One correction I wish to make is that when I said the Palestinians have a legal right of return, I should say may have. Because I just came across an article today, which stated that Palestinians do not have a legal right of return under international law. The article is here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/24/right-of-return-isn-t-absolute.html

It states:

The Palestinian Right of Return (RoR) is based on three points: a UN General Assembly resolution, which does not have the force of international law, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both of the latter documents guarantee return to one’s home country, not to a specific town, much less a house. Thus, return behind the Green Line is not necessarily a requirement under international law—the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem were and are also Palestine.

I will have to do more research on the topic.

@Some Guy,

If the Israelis are committing genocide against the Palestinians, they are doing a very poor job of it because, the Palestinian population is increasing year after year in the West Bank and Gaza according to the UN
http://www.un.org/popin/regional/escwa/popbull/bull43/chapter2.htm

Unfortunately that data stops at 1995 I believe. However in 2011 the Palestinian population grew to 3,736,210 from 1,094,000
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrights.html#9

A better term of what happened may be ethnic cleansing, but the data doesn’t prove genocide.

Given what Jews were put through the Holocaust one cannot really fault any Jewish Holocaust victim for desiring the destruction of Germans at that time

In the same light, given what the Palestinians ARE BEING PUT THROUGH (present tense: as in it is happening as we speak!) it is ridiculous for anyone to demand they brush up on morality

Sorry but if GENOCIDE is happening on any people, then only a callous being would demand they water down their contempt for the very people who are committing the GENOCIDE against them

Hamas and Hezbollah are FULLY JUSTIFIED in their sentiments, given the horrors that Israel has visited on Lebanon and Palestine respectively

The notion that both sides need to be held accountable really does not fly when one is doing the GENOCIDE and the other are the victims

It is like asking a woman who is being raped, not to show contempt for her rapist, while the rape is actually going on. And again emphasis on the present tense since Israel’s genocide *IS* happening as we speak

Wa-aleikum as-salaam, @Géji:

First, you do not have to apologize for taking the time to study for an exam. The exam is at a certain point in time, while I can wait.

Second, it is a bit funny that you criticize another poster for flip-flopping. It seems here that you said that we have to recognize the grievances of the other side in Palestine/Israel, but now dismiss those of one side without much explanation. I know that you did not have much time, but I think that it would be useful to see why you disagree with what I presented.

Third, let me respond to the area of what I presented that you seem to disagree with. You quote me with regard to the 1947 UN vote and respond as follows: “‘One side accepted that, and promised to allow everyone the opportunity to stay in their homes. The other called for war and explicitly called for ethnic cleansing’ – is simply preposterous, utterly absurd, and I gotta admit, I did not expected that from you JSB, what you’re saying here flies in the face of reason.”

What is preposterous or absurd? I wrote that very carefully to be completely correct (as far as I know), but limited to presenting the Israeli point of view. The Jews did accept the 1947 UN vote, and the Arabs denounced it. The Jewish leadership said that if the Arabs accepted the plan, there would be no violence and no one would be attacked; the Arabs said that they would initiate a war, and many did clearly call for ethnic cleansing of Jews. (The Arabs also were the ones to first escalate the violence. In part that was because they wanted to show that the UN plan was unworkable and was not accepted by the population. And in part it was because the British were not letting either side take territory from the other, so the most potent attacks were on supply routes. Because the Arabs were living all over the area, most Arab villages would have had numerous supply routes to other Arab population centers and it would have been pointless to attack them, while many Jewish settlements had only one supply route to other Jewish population centers, making them more vulnerable to a successful attack and seige.)

Now, you can rightly say that what I presented leaves out facts such as that the UN decision did not follow the wishes of the Palestinian people. You can also correctly say that ultimately, there was a war in which 80-90% of the Palestinians living in Israel lost their homes. But, I still believe that what I said was correct, though limited to present one side’s views and grievances, which is what you said has to be recognized.

In any case, study for your exam. If you have an interest in responding before the exam, that is great. But if it makes more sense for you to study now and respond later, then study and do well on the exam. I still think that what I presented about the Israeli position is accurate, but limited in that it does not include facts that would make the Israeli side uncomfortable. Still, I am happy to hear anything you or anyone else says that may prove me wrong.

Good luck on your exam, Géji!

Asalaamu-alaikum @Just Stopping By. I’m sorry for the late reply, I’m kind-of short on time because of my own fault to put up studying for an exam at the last minute, just two days before it. But I’ll try and make this brief, and I much rather reply to you than the flip-flop above you, btw, why did you beetlejuice? (lol), but typical as expect of beetlejuice to flip-flop right-away and “reappear” while giving one face-side earlier saying one thing the minute before to do an about-face the next, (lol), I guess Garibaldi put-it best. But anyway akhi, there are alot of what you said representing “the other side” that I completely disagree with, and although I don’t have much time going through them all one by one, as it will require long responses, I’m sure at some point during our “stay” on LW they’ll come-up again, as this “issue” seem bound to come-back regardless how one may try to avoid it. — But I’ll say this though, on the 1947/48 “episode”, nor the British imperialist dictators and their crappy “UN” whatever -(btw, “UN” still being a sham-crappy organisation always under imperial boots)-, nor the at-the-end-much-hated-throughout-the-Arab-world “Ottoman rulers”, represented the Palestinian people, and nor did any of those shameful dictators asked the permission of those ordinary people that inhabited the land, if they were okey to share their land with immigrants from other countries. Did those immigrants flee from oppression happening in their homelands? yes. Almost exterminated in their homelands? yes. In need of safe refuge? yes. BUT, nonetheless, immigrants that came in a land that were already occupied by others, thus only logical and deserving would have been if those-(i.e., inhabitant) were asked their opinion about it. If that would have happened and the things the immigrants were fleeing better explain to them, that they were fleeing oppression and extermination from their homeland in Europe, maybe things would have been different and we would be where we are today, Who knows? But instead, foreign dictators decided of their fate, exposing them to dangers and conflicts they never ask for, nor are they the ones that committed the atrocity the immigrants were fleeing. I don’t think Palestinians were opposed to Jews coming and living among them, in order to be close to where Judaism started, as I’ve heard that during the Muslim ruling of Palestine, Jews from different parts of the world at different stages, came to Palestine and settled without Muslims having much problems with-it. But this time they opposed the way it happened, and the forced crabbing of their lands without their permission. JSB, whether you like it or not, it must be admitted that that had happened precisely à la America, Canada, Australia, by cruelly “conquering” and by force crabbing the land from their indigenous owner. And to say that, quote: – “One side accepted that, and promised to allow everyone the opportunity to stay in their homes. The other called for war and explicitly called for ethnic cleansing” – is simply preposterous, utterly absurd, and I gotta admit, I did not expected that from you JSB, what you’re saying here flies in the face of reason. But I’ll finish with this, no matter how hard we try, or debate about it, there is no chance of changing the past, neither Jews nor Muslims can do that, although we wish we could we cant, its too late and it’s gone, so I think what we should concentrate right-now is the future, we both Muslims and Jews cannot deny that there IS an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians going on right now, in the present, 2012. So, where do the Jews and the Muslims go from there? What are their solutions to this problem they’re facing? How are they going to handle in order to finally give, a well-deserved peace between the 2 communities, and a long-awaited liberation for Palestinians, and a long-awaited peace of mind and security for the Jews of the Middle-East? I think those are questions that both communities need to address my akhi. And I think you remember that I’ve already stated that Jews and Muslims are similar in many ways in term of religion, and since it seem both are bound on having religious out-look on things earth, in meaning that the religious side of both communities seem to be still the strongest, thus I think that to be positive for them, for in such case then the similarities out-weight the differences, and that means that there are much common ground open to solve the difficulties. Jews and Muslims can and did live together in peace before, so there is absolutely no reason why they will not in future. So JSB, let’s work for the future in bringing the brethren community closer. — Asalaamu alaikum akhi.

@Just Stopping By says: “While the Hamas charter does not have a line that calls for the genocide of the Jews”

So then what are we talking about here exactly? If there isn’t a single line calling for “genocide of Jews”, then why then smear them as if they are? why smear them as if their charter include explicit lines that “seek genocide of Jews”? and why smear them in ways that suggest they “seek genocide” of all Jews solely based for them being Jews?

“it’s hard to read it as rejecting peace talks and promoting war until the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel is mostly eliminated or perhaps somehow otherwise dealt with.”

Again JSB, it depend on how you read it, they claim otherwise, they claim their struggle is only against those that are oppressing their people and forcing them out of their ancestral lands by means of ethnic-cleansing.

> “The fact is that there are very peaceful Palestinians in the mold of Mandela and very violent ones as well”

Although it’s funny how this amnesia about the history of the struggle against Apartheid display, very funny indeed, and maybe perhaps most optimistic for Palestinian resistant movement, on how now all of a sudden, Nelson Mandela after his glorious victory against Apartheid, become “anti-violence” and “peaceful” resistant leader, when in fact we all remember not that long ago he was called “terrorist” both by the Apartheid-lords and their western cheerleaders. Nonetheless, I agree with you, that in the Palestinian resistance there are those that engaged in unhelpful violence in response to violence, and although one can argue that violence is unacceptable and never helped but escalate, so did Mandela as well engaged in armed resistance, and the same can be said of all oppressed people throughout history that tried to resist injustice, some resort to violence means in response to the violence and repression they face, it’s humanly natural, and to expect all must be “Ghandhis” is simply hypocritical in terms of naked aggression. As I’ve said, Nelson Mandela too pick-up arm to resist, so it’s not “exceptional”. But I totally agree that Hamas organisation must abandon the violent means and disgusting rhetoric, if they want to represent better their people in their struggle, before another 2009 Gaza horror repeat happens.

> ” And I say that as someone who supports an independent Palestinian state, so this is not out of any desire to deny Palestinians their right to self-determination. But supporting Palestinian statehood does not mean that one has to deny the nature of any group that also supports that goal.”

I understand where your concerns are coming from, nor would I minimize them in anyway, but you also have to understand there’s no way minimizing either what Palestinians are going through, or that Hamas as well are part of those who are daily oppressed, in fact born because of it, and you also have to understand as well that Muslims too are very concern of “the nature” of the extremist wing of Zionism that uses Judaism and Jewish scripture to justify and further a worrisome agenda that Muslims of that part of the world may as well interpret as “seeking the genocide of Muslims”. So I think the end game here can only come when both Muslims and Jews come together, addresses their respective grievances and stop the extremists on all camps. But I deeply thank-you for your support of the Palestinians liberation and their right to self-determination. — Salaam

@Géji says, “> “The Hamas Charter seeks the genocide of the Jews.” Fake, fake, fake, and fake …”

Géji, perhaps people who think that is true are influenced by Hamas’ decision to include the following in its charter:

“For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, …”

“Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

“[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”

“I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill”

“The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone.”

“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”

“but more steps need to be taken by the Arab and Islamic peoples and Islamic associations throughout the Arab and Islamic world in order to make possible the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war.”

These quotes are taken from a pro-Palestinian site, http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html. If you know of a more accurate translation, I am happy to consider it.

While the Hamas charter does not have a line that calls for the genocide of the Jews, it’s hard to read it as rejecting peace talks and promoting war until the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel is mostly eliminated or perhaps somehow otherwise dealt with. The fact is that there are very peaceful Palestinians in the mold of Mandela and very violent ones as well; and the same can be said of any nationality.

But if we’re talking about the Hamas charter, that organization is unabashedly pro-violence, so much so that they literally reject all peace initiatives, call for killing, and oppose there being a country with a Jewish population in Palestine. For me, it’s hard to see that as anything other than a somewhat veiled call for genocide (or at best ethnic cleansing).

And I say that as someone who supports an independent Palestinian state, so this is not out of any desire to deny Palestinians their right to self-determination. But supporting Palestinian statehood does not mean that one has to deny the nature of any group that also supports that goal.