NO Arab group claimed the area of what is now referred to as Palestine

Every time the term "Palestinian(s)" is used it implies there is a real ethnic group and a country of "Palestine". Nonsense. When the League of Nations acquired temporary sovereignty over the areas of the former Ottoman empire, Arabs made claims to what is now Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. NO Arab group claimed the area of what is now referred to as Palestine. Some Arab rulers even recognized present Israel , the falsely named Palestinian "territories were the national homeland of the Jews.

 

There is not one mention of "Palestinians" in any records of the League of Nations during its' existence. There was not one mention of "Palestinians" in any records of the UN until the late 1960s, when the terrorist Egyptian Yassir Arab who was born in Cairo and had no connection with "Palestine" was advised by the KGB to use the term "Palestinians" to falsely imply that Israel had stolen land from the an ethnic group that never existed: the "Palestinians" This fiction was created for the sole purpose of removing infidels (in this case Jews) from their homeland of 4000 years. In the period of time between the last time Jews ruled their homeland a series of imperialist conquerers ruled the Jewish homeland preventing Jews from exercising sovereignty and control of their homeland.

Comments

Koshersalaami Added Jan 11, 2019 - 9:27am
True but currently irrelevant. 
 
The term Palestinians was used in the 1940’s but at that time it meant Jews. 
 
The reason it’s irrelevant is there is now an Arab population that lives in the Palestinian Territories, a lot of them (though not remotely all) are ancestrally from the area, and there is nowhere else for them to go. When Jews are in trouble anywhere in the world, we take in our own refugees. That’s not how the Arabs work, in part because they are unaccustomed to being forced out of anywhere (which is unfortunately historically routine for Jews) and in part because they don’t view themselves as that kind of a unified population. Obviously, the Arab world has the resources and space to relocate Palestinians, which is what they would have done a long time ago if the fate of the Palestinians was their concern. It isn’t and it wasn’t. That’s why, for example, Saddam Hussein offered $25,000 to the families of anyone killed fighting Israel: He’d pay Palestinians to die but not to live. The Palestinians under Arafat tried to overthrow the Jordanian government in a military revolution, so the Jordanians don’t want them, and Hamas is an offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood, so the Egyptians don’t want them (and have actually killed some of them in border skirmishes). Even before this, the Jordanians and Egyptians kept the Palestinians in refugee camps for nineteen years (1948-67) because they wanted to keep resentment high, something Jews would never do to each other. 
 
Which leaves the Palestinian population in the territories. What do we do with them? They can’t be integrated into Israel because within a generation Israel would no longer have a Jewish majority, and having one place in the world with a Jewish majority is why Zionism happened and Israel exists. We know what happens when we’re a minority; we have two millenia of experience with that. It often doesn’t end well. They can’t stay occupied forever because that’s good for neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli population. Whether or not they “deserve” a state, it is best for all concerned if they get one. 
 
How that could happen is a longer conversation. I do have a suggestion. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 11:34am
"The reason it’s irrelevant is there is now an Arab population that lives in the Palestinian Territories, a lot of them (though not remotely all) are ancestrally from the area, and there is nowhere else for them to go."
 
Especially with groups like Hamas using them as human shields and as a means to garner press and international attention. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 11, 2019 - 11:47am
Well, yes. 
 
Hamas is the main cause of the stalemate. There are certainly other causes, some of them Israeli, but Israel can’t give statehood to a government including an organization whose best offer to date has been: We’ll put a moratorium on trying to kill you for eleven years.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 11:49am
I have to say that if my neighbors were constantly tossing rockets and grenades into my backyard, it would make it a little difficult to negotiate reasonably. Yeah. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:13pm
Amazing how many people don’t get that, including anyone in the BDS movement. But there’s a difference between the West Bank and Gaza. Gaza right now is a lost cause. As long as Hamas is in power, nothing can happen there. But when settlements are increased in size that territory doesn’t come from Gaza, it comes from the West Bank, where Hamas can say See, if you’re at all moderate with Israel all it does is cost you. When I disagree with Israeli policy it tends to be either about the West Bank or about treatment of minorities within Israel proper. Generally speaking, I support their actions in Gaza. 
 
Unfortunately, BLM supports BDS, God knows why. My answer to them is Yeah, the Palestinian cause looks a lot like the American Civil Rights movement if Rosa Parks had left a bomb on that bus. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:31pm
I seem to remember a series of articles, though I cannot remember where, discussing life in the parts of Gaza outside of the strip where the "refugees" were not allowed to travel, and the many nice shops, restaurants and other features there ... though I have not been able to find any trace of it in recent years. Having never been there and with no intentions of traveling there, I still wonder about the efficacy of that piece, but do believe there must be something to it. Even the Egyptians built a wall due to the constant flow of arms and contraband through Egypt into Gaza if I remember correctly ... apparently not all of it well meaning and humanitarian in nature. It is a nasty situation to be sure. 
Koshersalaami Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:36pm
I tend to look at both sides of issues, to find some way in which a person or organization is moral. I can’t find any at all in Hamas. They are, quite simply, more interested in destroying Israel than they are in the survival of Palestinians, emphatically including Palestinian children. They treat their population as though they are more valuable dead because of their world press value than they are alive. I can’t get there from here. 
Ward Tipton Added Jan 11, 2019 - 12:46pm
Yeah, well the entire culture celebrates death the way we celebrate life it seems to me ... but when I point that out, apparently it somehow makes me "racist" ... never mind that it has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with factual reality. 
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 11, 2019 - 2:17pm
The Jews who inhabited Palestine, predominately embraced Islam when the Arabs took the area in the 7th century, and slowly over time those Jews became Arabs as well - This is not my assessment, but the conclusion Professor Shlomo Sand reached in his excellent book "The invention of the Jewish People".
 
So to suggest that the Jews who immigrated, predominant from Europe and other Arab regions in 1945-1947 are the "sole inheritors" of the land, because "the Torah" says so is extremely bizarre. It also doesn't explain the Israeli's state current oppression, occupation, and denial of rights that it enforces on the Palestinian Arabs who lived there for 1400 years, not to mention many of those Arabs, if you go back enough, are actually Jews indigenous to the land to begin with.   
 
There are also alot of interesting misconceptions in the answers above, like Hamas being the real problem behind why there isnt any peace between the Israelis and its Arab population. There books are written on this topic alone by American and Israeli Jews that debunk the basic premise of the original post.
Mustafa Kemal Added Jan 11, 2019 - 2:39pm
That League of Nations sure ushered in a whole century of peace. 
 
Anyway,
"Every time the term "Palestinian(s)" is used it implies there is a real ethnic group and a country of "Palestine"
 
how would you refer to those people there? 
 
Mustafa
Ken Added Jan 11, 2019 - 4:40pm
True but currently irrelevant. 
 
It shouldn't be.  Palestine never existed.  Those referred to as Palestinians are actual nomadic arabs.  UNESCO is taking Jewish holy sites and claiming they are palestinian holy sites.  But there never was a palestine so how can they be?  It is absolutely nuts what the arabs/muslims are getting away with in the name of clearing out Israel and any Jews/Christians in the middle east.  The home of Christianity and Judaism today most people don't even know used to be predominantly Christian until centuries of genocide by Muslims.
Riley Brown Added Jan 11, 2019 - 6:13pm
Can anyone tell me where the old Capital of Palestine was?
Can anyone name a past King or President of Palestine?
 
I didn't think so... it wasn't a real country!!!
John Minehan Added Jan 11, 2019 - 6:32pm
Koshersalaami nice job of presenting the facts in a balanced way.
John Minehan Added Jan 11, 2019 - 6:32pm
Not easy on this issue and, therefore, appreciated.
Liberal1 Added Jan 11, 2019 - 7:55pm
Riley Brown, okay, if you can tell me the the old capital of the state of Israel prior to 1948.

Can you name a past king or president of the state of Israel?
 
I didn't think so... it wasn't a real country!!!
Ken Added Jan 11, 2019 - 7:58pm
okay, if you can tell me the the old capital of the state of Israel prior to 1948.

Can you name a past king or president of the state of Israel?
 
Jerusalem.
 
I can name many kings.  Saul was the first king.  Solomon, David, Nebukadnezzar, maybe you have heard of a few of these.
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:02pm
@ Riley Brown
 
Don't be too hasty in answering your own question Riley:
 
After the Arabs took both the Provinces of Syria and Palestine from the Byzantines, both provinces were merged into one region known as "Bilad Al-Sham", and divided into six major provinces. One of those Provinces was named "Filastin"; that province included Gaza, Jerusalem,  Yafa, Nablus, and the capital city, Al-Ramla.
 
After the 7th century, the borders of Filastin changed, as did its capital city, sometimes being Jerusalem. Playing with terms like "country" is meaningless and disingenuous at best. The Israeli state, as it stands today with its current borders, have no historical merit, it does not cancel the land's habitation by the Jewish people, before and after, the Roman destruction of the second temple.
 
 
Ken Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:06pm
The Jews who inhabited Palestine, predominately embraced Islam when the Arabs took the area in the 7th century, and slowly over time those Jews became Arabs as well - This is not my assessment, but the conclusion Professor Shlomo Sand reached in his excellent book "The invention of the Jewish People".
 
LOL, how can the Jews inhabit a land that never previously existed?  And then you talk about the "excellent" book that gets a 25% 1 star review and virtually all the views talk about the poor methodology and weaving of mythology and alternative history to apparently try and argue that the Jews don't belong in Israel as far as I can tell?
 
Yea, ok...
Liberal1 Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:37pm
Ken, seeing as how there wasn't a state of Israel prior to 1948, methinks you are full of shit. (no big surprise there).
 
Just curious, but where did the land the Jews moved to after fleeing Egypt come from?  Did the simply invent it?  Were there no people living there prior to all of those undocumented immigrants invading their lands?  If a bunch of undocumented Muslims immigrants showed up in the US would they have the right to call it Saudi Arabia?
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 11, 2019 - 8:38pm
@ Ken
 
Are you saying the Romans did not rename the land to Palestine? 
 
As for the book, I have no idea from where you got your ridiculous claims from; "virtually all the views talk about...." who's views? Israeli firsters like yourself? Read the book Ken, for a person who claims to be educated, you sure dont seem to know what you're talking about on a multitude of topics.
Logical Man Added Jan 12, 2019 - 11:21am
The land that is now Israel (At the time there were a few Jews living there, but only a very small minority.) was promised to a Jewish banker by a British politician - seems OK, don't you think? I'm sure nobody would mind having two groups with no rights in the area to make such a decision.
Riley Brown Added Jan 12, 2019 - 6:18pm
My point was that the Palestinian people who are living in the refugee camps were not evicted from a country called Palestine.
 
They didn't have a king or president, or a capital cit, or internationally recognized borders.  They can say they were living there, but not that their sovereign country was ripped out of their hands.
 
Strangely Israel is not a Muslim free country, Israel has lots of voting Muslim citizens.  It seems that the Muslims who weren't allied with the invading Muslims from other Muslim countries were welcome to stay in Israel and now are citizens. 
 
I do wonder if the Palestinian refugees would be living in Israel today if they had not sided with the invading forces and then fled when Israel repelled the invasion. 
 
I also find it very telling that none of the surrounding Muslim countries want the refugees, and seem to regard them as lowlife scum, but somehow simultaneously want Israel to take them in.
Logical Man Added Jan 12, 2019 - 7:45pm
Whichever way you slice it, put yourself in the position of the Palestinians. Would you be angry and want to resist what is being imposed on you by a government run by criminals?
Cut away all the bias and bullshit. Ponder for a moment.
 
Hussain -The Canadian Added Jan 12, 2019 - 8:32pm
@ Riley
 
Invading forces you say? You made me laugh I'll tell you that. I didn't know a province of the ottoman empire would have a president or a king, then again I'm sure the ottoman sultan in Istanbul would disagree. The province did gave borders, there are maps of it, you should look them up, it will shatter the fantasy you've convinced yourself to be history.
 
The rest of your post is unrelated to the original post, a lot of it is just your conflation between the Arab people and the monsters that lord over them.
Riley Brown Added Jan 13, 2019 - 10:30am
Hussain, I'm hardly denying the existence of the Ottoman Empire, in fact it's existence and eventual downfall support my position.
 
I am saying the tiny piece of that empire which the Palestinian refugees came from was not an independent country when they left.
 
Of  course that was over a generation ago so today's refugees are 99% a people who have never seen the land they want.  If they were allowed to settle in Jordan they would be just as well off.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 13, 2019 - 2:28pm
Riley,
Some of the people now called Palestinians left voluntarily on the advice of surrounding Arab states. Some were driven out and did not leave by choice. Some stayed and became citizens. To my knowledge, the first population outnumbers the second. 
 
As regards Jewish invaders - which is not a response to Riley - up until pretty soon before the war for independence, the only way Jews got property was to buy it. There was no conquest up until that point, regardless of homeland agreements made with Lord Balfour. I know of no other founding of a nation in history where the immigrant population taking over mainly did so by buying land rather than by conquest. 
 
As regards migrant populations: The number of Jews driven out of Muslim-majority Middle Eastern nations in the Twentieth Century outnumbers the number of Palestinians who left Israel, voluntarily and involuntarily combined, and yet zero attention is given to the dispossession this population faced. There were ancient Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. The Iraqi community was quite large - in 1900 between 1/3 and 1/2 of the population of Baghdad was Jewish - and ancient, exiled from the Babylonian conquest/destruction of the First Temple over 2,500 years ago, but driven out by the Ba’athists anyway. Which leads to another observation:
 
There is no statute of limitations on Jews being fully accepted by a country. You’d think that a population that had been there for over a thousand years before Mohammed was born would be accepted as indigenous already. Nope, accused of having foreign loyalties. What’s especially weird about this example is that during the era of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Babylonian Jews were allowed by the Persian emperor to return to Israel, many elected to stay in Babylon. They were integrated enough then to call Babylon home. They’d already cast their national lot with what eventually became Iraq well over two millenia ago when given a choice to return to Israel and their loyalty was still suspect to the Ba’athists. 
Logical Man Added Jan 13, 2019 - 4:17pm
Riley, none of what you ramble on about makes any difference to the fact that Palestinians are being treated in a criminal manner. Israel is an apartheid state, period. The world should treat Israel in the same way that South Africa was treated as they are doing the same thing.
Riley Brown Added Jan 13, 2019 - 7:51pm
Logical, I fail to see how the the Palestinian refugees are being treated criminally any differently than all the Jews who have been forced to flee their homes in nearby Muslim countries?
 
Please explain the difference.
Logical Man Added Jan 13, 2019 - 9:53pm
Even if there is no difference, the way the Palestinians are being treated is wrong. You can't justify a wrong by pointing out another one.
I would protest the criminal treatment of any human being.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 13, 2019 - 11:03pm
Logical Man,
The problem with most assessments of the Palestinian issue is that exactly what you just said is not standard:
 
”I would protest the criminal treatment of any human being.” 
 
I could talk to you about the extent to which I think it’s criminal and to which I don’t which is probably very different from yours but not entirely. I’m fine with most of what Israel does involving Gaza but not involving the West Bank, where I don’t think Israel has been working honestly toward the two-state solution that both groups need very badly. 
 
Whatever the case is, in terms of human rights record, Israel is middle of the road compared to other nations at worst. There are worse and always have been in the Middle East. The Russians have been worse to the Chechens, the Chinese have been worse to the Tibetans,  the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt was worse to the Copts, the Turks are at least as bad to the Kurds, and forget about Africa. Or how most of the Middle East treats Jews. Even now, Israel is less bigoted than the Palestinians are being as there are plenty of voting Muslims in Israel but Jews are not permitted citizenship by the PA, even if they religiously oppose the existence of Israel, and there’s at least one ultra-Orthodox sect that does. Forget living in Saudi Arabia, without special exceptions Jews aren’t allowed to visit. We could probably include the Saudis as a worse human rights country, certainly to women. Or look at the human rights situation right now in the Philippines, where people are executed for being suspected of involvement in the drug trade, though that’s not a tribal issue like the rest are, just a human rights issue.
 
None of which excuses Israel. But BDS only exists for one country. Why, in a world full of human rights violators, is the most prominent organization focused on a country in the middle of the road in terms of human rights? Why, given that world human rights climate, does the UN issue more resolutions condemning Israel than condemning all other nations Combined? 
 
If you really protest the criminal treatment of any human being and Israel is one among many examples you habitually talk about, I won’t give you a hard time about it because in that case it will be evident that what bothers you is the nature of the crime rather than the identity of the criminal. When it comes to BDS, one of the more eminent protestors of Israeli actions, that’s not remotely true. I don’t know if it’s true of you because I don’t know you well enough. I can’t argue with a single standard. I can easily label a double one. 
Riley Brown Added Jan 14, 2019 - 10:04am
Logical, I admit I'm only an outsider looking in and may need correction.  From where I stand Israel has a lot more justifiable reasons for not moving a large and very hostile refugee population into a strategically important piece of their country, than every Muslim country around them that has chased their Jewish populations away, has for not allowing them to return.
 
Many of the Jews who have been run out of surrounding Muslim countries are still alive, many were chased out recently.  The displaced Jews are not hostile and don't have violent pasts.  The displaced Jews don't have close associations or support from any entities that would like to use them or their property to support violent actions in their host country.
 
Fortunately the Jews that have been run out of neighboring Muslim countries are welcomed in Israel, and many other countries, perhaps because they are known as generally good hard working people who don't cause problems for their host countries or have ties to other people who do that.  That's why there is no long standing group of Jewish refugees stuck somewhere in a camp and made to feel like a herd or displaced skunks.
 
Unfortunately the Palestinian refugees are openly hostile to Israel and very sympathetic to other Arab entities that want to destroy Israel and drive all the Jews into the sea.  They want to occupy militarily strategic land that borders Israel and by doing so would extend the military influence of all the Muslim entities that want to destroy Israel closer than ever to Israel.
 
Also unfortunately all the surrounding Muslim nations seem to regard the Palestinian refugees like a heard of skunks, and none want them in their own backyards.  I don't know if they all regard them as troublemakers and misfits, or just hate them like they hate the Jews in Israel, but they seem equally unwelcome and that may be why they are still refugees generations after any other refugee population would have moved on.  
 
I actually have another theory, but would like to hear you tell me why they are the only refugee population I'm aware of that is treated like a herd of skunks by their Muslim brothers in surrounding countries.
Logical Man Added Jan 14, 2019 - 5:52pm
The Palestinians have become a useful piece in some very big political games, unfortunately for them. Pretty much ensures they are screwed.
Riley Brown Added Jan 15, 2019 - 9:48am
Logical, surprisingly I see you and I agree about why the Palestinians have not already resettled in other countries, just like all the other refugee groups around the world who were displaced so long ago.
 
In the past 50 years countless groups of people have been forced to flee their homelands, many from genocide, and we hardly hear about them anymore because the survivors are long settled somewhere else.
 
That is why we're only focused on Israel, because all the surrounding Muslim nations that were soundly defeated in their military attempt to wipe out Israel, are now trying to use the refugees as a political tool that can get them closer to their goal.  They want more sympathetic Muslim owned and controlled property closer to the heart of Israel. 
 
Israel now owns 18% of the Middle East, (often called the Muslim Peninsula by the Arab countries), and their goal is a Jew free Peninsula.  Any tool they can use to take more land from Israel, or put them in a worse position to defend Israel, is a good idea to them, even if their Muslim brothers have to suffer to further that goal.
 
Instead of continuing to focus on Israel for "crimes" that are no worse than what most of the Arab countries have done to their Jewish populations during the same time frame, we should be demanding the Arab countries take in their Muslim brothers.
 
The only reason they don't is to further the conflict with Israel.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 15, 2019 - 10:43am
Riley,
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said and I thank you for saying it. At this point, some area political realities have shifted. The Arab world still by and large doesn’t like the Palestinians and certainly doesn’t want them, but most Arab governments would rather the Palestinians had a state so the issue would be off the table, not to get rid of Israel. Who wants to use the Palestinians to get rid of Israel is Iran, and therein lies the shift. 
 
The area Arab countries with the possible exception of Syria, who wants the Golan back and won’t get it because turning it over makes Israel militarily too vulnerable, have figured out that the Israeli government does not have territorial aspirations beyond the West Bank. Israel has no interest in invading any of them and so is not classified as a threat. Iran is. Part of the issue is Shia/Sunni and part of it is Islamic State vs. Arab dictatorships. The Iranian mullahs would like to export an Islamic revolution, which is exactly what threatens the existence of Arab governments most. Incidentally, an Islamic revolution is what Hamas represents, which will give you an idea of what the Arab governments think of Hamas. So now the Middle Eastern Muslim world has sort of bifurcated. Iran uses Israel to try to appeal to the Arab street. The Saudis and Iranians are fighting a proxy war in Yemen, as the Iranians use Hezbollah to fight a proxy war against Israel. Because Iran is the big threat to both, the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi governments are effectively allied with Israel at this point. Israel represents a non-threatening counterbalance to Iran. 
 
So at this point the Palestinians, who already represented a problem to Jordan because Arafat used them to try to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy in 1970, and to Egypt because Hamas is an offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood, the government the military government replaced, now represent an obstacle to normalizing relations with Israel which these governments would rather be able to do openly now. 
Riley Brown Added Jan 16, 2019 - 9:37am
Kosher, if I were Israel I'd never give an inch of the high ground back to any of the Arab entities or the Palestinians.   There many not be outright war now but political regimes and the direction they go changes like the weather in the Middle East.  If they gave it away to a peaceful group tomorrow, that group might morph into their biggest threat in another 5 years.  I remember when Baghdad and Iran were safe places for Westerners to visit.
 
By international law Israel captured the high ground in their big war where they were not the aggressor, and that makes the land theirs.
Koshersalaami Added Jan 16, 2019 - 10:28am
The question is what they do with the population. The current situation isn’t indefinitely tenable. Israel can’t absorb the Palestinian population because they’d lose Jewish majority within a generation which puts them back at Square One because reason for Israel is to provide a place with a Jewish majority to make persecuting people for being Jewish impossible. No one else will absorb that population. 
 
Long term military occupation isn’t a good bet either. No population will accept an indefinite military occupation because the phenomenon is by nature temporary and involves a lack of self-determination. In addition, long term military occupation doesn’t give any of their neighbors cover to really normalize relations. Also, to put it bluntly, a nation next door gives them something to attack in that an attack on Israel would not be an act of terrorism but an act of war. The best solution for Israel is a state there, particularly if it’s a demilitarized state. 
 
As things stand, a Palestinian state consisting of the entire Palestinian populations can’t be founded at the moment. 
 
There are a couple of possible solutions. They could both happen in tandem, which might be the best way to do it. The first is that Israel come up with a negotiating position - not a proposal, because the culture there is such that you need bargaining room, nothing is Take It Or Leave It - that involves withdrawing from the West Bank settlements or giving other land in exchange for the settlements that stay, giving the Palestinians a narrow strip of Jerusalem to nominally put their capital on, and possibly with international help considering some reparations for Palestinian families that were physically forced out of Israel in 1948. But the offer is to the West Bank only. The. West Bank can’t do this without Gaza but Gaza is the sticking point because the government of Gaza is more dedicated to the destruction of Israel than to anything else, emphatically including the welfare of their own people. But Gaza has one advantage the West Bank doesn’t have: Defined agreed-upon borders. In the agreement I would put Gaza in escrow, saying that when Gaza votes to recognize Israel, it can join the Palestinian State. That gives the West Bank government coverage to accept a state. When this really should have been done was during the last Gaza war given that Hamas did not consult with the PA before initiating hostilities with Israel, but it could still work. 
 
Why would Israel give such concessions? To answer that question, the principle we have to understand is that any given population values the scarce commodity. American Jews, for historically reasons, are justice-obsessed. Arabs and American Blacks are respect-obsessed. That’s why dissing in some neighborhoods is dangerous and why there are so many gigantic ostentatious buildings and ostentatious cars in the Gulf States - the only thing they have worth respecting is money. To understand the scarce commodity in Israel, look at who the Israelis are and how they’ve lived. The country was founded in part by Holocaust survivors, populated by Jewish immigrants from around the Middle East and the Soviet Union who were not safe in their homelands, and the country has been threatened by at least some of its neighbors since the minute it declared independence in 1948. The country got a scare that made millions phobic when the Hamas Gaza tunnels were discovered, along with plans and equipment to kidnap Israelis coming out of Rosh Hashanah services into the tunnels by Hamas soldiers in Israeli uniforms. This also really reinforced an Us Or Them mentality in Israel to a larger extent than existed previously, with more Israelis talking about wiping out enemy populations. In short, the scarce commodity in Israel is safety. They’ve never experienced it and they founded Israel to get it. 
 
What would give it to them? To understand this, understand that Israel hasn’t had normal allies. Trump, to his credit, is the first President to station US military personnel in Israel permanently. So the answer to my question is full NATO membership. Once a Palestinian state exists, an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, Western Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, and Turkey. They would all be obligated by treaty to provide troops if necessary. That gets the Arab states off the hook. If the Palestinians have a state, the Arab states have an excuse to normalize relations with Israel without hanging other Arabs out to dry. Given that they’re mostly afraid of Iran, this has military benefits for them as well as economic benefits if trade normalizes. 
 
There is another parallel possibility. NATO membership would freak out Putin. Putin could try to preempt NATO membership by offering Israel a deal of his own, which would vastly increase Russian infl
Koshersalaami Added Jan 16, 2019 - 10:32am
Crap, another comment printing incomplete.
 
influence in the Middle East. Putin has one thing that the US and NATO do not: Close relations with Syria and Iran. He could force a settlement on them, particularly if it includes a Palestinian state. Syria and Iran are important in part because they are responsible for getting arms and training to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Interrupting arms shipments to Hezbollah is the primary reason Israel has any military involvement in Syria. Neutralizing Hezbollah would increase Israel’s sense of safety (and actual safety) enormously. Putin has the capacity to stabilize most of the Middle East, giving him a reputation as a peacemaker involving a problem no one else has been able to touch. 
 
Something has to give. The question is what.