Randomizer: Are you blind or just ignorant? Israel has claimed all the land of the old Mandate of Palestine and legally incorporated this land (along with the Golan Heights and except for the Gaza Strip) into its state. Have you ever heard of "Judea and Samaria" District? That's what Israel calls the West Bank. And many Zionists, including prominent Israelis like Netanyahu himself, continuously claim that this territory is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and shouldn't be abandoned. Instead, these 'lands' are being systematically occupied by Israeli settlers (read: colonists). Doesn't that concept sound a bit like claims that Manifest Destiny made it a duty for the U. S. to occupy and settle/colonize all the land from the Mississippi to the Pacific? But despite being occupied by Israel, Palestinians in "Judea and Samaria" (and Gaza when the latter was also being colonized) are not allowed Israeli citizenship. Were Native Americans allowed U. S. citizenship during the colonization of their lands? In large part, no. Instead, both Palestinians and Native Americans were confined to ever-smaller, cramped and remote 'reservations' and granted a convoluted "limited sovereignty" in their small tracts of land. See these images for illustration of the Palestinian 'reservations':
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/palestine_olmert_plan_maps.jpg
http://nabisalehsolidarity.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/israel-security-areas.jpg
http://greg.org/archive/hamilton_palestine_2.jpg
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Restricted_space_in_the_West_Bank_Area_C_1.png
Citizens of these fragmented and isolated Native American and Palestinian 'reservations' were both largely forbidden from leaving their designated tracts of land, even to visit other fragments. To 'protect' their settler-colonists from the encircled autochthonous natives, the invading/occupying authorities have repeatedly stormed both Native American and Palestinian 'reservations' to exact vengeance and (in the process) massacre civilians. And what of Native Americans or Palestinians who did become citizens of the encroaching state? Racially discriminatory legislation limited the rights of these (second-class) 'citizens' to housing, land, intermarriage, military service, political participation and education opportunities.

Israel has not claimed all of Mandatory Palestine. That would include Jordan.

Israel has not annexed the West Bank. It hasn't even annexed the settlements. All it's annexed is East Jerusalem. This may be a distinction without a difference, but if we're going to be precise we have to, well, be precise.

I don't find the Native American comparison very compelling, and I'm against the settlements. I also don't think you're coming from a place of good faith, since you refer to the Palestinian state which would have arise from the Olmert Plan as Palestinian "reservations." If you were interested in the truth, you'd post a link to that plan that works. Here's one.

http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-18/no.-6/olmerts-final-status-map/v18n6-map-westbankprojection.jpg

A Palestinian state, continuous in the West Bank, with border swaps. The plan wasn't perfect. That's part of the reason it failed. But if we're ever going to have peace, it's gonna look a lot like that. The fact that you throw this plan into your argument about "reservations" shows your lack of seriousness on the issue.

I don't mean to hide the ball on the Golan Heights. Israel has, for all intents and purposes, annexed it. But that's a dispute with Syria, and separate from the Palestinian question.

1. Trans-Jordan was a separate League of Nations Mandate.
2. I avoided the word 'annex' for that technicality. I'm not being imprecise in asserting that Israel is administering "Judea and Samaria" as part of its sovereign territory. Nor am I wrong in pointing out that many Israelis, including many in positions of power, somehow view the West Bank as an ancestral homeland which they are loathe to give up.
3. I was not referring to the Olmert Plan or any proposal currently on the table. I was referring to the current and historical reality on the ground. The maps I referred to detailed the current or historical reality.
4. Of course the parallel with Native American reservations is not perfect (not that you deigned to explain how). I listed quite thoroughly were they were similar – and in many respects they are strikingly similar. Many similarities also exist with the Bantustans. My comments were directed at Randomizer because Randomizer was acting as if there were no similarities: "If Israel had annexed all the land and made the Palestinians second class citizens living on reservations like the US did to the American Indians we wouldn't be having this discussion. . . . No, a Western country would have taken all the land and made it part of the state. The people in the captured territory would be citizens, but with less rights like . . .".

1. It was not. It was administered separately but still under the same mandate. It was even claimed by Revisionist Zionists for many years as part of Israel. If you're going to claim Israel today claims the whole of Mandatory Palestine then you're including Jordan.

2. You are imprecise to say Israel is administering it as part of its sovereign territory. It is not. It is occupied territory. Even Israel, which avoids using the word occupation, only calls it "disputed." It's a fine point, but an important one to really understand the situation.

As for Israelis viewing the land as their homeland. You're right.

3. Then why post a link to the Olmert Plan after you refer to the Palestinian condition as one analogous to Indian reservations?

4. They're superficially similar at best to reservations. Likewise to the bantustan comparison. We can criticize Israel's illegal actions in the West Bank without resorting to this sort of hyperbole.

1. The 1922 Mandate of Palestine was a multilateral international instrument passed by the Council of the League of Nations. Already in Article XXV of the Mandate of Palestine, "the territories lying between the Jordan [River] and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined" were given special status. The Council expanded upon this special status for Trans-Jordan later in 1922 to clarify how the 1922 Mandate of Palestine applied separately to Trans-Jordan and Palestine proper. So yes, from the beginning they were separate administrations originating from a single treaty which applied separately to and had different provisions for each bank of the Jordan River. As the years went by, power was further devolved to Trans-Jordan. I am perfectly aware that certain Zionists would like and would have liked Israel to be much larger, but that is a separate issue from what people mean when they refer to the historical territory and administrative entity known as the "Mandate of Palestine".

2. I thought I was being clear: I am not talking about the official classification of the West Bank by Israel or any other power. I am talking about the reality, and the reality is that "Judea and Samaria" are subject to Israeli laws, administered as part of the Israeli territorial subdivisions and occupied by the Israeli military. Frankly, claiming that the West Bank is 'disputed pending resolution of the conflict' or what not is a perfect excuse to operate with impunity under the assumption that the land is Israeli.

3. "http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/palestine_olmert_plan_maps.jpg", the least important, was included because the historical progression is quite comprehensive and accurate. "http://nabisalehsolidarity.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/israel-security-areas.jpg" was included to illustrate just how little land Israel recognizes as Palestinian and that even those islands are treated as legal fictions. "http://greg.org/archive/hamilton_palestine_2.jpg" was included for its well-researched and accurate illustration of Israeli- and Palestinian-occupied land in 2010 by the artist Richard Hamilton, complete with the highways bisecting Palestinian islands in the West Bank which most Palestinians can't travel on. "http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Restricted_space_in_the_West_Bank_Area_C_1.png" was included because it's an extremely detailed, clear and near-current map of the Israeli-occupied lands in the West Bank, complete with explanatory text.

4. I was responding to two comparisons. These were already put forward, so I did not "resort" to using a comparison but was elaborating on comparisons already used. Nor was I using hyperbole. The specific comparisons I made – which you still refuse to acknowledge – are scarily real and not significantly exaggerated. I will ignore you if you reply to this point again without referencing romantic land claims, denial of citizenship, unilaterally imposed limited sovereignty, enforced confinement to barren and/or crowded tracts of land, obstructed freedom of movement, repeated military incursions, high civilian casualties or second-class citizenship.

"Israel has not annexed the West Bank. It hasn't even annexed the settlements. All it's annexed is East Jerusalem. This may be a distinction without a difference, but if we're going to be precise we have to, well, be precise."

This here is the whole problem in sum. Invictus and other legal literalists thinks that so long as the ruling regime in Israel doesn't issue a formal proclamation legally annexing "Judea and Samaria", they haven't actually annexed the West Bank. But they've essentially annexed it in every other practical way, aside from ceding to Palestinians control of their major cities for which an Israeli occupation would be impractical. To pretend otherwise is to be part of the problem. There will never be a two-state solution. Israel, which has all the power, has never intended to honor any of their public statements and near-promises on the matter. Only the truly gullible - especially at this point - can believe otherwise.

"If you were interested in the truth, you'd post a link to that plan that works... A Palestinian state, continuous in the West Bank, with border swaps."

Invictus, let me ask you this: why do you think Israel is interested in giving territory to a future Palestinian state when 1) they view such a future state (largely due to believing their own propaganda) as an existential threat, 2) there is no real force - internal or external - compelling them to do so, and 3) they are going out of their way to encourage occupation of the future land of this future Palestinian state by Jewish fundamentalist settlers?

"4. Of course the parallel with Native American reservations is not perfect"

Au contraire - I think it very close to perfect. The only real differences are that Israel has no interest in bringing enlightened Israeli civilization to the Palestinians (through kidnapping Palestinian children and "re-educating" them in boarding schools/youth internment camps), and is perfectly willing to use them as the slave laborers that America was unwilling to permit in the West.

"If you're going to claim Israel today claims the whole of Mandatory Palestine then you're including Jordan."

There are plenty of Zionists who believe that the Kingdom of Jordan was maliciously "stolen" from the future Israel by evil British anti-Semites after the vague promise of the Balfour declaration. Generally, these are the same Zionists who believe Israel was defined in the Bible as all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates - which Israel has officially (but symbolically) claimed from time to time through coinage and other official tokens.

Tolstoy: "Au contraire - I think it very close to perfect." Thank-you for the compliment. I didn't see the +1 of my post, though. ;-)

For me, the main difference is demographical. Roughly 50% of Palestine + Israel is Palestinian Arab. For comparison, in 1860, Native Americans made up approximately 1% of the U. S. population. Of course, that difference only makes Israel look worse.

No one believes Israel should stretch from the Nile to Euphrates, Tolstoy. That's a disgusting antisemitic canard.

Harold, the jewelry and watch buyer, believes that your old Rolex is worth 35 cents.

Invictus: Ha ha. No one believes that Israel shoul annex Jordan either. But Zionists once did on both counts. To suggest otherwise is "disgusting antisemitic canard."

Russell "CASH MAN" Oliver has a great Shylock special. Go to one of his stores before the end of the month. Make a deal, that is, sell him some jewelry and/or a watch, then use the code word "Radio" and he will give you an extra TWENTY DOLLARS.

OH YEAH!!!

mapleleaf: Are those supposed to be antisemitic jokes? If so, they're not welcome here.

well they're not supposed to be funny jokes

This thread is full of sunshine and rainbows, not to mention sober cerebral political analysis and insightful information.

No wonder Zultar is no where to be found here. Keep up the good work, "mods".

I'd be on this big time if I were a real mod.

No. They are statements of fact. These are actual "businessmen in Toronto. Shylock is a Shakespearean character. obi-goebbels butchers the Bard regularly.

Is hijacking a thread now considered anti-Semitic?(I wouldn't be surprised)....lol.

http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/02/the_strange_world_of_torontos_cash_for_gold_stores/

Yes, I saw that much through Google. Is this about something earlier in the thread?

Is it REALLY necessary for me to explain "hijack a thread" to a long standing member?

He is going through the whole song and dance to use the terribly derogatory term shylock to piss me off because I know its anti-Semitic, he knows its anti semitic, but he knows that the mods don't consider anything less than HEIL HITLER anti semitic, a depth which he has dove to in the past but now he knows it gets him banned.

Yes, Clausowitz. It's all about you. lol. smh.

It absolutely is, I find it pathetic too, but thats what you do as a troll.

Ha ha ha ha. Oh, this is priceless.

A persecution complex.

I could knock this one SO FAR out of the park.....

mapleleaf either make good posts or just stop you're a huge embarrassment

Oh thank you SO MUCH, Mr. Chairman.

Why didn't someone tell me sooner?

He's got a point. The anti-Israel crowd that aren't hate-filled anti-semitic pieces of garbage like yourself bring up legitimate grievances against Israel, and your bullshit dilutes the message they're trying to make.

I've posted many relevant commentaries on the Middle East, you snotty cunt.

Let this be an unofficial warning. If there is another another case of anti-semitic slang used there will be a problem. Feel free to debate the situation in Gaza and Israel all you want. But making derogatory comments towards a people as a whole serves no purpose here, nor is it welcome.

Point out the anti-Semitic slang.