeli population, refugees right of return, an isolated Gaza, Israeli occupation of the West Bank), the only solution that makes any sense now is one state with equal rights for all. Unfortunately extremists will never accept this. You seem quite moderate; what's your view?

Well the Angles and the Saxons would be sent back to central Europe for a start! 

Fair enough, the nuances of text rather than conversation

It read, slightly at least, as an often trundled out defence of the Israeli Governments, excision of land, that "there's no such place as Palestine and never has been!". I heard it as an excuse from a number of people.

Jared's read 25 books though!!

The whole world is turn into one massive sick f*cking joke.

Arab Nationalism was another of the nationalist ideologies that swept the world from the late 19th Century - like Zionism or Italian Nationalism, German Nationalism and so on. It's high point was later under Nasser I guess, but the Arabs as a unified people was a political project, and that's why Arab states have always politically backed the Palestinians against the Israel forcefully, but what countries - Jordan and Lebanon in particular - didn't want was Palestinian refugees upsetting the balance of power domestically, that had put the elites of those states in power, by becoming citizens.

The Arab nation project emerged during the break up of the Ottoman empire. It was an attempt to find a practical 20th century solution to major geopolitical upheaval and a power vacuum (but died a death under Sykes-Picot). Is that really comparable to the Italian or German nationalist projects? Zionism in the 19th century was mostly promoted by people who didn't live in the area they wanted to create a nation in, so not comparable at all.

It's a pretty poor excuse. It might be arguable with regards to national borders, but it's no excuse for how you treat people on the ground.

I understand the reasons behind a lot of the West Bank settlements (especially those that were established for security reasons shortly after the 6 day war), but there's a lot about the settlements and how the Israeli government has dealt with them that I am very unhappy with. That sort of splits into two main areas, is it fair (or justifiable), and is it likely to help or hinder a long term peaceful outcome.

I think that because nobody can see a long term solution, the Israeli government has effectively just said "aw, f**k it, might as well keep the right wing of the populace happy".

The bit I really don't get is the tolerance of illegal settlements. Just getting rid of those would be such a positive move (on both my areas of "unhappiness").

No I'm not suggesting that it should be a global rule. It was a unique set of circumstances (especially after the Holocaust) and it's happened.

Not much point in arguing about whether it should have happened except to ensure that if something similar came about in the future, the world would make the best possible decision (whatever that might be).

Why Turkey rather than the EU (or the UK)?

No reason, just a thought experiment in how different it would be if the attitude was integration/absorption rather than a "refugee problem".

If you live in Damascus (or Ramallah or Baghdad) there's a good chance you speak decent English, however you very probably don't speak any Turkish. This means you'll find work and integrate much easier in London than in Istanbul. Also the UK economy is much stronger than the Turkish economy making the job market easier to get into. Your thought experiment makes more sense if you use the UK.

So they want to be a special case. Suffering the holocaust 75 years ago does not justify bulldozing the homes today of people who had nothing to do with it. 

People just throw the words holocaust, anti Zionist etc into debates to try and shut down the conversation, because Israel is likely guilty of some pretty horrendous acts in very recent times. But so are various Palestinian groups. No angels on either side. 

Maybe, I wasn't trying to find the best ultimate destination, more pointing out the global attitude that refugees are a "problem" rather than an "opportunity".

Special case to justify or support the case for creation of state of Israel, I can understand that, arguable, but moot.

Justifying acts today, I agree that this is a bit convoluted and not a  reasonable excuse.

Unfortunately violence just begats more violence and you end up being led by people who are likely to be more brutal and less sensitive to the needs of others.

more than just likely - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

I think we're heading back to the 70s with Trump's new policy

One of the worst things about this thread is that I have (once again) been sucked in and am now likely to appear in the top 40.

Not something I aspire to 😟 and this reply doesn't help either 😁

You do understand how America was created? Have you ever looked at some of the Native American reservations?

That was sometime before 1948 though and we're still supporting it even now!

True. But the attitudes of the US government in the post 1865 era might speak a little to their attitudes now. That indigenous peoples needed to assimilate or evaporate and preferably the latter. Even if they tried the former (look at the 5 civilised tribes and the trail of tears) they weren't given much support.

Not aimed at anything (by me) but your post reminds me of...

Many years ago (maybe in the 80s), probably when the first "land for peace" plans emerged wrt Israel (so might even have been 70s), the Jerusalem Post published a cartoon that basically had USA giving back various bits of land (starting with Alaska I think) until they were reduced to the original 13 (?) East Coast states that signed the US declaration of independence.