Palestinian Explusion from Israel

I've come to the conclusion that the Palestinian people should be expelled from Israel (which, by the definition I'm using, includes the Palestinian Territories). Why, you may ask? Well:
People have two options: they can believe that homogenous regions of the world should not exist or they can believe that some homogenous regions should be allowed. China is a largely homogenous region. As is Japan, South Korea, North Korea, etc. Religiously, the Middle East is among the most homogenous places on Earth. In some countries nearly 100% of the population is Muslim. In places such as Iraq and Yemen, the traditional non-Muslim population has fled the country in recent years, making these countries more homogenous. Syria perhaps is experiencing this as well.
So if the Middle East is allowed to be homogenous without any strong action being taken to diversify the region, WHY THE *expletive* can't Israel do the same? It'd be the world's only Jewish state, a homogenous safe haven for Jews. If one ethnicity is allowed to have its very own country, why not another? Considering that having an entirely different religion is very much so something that makes you a target whenever you're the minority, why not have a special place where your religion is the majority? Until the rest of the Middle East diversifies itself, it'd have absolutely no right to attack Israel for doing so.
Basically it creates a power imbalance to allow group A to expel group B from its country(s) while not allowing group B to expel group A from its country, especially whenever group B is a minority group.

Dassault Papillon: Essentially you are arguing that if Muslim nations can do something, then Israel should be able to do it too.

Blackflag: Yeah, basically. It creates an unfair advantage for the Islamic nations to be able to do this and not Israel. Even if their governments aren't the ones doing it (for instance, let's say it's terror groups that are responsible for this) the end result is still the same.

Dassault Papillon: So, first of all, I think in most of these cases the history is rather relevant. The last person with an active policy of homogenizing his populating - that is, kicking out anyone of another culture and killing anyone who didn't - was a man named Adolf Hitler, former leader of Germany. Jews don't like him very much because Hitler killed somewhere between 4-6 million of them, according to most estimates. Hitler was - a fact Israel conveniently likes to forget - one of the biggest Zionists in the world, occasionally even more so than America. The biggest opponents of Zionism were the British, who had rather a lot of say in the matter because the British owned the land.

The Palestinians are, by and large, right when they say that their culture settled the land much earlier than the zionists did. However, the relative prosperity of modern Israel can be put down largely to the arrival of the first Jewish settlers in the mid 1870s. At the time, Israel was controlled by the Ottoman Turks, whose relatively overbearing muslim presence kept the peace. By the 1890s, Jews were a majority in Jerusalem, and practically nowhere else. The British seized control as per the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement after WW1, and actively discouraged Zionism. It got to the point where, shortly before WW2, the British actually established a military blockade around Israel to prevent Jews from coming in. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were mercilessly slain by the Russians in this period. However the British policy also kept the peace, because the Palestinians began becoming nationalistic, and rioted frequently. Nonetheless, in 1929, there was a rather large riot by Palestinians because of a believed religious transgression by the Jews. 133 Jews died, and 110 Arabs were also killed, mostly by the British. It's worth noting, however, that stories of those riots are also filled with other stories of benevolent Arabs, who provided shelter for the mobs of Jews who fled cities like Hebron.

These events, in my view, nudged the British towards accepting an immediate Zionist solution. Before they could enforce one, however, the Arabs became inspired by Nazi propaganda and upset by their loss of their power in Palestine. Much like you're advocating right now, they led a revolt, known as the Arab Revolt, in 1936, and seized control of the state of Israel, with the explicit aim of driving out the Jews. The Nazis responded by proposing the Madagascar Plan, and began shipping Jews to Madagascar. The Americans kept their stance of a Jewish state in Israel (being a rather dogmatic lot), the Russians kept their stance of killing the Jews, and the British sealed the border entirely, shipping any Jews they caught to the Mauritius Islands. The British also demanded of all sides that within 10 years, a joint Jewish-Arab government be founded, and Palestine gain independance.

In the second world war, tensions again came to a head. While the nazis were killing jews en mass, the arab leaders actually supported the nazis. The jews likewise attempted to support the british. In both cases, however, the british and the nazis rejected that support. In 1944, the British did allow a small group of Jews to fight in Italy, but it was a token at best by that point. Also, the jews in Israel were particularly affected by the deaths of other jews in the middle east, such as the coup in Iraq.

If you look at the environment in which the state of Israel was founded, it's hardly surprising that they adopted much the same mindset. Israel was not founded peacefully. The Zionists actually terrorised the British to gain independence. It culminated in the King David Hotel bombing, which killed 91 people. To my knowledge, the tactics used by the Zionists in this insurgency were not in use by the Arabs of the time - the modern Muslim idea of random bombings in large gatherings to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies was, most apparently, copied from the Zionists in that conflict. The British attempted to impose a curfew, but it didn't go very well. Jews attempting to enter Palestine - mostly Holocaust survivors - were imprisoned by the British. The British also banned UN representatives from Palestine. All these moves angered the US, who among other measures, delayed loans to the British (which kinda sucked for the British because, having just fought a huge war, they needed money).

The General Assembly of the UN held a vote on the matter, which established the infamous partition plan. Immediately following the vote, Arabs and Jews immediately began fighting. The Israeli War of Independence, which ran through 1947-1948, saw the Israeli Defence Force overrun most of Israel, far more than the UN had actually sanctioned. Over the next year, Israel began a major programme of population control that bordered on genocide. Almost three quarters of a million Palestinians were evicted from Israel, forced onto the West Bank (which was claimed by Jordan) or the Gaza Strip (which was claimed by Egypt). The palestinians were pretty clearly being ghettoised. That led to the creation of the UNRWA, as the international community immediately recognized that the Israelis were doing exactly the same thing the nazis did.

That's the past. As Churchill once said, and I paraphrase, those who do not study the past are condemned to repeat it.

If you think about who the most popular Palestinian dude is, the answer would most probably be Yassar Arafat. The fact is that most ordinary palestinians today are not Hamas members, and not nationalists. However, they are judged for the same. Gaza in particular literally cannot maintain their population without smuggling across the border. In the most recent major conflict, Israel bombed hospitals and schools with no regard for human life. The laws of war are clear, and they violated them repeatedly.

Who are the allies of the Palestinians? Certainly not Jordan. Jordan has not only provided military support to Israel against Palestine, but also killed tens of thousands of them personally in the years since. Certainly not Egypt, who after the six day war, know they cannot provide any support even if they want to. And Lebanon? They have their own troubles to deal with, and besides which, 75% of Lebanese follow a different religion (which tends to matter rather a lot in those parts - though it's worth noting Lebanon is one of the most religiously diverse countries in the Middle East). Internationally, open solidarity for Palestine is weak at best. Israel has essentially one ally whom they are yet to burn bridges with, but it is a powerful one - the United States.

If the answer is to be the expulsion of Palestinians, then Israel needs to answer the question of where they will go.
If the answer is to be the deaths of Palestinians, that blood is on Israel's hands.
If the answer is to be some kind of peace, that's good for everyone.

The current generation isn't the same as people were in the 1940s. They can do things differently.

It's interesting to me, watching Press TV sometimes, they love Jews. But of course, they only love Jews who follow THEIR anti-zionist ideology. Iran has made their position pretty clear: a few Jews dotted around their country are totes ok, it's Israel who suck. I don't think any other nation makes that distinction particularly well. In Israel the same is reported something like: "Iran media says we suck; express anti-semitic sentiments". Which is totally crazy, but it makes you think.

Is there another nation in the middle east that is ghettoizing a population of millions of people like that?

And even if there was, would we consider that legitimate if it was, say, Iran doing it?

admin: These wall posts are ridiculous.

admin: The issue here is not that the Palestinians are so terrible. The issue here is that it's unfair to ask the Israelis to play by rules which give them a handicap, especially whenever their enemies/rivals are not following these same rules.
As you have pointed out, the Palestinians would have a hard time resettling (I'm not proposing mass extermination). As the Syrian crisis has shown, the Arab world overall is not willing to take in millions of Arab refugees (it should be Middle Eastern countries which are shouldering most of the refugee burden instead of Europe). This is by far the greatest pitfall. Though the Arab nations aren't showing such consideration, it wouldn't do to drop the Palestinians in the middle of a desert and go "hope ya' make it". The Arab nations should be willing to take in millions of Palestinian refugees. The refugees can be distributed along many countries (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Jordan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iran, etc).

Can we stop indulging Palestinians need for attention?

If the Arab nations re-diversified themselves then this needn't be the case, but even so Israel should remain a Jewish majority nation (with the Arab population being in the minority).

Dassault Papillon: So, yeah, I'm a fan of Arab nations playing by the rules. And it would be unfair if the Israelis were the only ones playing by those rules. But they aren't is my point. They're a state moulded by violent, nationalist conflict.

Blackflag: Why? Would you prefer threads about Tibet?

admin: Yes

Who are the allies of the Palestinians? Certainly not Jordan. Jordan has not only provided military support to Israel against Palestine, but also killed tens of thousands of them personally in the years since.

Well another popular option is to have Palestine be reintegrated into Jordan again. I suppose that at least half of Arabs throughout the Middle East are in favor of Arab union.

Blackflag: I think the biggest opponents of that would be Jordan themselves.

admin: Hard to believe a nation would turn down more land

Love Jordan by the way, and their hot progressive queen!

Blackflag: More land, no.

More people, yes.

admin: So that means no to their tax dollars and manpower as well?

Blackflag: I think Jordan views Palestinians more as a liability. I think in this respect, they sympathize with Israel more than anyone.