Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.

Indeed a bit hard to tell. Palestenian authorities, much like the current Israel government, is following a hard line. They don't want to give up anything. In fact, they want to reclaim back some of what they lost following 1948. If Palestenians aren't ready to abandon something important, even the more moderate political groups within Israel will not be willing to settle and they will lose everything.

epronovost wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.

Indeed a bit hard to tell. Palestenian authorities, much like the current Israel government, is following a hard line. They don't want to give up anything. In fact, they want to reclaim back some of what they lost following 1948. If Palestenians aren't ready to abandon something important, even the more moderate political groups within Israel will not be willing to settle and they will lose everything.

The other point to keep in mind is that the various incarnations of the governing authority in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately kept weak by Israel, they’ve never had the resources, firepower or manpower to actually go after groups like Hamas and other militants and stop them from attacking Israel. If the authorities had the ability to conduct counter terror operations Israel would likely consider the Palestinian authorities/police to be a threat and work against them. So the Palestinians are in a catch 22, unable to work against Hamas, even if that had popular support, and therefore unable to meet conditions Israel demands for negotiations, which is pretty much the way Israel wants it to be.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The other point to keep in mind is that the various incarnations of the governing authority in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately kept weak by Israel, they’ve never had the resources, firepower or manpower to actually go after groups like Hamas and other militants and stop them from attacking Israel. If the authorities had the ability to conduct counter terror operations Israel would likely consider the Palestinian authorities/police to be a threat and work against them. So the Palestinians are in a catch 22, unable to work against Hamas, even if that had popular support, and therefore unable to meet conditions Israel demands for negotiations, which is pretty much the way Israel wants it to be.

If Palestenians had a strong government, they would still be opposed to Israel and would have probably launched conventional warfare against it and would have more supports from regional allies like Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc. Israel is also in a catch 22. If there is a strong Palestenian authority, it threatens their sovereignty and existence. If they have a weak government, extremists within Palesteine have an easy job at taking control of the territory and treaten Israel with kidnappings, ambushes and attacks on civilians. If htere was an easy and obviously ''good'' solution, the regional actors would have already taken it.

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
True, Israel will only give it up if incentivized. Like the Sinai in exchange for peace. They removed the settlers for that. Palestine has little to offer however.

As I mentionned before, the only thing they can offer is reducing their territorial claims and hope that Israeli warmongers (and their allies in other nations) take a backseat to the more concilient Israeli politicians (West Bank colonists are very unpopular within the Israeli population). Namely, if they give up Jerusalem, Israel might give up the West Bank. If they recognise the State of Israel (including Jerusalem) and denounced Hamas (or other islamic groups) they might have a shot at negotiation. If they are waiting for the rest of the world to unite and defeat israel so they can recover all their land, they will lose everything. It's not going to happen if only because the social project of the Palestenian authority isn't attractive to Western powers.

True. If there waiting for US or there Arab freinds who see them as little more than a tool to bear Israel over the head with on a regular basis. We there mistaken.

In thr alliance terms and value gained... Israel. Advanced tech, cutting edge military gear, modern investments, start ups and a safe Western freindly zone in middle east.

Also access to territorial waters and... Potential Oil.

Palastinians. Well they got olives... Can throw stones well.
They have little tech or industry to leverage, they have few cards that carry international weight outside of token gestures.

Disciple of Fate wrote:Problem being Jerusalem is a dealbreaker. Giving up settlements in exchange for Jerusalem is too much for Palestine.

Jerusalem would be a hard sell. Kingdom of Heaven put it well.. What is worth.

"ervything... And nothing"

 Frazzled wrote:
What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.

I had a good response to this, but the forum screwed up and i don't want to re-write fifteen paragraphs again, so:

Israel has agreed to much, but delivered... not a lot.

No one ever asked the Palestinians to give up anything, they just took what they wanted, and threw them out of their homes, and murdered anyone who resisted or questioned, or protested. They tortured Americans, committed terrorism against British subjects, and shot Russians, and murdered their own people who protested..

And yet, a lot of people, for reasons frankly beyond me, think they're the good guys. Because they play the victim. I mean, my god, questioning the right of the Israeli state to butcher innocent people is itself considered anti-Semitic.

Let me ask a genuine question: How many of you supporting Israel in this would like to explain to me how murdering children with sniper rifles is protecting Israel? How is blowing away unarmed reporters a justifiable act? I have heard a whole lot of hyperbole about 'Oh, the Israelis are surrounded by people who hate them' well, yes, and you would be too if you slaughtered your neighbors relatives.

If you hold, as some do, that this is a war (despite not in any way meeting the international definition of it) then again, what has been going on are war crimes. Serious ones, not 'Oh, someone stole a culturally significant artifact' but 'Oh, we filled the streets with civilian bodies'.

If it's not a war, then this is murder by the state.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.

Okay now you are just being anti-semitic.

What? How? Jist because I said it was silly to exercise any sort of claim about where you used to live 2000 years ago?

I'd also like to know how that is even remotely anti-semitic, unless it's somehow anti-semitic to claim that the Exodus is a myth?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.

Okay now you are just being anti-semitic.

What? How? Jist because I said it was silly to exercise any sort of claim about where you used to live 2000 years ago?

I'd also like to know how that is even remotely anti-semitic, unless it's somehow anti-semitic to claim that the Exodus is a myth?

I fully support Israel in most cases, and even I believe that the Exodus is a myth

 Ustrello wrote:

I fully support Israel in most cases, and even I believe that the Exodus is a myth

Really?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10984606/Revealed-the-Palestinian-children-killed-by-Israeli-forces.html

This was just one operation in Gaza by Israel. in just one month

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

I fully support Israel in most cases, and even I believe that the Exodus is a myth

Really?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10984606/Revealed-the-Palestinian-children-killed-by-Israeli-forces.html

This was just one operation in Gaza by Israel. in just one month

That is a nice infographic with zero supporting evidence so good job

Also if it is true, I can hazard to guess why they were killed but since you protect Hamas every time you post baron I wouldn't put it past you to ignore it

 Ustrello wrote:

That is a nice infographic with zero supporting evidence so good job

Also if it is true, I can hazard to guess why they were killed but since you protect Hamas every time you post baron I wouldn't put it past you to ignore it

Actually I prefer Fatah. But bluntly, no, Hamas are terrorists, but the thing is, I see terrorism and religious fundamentalism as minor issues compared to war crimes and, legally speaking, attempts at genocide.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.

ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.

Which is cool and that, but how does that weigh with the rights of the people who were the not 2000 but 70 years ago.

I assume you're not 100% native American, are you going to go to Britain or Germany or Russia to claim your lost kingdom?

jouso wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.

ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.

Which is cool and that, but how does that weigh with the rights of the people who were the not 2000 but 70 years ago.

I assume you're not 100% native American, are you going to go to Britain or Germany or Russia to claim your lost kingdom?

Not to mention the fact that the Palestinians are descended of those same ancient populations that modern Israeli Jews claim descent of. From an ethnical point of view, modern Israeli Jews are mostly descended of populations that emigrated away from the Middle East millennia ago and then integrated and mixed with various other populations across the world (primarily European), while the Palestinians are the native population of the Middle East. They are descended of the people who stayed behind. It gets muddled a lot because people tend to use terms such as 'Jew' and 'Arab' as ethnic labels, while they in fact are not. 'Jews' are a religious and cultural group, but not an ethnic one. There is many different Jewish ethnicities and a Jew can be of any ethnicity. Similarly, 'Arabs' are a cultural and linguistic group, but not an ethnical one. Arabs are not one single people, they are actually many different peoples that just happen to share a single language and have cultural similarities because at one point in the past they were all conquered by Caliphs from Arabia who imposed their culture, language and religion on the peoples they conquered (both with varying degrees of success, considering the existence of non-muslim arabs and non-arab muslims). It is like people in Africa who were conquered by the English and speak English and have adopted English culture, but are not the same people as the English in England. Palestinians speak roughly the same language as Arabians and have adopted many aspects of Arabian culture, but they are not the same people.

jouso wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you call it fairytale books, that shows you understand nothing of religion and are really not qualified to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian question (or any question involving religion) in an intelligent manner.

Thanks for the ad hominem. Similarly I think that whoever puts religion higher than stuff such as property or other human rights is not qualified to be in any kind of position of power, but that's my personal belief.

I understand that religion is so important to some people that they're ready to inflict harm to others or themselves (to the point of death, if need be), plus some of the best historians of religion are atheists, so we'll have to disagree on that.

I've been to the all of the holy places spelled here out pure of historical intest (just like I've been to Yad Bashem and, being a wargamer, to Yad La-Shirom as well, I even have a pilgrim certificate). You can perfectly understand something and not agree with it, whoever tells you differently is just telling spiritual BS. Actually that's the purest, simplest rule of living in a society: be prepared that other people will think different and learn to live with that.

Aye, being an atheist does not disqualify you from understanding or being knowledgeable about religion, but equating religion to fairy tales does. There are many atheist scholars of religion, I personally know some, but none of them would ever equate religion to fairy tales. They are very different things. The only similarity (assuming you are an atheist) is that you don't believe in either of them. But that does not make them similar.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

From an ethnical point of view, modern Israeli Jews are mostly descended of populations that emigrated away from the Middle East millennia ago and then integrated and mixed with various other populations across the world (primarily European), while the Palestinians are the native population of the Middle East.

Funnily enough, unlike most immigrants, this isn't really true. Why?

Because Jewish populations have tended not to integrate biologically; requiring a parent to be Jewish, being generally despised by the locals throughout history, and rarely accepting converts has put the kibosh on it. Jews are consequently often quite genetically distinct usually from the host population of any given country; having genetically more in common with other Jewish populations. Ashkenazism is particularly notable for this (40% of the population descends from just four easily identifiable women a very long time ago). The Sephardics are less so, but the fact remains that generally speaking, you can actually often apparently pick out a Jewish sample from a random batch in a lab.

It's a touchy subject though, because it leads to concerns about crazy superiority/inferiority complexes both being bolstered. Tends not to get mentioned.


Furthermore, the region of Palestine has actually been effectively depopulated several times in history (under the Mongols, Ottomans, etc). As was said earlier, the population even back at the start of the 20th century was only half a million, Jews included. Fifty years before? Half that. 'Palestinians' as an identifiable ethnic subset didn't exist; all would have self-identified as something else. People entered and left the region quite regularly and population increase was very low outside of set migration events. For example, there was actually a large influx of people of Arabic extraction from neighbouring areas like Egypt in the 1920's, as the region was doing very well economically.

This fact also tends not to get mentioned because it intrudes on the 'Our land since time immemorial' rhetoric of the Palestinian population.



It's only over the last fifty years that the ethnic social construct of 'Palestinian' has taken root alongside that of the 'Israeli' one; both as the number of all inhabitants has doubled many times over and as a reaction to each other. Ultimately, both 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' are completely new ethnic social groupings. Neither has a strong claim to being the 'original inhabitants' from a neutral standpoint beyond the 'I was born here' one. Most of them aren't descended from anyone who's been there longer than a hundred and fifty years, and many from people who moved there less than a century ago.

But really, like any kind of deep seated ethnic divide, what's perceived to be the case is far more important than what actually is the case (Roma and Romanian anyone?). So both sets of people claim it for their own, and the fighting goes on.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

From an ethnical point of view, modern Israeli Jews are mostly descended of populations that emigrated away from the Middle East millennia ago and then integrated and mixed with various other populations across the world (primarily European), while the Palestinians are the native population of the Middle East.

Funnily enough, unlike most immigrants, this isn't really true. Why?

Because Jewish populations have tended not to integrate biologically; requiring a parent to be Jewish, being generally despised by the locals throughout history, and rarely accepting converts has put the kibosh on it. Jews are consequently often quite genetically distinct usually from the host population of any given country; having genetically more in common with other Jewish populations. Ashkenazism is particularly notable for this (40% of the population descends from just four easily identifiable women a very long time ago). The Sephardics are less so, but the fact remains that generally speaking, you can actually often apparently pick out a Jewish sample from a random batch in a lab.

Jewish patrilineal lines show Middle Eastern descent, but matrilineal lines are overwhelmingly native European.The isolation of Jewish population is only something that started during the Middle Ages, and it is something that always differed from place to place and time to time. Plenty of times and places where Jews where fully accepted and integrated in society, virtually indistinguishable from other religious groups in the same population. In case of the Khazars, the rulers even adopted Judaism their own religion. And even in places where Jews where somewhat shunned, intermarriage was not unheard of. Genetics show that while modern Jews definitely tend to have some Middle Eastern descent, and you could indeed pick out a Jewish sample right away in a lab because of the presence of typically Middle-Eastern markers, there is a lot of mixing as well. That goes for Ashkenazim, and for other Jewish groups even more. So while you could pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a European batch because of the presence of Middle Eastern markers, you could equally pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a Middle Eastern batch because of the presence of uniquely European markers.
It's a touchy subject though, because it leads to concerns about crazy superiority/inferiority complexes both being bolstered. Tends not to get mentioned.

 Ketara wrote:
Furthermore, the region of Palestine has actually been effectively depopulated several times in history (under the Mongols, Ottomans, etc). As was said earlier, the population even back at the start of the 20th century was only half a million, Jews included. Fifty years before? Half that. 'Palestinians' as an identifiable ethnic subset didn't exist; all would have self-identified as something else. People entered and left the region quite regularly and population increase was very low outside of set migration events. For example, there was actually a large influx of people of Arabic extraction from neighbouring areas like Egypt in the 1920's, as the region was doing very well economically.

This fact also tends not to get mentioned because it intrudes on the 'Our land since time immemorial' rhetoric of the Palestinian population.

Archaeological evidence does show several population declines, but it also shows continuity. The region was never depopulated. The area has been populated constantly from early prehistory up to now.
Now, every population is mixed. There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnicity. There is and always has been a constant movement of people. So in every area of the world, the general population living there are both the descendants of people who lived in that same area in an unbroken line for thousands of years and the descendants of the many immigrants that have moved into the area over the millennia. That is why I generally think that ethnicity-based claims on land are bogus, but in the Israel case there is something to be said for it, seeing as that the Israelis do not really have native ancestry (sure, they have Middle Eastern ancestry, but after 2000 years you can't call that native anymore). Now, the Israelis are living there now, so they are now the new native population with as much right to the land as everyone else, but I do find the Zionist claims on the Holy Land based on their Jewish 'ancestry' to be preposterous. They had absolutely no right to invade the area and displace the people living there.

 Ketara wrote:
It's only over the last fifty years that the ethnic social construct of 'Palestinian' has taken root alongside that of the 'Israeli' one; both as the number of all inhabitants has doubled many times over and as a reaction to each other. Ultimately, both 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' are completely new ethnic social groupings. Neither has a strong claim to being the 'original inhabitants' from a neutral standpoint beyond the 'I was born here' one. Most of them aren't descended from anyone who's been there longer than a hundred and fifty years, and many from people who moved there less than a century ago.

But really, like any kind of deep seated ethnic divide, what's perceived to be the case is far more important than what actually is the case (Roma and Romanian anyone?). So both sets of people claim it for their own, and the fighting goes on.

Yes, Palestinians are very recently formed as a separate ethnic identity, formed because of the shared experience of being forced off their ancestral land and live under Israeli control. But like any ethnic group, they are formed directly out of the ethnic group that preceded them (like English were formed from Normans, Danes and Anglo-Saxons who were in turned formed from Saxons, Angles, Britons and others who were in turn all formed from earlier groups). And Palestine has been continuously inhabited, and so modern Palestinians are in a direct line descended from all of the people who have lived in the area previously for the past thousands of years. Certainly, a lot of Palestinians are direct descendants of relatively recent immigrants to the area (but then again, that is true for every area), but many others are direct descendants of people who have been there much longer. And over time, that all blends together into what we call 'native population'.

Also, to clarify, Roma and Romanians are completely unrelated peoples. The Roma are an ethnic group of Indian origin that immigrated to Europe in the Middle Ages, while the Romanians are a European ethnic group that is descended of the Roman (or romanised) population of the ancient Roman province of Dacia.The similarity in name is merely a coincidence (which in Romanian gets even more awkward). It is a good example because a lot of people confuse Roma and Romanians (due to the similarity in name and the fact that many Roma live in Romania and are Romanian citizens), to the absolute horror of the Romanians who tend to be totally racist against gypsies and hate it when they get associated with them.

 Ketara wrote:

Furthermore, the region of Palestine has actually been effectively depopulated several times in history (under the Mongols, Ottomans, etc). As was said earlier, the population even back at the start of the 20th century was only half a million, Jews included. Fifty years before? Half that. 'Palestinians' as an identifiable ethnic subset didn't exist; all would have self-identified as something else. People entered and left the region quite regularly and population increase was very low outside of set migration events. For example, there was actually a large influx of people of Arabic extraction from neighbouring areas like Egypt in the 1920's, as the region was doing very well economically.

This fact also tends not to get mentioned because it intrudes on the 'Our land since time immemorial' rhetoric of the Palestinian population.

Actually from what I've found, the depopulation of Palestine is partially myth. Remember that the maximum sustainable population BCE was only around 1.2 million people. This was attained around 600CE, and began to decline after that down to 150k people in the 14th century, and then increasing again following the events of the reconquista, and jews from Spain being allowed to resettle the area. However, Jews only made up a grand total of 5k out of 157k when actual numbers were kept starting in the 1530s.

Not too sure on the self identity thing, as it was Emperor Diocletian who renamed the area 'Palaestina' (Broken down into Prima [Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Peraea and the coastal plain, with Caesarea Maritima as capital], Seconda [Galilee, Decapolis and Golan, with Beth-Shean as capital], and Tertia [the Negev desert, with Petra as capital]. Little data to support this either way survives, not in the least because both current parties are known to take archeologists at gunpoint and destroy or sell anything they don't like.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Jewish patrilineal lines show Middle Eastern descent, but matrilineal lines are overwhelmingly native European.The isolation of Jewish population is only something that started during the Middle Ages, and it is something that always differed from place to place and time to time. Plenty of times and places where Jews where fully accepted and integrated in society, virtually indistinguishable from other religious groups in the same population. In case of the Khazars, the rulers even adopted Judaism their own religion. And even in places where Jews where somewhat shunned, intermarriage was not unheard of.

Errrr...are you actually claiming that most Jewish people have Jewish fathers instead of mothers? And hat Jews were socially isolated only from the Middle Ages onwards? Because you might want to read up a little bit first on Judaism if so.

Genetics show that while modern Jews definitely tend to have some Middle Eastern descent, and you could indeed pick out a Jewish sample right away in a lab because of the presence of typically Middle-Eastern markers, there is a lot of mixing as well. That goes for Ashkenazim, and for other Jewish groups even more. So while you could pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a European batch because of the presence of Middle Eastern markers, you could equally pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a Middle Eastern batch because of the presence of uniquely European markers.

Sure? None of this is disagreeing with anything I've said. Namely that there are certain genetic combinations which tend to be exclusive to Jews as opposed to the given population of any region of the world that they're born in.

Archaeological evidence does show several population declines, but it also shows continuity. The region was never depopulated. The area has been populated constantly from early prehistory up to now.

Okay. Let me qualify, because you seem to have taken my statement to the absurd extreme of 'Everyone left or was killed from Palestine'. Which isn't quite what I was saying to begin with.

What is true is that any given region of Palestine has likely been completely depopulated at one point or another due to the various military actions which have regularly steamrollered the place, and that there's been a general widespread rotation of people amongst the people who lived in the Middle-East generally. When you get back to our earliest ability to make estimates (the 15th century), you have scarcely 150,000 people in the place, and the population increase has been absolutely minute up until the nineteenth century.

Now, every population is mixed. There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnicity.

There's no such thing as ethnicity or race at all; they're both completely fabricated social constructs.

And Palestine has been continuously inhabited, and so modern Palestinians are in a direct line descended from all of the people who have lived in the area previously for the past thousands of years. Certainly, a lot of Palestinians are direct descendants of relatively recent immigrants to the area (but then again, that is true for every area), but many others are direct descendants of people who have been there much longer. And over time, that all blends together into what we call 'native population'.

BaronIveagh wrote:Actually from what I've found, the depopulation of Palestine is partially myth. Remember that the maximum sustainable population BCE was only around 1.2 million people. This was attained around 600CE, and began to decline after that down to 150k people in the 14th century, and then increasing again following the events of the reconquista, and jews from Spain being allowed to resettle the area. However, Jews only made up a grand total of 5k out of 157k when actual numbers were kept starting in the 1530s.

I've addressed this slightly above. People move about. The population in Palestine in the 1800's aren't all descended from the people who were there in the 1500's. That area of the world has seen huge migratory movements through it over the last millennia alone. Some have been caused by military invasions, some have been as a result of oppression and scarcity of resources, some have been fleeing other places. Some of the Circassians for example, got partially resettled there after being expelled from Russia in the nineteenth century (it only takes a fraction of that million exiled to materially affect the population figures of Palestine). Mehmmet Ali resettled large numbers from Egypt across the Ottoman Empire over a thirty year period. I could go on, but the point is that there are multiple tales of large scale migrations in and out of the Palestine region all throughout just nineteenth century, let alone the two or three centuries before that. Christ, pastoral roving tribes alone have gone through dropping people off and taking them on for the longest of times.

You don't just get to say 'Ah, well there was a population of 450,000 non-Jews there in 1900 and that must mean that all Palestinians are partially descended from these people who must have been there for hundreds and hundreds of years'. That's adding half a dozen inferences straight off the bat.

The fact is, both Israeli and Palestinian populations can, for the most part, trace their stories back about a hundred years at most before large scale immigration enters the picture. Sure, they might be able to point to the line of one far distant great great great grandparent who lived there for the last five hundred years, but the Jewish population can do that too (because the Jews never did leave Palestine altogether). It's not exclusive to any of them. Once you get into that many steps back, you tend to find a lot of family trees start combining and linking up for an area with a relatively small population. Most of the initial forefathers of the Palestinian population, like the Israeli one, came to the area in the past two hundred years.

And in the face of that? It's really as much the Israeli 'land' as it is Palestinian, from (note the qualification!!!) an ethnic and historical angle. Which, it should be pointed out and emphasised heavily, are both pretty terrible ways to judge these things in the first place.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Jewish patrilineal lines show Middle Eastern descent, but matrilineal lines are overwhelmingly native European.The isolation of Jewish population is only something that started during the Middle Ages, and it is something that always differed from place to place and time to time. Plenty of times and places where Jews where fully accepted and integrated in society, virtually indistinguishable from other religious groups in the same population. In case of the Khazars, the rulers even adopted Judaism their own religion. And even in places where Jews where somewhat shunned, intermarriage was not unheard of.

Errrr...are you actually claiming that most Jewish people have Jewish fathers instead of mothers? And hat Jews were socially isolated only from the Middle Ages onwards? Because you might want to read up a little bit first on Judaism if so.

I am talking about genetic lineages here. That your matrilineal lineage is European does not necessarily mean your mother is. Just that somewhere down the line, she is descended of Europeans. The view is that when the Ashkenazim initially immigrated to Europe (only a very small group, about 350 identifiable individuals), they were composed primarily of men who then took native European wives (who supposedly were introduced in Judaism and so became Jewish). And if you think Jews were always isolated, you might have some reading to do. Hell, just take a look at Nazi documentation if you want to see to what degree Jews had become integrated in European society. My point is that while there certainly where times and places where Jews were ostracised or otherwise isolated from mainstream European society, there were also plenty of times and places where Christians and Jews lived together without any real separation or distinction.

 Ketara wrote:

Genetics show that while modern Jews definitely tend to have some Middle Eastern descent, and you could indeed pick out a Jewish sample right away in a lab because of the presence of typically Middle-Eastern markers, there is a lot of mixing as well. That goes for Ashkenazim, and for other Jewish groups even more. So while you could pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a European batch because of the presence of Middle Eastern markers, you could equally pick out the Ashkenazim sample in a Middle Eastern batch because of the presence of uniquely European markers.

Sure? None of this is disagreeing with anything I've said. Namely that there are certain genetic combinations which tend to be exclusive to Jews as opposed to any region of the world that they'd born in.

Yes it is. You said Jews have tended not to integrate biologically. Which is totally not true, as evidenced by their genetic makeup. Ashkenazim for example share most of their genes with the generic European gene pool, with only a few genes that make them stand out. There has been a huge lot of "biological integration" (I will totally be going to use that as an euphemism for sex in a future publication ) between Jews and non-Jews. Not enough to make them indistinct from non-Jew European populations, but enough to make them cluster with other European populations.

 Ketara wrote:

Archaeological evidence does show several population declines, but it also shows continuity. The region was never depopulated. The area has been populated constantly from early prehistory up to now.

Okay. Let me qualify, because you seem to have taken my statement to absurd extreme of 'Everyone left or was killed from Palestine'. Which isn't true, but isn't quite what I was saying to begin with.

What is true is that any given region of Palestine has likely been completely depopulated at one point or another due to the various military actions which have regularly steamrollered the place, and that there's been a general widespread rotation of people amongst the people who lived in the Middle-East generally. When you get back to our earliest ability to make estimates (the 15th century), you have scarcely 150,000 people in the place, and the population increase has been absolutely minute up until the nineteenth century.

"completely depopulated" means that there are no people at all. If you don't want me to think you are meaning that there was no one left, you probably should not put it that way.
The Holy Land shows big fluctuations in population throughout history (which is true for every area of the world. Also, archaeologists can make population estimates much farther back than the 15th century), but it also shows continuity. There was never a phase were everyone left or died. That means that every single group of people that has ever came to live in the Holy Land has mixed with the pre-existing population there and as such descends from the earliest inhabitants.

 Ketara wrote:

Now, every population is mixed. There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnicity.

There's no such thing as ethnicity or race at all; they're both completely fabricated social constructs.

Virtually everything is a social construct. Social constructs are as real as you can get though.

BaronIveagh wrote:I've addressed this slightly above. People move about. The population in Palestine in the 1800's aren't all descended from the people who were there in the 1500's. That area of the world has seen huge migratory movements through it over the last millennia alone. Some have been caused by military invasions, some have been as a result of oppression and scarcity of resources, some have been fleeing other places. Some of the Circassians for example, got partially resettled there after being expelled from Russia in the nineteenth century (it only takes a fraction of that to materially affect the population figures of Palestine). Mehmmet Ali resettled large numbers from Egypt across the Ottoman Empire over a thirty year period. I could go on, but the point is that there are multiple tales of large scale migrations in and out of the Palestine region all throughout just nineteenth century, let alone the two or three centuries before that. Christ, pastoral roving tribes alone have gone through dropping people off and taking them on for the longest of times.

You don't just get to say 'Ah, well there was a population of 450,000 non-Jews there in 1900 and that must mean that all Palestinians are partially descended from these people who must have been there for hundreds and hundreds of years'. That's adding half a dozen inferences straight off the bat.


The fact is, both Israeli and Palestinian populations can, for the most part, trace their stories back about a hundred years at most before large scale immigration enters the picture. Sure, they might be able to point to the line of one far distant great great great grandparent who lived there for the last five hundred years, but the Jewish population can do that too (because the Jews never did leave Palestine altogether). It's not exclusive to any of them. Once you get into that many steps back, you tend to find a lot of family trees start combining and linking up for an area with a relatively small population. Most of the initial forefathers of the Palestinian population, like the Israeli one, came to the area in the past two hundred years.

Yes, that is very true. But populations mix. Circassian refugees or Egyptian immigrants don't stay that for more than a few generations before they become indistinguishable from the rest of the population in the area. If an Egyptian immigrant marries with a local man or woman who is descended of an earlier immigrant who also married a local man/woman ad inf. then their child will already be descended from the earliest inhabitants of that region. So that means that if in 1900, you find 450,000 non-Jews living in the area, it is virtually certain that they are descended of people who have been in the area for hundreds and hundreds of years, unless they literally arrived only a few generations ago (and even then it is only going to take a few generations more before they will be). In the world, you will not find even a single person who is 100% native to the region where he lives, and apart from very recent immigrants neither will you find people who are 100% alien to their region. Genetics work exponentially. Every generation you go back your amount of ancestors gets larger, as each ancestor also has two ancestors of his/her own. And as you say, it does not take much time before family trees start combining and linking up, even for wildly different population groups. That is for example why virtually every European is descended from Charlemagne. Because by the time you trace your line back to Charlemagne's time you get millions of ancestors, and the statistical likelihood of one of them being Charlemagne gets pretty close to 100%. That is why I said earlier that tracing genetic lineages further back than a few hundred years is utterly meaningless. In the end, everyone is descended of the same few people. Besides that, if you go that far back, you have to deal with dilution as well, which means that most people alive today share no DNA at all with people who lived 2000 years ago, which means that who you descend from is even more meaningless. Whether you are descended from Augustus or Cao Cao, it has no effect at all since you probably carry none of their DNA either way.
So, while the majority of Palestinians alive today probably has a line that goes back to people who lived in the area in Biblical times, as do most Israelis. So yeah, I think we are in agreement here. But that does mean that none of that ancient descent really matters, since it is mostly just the same anyway. What matters more is the last few generations, and it is in those generations that we can really say that the Palestinians were the native population, while the Israelis are immigrants. Most Palestinians can say that they were born in the area, their parents were and their grandparents as well. But Israelis? Not many of them would be able to say that. Some of them, certainly, but that'd be a small minority at most. Most Israelis currently alive are the first or second generation that was born in the area. They are very recent immigrants.

BaronIveagh wrote:And in the face of that? It's really as much the Israeli 'land' as it is Palestinian, from (note the qualification!!!) an ethnic and historical angle. Which, it should be pointed out and emphasised heavily, are both pretty terrible ways to judge these things in the first place.

I fully agree. From an ethnic and historical angle it is just as well my land. Probably yours as well. The likelihood of both of us being descended of ancient inhabitants of the region is pretty damn high. Which indeed means it is a totally horrible way to judge these things. As I always say, land should belong to the people who happen to live on it, regardless of who their ancestors are. Which means that I think that Israelis have every bit as much right to the land as the Palestinians do, and that they should go find a way to share it.

Prestor Jon wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.

Indeed a bit hard to tell. Palestenian authorities, much like the current Israel government, is following a hard line. They don't want to give up anything. In fact, they want to reclaim back some of what they lost following 1948. If Palestenians aren't ready to abandon something important, even the more moderate political groups within Israel will not be willing to settle and they will lose everything.

The other point to keep in mind is that the various incarnations of the governing authority in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately kept weak by Israel, they’ve never had the resources, firepower or manpower to actually go after groups like Hamas and other militants and stop them from attacking Israel. If the authorities had the ability to conduct counter terror operations Israel would likely consider the Palestinian authorities/police to be a threat and work against them. So the Palestinians are in a catch 22, unable to work against Hamas, even if that had popular support, and therefore unable to meet conditions Israel demands for negotiations, which is pretty much the way Israel wants it to be.

This is only part of the ploy, frequent low flying, bulldozing, large scale raids keep the Palestinians angry. Israel doesn't want any form of peace with the Palestinians, they want them gone; so they are kept in a pressure cooker environment so they remain volatile. Israel can handle anything the Palestinians can throw at them, literally and metaphorically. They would not be able to handle a Palestinian peace movement, a Palestinian Ghandiesque leader is their worst nightmare, and keeping the anger up the people impoverished undereducated and divided prevents one from appearing. Meanwhile every year a new slice of land is taken for settlements or security zones.

A while back I was reading that a good portion of Palestinians are descendants of people from modern day eastern-Iraq, who immigrated to the area in the 1860's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd also like to say that there seems to be quite a lot of international interloping and do-gooding that turns out to be quite counter intuitive.

There was a product that swept American late-night infomercials a number of years back. It was a home countertop soda making machine that would make Coke, Dr. Pepper, Sprite, etc.

Although this company was owned by an Israeli Jew, the factory was in Palestine. Palestinians jockeyed for positions there, as it provided several times the pay of the average wage of the community. Standard of living went up, crime down. All was well, until international pressure started.

Apparently it was wrong for a Jew to profit from the physical labor of Palestinians, and the international pressure forced the factory to close.

 cuda1179 wrote:
A while back I was reading that a good portion of Palestinians are descendants of people from modern day eastern-Iraq, who immigrated to the area in the 1860's.

I can't say that I've heard of this, but based on population increases, it would constitute a very small number, as the majority of Arab influx came during the British Mandate, the same as the Jewish population. In 1927 a Census was done of the Mandate for various reasons, and when compared to earlier numbers the population had tripled, with Jews making up about 30% of the population. Of those queried, most (over 60%) had moved there since the end of the first world war.

This may have been due to the extensive pogroms of both Muslim and Jewish populations that took place in eastern Europe at the time.

 cuda1179 wrote:

All was well, until international pressure started.

Apparently it was wrong for a Jew to profit from the physical labor of Palestinians, and the international pressure forced the factory to close.

Not certain of the particular product, (you can buy machines that do that in Wall-mart right now) but given the time frame, that's not why pressure was put on them.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
A while back I was reading that a good portion of Palestinians are descendants of people from modern day eastern-Iraq, who immigrated to the area in the 1860's.

I can't say that I've heard of this, but based on population increases, it would constitute a very small number, as the majority of Arab influx came during the British Mandate, the same as the Jewish population. In 1927 a Census was done of the Mandate for various reasons, and when compared to earlier numbers the population had tripled, with Jews making up about 30% of the population. Of those queried, most (over 60%) had moved there since the end of the first world war.

This may have been due to the extensive pogroms of both Muslim and Jewish populations that took place in eastern Europe at the time.

On the grand scheme of things, it's just something that's been used to discredit the Palestinian claim.

The general consensus seems to be that slightly under 1/4 of (Arab) population growth can be attributed to immigration rather than natural growth (according to British authorities and most historians like Bernstein, Schmelz, Gilbert,etc.) but really it doesn't matter if they were 50% or 75%

They did assimilate and intermarry with the local population. At most they brought a few new surnames, a few words of their local Arabic dialect and maybe a local dish or two. They were still Muslim (with a significant Christian minority), Arab-speaking from the Mediterranean basin. The children of the Egyptian or Syrian newcomers were indistinguishable from their neighbours in a single generation.

OTOH, the other newcomers came with different customs, languages and, most imporantly, the will to establish a new country based on faith. That's why comparing both sets of immigration is interesting, but doesn't add much except a little footnote on the grand scheme of things.

 KTG17 wrote:
In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.

I don't think that is really what we should fear for the region. A bigger threat would be a terrorist attack that uses a nuclear or biological weapon. It doesn't even need to be deployed in Israel. A nuclear device deployed in eastern Jerusalem would take out most of the city on both sides and if timed correctly with prevailing winds could easily irradiate vast areas of Israel. As a species we tend to take the approach of "If I can't have it then no one can" and happens from the smallest scale (parents jumping out of windows with children) to the largest scale (WMD).

Unless both sides start to act a bit more rationally and allow better freedom of movement for all people regardless of colour, creed, religion then things aren't going to improve. However neither sides politicians really want this, both gain support from hardline actions because that forces more people on the other side to take more extreme action. Both Hamas and the Israeli government exploit a populations tenancies to maintain their power and ignore the cost in innocent civilian lives.

Trump, I don't think actually cares about the region. He is an aggressive businessman whose business practices were to destabilise other companies and then kill them off or buy them out. From this perspective his strategy makes sense. If you destabilise the region through sanctions on Iran, stirring up unrest in the Middle East etc then that raises oil prices. The recent relatively recent low oil prices has been a killer for the American fuel market overall. It kills off new oil investment and more expensive technologies such as fracking. What Trump has done to destabilise the region has had a huge impact on oil prices though. This directly benefits the US energy sector of which there are a fair few vested interests in the US government. That it will make the whole of the Middle East into something ready to boil over he simply doesn't care about.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
.

Let me ask a genuine question: How many of you supporting Israel in this would like to explain to me how murdering children with sniper rifles is protecting Israel? How is blowing away unarmed reporters a justifiable act? I have heard a whole lot of hyperbole about 'Oh, the Israelis are surrounded by people who hate them' well, yes, and you would be too if you slaughtered your neighbors relatives.

If you hold, as some do, that this is a war (despite not in any way meeting the international definition of it) then again, what has been going on are war crimes. Serious ones, not 'Oh, someone stole a culturally significant artifact' but 'Oh, we filled the streets with civilian bodies'.

If it's not a war, then this is murder by the state.

The thing is, for both sides this is still a war, whether its declared or not. Palestine definitely lost this round, and shooting children with sniper rifles is pretty indefensible in isolation. Now I'm not saying this justifies Israel's response, but think about what they associate Palestine with. Heck, just last year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2017 . Israel exists under almost constant rocket attack originating from the Gaza Strip.

What do you do when your neighbors are also slaughtering your relatives? What is a proportional response to murdering children with rocket and mortar fire?

It is an absolutely awful situation, And one that is all too common in the Middle East. Nothing is simple, there are no good guys, there are no bad guys, there's just an endless cycle of revenge, and there aren't any easy fixes.

None of those attacks list any casualties.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
None of those attacks list any casualties.

Generally one of the most major things that has turned international opinion against Israel have been the massively disproportionate responses by Israel to what are ultimately laughably ineffective attacks. Hell it's arguably why the rocket attacks are launched in the first place. Not to actually harm Israel, but to invoke the predictable heavy response Israel throws out.

Presenting themselves as the victims of a violent oppressive state has been a Palestinian strategy since the 80s.

It works because its true.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
.

Let me ask a genuine question: How many of you supporting Israel in this would like to explain to me how murdering children with sniper rifles is protecting Israel? How is blowing away unarmed reporters a justifiable act? I have heard a whole lot of hyperbole about 'Oh, the Israelis are surrounded by people who hate them' well, yes, and you would be too if you slaughtered your neighbors relatives.

If you hold, as some do, that this is a war (despite not in any way meeting the international definition of it) then again, what has been going on are war crimes. Serious ones, not 'Oh, someone stole a culturally significant artifact' but 'Oh, we filled the streets with civilian bodies'.

If it's not a war, then this is murder by the state.

The thing is, for both sides this is still a war, whether its declared or not. Palestine definitely lost this round, and shooting children with sniper rifles is pretty indefensible in isolation. Now I'm not saying this justifies Israel's response, but think about what they associate Palestine with. Heck, just last year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2017 . Israel exists under almost constant rocket attack originating from the Gaza Strip.

What do you do when your neighbors are also slaughtering your relatives? What is a proportional response to murdering children with rocket and mortar fire?

It is an absolutely awful situation, And one that is all too common in the Middle East. Nothing is simple, there are no good guys, there are no bad guys, there's just an endless cycle of revenge, and there aren't any easy fixes.

The rocket attacks are completely inexcusable, but no one died in all those rocket attacks last year except for some Hamas members and a bunch of innocent Palestinians who were caught in Israeli counter-attacks. Israel is a very safe place, and the chance of being hit by a rocket is very low. Way too low to justify Israel's brutality. To descibe it as 'your neighbours slaughtering your relatives' is completely laughable. Now, while having your house destroyed by a rocket, or even losing a family member in a rocket attack is horrible, it is statistically extremely unlikely to ever happen. Israel's response to such feeble attacks is out of all proportion.
A more proportional response would be to simply ignore the attacks, work on improving your missile defense system and focus on putting an end to the attacks through diplomatic means. Launching air-to-surface missiles and artillery strikes into apartment buildings, hospitals and schools, killing dozens of people including kids is definitely not the proportional response to a rocket attack that has like a 0.0001% chance of killing someone. The IDF kills more Palestinian civilians in a single operation than Hamas has killed Israeli civilians in its entire existence. That is the sad reality, and it is a reality that absolutely does not justify Israeli actions.

 LordofHats wrote:

Presenting themselves as the victims of a violent oppressive state has been a Palestinian strategy since the 80s.

It works because its true.

Sadly enough. It is really the only strategy they have left. They have no hope of ever being able to stop Israel themselves, so their only hope of ever defeating Israel is provoking Israel into doing something that is so horrible that the rest of the world will intervene and give them (part) of their land back.

 LordofHats wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
None of those attacks list any casualties.

Generally one of the most major things that has turned international opinion against Israel have been the massively disproportionate responses by Israel to what are ultimately laughably ineffective attacks. Hell it's arguably why the rocket attacks are launched in the first place. Not to actually harm Israel, but to invoke the predictable heavy response Israel throws out.

Presenting themselves as the victims of a violent oppressive state has been a Palestinian strategy since the 80s.

It works because its true.

Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.

Iron Dome and other anti missile systems are constantly prepared to fire. They had multiple batteries ready and set up and ready of Iron dome alone, with heavier long range missiles to. Iron dome only got more extensive and better the more it was used, as they learned how to intercept any incoming missiles on towns or cities with a very high rate of success.

In danger zones, the walls and berns prevent gunfire. schools in rocket zones, bus stops and others are built with reinforced concrete and fortified with bomb shelters or upgraded to be so.

all apartment buildings and homes with or access to reinforced shelters

Radar and rapid air raid alarms, active, maintained and effective.

shelters about made of a sewer pipe, and some T wall where regular, and are providing shelter options within quick access of vulnerable places.

When a rocket was fired, it would be hitting its target in one minute for Tel aviv, some places had under 20 seconds warning of incoming fire. they had prepared for that.

Its not out of lack of effort, Israel takes minimal losses from rocket fire.

 jhe90 wrote:
Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.

They're low casualty because they're not particularly good rockets, and Israel has a multi-billion dollar flyswatter at the ready. Effort or lack there of isn't really the point. The point is that Palestine is like a fly facing a futuristic bug zapper, and in spite of that Israel feels the need to assert itself against that fly with every kind of bug spray it can muster and Palestinians that would know they can invoke that response on demand. The rockets are not about causing casualties anymore, and haven't been since at least the Second Intifada.

Today it's all about getting Israel in the news killing civilians and the disgusting part is how little the rest of the world cares that the MIT college grad is out punching the homeless in the balls with a rocket powered baseball bat (with stainless steel nails).

 LordofHats wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Rocket fire is so "low casulty" because Israel preparations are extensive in defensive options for civilians.

They're low casualty because they're not particularly good rockets, and Israel has a multi-billion dollar flyswatter at the ready. Effort or lack there of isn't really the point. The point is that Palestine is like a fly facing a futuristic bug zapper, and in spite of that Israel feels the need to assert itself against that fly with every kind of bug spray it can muster and Palestinians that would know they can invoke that response on demand. The rockets are not about causing casualties anymore, and haven't been since at least the Second Intifada.

Today it's all about getting Israel in the news killing civilians and the disgusting part is how little the rest of the world cares that the MIT college grad is out punching the homeless in the balls with a rocket powered baseball bat (with stainless steel nails).

The point is the sheer effort IDF and Israel has plowed into protecting its people.

And those rockets can pack at biggest up tp 144KG warheads. sure the basic is like 20 kg but that plus shrapnel in, and the rocket body is a perfectly deadly weapon if the IDF did not have such in depth defenses. Maybe not, but if they do get past, they could do plenty of harm.. there not exactly harmless.

Hamas has plowed there construction into attack tunnels, not rebuilding. lots to rebuild, yet they dig tunnels into israel with hundreds of tons concrete and steel.
THere money for war not there people.

 jhe90 wrote:


The point is the sheer effort IDF and Israel has plowed into protecting its people.

And those rockets can pack at biggest up tp 144KG warheads. sure the basic is like 20 kg but that plus shrapnel in, and the rocket body is a perfectly deadly weapon if the IDF did not have such in depth defenses. Maybe not, but if they do get past, they could do plenty of harm.. there not exactly harmless.

And the reality is that even before Iron Dome was put in place those rockets weren't killing that many people. A rock on a stick isn't exactly harmless either.

And yeah. Israel put so much effort into protecting it's people they sabotaged the PLO and maneuvered Hamas into power. Israeli geopolitics are some of the most cycnical there are. As much as Palestinian leadership purposefully puts its own people into the firing line to farm sympathy, Israel purposefully does the same because their position is also dependent on sympathy.

The big difference between the two is that Israel's vulnerability has been an illusion since the Six Days War. Absolutely nothing Palestinians do poses a viable threat to the Israeli state. At this point they aren't even a viable threat to the Israeli people except as an end to the ambitions of a bunch of old Israelis still emotionally invested in taking full ownership of the West Bank and by emotionally invested I mean financially invested cause real estate is where the money is in Israel. The Arab world has backed off, paying only lip service to the conflict with the singular exceptions of Lebanon, who views Israel as an existential threat at times (not entirely unwarranted) and Iran who sees Israel as a pseudo-colony of the United States and the West (also not entirely unwarranted from the right frame of reference).

The point is that both sides are victims of their own government, but one side is a lot more complicit in their government's actions than the other if only by virtue of having running water, functioning schools, and the multi-billion dollar defense force.

Hamas has plowed there construction into attack tunnels, not rebuilding.

It's easy to dig a tunnel. All you need is a shovel.

Building requires a whole host of things they can't get enough of because Israel has Gaza under blockade. What little they do have, why bother? Israel will just blow it all down with artillery and bombs next year or the year after cause Hamas doesn't even have to launch rockets to invoke Israeli response (just go back to the OP).

It's one thing to condemn Hamas for being violent aholes, but let's not pretend Palestinians ever had the option of rebuilding. Israel has systematically depopulated Palestinian regions and built over them. They don't want them to rebuild and they put as much effort into ensuring that can't happen as they've put into defense.