There is no proposal on the Israeli side to kill everyone in the territories. This is a gross misrepresentation of the Jewish Right Wing in Israel and I do not think it is either accurate or NPOV. The only "radical" solution proposed is forced or voluntary transfer in its many variations and forms, including transfering political representation of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs from Israel to Jordan or swapping land with heavy Arab populations in Israel for land in the territories so the Palestinian Arabs have continuoua territory.
All of these are methods discussed. I have never heard any discussion on the Israeli side from individuals who are credible on the Right or Far Right, in Israel giving any consideration of committing genocide against the Palestinian Arabs. Neither Kach, Herut, Moledet, Likud, NRP, Shas, or any right wing party has ever mentioned genocide as something to seriously follow. If you can provide information counter to my objections, I will withdraw it, until then, I believe this article needs more work and I intend to correct it.
--Guy Montag
Done the first part of this article - I'll add more material at the weekend (hopefully!). Comments welcomed. -- ChrisO 18:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Great start, don't stop now. Btw, I wonder if you know anything about a binational proposal made by Chaim Weizmann in 1930. According to a story in the NYT (Sep 14, 1930), Weizmann made the proposal at a meeting of the World Zionist executive committee in Berlin. I uploaded a scan. --Zero
Best page relating to the conflict this, IMO. —Ashley Y 12:01, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
This is a very good article. Two sentences confused me, though:
- Histadrut Secretary General I. Ben-Aharon, for instance, warned in a March 1973 article for The Jerusalem Post that Israel could have any real control over a binational state and that Israelis should be satisfied with a state already containing a sizable Arab minority -- that is, Israel proper.
Should that be could not have any real control?
- Some of those on the Israel right who were associated with the settler movement were willing to contemplate a binational state as long as it was not established on Zionist terms.
Should that be as long as it was established on Zionist terms. ?
BTW, Ashley, very interesting NYT article.
DRE 22:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why does the page Two state solution redirect to Binational solution. The two are not the same. The two states solution is not described in here. The matter of a Two state solution is critically important to Jordan [1].
I propose to remove the redirect within a week. Lance6Wins 21:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. The two state solution is the exact opposite of the binational solution. —Ashley Y 21:40, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
"Kill the Arabs"
The points of view from of the Jews should be showed clearly and not hidden.[2] "The spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, has provoked outrage with a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs. "It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable," he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover. " Abdel Qadir 03:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Although one must keep in mind, that this is a radical and extremist view point; just like radical and extremist Muslims and Arabs that share a similar view towards Jews. Not all Jews and Israelis share this view; just like not all Arabs share this view. One must keep in mind, such an attempt, coming from either side shall be recognized internationally as genocide. --Agari 07:28, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- This was evidence for Mr. 128.120.185.31 who thinks that Jews are not wanting to kill Arabs. Abdel Qadir 17:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Shas spokesman, Yitzhaq Suderi defended the rabbi, saying his remarks referred only to "Arab murderers and terrorists" and not the Arab people as a whole. From the same article [3]
As you can see this was just a passionate way or can be considered a passionate way of railing against Arab terrorists, not all Arabs. On the other side, I can produce about several hundred sermons, PA television commercials, Hamas political statements and statements from the majority of the Palestinian political spectrum about wanting to wipe out Israel. The statement of one man, who may have or may not have called for the anihilation of Arabs, a call that may or may not have constituted a call to wipe out Arab terrorist groups (as opposed to a policy that the Israeli Right sees right now as weak) is not definite proof that the entire "extremist" Right considers seriously committing genocide against Arabs. Even Meir Kahane, considered the most extreme Israeli Right Winger, didnt no support genocide but forced transfer.
We need to come to an agreement on phrasealogy here.
- The spiritual leader of the Israel Shas party calls for annihilation of the Arabs. That is a fact from BBC supporting edit that Israelis call for killing or deporting Arabs. Abdel Qadir 23:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And this fact from the same BBC article says that you are WRONG.
Shas spokesman, Yitzhaq Suderi defended the rabbi, saying his remarks referred only to "Arab murderers and terrorists" and not the Arab people as a whole. From the same article [4]
I just provided proof that he does not support the anihilation of the Arabs but Arab terrorists. You ignored this because you want to equalize to different nationalists together. You want to equate Hamas with the Israeli nationalists when they are two different groups with totally different methodology and goals. As I've said before, Ovadia Yosef called for the destruction of terrorists, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel. One man does not legitimize the idea of genocide in the eyes of the Israeli Right wing. From my entire reading, and as a nationalist myself, I have never read or heard from anyone who supported anything more "extreme" than forced tranfer.
- What is "forced transfer"? It means to force all millions of Palestinians out of their homeland or face death by Jews. That is what it means. Hamas also supports this kind of forced transfer of Jews out of Palestine. Same as same. Abdel Qadir 00:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You should read Category:Wikipedia official policy; especially Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Abdel Qadir 00:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Shas spokesman, Yitzhaq Suderi defended the rabbi, saying his remarks referred only to "Arab murderers and terrorists" and not the Arab people as a whole." [5]. This is clearly not a suggestion to murder all Arabs, nor was it made regarding a One-State solution. Moreover, it was a statement made in one speech, not as part of the official policy of any group. Please bring relevant policy from significant people or groups proposing killing all Arabs as part of a one-state solution. And "forced transfer" means forcing them to leave. It doesn't mean killing them. Jayjg 02:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Forcing Palestinians to leave their homeland is done only by violence and killing by Jews against Arabs. What else does "forcing" mean? It means using force, violence, and killing even more than now. Israel Shas Party spiritual leader is significant people and he calls for annihilation of all Arabs very clearly. His spokesmen says that only Arab terrorists should be killed by Jews but Jews think all Arabs are terrorists. Here is more evidence I can find for Jews policy of killing all Arabs by Jewish rabbis.
[6] A question for Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu and his response By: Attacking innocent Arabs Question What does Jewish Law say about attacks on innocent Arabs, and how to treat Arabs about whom we are unsure if they have participated in crimes and want to kill us or merely want to live in peace? Response I don't know if there are innocent Arabs now. Almost all of them are partners to the murder of innocents, including women and infants, or partners in preparing nail bombs to injure children. They are partners to incitement, whether implicit or public.
[7] Should righteous non-Jews be killed? By: Rabbi Shlomo Aviner Question We rail against the destruction and murder of innocents caused by terrorists in our country. But how is this protest compatible with what Jewish rabbis have taught us about “the duty to kill righteous non-Jews?” Is there a double standard between us and them? Answer It is true that our sages have taught us about the duty “to kill righteous non-Jews.” Anti-Semites have used this as a weapon against us for ages to accuse us of aggression and bloodshed, which is completely at odds with our nature… About 700 years ago, there was a debate between the apostate Nikolai Donin and Rabbi Yehiel. The latter responded that this saying was used in times of war. When you face an enemy, you do not need to discern whether as an individual he is a righteous person, for he is coming to kill you. Arise to kill him first who comes to kill you.
[8] During the days of Oslo, people, including Israelis, talked about the two-state solution, or if they did not like that, the one-state solution. But no one, except Hamas and Meir Kahane's Kach party, talked about the elimination of populations. Now that Oslo has come undone, however, certain Israelis (and Sharon has not divorced himself from them) have begun once again to contemplate what was started in 1948: actually getting rid of the Palestinians, moving them out. The plan, which is now euphemistically called "transfer," seems more plausible today than it did then, because of Israel's incomparably superior firepower. " Abdel Qadir 04:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abdel, this is a wikipedia article on Population transfer, which contrasts with a wikipedia article of Genocide, and ethnic cleansing. I hope you have a look at them.
- The Population transfer article says, "Given the logistics of a forced "transfer," it is widely thought of as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, which in turn, carries the connotations of violence and genocide." This is true. Since 1948, Israel tries to force Palestinians to leave Palestine by violence and genocide. Abdel Qadir 04:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You opinions that these are euphemisms are one thing, but you need to find a serious party or group which proposes a "transfer solution" that involves killing the Palestinians as well. Kach never talked about killing, just about transfer, and in any event was banned by the Israeli government as racist. Jayjg 04:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What does "forced transfer" mean? It means deportation of all Arabs using violence. If Palestinians refuse the Jews orders to leave, what is the result? Killing them. It is very clear. Forced transfer means leave Jews land or die. Same as Hamas says leave Arab lands or die. They are the same policy. I already gave evidence of Rabbis Yosef, Eliyahu, and Aviner saying Kill the Arabs. Jews are big murderers as Hamas. Same as same. Abdel Qadir 04:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As the descendent of victims of forced transfer (from Turkey to Greece), I can fairly clearly say that it is not synonymous with genocide. I can't particularly approve of it, but we're talking about two different things. --Delirium 04:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- This may be your opinion, but they are not synonymous. Unless they state they plan to kill Arabs, it's just your opinion. Jayjg 04:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What does "forced" mean? Abdel Qadir 04:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Pick them up, put them on buses, drive them over the border. Jayjg 04:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And if the people refuse Jews orders to leave their homeland, what kind of force are Jews using? Abdel Qadir 05:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I'm only speculating, but I imagine restraining them in some way. Jayjg 05:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delirium, there is no agreement on the meaning of genocide. If one believes that the Anatolian Greeks represented a distinct culture which differed from the dominant one in today's Greece, then the "population transfer" was absolutely genocide. The Anatolian Greek culture was extinguished; it no longer exists, as a direct result of the policy of the Turkish state. What is left is Greeks, in the Hellenic Republic and in the diaspora, with "-oglou" names. (FWIW, my familily is not Anatolian but Boeotian....)
If you believe that there is a Palestinian nation, then causing that nation to cease to exist, whether by massacre or by "population transfer", can be understood as genocide.
The problem is that genocide is normally taken to mean "a moral crime of the same order as the Holocaust", rather than used in its literal senses, and that is where politics and extreme passions get involved... —Tkinias 07:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)