Can you support the Palestinians when you live on their stolen land?

[ilaughatrightwingers]

by JOSEPH GLATZER on OCTOBER 14, 2010

Every time I would tell my girlfriend (she's Palestinian) about a famous Israeli activist or writer or she would ask why they still call themselves Israeli. She tells me things like, "See. They still call themselves Israeli. When they use that word they are automatically erasing Palestine."

I always used to argue with her over that and try to convince her that these Israelis are good people who genuinely care and want to do something. But, for the first time I think she's right.

If you are an Israeli, even if you disagree with your government’s treatment of the Palestinians, you’re still enjoying the sweet life of privilege. You’ll still be enjoying the privileges Palestinians aren't able to even though it’s actually their land.

There are so many Israelis who are prominent in the media, who work hard to fight for justice for Palestinians. I don't need to name them, you all know who they are.

But I have to ask Israelis the question: "If you feel so strongly about what is being done to the Palestinians, how can you continue to live in their stolen country?"

How can you go from a West Bank protest back to your Tel Aviv home, which very well may have belonged to a family member of your friends in the West Bank? Can you really be supporting someone when you live on the land which was violently seized from them?

If these Israeli activists truly believe what they say they should move to the occupied territories and live as a Palestinian. Give up your life of comfort and privilege in the posh neighborhoods of Tel Aviv and live in the Bethlehem ghetto with the people of Aida camp.

Drop out of Ben Gurion University and enroll in Birzeit. Trade Starbucks in Haifa for Stars and Bucks in Ramallah. Now THAT’s solidarity.

Many would say that Israeli dissidents help by staying inside Israel to fight the system from within, and that without them there there would really be no hope for Israeli society. I've got news for those people: there is no hope for Israeli society to change from the inside. This is the whole premise of the very popular BDS movement.

The more Israelis of conscience jump ship the quicker the whole Zionist apartheid operation will self-destruct; and the sooner the dispersed Palestinian people of the world can finally be reunited with their land and families.

I’ve been to Gaza and met a teenage boy who watched his brother get blown up in front of his eyes in the first attack of Operation Cast Lead. A year later he was still wetting himself and was unable to sleep at night due to the trauma.

I’ve seen a pregnant woman in Qalandia checkpoint fall to the ground in pain. I’ve met the loving father of a family in Aida Camp who has to beg internationals for money for new glasses. He’s going blind because Israel won’t allow him to get laser eye surgery in Israel, which is just minutes away.

I’ve been inside a home in the old city of Hebron when it was overrun with IDF troops yelling at Palestinian mothers.

I’ve met a family in Sheikh Jarrah who had their house stolen by settlers; and I’ve seen the tent they have to live in.

So, I'm out of patience. I don't care about the feelings of the morally righteous land thieves anymore.

If you claim to support the Palestinians start calling yourself Palestinian instead of Israeli and permanently live among Palestinians under occupation. This is the definition of solidarity.
-------------------

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/can-you-support-the-palestinians-when-you-live-on-their-stolen-land.html

[ilaughatrightwingers]

1. I disagree with this article even though I posted it

This article is so full of fallacious logic and assumptions I was surprised it actually got published. But I feel it's a good discussion-starter.

[shira]

2. Shows the depravity of the anti-Zionist movement.

All Zionists, no matter whether far Rightwing or Leftwing, can go to hell according to the author. Israel's Jewish Liberals are the enemy. Jewish areas in the West Bank before 1949 that were ethnically cleansed by Jordanian forces are stolen land. Solution: One state where Jews are a minority, far more bloodshed, more war.

Yet another anti-Zionist hate screed.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

3. Not liking zionism-nationalism doesn't bother me

But his notion that the only way Israelis who support the Palestinian struggle can show solidarity is by leaving Israel proper and moving to the OPT seems unrealistic and illogical.

I don't like zionism or any form of of nationalism, but we have to be realistic as to what we can actually achieve under the current conditions. "One state" is not realistic and there's no way people in the USA can bring it if that's what they really want.

[azurnoir]

4. He seems confused if he was arguing for Israeli's currently

residing in the West Bank to call themselves Palestinians that's one thing IMO not entirely out of line, but the rest is crazy and Israel along with Israeli's are here to stay

eta this might get locked or removed because I think according to I/P forum rules Mondoweiss is not allowed as a source for an OP it is allowed for comments though

[ilaughatrightwingers]

8. Sorry

I just wanted to post it on here because it's so full of fallacies and even though I'm 100% pro-Palestinian, anti-zionist I think other supporters of the Palestinian struggle shouldn't be falling into the same trap he did.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Exactly; totally unrealistic

I am not a lover of nationalism either; but in the real world the alternatives are usually worse: imperialism and tribalism.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

11. "One state" will suck either way

The one thing the supporters of the "one democratic state" (like a state could ever be "democratic") don't realize is that Israelis own most of the land and wealth. They could easily manipulate the political system and keep the Palestinians as 2nd-class citizens. I think the one-staters are bought in by the same romantic nationalism that they zionists are.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

12. A reasonable response

From blog:
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/2010/10/re-can-you-support-palestinians-when.html

[proteus_lives]

5. Typical BS.

:thumbsdown:

[proteus_lives]

6. Also, as always mondoweiss is a sickening cesspool of hate.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

7. I always side with the Palestinians....

... but I hate Mondoweiss with a passion.

I don't think they care about the Palestinians more than they care about "sticking it" to zionist propagandists.

They attack Noam Chomsky more than they attack Bibi. I would think if they were serious activists they would want to unite people and work towards a common goal.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I would guess....

that with all the wars and conflicts and forced economic migrations that have taken place, many people are living on 'stolen land' one way or another.

E.g. can you support the Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians while living on 'stolen land'?

The Palestinians deserve their own state, and the Israelis need to end the occupation. But Israel exists and cannot just disband - any more than America or Australia can do so.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

13. It's the same nationalist mindset

Sadly, the reason I stopped working with many pro-Palestinian groups is how quickly their agenda seemed to change from: "Demand that the US end all military aid to Israel and join the rest of the world in demanding that the occupation be ended," to: "We want ALL of Palestine back, so let's boycott Israel out of existence!!" As an anarchist I didn't feel comfortable supporting nationalism of any kind. I still participate in human rights campaigns but not ones based on a nationalist platform.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. My thoughts exactly...

It kind of jumped out at me immediately, what with me living on stolen land. The difference between here and Israel is that we acknowledge openly that there were people on this land before us and that our ancestors displaced them. That doesn't happen in Israel...

While I disagreed with the sentiments of the article, I found the hysterical shrieks in this thread that the source is a hate site to be incredibly OTT and quite silly...

[proteus_lives]

15. Quite silly?

Look up the article where Weiss talks admiringly about a Palestinian sniper.

Yeah, hate.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Mondoweiss is not a hate site...

A site isn't a hate site just because someone disagrees with it. Hate sites are those sites where those who run it are indulging in incitement to hate an entire group. Examples of such sites would be Stormwatch and Masada2000. I've spent an hour or two reading through Mondoweiss this afternoon, and it appears to be a run of the mill partisan blog concerned with the I/P conflict. I'm sure if I looked for long enough I'd find comments that I consider to be bigoted, but that doesn't make the blog a hate site anymore than Islamophobic or Antisemitic comments posted at DU make DU a hate site. I've found stuff I disagree with on Mondoweiss, but that doesn't make it a hate site. I've yet to find a political blog where I don't find things i disagree with, so Mondoweiss isn't standing out as anything out of the ordinary in that regard....

When it comes to the OP, as I've already said, the premise of the article is something I totally disagree with. There are Israelis who do oppose the actions of the Israeli govt towards the Palestinian people who do great work at the grass-roots level to show support for the Palestinian cause. I dislike it when they're scorned the way they are in this OP. They not only have to put up with the attacks from their own govt and other Israelis who see them as traitors, but then they cop it from other supporters of the Palestinian cause. People can support a cause without having to up and move anywhere. For example, I strongly support indigenous rights, yet I don't understand why I'd have to move out of where I live to do so...

[proteus_lives]

23. I disagree about Mondoweiss.

There is a difference between objecting/protesting Israeli policies and objecting/protesting the existence of Israel.

And I wasn't talking about the comments being made, I was talking about the articles themselves. Weiss makes himself very clear. Did you read the article about the sniper? He goes beyond protesting Israeli policies and goes to celebrating Israeli deaths.

"For example, I strongly support indigenous rights, yet I don't understand why I'd have to move out of where I live to do so..."

I agree, there's nothing wrong with Israelis protesting about policies or actions but it's the one-sidedness I find objectionable.

I talked/read and seen people about the issue to get a read about what's anti-Israel and anti-policy.

Look at the article Shira posted. Weiss is about self-hate and the destruction of Israel.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

25. Wanting the "destruction of Israel" isn't really the problem

The problem with people on MW is how they ostracize anyone who doesn't support the destruction of Israel (for right now, anyway). They should stick to organizing instead.

[txaslftist]

43. reasonable 2-sided discussion is bannable.

you have to keep up with the rules :)

[ilaughatrightwingers]

16. I wouldn't say Mondoweiss is "hateful"

It's just a ridiculous blog in itself, because they focus more on attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them (this includes people like Noam Chomsky) than they do organizing or figuring out ways for people in the US to help the Palestinians. In other words, they just enjoy hearing themselves rant.

[shira]

17. It's a site run by bigots and antisemites and here's all the proof you need...

http://sadredearth.com/the-malice-of-mondoweiss/

Read that and try arguing otherwise, if you can.

Thanks.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

18. It's anti-zionism/anti-nationalism, not racism

There is a difference. But I do agree that talking about how evil "zionism" is all while overlooking the evils of all nationalism is a tad bit hypocritical.

Quite honestly, I don't care who runs mondoweiss or any blog as long as their analyses of the situation are accurate.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

19. Also

That article didn't really mean much. You have shoddy journalism on all sides of every conflict. What concerns me the most is how people on Mondoweiss present unrealistic solutions out of *their* nationalism for a Palestinian state that incorporates all of historical Palestine (something extremely unrealistic and impossible for Americans to work towards) and then attack anyone who doesn't follow through with them 100%. This is the kind of sectarianism that destroys potentially large movements.

[proteus_lives]

20. Thank you for posting that.

It says it all, malice and hate.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

26. Again, I wouldn't say "hate site"

But I don't like that site one bit.

I'm sick of people equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, but I do agree MW is a nasty site.

[proteus_lives]

27. Again, I would.

Wishing for the destruction of Israel isn't criticism, it's hate.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

28. Are anarchists and marxists "hateful" too?

Just asking, but those two ideologies advocate the destruction of all states (by different methods though). Would you also classify people who adhere to those ideologies "hateful"?

I don't see the destruction of any state to be a bad thing necessarily. Learn to differentiate between the State (an institution) and the people who live in it. Wishing for any state to disappear does not mean you wish harm on the people living within the area the state rules over.

[proteus_lives]

29. Depends which anarchists and marxists you're talking about.

" don't see the destruction of any state to be a bad thing necessarily. Learn to differentiate between the State (an institution) and the people who live in it. Wishing for any state to disappear does not mean you wish harm on the people living within the area the state rules over."

Really?

Talk about closing your eyes to the reality of the situation.

You think Hamas doesn't wish Israelis harm when they talk about destroying Israel? You don't think Iran's number-one asshole doesn't?
You think Weiss doesn't when he praises a Palestinian sniper and gets angry when he hears Hebrew?

Open your eyes.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

30. "We" are not the state

Most of the situations you talk about are the result of anger over Israeli policy. Resistance by oppressed groups against their oppressors is not terrorism; it's self-defense.

As for Ahmadinejad and Weiss, I can't speak for them. Iran's president is just playing his role as president when he actually has no power in the Iranian government. Weiss is obviously a douchebag and I would agree with the fact that he spends more time attacking others than figuring out ways to make the situation better.

Also, you didn't give me examples as to what anarchists and marxists I should be talking about. Who are the "hateful" ones and who aren't?

[oberliner]

31. The Supreme Leader says the same things as the Iranian president

And he is the ultimate power in the Iranian government.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

33. So what?

I can't do anything about Iran's leadership. It's pretty useless for Americans to criticize them.

[oberliner]

34. Why did you mention the Iranian president's lack of power?

I am not sure why you would mention that if you didn't think that it was relevant whether the remarks were coming from someone with power or not.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

36. Just pointing it out

Ahmadinejad's words are all farce. He can't really do anything, and I highly doubt the Iranian government would do anything. They don't have the capability to "destroy" Israel through military force.

[aranthus]

37. You've asked the wrong question.

In fact, you've asked a question for which the only reasonable answer is along the variety of, "I can't know," or "it depends." I can't read your mind or the that of any other anarchist/marxist. I don't know what is in their hearts, nor can I. So the only answer one can give to your question is that it depends on the anarchist/marxist.

I can know anarchism/marxism as ideologies, however. I can know what their doctrines are, what their leading thinkers say, and what they do when they are in power. So the better question is, "Is anarchism/marxism hateful?" The answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. Especially, those ideologies are hateful of competing ideological identifications: systems of thinking, values and ideology. Things like religion, nationalism, philosophy, political ideologies, morality. All of them are considered illegitimate by the Left unless they are on the Left.

You've already admitted to not liking nationalisms. That's a particularly Leftist viewpoint. The idea is the state (and the nations that create them) will no longer exist. The Left thinks that they're bad. "Religion is the opiate of the masses," is a classic Left slogan. It isn't that the Left thinks that a particular religion, or all religions, is wrong. No, the entire concept of faith is a narcotic to aid in oppression, and priests, rabbis, etc., are pushers. How much respect does the Left have for, "bourgeois values." And do I even need to mention how the Left thinks of conservatives, or even moderates?

Are there any ideological identifications other than Left which the Left does not regard as stupid or evil? Are there any major issues on which Left and Right disagree where major elements of the Left have not pejoratized the motives of those who disagree with them? Because for the most part of what I hear from the Left, people who want things that the Left doesn't like, are considered to be bad people. That's hatefulness.

[LeftishBrit]

46. No more true on the left than the right...

I would equally say (and in fact more strongly IMO):

Are there any ideological identifications other than Right which the Right does not regard as stupid or evil? Are there any major issues on which Left and Right disagree where major elements of the Right have not pejoratized the motives of those who disagree with them? Because for the most part of what I hear from the Right, people who want things that the Right doesn't like, are considered to be bad people. That's hatefulness.



Indeed - obviously excluding hardline Communist leaders, who might best be described as authoritarians in Left clothing - I would say that rejection and punishment of people for dissent is more common on the Right than on the Left.



And it is not true that all leftists regard religion as 'the opiate of the people'; there are many leftists who are religious, and many others who are simply indifferent to religion but are fine with other people practicing it. There are IMO far more conservative religious people, who consider that 'an atheist cannot be a moral person'; that atheists are 'not true citizens'; that secularism is a threat to society; or that social conservativism should be enshrined in law because of religious precepts. Though there is no necessary relationship between religious faith and politically and socially right-wing views, sufficiently many people of a variety of faiths have imposed right-wing policy in the name of religion, that it reinforces some leftists' prejudice against religion.

I have to admit that though I certainly don't think that all people who vote for Tories, Republicans or other right-wing parties are bad or stupid people, I do think that right-wing *policy* is fundamentally unethical and dangerous. Not meaning right-wing policy in the sense of suspicion of change, but meaning right-wing policy in the sense of harshness toward the poor, weak or merely 'different'. I fear such attitudes taking over society, and this makes me a left-winger. But all people with strong political beliefs think that it is important to resist changes to society in the opposite direction; and it is hardly confined to the left.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

55. Explain

Tell me how anarchists and marxists are "hateful" in their ideology exactly. How is it hateful to desire a classless, stateless/countryless society? How is it hateful to want to abolish private property and allow the workers to control their means of production?

If anything, capitalism and nationalism/statism are hateful.

[shira]

58. As it relates to Israel, it's hateful to want one-state with Hamas or the PLO in charge...

That situation would be 100x more extreme Rightwing than Avigdor Lieberman and worse than putting the Klan in charge of Israel.

That's hateful.

Any Leftist who claims to only be anti-Zionist and wanting that kind of situation is essentially rooting for an extreme fascist antisemitic government that would only bring more chaos, bloodshed, and set the cause of peace and human rights backwards.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

We aren't talking about that

We are talking about anarchists and marxists who want to do away with states/countries all together. How is that a hateful way of thinking considering how states have caused so much harm to humanity? Not just Israel, but all states regardless of who is ruling them.

[shira]

61. Well you were talking earlier about having no problem with anti-zionists who'd be for...

...the hateful views I wrote about above.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

59. We aren't talking about that

We are talking about anarchists and marxists who want to do away with states/countries all together. How is that a hateful way of thinking considering how states have caused so much harm to humanity? Not just Israel, but all states regardless of who is ruling them.

[whosinpower]

60. It is not hateful - but

It is entirely stupid, miopic and delusional. You are denying human nature. In all our written and oral history, human nature demands and requires leadership of one form or another. From the smallest clan, or group - a family - there is always a leader. And that leader holds power.

Abolish the state, the nation, abolish the laws to maintain society.....and someone, or a group of someones WILL fill the void. That has always been the way - always. Who will fill that void? The guy who has the most strength of arms....don't believe me? Take a look at any area in the world where the state is inherantly weak - and warlords take over, maintain their own little "empire" by any means they can......they enslave children to fight for them against their will...this is not the fault of capitalism.....this is human nature.

Even communities which live and thrive as a commune, where everyone works for the common good of all - has leaders. If that community did not "own" the land in which it worked - the community could not possibly survive....as an outside force might seek to "TAKE" the best land, the most resources away. All land is not equal in its riches or resources. It has happened in the far past, in all the anals of history, it has happened in the recent past - and without a doubt - it would happen again. Capitalism is not the fault of this.

Capitalism is not perfect by any stretch. Statism/nationalism/nationhood is not perfect either....but throw out the baby with the bathwater.....and you are left with nothing but chaos.

But, no it is not hateful to dream and wish for such things.....it is incredibly stupid and regressive. If you want to empower workers, the best way is to abolish money....and replace that with a universal value of labour.

[shira]

62. Excellent points! n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

22. No, yr criticism has been constructive, imo...

You've exerted a bit of effort in explaining why you don't like Mondoweiss, and while I don't totally agree, I can understand where yr coming from. Poor Mr Chomsky gets attacked a lot. I've been participating in this forum for a long time and there's been times when he's been attacked unmercifully here at DU as well. I don't get what leads to the vitriol aimed at him by those who disagree with him...

[ilaughatrightwingers]

24. It's the "I'm-more-radical-than-you" thing

It's the same reason a lot of dogmatic marxists and primitivists attack Prof. Chomsky. It's all a big game to see who is the most "radical". They hate him on MW because he thinks we should be focused on making Israel go back to its pre-1967 borders while all the MW people want Israel gone. I can understand; I want all states and all borders off the face of the earth too! But it's just not going to happen under the current conditions. The people on MW are so dogmatic and (yes) sometimes hateful enough that they isolate more people than they help. It's like those social theorists who spend all their time on theory for why things are the way they are and not enough time on coming up with ways to help people for the time being.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. A fine sentiment, but not a sensible conclusion.

The *hatred* (as opposed to the violence) in the Middle East has no chance of ending for as long as Israelis try to defend the foundation of their country and refuse to admit that - like Australia, the USA, etc - it was a massive crime against the natives. The "there are two narratives" claim has to be met with the point that one of them is simply untrue.

But - just like Australia and the USA - Israel has existed for long enough that destroying it is no longer morally justifiable (although amalgamating it into a single larger state conceivably might be). And Israelis moving to the occupied territories is no substitute for letting Palestinians back to their homes in what is now Israel.

I *do* think that it's deeply immoral for Jews to take advantage of Israel's racist immigration laws to move there and claim citizenship, though, and calling that "homecoming" when people who were actually born there, as opposed to sharing an ethnicity with some people who lived there a couple of millenia ago, is utterly obscene.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

35. Would agree but...

I don't think Mr. Glatzer's premises are sensible either. His views in this case seem VERY authoritarian. By his logic, the only way activists can avoid "selling out" is by giving up their current lives and agreeing to live like the people they fight for. Okay, I could understand getting a job at a restaurant and then working with the other workers to unionize, but giving up things you were lucky enough to have been born with seems pretty useless.

[Dick Dastardly]

65. The immigration laws in Israel are not racist they are similar to that of many countries

including liberal democracies.

Many other countries have preferential treatment to those with ethnic ties. Some examples are Germany, Serbia, Greece, Japan, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Chile, Poland, Armenia, Russia, China, Romania, and Finland. Laws that give preferential treatment are common and consistent with international law, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination , which allows for preferential immigration treatment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_laws

The Law of Return is not the only one way of acquiring citizenship. Israels residency and citizenship laws for non-Jews that are equivalent to those in other liberal democracies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. How many countries have right of return laws based on ethnicity rather than geography?

And how many discriminate in favour of foreigners with no connection to the state except their race and against natives?

[ilaughatrightwingers]

67. Most discriminatory immigration laws are based on class, not race

That's why lower-income immigrants or immigrants from poorer countries are often "kept out" or "kept illegal" while immigrants from wealthier countries (like Europe) or whom serve a political purpose (like Cuban or Iranian "refugees") are let in willy-nilly.

[ProgressiveMajority]

38. Great article. Palestine had a few Jews in 1900

And they have every right to be there, but most of the israeli population should go back to their home countries, the idea that any Jew from any country moving to Israel today is comming home denies the true residents of the area, namely the palestinian people. A lot of Israelis actually came from Iraq, Egypy, Morocco and so forth and rather than imposing on Palestine they should request their former homes in those middle eastern countries or compensation instead.

Actually, the 1948 war and 67 war were justifiable in the sense they were efforts at returning the land to its rightful owners.

[oberliner]

39. Most of the israeli population should go back to their home countries?

You actually believe this?

[ProgressiveMajority]

49. Since Helen Thomas said it, I've thought about it and she was right

Most of the population of Israel has its origins in Europe or middle eastern countries. They are essentially occupying land which belongs to Palestinians. That was the point of this article and that was what Helen Thomas was pointing out. Justice would mean that the land goes back to its rightful owners, if they decide that the people illegally occupying it can stay, that's up to them.

[proteus_lives]

52. Keep dreaming.

Neither you nor Helen will see Israel destroyed, no matter how much you dream of it.

[oberliner]

53. You are talking about forcibly relocating millions of people from their homes

And moving them to countries that in most cases they (and most likely their parents) have never even set foot in.

Can this really be what you (and Helen Thomas?) are proposing?

[LeftishBrit]

57. Exactly. And also how do you get all these other countries to take them in?

As I said in another post, would people try to relocate all white Americans to Europe, so as to leave the country to the Native Americans?

[Jim Sagle]

40. Helen, is that you?

[ilaughatrightwingers]

41. Arab Jews are the biggest zionist-nationalists

No joke. I went to school in a very Jewish area, and I can say the biggest Israel supporters were always Jews whose families were from Morocco, Yemen, Syria, and other Arab countries, and Iran.

[txaslftist]

44. the 1948 war and 67 wars were justifiable?

the 1967 war was started by Israel.

[ProgressiveMajority]

50. True, just the 48 war was justifiable then n/t

[whosinpower]

45. I cannot agree with this

I do not agree at all with this position. The Israeli people should not be forced to leave - period. Neither should the palistinian people - period.

I also take the position that the settlers should not be forced to leave the West Bank should a peace agreement take place. Nor should their existance set out where the borders will be. Where they are should make no difference whatsoever to the final border. If the settlement falls within palistinian territory - those settlers face a choice - they can stay, and pay rent to the PA on the land they lease - or they can leave, and sell the property, but not the land. They would no longer be protected by the IDF as citizens of Israel - but it would be THEIR CHOICE. No one should be forced to leave against their will. If they want to participate in the palistinian politic - they should be allowed to provided that they become palistinian citizens.

If there are Arab neighborhoods that fall within the final Israel border - the exact same position should be applied to them - but the choice is theirs, and theirs alone to make. If they are Israeli citizens - the state should not be allowed to divest them of citizenship just because they are not jewish.

[LeftishBrit]

48. Good post; I agree.

[LeftishBrit]

47. 'They should request their former homes in those middle eastern countries or compensation instead.'

And good luck with them getting that!

'but most of the israeli population should go back to their home countries'

The home country of most Israelis nowadays is Israel. Most of them were born there.

[ProgressiveMajority]

51. Why should the Palestinians give up the rights to their land for what other Arabs did?

It just doesn't compute. Even if the middle eastern countries which "expelled" Jews deny it to this day, it does not justify immorally occupying Palestinian land.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

54. You took the words right out of my mouth

The other Arab countries treating the Palestinians like dirt doesn't justify Israel treating them like dirt, any more than the USA invading Iraq would justify Iran invading Canada.

[LeftishBrit]

56. I agree that it doesn't

I am completely against the Occupation, and in favour of a Palestinian state, and completely against such actions as OCL.

However, demanding that Israelis who were *born* in Israel itself should just'go home' is (a) ethnic cleansing; (b) totally unrealistic. Neither the Europaean or Arab states are likely to take large numbers of Israeli refugees, even if the latter can prove that their grandparents were born in these states.

Should Americans be required to 'go home' to Europe and give their country to the Native Americans?

[ProgressiveMajority]

63. Bad analogy

Do most native American descendants want us all to leave? No. Actually, Native Americans seem to generally favor more open and accepting immigration policies.

The Palestinians on the other hand have clearly stated they don't want Israel there... judging by the popularity of Hamas many support armed efforts at restoring justice in Palestine.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

64. I think you forget

Many Hamas officials have said Israel's existence is inevitable, even though they don't agree with it.

[txaslftist]

42. No.