Army Guy Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 Black dog: QUOTE]Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the land that Israel "Occupies" has been given back to the Palestine authority has it not....Again i ask you to read the below links...as a man who enjoys the LAW... Most of the occupied territories remains under de facto Israeli control. Under Sharon's Gaza "disengagement" plan, Israel will maintain control over Gaza’s airspace, its territorial sea, and all border crossings and the Israeli army and security services will continue to have a free hand to operate there. In other words, Gaza will become a prison state for Palestinians, while Israel continue sto use the wall to effectively annex large portions of the West Bank. the league of nations had agreed on the division of land for not only the ARABS but for the Jews with the ARABS or decendants of the palestinians... getting over 75 % of the slice to start with and the jews left with 25 % of that slice....it was under british rule that the 25 % shrank to 23 % then to even less...given to the Palestinians...Those Palestinians on those contested lands now want even more of the Jewish slice....History is and will repeat itself...when are the palestinians going to be satisified .....And why can you not see that perhaps the Israelis don't want to give any more.... You're incorrect. The original 1947 partition plan gave the Arabs 43 percent of the land and the Jews 57 percent. Moreover, at the time, Jews made up less than one-third of the population of Palestine. I think you have some of your dates mixed-up The orginal plan was in 1917 the Balfour agreement....and was accepted or incorporated by britain and the league of nations in 1922...it was under this agreement that i got my numbers from. Aided by Arabs, the British captured Palestine from the Ottomans in the winter of 1917 and 1918. In return for their help, the British had promised the Arabs independence. However, Britain had also promised France and Russia that it would divide the region with its allies, and had promised the Jews a national home in Palestine for their help. This last promise was incorporated in a mandate conferred on Britain by the League of Nations in 1922. See map below. The British found their promises to the Jews and Arab Palestinians difficult to reconcile. After 1928, when Jewish immigration increased, British policy on the subject seesawed under conflicting pressures. Immigration rose sharply after the installation of the Nazi regime in Germany in 1933, and fear of Jewish domination was the principal cause of an Arab revolt (1936-1939). It was after the Arab revolt that things changed again for the state of Israel Britain finally turned the problem over to the United Nations (UN) in 1947. When the UN proposed partition in 1947, the Palestinians rejected the plan, while the Jews accepted it. A military struggle followed, and the Palestinians were defeated. The state of Israel was established in 1948, and Arab armies immediately attacked it. Israeli forces defeated them, enlarging Israel's territory. See map below Israel 1947. The map below shows Israel after the war in 48 Well, I beleive the original partition plan, which was enforced without the consent or approval of the majority of people in the Mandate, was unjust, but it's too late to undo that now. And no the "population transfer" was not mandated by the UN, but came about as a result of the ensuing conflict. You can plainly see by the maps above that the state Israel is clearly not gaining anything in the way of land mass but giving more to the Arabs....the Orginal plan in 1922 was agreed by Britain, and at the time the league of nations...Including the already establish Arab countries....Even after the new division in 47 by the UN the arabs were not happy... Israel was carved up even smaller..and one day after Israel declared it self a nation the Arabs attacked again.... So my question is how many times is Israel going to have to carve up it's lands...how much is going to be enough for the arabs....And do you really think that the Arabs are going to stop if the grant the PA what it wants... Sorry my Images did not work the maops are located in this link...My Webpage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 Mcqueen : beg to difer, they were not religious fanatics, they were just nutcases, attempting to use the Koran to justify their own madness. Even Muslim clerics attest to the fact that they were not in fact following religious beliefs, Muslim or otherwise. McVey did exactly the same type of thing and it had nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with the fact he was nuts. Ok, now i'm confused,We no longer call them terrorist, but insurgents,and now we just call them nutcases....that are attempting to use the Koran to jutisfy thier existance.... Thier believes in the Koran are very real, and they do believe or have interputed from the Koran that thier actions are justified and will be granted full access into heaven through their actions of killing infidels...... I think that qualifies them as a religious fanatic/ Terrorist.. McVey although religious carry out his act because of his hate for goverment, making him just a plain terrorist.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 I think you have some of your dates mixed-up The orginal plan was in 1917 the Balfour agreement....and was accepted or incorporated by britain and the league of nations in 1922...it was under this agreement that i got my numbers from. IIRC, the balfour Declaration did not outline a partition plan, but was simply expressing British Support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Furthermore, the 1947 partition plan which established Israel was the one accepted by the UN and the jewish community and thus more relevant to the discussion. You can plainly see by the maps above that the state Israel is clearly not gaining anything in the way of land mass but giving more to the Arabs....the Orginal plan in 1922 was agreed by Britain, and at the time the league of nations...Including the already establish Arab countries....Even after the new division in 47 by the UN the arabs were not happy... Israel was carved up even smaller..and one day after Israel declared it self a nation the Arabs attacked again.... Your map actually shows the expansion of Israeli territory. And, as previously noted, the 1947 plan gave the Jews a disproportinately large share of the land. When the UN proposed partition in 1947, the Palestinians rejected the plan, while the Jews accepted it. A military struggle followed, and the Palestinians were defeated. The state of Israel was established in 1948, and Arab armies immediately attacked it. This is a comon version of the story. It's Israel's own creation myth with the unspoken assumption that the Jews just wanted a bit of land and peace, but were opossed by the greedy and anti-Semetic Palestinians and Arabs. This totally discounts the massive population transfer which occurred, which included foricble expulsion and war crimes committed by Israeli militia forces against civilians. Most historians put the number of Palestinains forced out of the territory at around 700,000. So my question is how many times is Israel going to have to carve up it's lands...how much is going to be enough for the arabs....And do you really think that the Arabs are going to stop if the grant the PA what it wants... Everyone recognizes Israel's rihty to exist within secure borders. the debate is where that border should be. I'm simply saying Israel should withdraw to the pre 1967 armistice line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 Back to Fallujah for a sec: Little Stalingrad You may recall that the U.S. Marine commanders on scene declared some weeks ago that the battle was won and Fallujah was ours. It now appears they were Panglissading through reality, in a way that seems universal among American generals. Fighting still continues in Fallujah. Far from fleeing, resistance fighters are now infiltrating back into the city. Sectors we have "pacified" spring back to life in IED attacks and ambushes. There is talk about letting a few civilians return to Fallujah’s ruins, but only under conditions that would make normal civilian life impossible.Of course, Fallujah itself was largely destroyed in the American assault. The American military did the only thing a Second Generation military can do: it put firepower on targets. 2GW armed services are one-trick ponies: they only have one act, and they perform it regardless of whether it fits the circumstances or not. In Fourth Generation war, the usual result is what has happened in Fallujah: a moral victory for the other side. As Colonel Boyd argued, and as this column has pointed out time and time again, the moral level of war is the most powerful, the physical level the least powerful. Correspondent Patrick Cockburn, who is in Iraq, reports another result of Fallujah: "just at the moment that the U.S. troops were moving into Fallujah, suddenly, most of Mosul – a city in the north, which is at least five or six times the size of Falluja – fell to the insurgents… This is far more important in some ways that what’s happened in Falluja." Not only did most of the insurgents leave Fallujah before our assault, they realized that if we had concentrated in Fallujah, we had left openings elsewhere. They took full advantage of those openings. It is perhaps time to ask which side has the better commanders? Operationally, Fallujah, like Stalingrad, proved to be a trap. It led us to concentrate so many of our few combat troops in one place that the insurgency was able to make major gains in other, more important places. It again drew a glaring contrast between how America fights – by pouring in firepower – and the stated aim of the American invasion of Iraq, liberating the Iraqi people. You cannot liberate people by destroying their homes, their jobs and their cities. The fundamental point that all war-bosters seem to miss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 Army Guy, there's many excellent, non-partisan NGO's working on some of the issues we've discussed, vis a vis Israel and Plaestine. I think it's important to find these middle ground voices and question the commonly accepted narrative. Gush Shalom is a Israeli jewish peace organization that opposses the occupation. Arab Association for Human Rights is a group focusing on Arab/israeli relations within Israel. They have soem good information on issues such as land development. I found this particular piece of information interesting in light of your contention taht Israel just keep sgiving and giving: In 1948, the Palestinian Arab community owned and used most of the land within the State of Israel. Today it owns less than 3% of these lands. Palestinian Arab citizens ability to own or use the rest is severely restricted by a series of discriminatory laws and practices which are detailed below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 Black dog: IIRC, the balfour Declaration did not outline a partition plan, but was simply expressing British Support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Furthermore, the 1947 partition plan which established Israel was the one accepted by the UN and the jewish community and thus more relevant to the discussion. There was an earlier partion plan,and it is outlined in the first two maps of the link i gave you... In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now. The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [iDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations. The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River. Your map actually shows the expansion of Israeli territory. And, as previously noted, the 1947 plan gave the Jews a disproportinately large share of the land. How can you say that Israelis got the large chunk when the Arabs recieved what is now known as Jodan, as thier piece of the land that was divided by the british in 1923...it was after the Arab revolt which Britian walked away from the problem and the UN made another decission in 1947 to carve up more of the Israelis side to give to the Arabs... yes if you looked at the last map in the link i gave you Israel did get the big piece...but that piece is what was left of the 25 % they were orginally given by the British and what was approved by the league of nations in 1923...As for the Arabs having to move It was the league of nations (a world body) that made the first decission .... then the UN carved that territory up again...note they were mandated to move twice by world body....and they choose not to move....i say again they choose not to move from the land that the UN said legally now belonged to Israel....And now You and want them to carve up another portion of Israel to give to the PA....Does this mean if i camp out on your front lawn long enough that i can legally one day call it mine....those territories in the 1947 act were also taken after a war in which was started by guess who...yes the Arabs only after one day of Israel declaring itself a nation... i guess that only counts if your not Israel Everyone recognizes Israel's rihty to exist within secure borders. the debate is where that border should be. I'm simply saying Israel should withdraw to the pre 1967 armistice line. Why the 1967 line why not give all the territory that was siezed in combat back to the arabs...And i would agree if it meant that the arabs would cease all actions agais'nt Israel and if they did not then they would face the NATO or a similar coalition.... But we both know that is not going to happen, and regardless of what Israel does there will always be fighting ...because this problem is to old and to much blood shed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 3, 2005 Report Share Posted June 3, 2005 However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now. The same argument could be made that the European Jews who formed the vanguard of post World War 2 immigration, by their actions (such as the of Arab villages and expulsion of their populations), showed little regard for sharing and that continued instragience by Israeli leadership represents a congenital inability by Jews to share. But that would be a rascist statement and I don't beleive Zionism is ionherently rascist. The big flaw with the notion that "everyone had their own state" is that it fails to account for the "facts on the ground": why should anyone who's been residing on the same patch of land for generations pack up and move elsewhere simply because a colonial power has declared your land part of someone elses state? Remember, even after Israel proclaimed its existence as a state, Jews were still less than one-third of the population of Palestine. The point is the land was never Britain's to give, but belonged to the inhabitants. How can you say that Israelis got the large chunk when the Arabs recieved what is now known as Jodan, as thier piece of the land that was divided by the british in 1923...it was after the Arab revolt which Britian walked away from the problem and the UN made another decission in 1947 to carve up more of the Israelis side to give to the Arabs... Again: under the UN plan, the Jews got more than 50 per cent of the land. Your use of the term "Israeli side" is disingenous as no such side existed pre 1947. ....i say again they choose not to move from the land that the UN said legally now belonged to Israel....And now You and want them to carve up another portion of Israel to give to the PA....Does this mean if i camp out on your front lawn long enough that i can legally one day call it mine....those territories in the 1947 act were also taken after a war in which was started by guess who...yes the Arabs only after one day of Israel declaring itself a nation... i guess that only counts if your not Israel How about this: if I walk into your house, remove you at gun point and declare all your home and property to be mine, is that just? Would it be any more just if I had a warrant from the police authorizing me to do so? That's what we're talking about: the land was not the UN's to give. At least hardcore Zionists like Morris recognize the inherent injustice of Israel's founding: they simply acknowledge it as a necessary evil. You're defending colonialism and outright theft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 6, 2005 Report Share Posted June 6, 2005 Black dog: The big flaw with the notion that "everyone had their own state" is that it fails to account for the "facts on the ground": why should anyone who's been residing on the same patch of land for generations pack up and move elsewhere simply because a colonial power has declared your land part of someone elses state? Thats a good question, the same could be asked why jews that had immigrated and lived in Syria, Trans jorden,and the rest of the surrounding Muslim countries why were they forced to leave, pack -up and move into lands that the wprld concil had giving them ...Why... it was the best solution at the time even back then the Jews were not wanted both sides could not get along...i believe it also gave the muslim countries an excuse to move thier jews out of thier countries... Remember, even after Israel proclaimed its existence as a state, Jews were still less than one-third of the population of Palestine. Mout piont, If the rest of the Muslims had actually followed the UN decission it would have all been a jewish state... The point is the land was never Britain's to give, but belonged to the inhabitants. Yes it was, It was taken off Turkey, at the end of WWI...Britain did not have to give it to anyone, but instead had used it to solve the problem of these two people and to give them each a state of thier own... Again: under the UN plan, the Jews got more than 50 per cent of the land. Look at a map, compare the size of the state of Jorden....to the state of Israel... That was the first agreement ....Now how could you think the Arabs got ripped off...they were all suppose to move to Jorden....instead they refused ,revolted and in 1947 the UN granted the Arabs additional lands...not in Jordan but out of the piece of what is now called Israel...Note that those lands that were giving were taken by the arabs in combat during the revolt.... Your use of the term "Israeli side" is disingenous as no such side existed pre 1947. Agreed, your use of the Palestinian people is disingenous as it orginally refed to the jews in the area... How about this: if I walk into your house, remove you at gun point and declare all your home and property to be mine, is that just? Would it be any more just if I had a warrant from the police authorizing me to do so? That's what we're talking about: the land was not the UN's to give. I would not think so, as it is my house however the UN solution was to fix a bigger problem, and in that context i would say it is right....Your right is not the UN's land to give it was Britains, and they had asked the UN to find a solution...And if the UN decisson is not valued here in this case...why is it that we value their decissions now or for that matter on anything......in Ref to Iraq...or is it that we only decide when we agree with the decissions...Also remember that the UN was alot more powerful then than it is today... At least hardcore Zionists like Morris recognize the inherent injustice of Israel's founding: they simply acknowledge it as a necessary evil. You're defending colonialism and outright theft. Then we must also recoginze that the State of Jordan was also founded on the same....And Yes i am defending colonialism, it is what most of the free world was built on... But it is not theft...the people on the land did not own the land persay, the British goverment owned it out right... Just as in Canada today, how many examples do you know off ...that the goverment be it federal or provincal have asked people to move for things such as highways, airports, dams, etc,etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 6, 2005 Report Share Posted June 6, 2005 Thats a good question, the same could be asked why jews that had immigrated and lived in Syria, Trans jorden,and the rest of the surrounding Muslim countries why were they forced to leave, pack -up and move into lands that the wprld concil had giving them ...Why... it was the best solution at the time even back then the Jews were not wanted both sides could not get along...i believe it also gave the muslim countries an excuse to move thier jews out of thier countries... Given the stain which the creation of Israel by UN (read: colonial) decree has left on the regional makeup, on Jew/Arab relations and on Muslim/Western relations, I wonder if the post facto assessment that partition was the "best solution" is even remotely accurate. The way I see it, though, if you accept Israel's right to exist as a prori then the issue of who actually owns the land is irrelevant. Notions of proprietary rights and self-determination can be cast by the wayside in favour of the greater goal. I don't see it that way. I don't believe conquest, decree, tradition or talmudic mandates are sufficient substitutes for the just aquisition of land. In cases where land is aqcuired in an unjust fashion, then compensation should be available (that applies to those Jews expelled from Arab countries, though that fact is entirely unrelated to the Palestinian/Israeli issue: the Palestinians are not responsible for the actions of some Arab states.) Mout piont, If the rest of the Muslims had actually followed the UN decission it would have all been a jewish state... It is a valid point. Does it seem just to allot just over 30 per cent of the population just under 60 per cent of the land? Yes it was, It was taken off Turkey, at the end of WWI...Britain did not have to give it to anyone, but instead had used it to solve the problem of these two people and to give them each a state of thier own... No it wasn't. The state does not own land, less so in the case of absentee colonial governance. Agreed, your use of the Palestinian people is disingenous as it orginally refed to the jews in the area... No Palestinian referred to everyone in Palestine. Today, Palestinian is a recognized national movement. I would not think so, as it is my house however the UN solution was to fix a bigger problem, and in that context i would say it is right.... So if I waas homeless and the theft of your house solved a bigger problem, that would be okay? But the same logic applies in both situations. You're contradicting yourself. Your right is not the UN's land to give it was Britains, and they had asked the UN to find a solution... Again, the land was no more Britain's as your house is the property of the government of Canada. And if the UN decisson is not valued here in this case...why is it that we value their decissions now or for that matter on anything......in Ref to Iraq...or is it that we only decide when we agree with the decissions. Or why is that UN decisions vis a vis Iraq are valued, but multiple censures of Israel are ignored? The actions of the world body (which is mostly a tool of powerful western interests) are not always right or always wrong, necessarily. And Yes i am defending colonialism, it is what most of the free world was built on... But it is not theft... It is theft. Just as my prior analogy about kicking you out of your house is theft too. Same thing. As for the argument that the "free world" was built on colonialism (theft), so? Does that make, for example, the genocide of the American native population right? the people on the land did not own the land persay, the British goverment owned it out right... No it didn't. Britain was the administrator, not the owner of the territory. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Just as in Canada today, how many examples do you know off ...that the goverment be it federal or provincal have asked people to move for things such as highways, airports, dams, etc,etc.. In such cases, people are entitled to compensation for the loss of property. If there's no compensation following expropriation, it is theft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 6, 2005 Report Share Posted June 6, 2005 Black dog: Given the stain which the creation of Israel by UN (read: colonial) decree has left on the regional makeup, on Jew/Arab relations and on Muslim/Western relations, I wonder if the post facto assessment that partition was the "best solution" is even remotely accurate. It's funny that the creation of Jordan is not mentioned as a stain ,Just Israel... As for the best solution, you have two enthic groups that are continuily fighting what is your solution if not to separate them.... The way I see it, though, if you accept Israel's right to exist as a prori then the issue of who actually owns the land is irrelevant. Notions of proprietary rights and self-determination can be cast by the wayside in favour of the greater goal. I don't see it that way. I don't believe conquest, decree, tradition or talmudic mandates are sufficient substitutes for the just aquisition of land Let me ask you this question ? if Britain had not divided the areas of Trans Jordan and today,it was still under British mandate do you think that the Jewish people would be there today.... In cases where land is aqcuired in an unjust fashion, then compensation should be available (that applies to those Jews expelled from Arab countries, though that fact is entirely unrelated to the Palestinian/Israeli issue: the Palestinians are not responsible for the actions of some Arab states So who is going to pay those that moved...Israel, Britian , the world concil... And if you conquor a nation through war. does that mean you have to pay all those who's land you've siezed...Makes one good case for ethnic cleansing does it not... It is a valid point. Does it seem just to allot just over 30 per cent of the population just under 60 per cent of the land? Again you are extremly confused...you are looking at the UN mandate....you need to look at the 1923 agreement.. Geographical Distribution of the Mandate In 1920, following the defeat of the Turks, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the peace conferences after World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations. The Mandate was international recognition for the stated purpose of "establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people." (See What was the British Mandate?.) The area of the Mandate was originally 118,000 square kilometers (about 45,000 square miles). In 1921, Britain took the 91,000 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River, and created Trans-Jordan (later the Arab country of Jordan) as a new Arab protectorate. Jews were barred by law from living or owning property east of the Jordan river, even though that land was over three-fourths of the original Mandate. In 1923, Britain ceded the Golan Heights (another 1,176 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate) to the French Mandate of Syria. Jews were also barred from living there. Jewish settlers on the Golan Heights were forced to abandon their homes and relocate inside the westerb area of the British Mandate. The total remaining area of the Mandate for Palestine, after these land deductions, was just under 26,000 square kilometers (about 10,000 square miles). The southern part of the Mandate – the desert of the Negev – was also closed by the British to Jewish settlement. The area was inhabited by 15,000 roaming Bedouins, and had no Jewish or Arab settlements in it. The balance of the Mandate, the inhabited part of Palestine, and only the part west of the Jordan, was just 14,000 square kilometers. Jewish immigration was limited by the British from time to time, especially after the periods of Arab riots and severely restricted after 1939. At the same time, Arab immigration was not restricted or even recorded. By 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, 1.8 million people lived the western area of the Mandate, estimated to be 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs. Following the war between the Jews and the Arabs in 1948, the inhabited areas of the 14,000 square kilometers were divided along cease-fire lines between Israel and Jordan/Egypt. 8,000 square kilometers, or 57% of the reduced area (which is only 6.7% of the original Mandate territory), became Israel. The rest of the area of western Palestine, 5,700 square kilometers of historic Judea and Samaria, was annexed by Jordan – and renamed the West Bank - while 360 square kilometers were occupied by Egypt and called the Gaza Strip. Breaking this down into a table: Zone Size in Sq. Km. Percent of Total Control in 1948 Original Mandate 118,000 100% ----- Jordan 91,000 77% Jordan Negev Desert 11,750 9.9% Israel Israel (inhabited) 8,000 6.7% Israel West Bank 5,700 4.8% Jordan Golan Heights 1,176 0.99% Syria Gaza Strip 360 0.3% Egypt And i already know how you feel about annex land through unjust seizure. So by alrights that land according to you should be given back to Israel. And those Palestinians should have 2 options stay and live in Israel as Israelis or move as thier forefathers did to Jordan. No Palestinian referred to everyone in Palestine. Today, Palestinian is a recognized national movement. The highly respected Enciclopedia Italiana (Vol. 26, "Palestina"; ca. 1930) tells us that the name "Palestine" came "to prevail in modern times" over other names. This change apparently took place out of the "scientific" motive to avoid the religious connotations of Holy Land. Thus Palestine was again a Western name as it had been in ancient times. "Palestine" was first officially applied to the country in modern times in 1920 when the peace negotiators at the San Remo Conference juridically established the country as the Jewish National Home. Before World War I it was an administratively indistinct area of the Ottoman Empire and was shared among various Ottoman administrative departments. Or why is that UN decisions vis a vis Iraq are valued, but multiple censures of Israel are ignored? Because you are failing to see both sides and why this is such a big deal to Israelis...they see it as another land grab by the Arabs ...and the world see the poor palestinain and thier plight. So if I waas homeless and the theft of your house solved a bigger problem, that would be okay?But the same logic applies in both situations. You're contradicting yourself. When dealing with a large group of people your not going to make everyone happy...it's impossable...Had the Arabs all gone to Jordan as per the agreement then the Palestine problem would not exist today... It is theft. Just as my prior analogy about kicking you out of your house is theft too. Same thing. As for the argument that the "free world" was built on colonialism (theft), so? Does that make, for example, the genocide of the American native population right? No it does not, but in this case the orginal agreement gave that land to the Israelis, and after the Arab revolt land that was siezed by the Arabs was then given to them by the UN...and in 48 most of that land was taken back by Israel through conflict started by the Arabs ....it only sounds fair to give all that back to the Arabs to have a shakey peace at best....where does it stop...if the PA can not live in peace after Israel grants them all there land back... No it didn't. Britain was the administrator, not the owner of the territory. I challenge you to prove otherwise. ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. OK i agree that you are right they are not the owner of the land out right, however that being said they did have the authority to make those decissions as to who lives where, and who did what...with the powers that the mandate gave them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 6, 2005 Report Share Posted June 6, 2005 It's funny that the creation of Jordan is not mentioned as a stain ,Just Israel... The creation of Jordan was entirely seperate from the creation of Israel. And its hard to argue that the former really caused much fuss and bother. As for the best solution, you have two enthic groups that are continuily fighting what is your solution if not to separate them.... Liek squabbling children? What about self determination? What about a single, democratic, secular state where all citizens have equal rights regardless of ethnicity or religion? Let me ask you this question ? if Britain had not divided the areas of Trans Jordan and today,it was still under British mandate do you think that the Jewish people would be there today.... Not as many. Immigration to Israel was encouraged by Zionist movements since before 1948. Israel has encouraged this. But that's kind of academic at this point. And if you conquor a nation through war. does that mean you have to pay all those who's land you've siezed...Makes one good case for ethnic cleansing does it not... Please see my previous statements on the inadmissability of territory acqyuired in war. Plus, I think you mean genocide. Ethnic cleansing is the act of expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory. Kinda like what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 and wih Jews in other parts of the Arab world. Again you are extremly confused...you are looking at the UN mandate....you need to look at the 1923 agreement.. Let's be clear: when I speak of partition, I'm talking about the 1947 UN act that created Israel. What claim does Israel have on Jordan? So by alrights that land according to you should be given back to Israel. And those Palestinians should have 2 options stay and live in Israel as Israelis or move as thier forefathers did to Jordan. It was never "Israel's" land in the first place. No such state existed prior to 1947. And I'm fine with a one-state solution, provided Palestinians enjoy the same rights and priviledges as their Jewish bretheren in a secular democracy. But the Israelis don't want an additional one million+ Arabs to deal with. Because you are failing to see both sides and why this is such a big deal to Israelis...they see it as another land grab by the Arabs ...and the world see the poor palestinain and thier plight. What I question is the dubious nature of Israel's claim to the territory. I don't think the claims of their holy book are automatically valid, nor do I think race, religion or tenuous ancestral attachment to a area are recognizable ways to claim land. That would be like me demanding a chunk of land in Ukraine becaus eof my grandparents residency there. It's silly. When dealing with a large group of people your not going to make everyone happy...it's impossable...Had the Arabs all gone to Jordan as per the agreement then the Palestine problem would not exist today... Again, you're using colnialism as a refuge for your argument. I reiterate: why should anyone who's been residing on the same patch of land for generations pack up and move elsewhere simply because a colonial power has declared your land part of someone else's state? OK i agree that you are right they are not the owner of the land out right, however that being said they did have the authority to make those decissions as to who lives where, and who did what...with the powers that the mandate gave them. Which still means that any land seized without compensation was, essentially, stolen. I'm trying to come at this from a point of consistency. I don't believe stealing land is right under any circumstances, regardless of the perpatrator's identity or intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 The creation of Jordan was entirely seperate from the creation of Israel. And its hard to argue that the former really caused much fuss and bother. No it was not, the orginal agreement was for some the lands that was under British mandate to be set aside for the Jews and a creation of a jewish homeland., this included Trans-Jordan....and alot of other territory...It was after the 1921 revolt that the belfour agreement was changed.... and 76% of those lands given to the Arabs...the area now known as Jordan...this was done to palcate the arabs and to promote peace in the area... How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being? The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British. The White Paper included the statement that the British Government: ... does not want Palestine to become "as Jewish as England is English", rather should become "a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride." After the partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain completed the action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population. According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was: ... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state. In 1925, the British added 60,000 sq. km. of desert to eastern Transjordan forming an "arm" of land to connect Transjordan with Iraq and to cut Syria off from the Arabian Peninsula. The British continued to favor exclusive Arab development east of the Jordan River by enacting restrictive regulations against the Jews, even when Arab leaders sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan. This was changed again after the Arab revolt and the UN agreement. Liek squabbling children? What about self determination? What about a single, democratic, secular state where all citizens have equal rights regardless of ethnicity or religion? You mean like those mentioned in the link below. That are Arab Israelis.. Muslim status Or are you talking about the PA, that want nothing to do with Israel or becoming an Israelis..And want thier own land to govern themselfs...Land that the UN allowed them to keep after it was seized in combat after Israel declared itself a nation. Not as many. Immigration to Israel was encouraged by Zionist movements since before 1948. Israel has encouraged this. But that's kind of academic at this point. Correct me if i'm wrong but a bulk of the immigation was done right after WWII was it not, with most of the world refusing large numbers of Jewish refugees from entering thier countries where else where they supposed to go...Yes the Zionist movement had a large role in it but so did racism, those countries did not want the jews period ...that includes Canada...in fact Canada allowed more german prisoners to immigrate than jewish people...But Canada is not alone in this many of those allieds were also guilty of acting the same way...so world opinion was a major factor in where the jews ended up. Please see my previous statements on the inadmissability of territory acqyuired in war. My piont was that most of the land that the UN agreed to give the Palestineians? Jodanians in 1948 was siezed from the Jews in the arab revolt....so according to your statement it is land that belongs to Israel not the PA or Jordan.... the same land was retaken after the Arabs attack the state of Israel one day after it declared itself a nation....... Let's be clear: when I speak of partition, I'm talking about the 1947 UN act that created Israel You are peicemealing history to suit your needs...the jewish home land was created well before 1947....and the belfore mandate was just one of many mandates that verify this....Israel proclaimed itself a state or nation in 1947...that does not mean that the world did not recongise the jewish homeland as belonging to the jews.... What claim does Israel have on Jordan? Jordan was orginally Trans-jordan, and part of the land that was given to create a jewish homeland, because of unrest the British gave that land to the Arabs that would be moved / relocated from the jewish homeland. Hence giving the Arabs a homeland of thier own....Both are tied together in the same agreement... It was never "Israel's" land in the first place. No such state existed prior to 1947.And I'm fine with a one-state solution, provided Palestinians enjoy the same rights and priviledges as their Jewish bretheren in a secular democracy. But the Israelis don't want an additional one million+ Arabs to deal with. Again your not reading all the history attached to this conflict ...I've read the PA web site even they agree with the datesand the history behind it... what they disagree on is who started what... What I question is the dubious nature of Israel's claim to the territory. I don't think the claims of their holy book are automatically valid, nor do I think race, religion or tenuous ancestral attachment to a area are recognizable ways to claim land. That would be like me demanding a chunk of land in Ukraine becaus eof my grandparents residency there. It's silly. I agree with you ,but both sides are claiming the same thing ...it does have a factor in the problem.... Again, you're using colnialism as a refuge for your argument. I reiterate: why should anyone who's been residing on the same patch of land for generations pack up and move elsewhere simply because a colonial power has declared your land part of someone else's state? Because those groups had proven over many years of history that they could not live together in harmony....The British decided to create a jewish homeland ...it was the arabs that became violent then and only then did the British changed the agreement to reflect the creation of two separate homelands....It was the best solution at the time...it was what both wanted well most of them any ways. Which still means that any land seized without compensation was, essentially, stolen.I'm trying to come at this from a point of consistency. I don't believe stealing land is right under any circumstances, regardless of the perpatrator's identity or intentions So if you have read any of the links that i gave you what land was stolen and by whom... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Jordan was orginally Trans-jordan, and part of the land that was given to create a jewish homeland, because of unrest the British gave that land to the Arabs that would be moved / relocated from the jewish homeland. Hence giving the Arabs a homeland of thier own....Both are tied together in the same agreement... AG, I hate to say this after you've done so much homework, but your dealing in non sequiters. May I refer you back to what I consider my key points: 1) You clearly consider Israel's right to exists a categorical imperative; that is an absolute, unconditional requirement that is both required and justified as an end in itself. I do not. I believe the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland only if such territory is acquired in a just manner. I do not believe that to be the case with Israel, given the seizure of territory from the rightful inhabitants (that is: the original population dwelling there) and the ensuring population transfer and subsequent denial of compensation. 2) It's utterly misleading to talk of the division of the Palestine Mandate in 1922 in terms of the Arabs stealing land from the Jews. The Jewish population would only have claim to land they justly occupied, so the original partition by a foreign colonial power is unjustified. Again: the British foriegn minister did not own the land and therefore had no legal or moral authority to partition it out. You continue to ignore this point (see again my house-stealing analogy). 3) Again, I don't consider the Balfour Declaration or the UN partition plan to be valid as they were foisted upon the population, violating their right to self-determination. Neither of these can be called upon to demonstrate the rightfulness and legality of taking the land of Palestine from Arabs and giving it to Zionists from Europe and elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 Black dog: 1) You clearly consider Israel's right to exists a categorical imperative; that is an absolute, unconditional requirement that is both required and justified as an end in itself. I do not. I believe the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland only if such territory is acquired in a just manner. I do not believe that to be the case with Israel, given the seizure of territory from the rightful inhabitants (that is: the original population dwelling there) and the ensuring population transfer and subsequent denial of compensation I do believe that the World concil (in it's day) the UN plus most if not all of the worlds leaders have accepted that Israel as a nation..And it's right to exist...you quote: I believe the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland only if such territory is acquired in a just manner. are you saying that the world concil and UN decissions in this matter is illigal, if so you have not provided any proof of that just your opinion...and if they are illigal then what other decissions that they have made are illigal or for that matter why do these organizations even exist...I have provided you with links and info in regards to this supposed siezure from the rightfull inhabitants and you either disregard it or dismiss it... So i ask what makes them the legal inhabitants, as this land has changed hands and nations dozens of times through out history, including jewish hands..how far do we go back in time to find out who was the orginal owners because it is clear that you firmly believe that claiming captured lands as your own is not legal. The Arab Legion of Transjordan was a British-organized, British-equipped, and British-led force seving the British-installed King Abdullah. On April 14, 1948 Abdullah of Transjordan announced that his legion would fight the Jews in Palestine "in real battles". A few days later the British brought additional contingents of the Transjordan Arab Legion to Palestine, ostensibably "for police duty". It was less than a month before the expiration of the Mandate and the British gave their solemn promise -- in Jerusalem and in the Parliament in London -- that the Arab Legion would be returned to Transjordan before the expiration of the mandate on May 15, 1948. On May 18, 1948 the New York Post wrote of this action: The outrageous act of bringing the Arab Legion of Abdullah for policing duties a few days after Abdullah had declared that his Legion would fight the Jews in Palestine is probably unequalled in the annals of hypocrisy. The British did not return the Legion to Transjordan. They considered that they had absolved themselves when they announced that upon the end of the mandate in Palestine, British officers would withdraw from leadership of the Legion for the period of fighting in Palestine. The Transjordan Arab Legion was involved in fighting against the Jews starting before the termination of the Mandate, including the infamous massacre of the defenders of Kfar-Etzion, south of Jerusalem. There the poorly armed Jewish settler-defenders tried to survive against the Legion with its British-supplied tanks, field guns and flame-throwers. They all perished in the attempt, either in the battle or in the slaughter that followed their surrender. By the end of the fighting in 1948, the Transjordan Legion had seen more action than the forces of any other Arab state. Abdullah, backed by the British whose eyes were on Arab oil and the Suez Canal, hoped to have the entire country for himself. But Israel successfully defended its territory, so he could only annex to Transjordan the part of the country that was intended for the Palestinian Arabs and which was outside the cease-fire lines of Israel's War for Independence. Other Arab countries had other ideas and Egypt ended up with the Gaza Strip area. If you do not agree on this mandate then do you agree on other mandates that were created at the same time and seen the creation of Iraq, syria, lebanon, etc etc...all created from terrortory captured after WWI from the Turks... 2) It's utterly misleading to talk of the division of the Palestine Mandate in 1922 in terms of the Arabs stealing land from the Jews. The Jewish population would only have claim to land they justly occupied, so the original partition by a foreign colonial power is unjustified. Again: the British foriegn minister did not own the land and therefore had no legal or moral authority to partition it out. You continue to ignore this point (see again my house-stealing analogy). I don't recall saying the Arabs stole any land, i believe i said that they had captured jewish lands during the revolts...To counter your claim that you did not believe that captured lands to be within the law...thus proving that the PA really does not have "much" of a case in claiming those lands today as theirs ... They did have legal authority, if we honour those decissions done by the world concil or UN...even though they did not have ownership... Although who did at the time the Turkish or how far do we go back in history? 3) Again, I don't consider the Balfour Declaration or the UN partition plan to be valid as they were foisted upon the population, violating their right to self-determination. Neither of these can be called upon to demonstrate the rightfulness and legality of taking the land of Palestine from Arabs and giving it to Zionists from Europe and elsewhere.Then why have you in the past defended other UN decissions, we can not pick and choose they eithier have the power to make decissions or they do not...Jews were forced to move into those areas dictated by the agreements without compasation and yet you have barely touched upon those, including areas that were siezed after the revolts including territory that the PA claims as thier own...Your opinion would also have to include this statement ...The Arabs right to self determination can not infringe on any of the rights of any others as well including those jews living in the area before the agreements...., The revolts are proof that they are not willing to include the jews in any state of thier choosing ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 8, 2005 Report Share Posted June 8, 2005 are you saying that the world concil and UN decissions in this matter is illigal, if so you have not provided any proof of that just your opinion...and if they are illigal then what other decissions that they have made are illigal or for that matter why do these organizations even exist... They are not "illegal" in the sense they were done in the abscene of law on the matter. But they were unjust. have provided you with links and info in regards to this supposed siezure from the rightfull inhabitants and you either disregard it or dismiss it... Please show me these links again, I went back and couldn't find which one's you specified. So i ask what makes them the legal inhabitants, as this land has changed hands and nations dozens of times through out history, including jewish hands Either proprietary ownership or residency. The fact is, while the land may have changed hands in the sens eof who oversaw it (Ottoman Empire, Britain etc.). The Ottomans who ruled Palestine for four 400 years found the indigenous population to consist of the Bedaween, "Arabs of the Arabs" who live in tents and roam the deserts, the Fellahheen or agicultural peasantry who lived in villages, and were freehold owners of the soil which they cultivated, and the Belladeen; "Townsfolk," who lived from generation to generation, in cities, generally in their own freehold houses. All these groups shared common languages and customs and were, by the most basic definition, a national identity, despite the overlordship of the changing cast of imperial masters. how far do we go back in time to find out who was the orginal owners because it is clear that you firmly believe that claiming captured lands as your own is not legal. I would say that the Palestinian people, most of whom can trace their lineage back to the land for the past 100 years have a far more solid claim than European Jews whose conection to the land is tenuous at best. If you do not agree on this mandate then do you agree on other mandates that were created at the same time and seen the creation of Iraq, syria, lebanon, etc etc...all created from terrortory captured after WWI from the Turks... Exactly my point. Colonial division was generally clumsy and usually ignorant of local tribal, sectarian and ethnic divisions. That's why the Middle East is so tumultuous today. Israel is a unique example in that it's founding entailed a massive transfer of the indiginous population to make troom for an immigrant population. I don't recall saying the Arabs stole any land, i believe i said that they had captured jewish lands during the revolts...To counter your claim that you did not believe that captured lands to be within the law...thus proving that the PA really does not have "much" of a case in claiming those lands today as theirs ... From my point of view, the territory Jordan and Egypt captured in 1948 should never have been allotted to Israel in the first place. Then why have you in the past defended other UN decissions, we can not pick and choose they eithier have the power to make decissions or they do not... I said before, decisions made by the UN are not always right or always wrong. i think the decision to plunk several thousand DPs onto someonelse's land wa sthe wrong one. Jews were forced to move into those areas dictated by the agreements without compasation and yet you have barely touched upon those, including areas that were siezed after the revolts including territory that the PA claims as thier own... Uh...what? Let me reiterate: anyone forcibly removed from territory they were in lawful posession of is entitled to compensation for their loss. ...The Arabs right to self determination can not infringe on any of the rights of any others as well including those jews living in the area before the agreements.. See above. The revolts are proof that they are not willing to include the jews in any state of thier choosing You mean the 1948 war, right? Okay, look at it this way: Suppose the United Nations decided that Canada's aboriginal population has too long been deprived of their rightful homeland and have mandated, without the consent of the non-native population, to partition Canada accordingly. How would you react to the news that the land you have lived on for your entire life is being given to somebody else without your consent? What if, subsequentially, armed gangs of aboriginals started forcibly evicting you and your neighbours from the land and claimed it as their own? Would you be particularily tickled at the prospect? It's an imperfect analogy, I know, because Canada's aboriginals have a more solid claim to the land than Europes Jews do to Israel, but you get my drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Black dog: They are not "illegal" in the sense they were done in the abscene of law on the matter. But they were unjust. So we agree that those decissions are legal ? And i will agree that they may not have been just to everyone, to both Israelis jews and Arabs, However when dealing with this amount of people one would hope that the majority rules...and in the case of the palestinians the majority of thier people left for Trans-jordan and thier own Arab state.... Please show me these links again, I went back and couldn't find which one's you specified. The links i'm refering to show the history of Palestine ,all the mandates and agreements, Maps of the area from the earliey 1900's to after 1949... Either proprietary ownership or residency. The fact is, while the land may have changed hands in the sens eof who oversaw it (Ottoman Empire, Britain etc.). The Ottomans who ruled Palestine for four 400 years found the indigenous population to consist of the Bedaween, "Arabs of the Arabs" who live in tents and roam the deserts, the Fellahheen or agicultural peasantry who lived in villages, and were freehold owners of the soil which they cultivated, and the Belladeen; "Townsfolk," who lived from generation to generation, in cities, generally in their own freehold houses. All these groups shared common languages and customs and were, by the most basic definition, a national identity, despite the overlordship of the changing cast of imperial masters And if you check the early history Jewish people have just as much claim ...as history has shown the jews have been defeated several times my question was how far do we go back...and Yes there was jews in the area during the Turkish rule as well...although the majority of them were displaced during the war years. My Webpage I would say that the Palestinian people, most of whom can trace their lineage back to the land for the past 100 years have a far more solid claim than European Jews whose conection to the land is tenuous at best. Again that depends on how far you go back into history. Exactly my point. Colonial division was generally clumsy and usually ignorant of local tribal, sectarian and ethnic divisions. That's why the Middle East is so tumultuous today. Israel is a unique example in that it's founding entailed a massive transfer of the indiginous population to make troom for an immigrant population. But what makes Israel any different than say Syria, Jordan, who transfered out jews to make room for thier immigrant population....It was not the perfect solution, but one made to protect the jews and to give them a homeland.... for that matter it was to separate the jews from the arabs who have repeatly shown they can not live together....And i agree with you it was not fair to every last person but it was the only way to give each their own homeland....Another note even with there own homelands that are mostly inclusive to thier own race...they still can not live together. From my point of view, the territory Jordan and Egypt captured in 1948 should never have been allotted to Israel in the first place Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. but why are you making an exception with these lands... because the palestinans refuse to move to Trans-Jordan, or any of the surrounding countries. They were not the only ones asked to move, and we have both agreed that the mandates were legal.... And do you honestly believe even if that territory had been alloted to the Arabs that thos revolts would not have happened...because they Have stated that they wanted it all and it was thier right .... I said before, decisions made by the UN are not always right or always wrong. i think the decision to plunk several thousand DPs onto someonelse's land wa sthe wrong one. Where were they going to put them:The rest of the free world did not want great numbers of jews... Compared to the United States and Australia, Canada also had the worst record for accepting Jews. The anti-Semitic views of bureaucrats such as Frederick Blair, departmental secretary of the Department of Immigration and Colonisation, and Prime Minister Mackenzie King, in office to 1948, partly explain this situation. Between 1947 and 1952 less than 10 per cent of immigrants to Canada were Jewish. My Webpage You mean the 1948 war, right? The revolts prior to the first UN agreement,but you can include the war of independance as well. Okay, look at it this way: Suppose the United Nations decided that Canada's aboriginal population has too long been deprived of their rightful homeland and have mandated, without the consent of the non-native population, to partition Canada accordingly. How would you react to the news that the land you have lived on for your entire life is being given to somebody else without your consent? What if, subsequentially, armed gangs of aboriginals started forcibly evicting you and your neighbours from the land and claimed it as their own? Would you be particularily tickled at the prospect? I get your piont and have stated if it was me i would be pissed...but we both agree that those mandates and decissions by the UN are legal...you don't have to like them just obey them...You mentioned armed gangs evicting Arabs yes that did happen everyone else was playing nice and moving except those in what is now called palestine, they refused to move...UN would not do anything about this situation ,so they took matters into thier hands...was it legal NO but what chioce did they have... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 And i will agree that they may not have been just to everyone, to both Israelis jews and Arabs, However when dealing with this amount of people one would hope that the majority rules...and in the case of the palestinians the majority of thier people left for Trans-jordan and thier own Arab state.... Wrong again. I've already posted stats breaking downthe population of Palestine (post-1922 partition) and Jews made up but 31 per cent of the people west of the Jordan River. The links i'm refering to show the history of Palestine ,all the mandates and agreements, Maps of the area from the earliey 1900's to after 1949... But you said those links showed the "seizure of land from the rightful inhabitants", By my reckoning, the bigest land seziure was the partition which created Israel. And if you check the early history Jewish people have just as much claim ...as history has shown the jews have been defeated several times my question was how far do we go back...and Yes there was jews in the area during the Turkish rule as well...although the majority of them were displaced during the war years Much of the Zionist claim to the holy land stems from the biblical record(I've seen reports of bands of Jewish settlers evicting Arabs from their homes while claiming the Torah gives them ownership over all property owned by non-jews). However, I think that's a ridiculous notion. Some connection with the land in question (beyond race or religion) should be demonstrated. It seems frankly insane to me to allow one group, whose members may be hundreds if not thousands of years removed from the land, free reign while denying those dispossesed of their land less than 60 years ago the right to return. But what makes Israel any different than say Syria, Jordan, who transfered out jews to make room for their immigrant population.... As I've said all along: anyone dispossesed of property or territory is entitled to fair compensation. The key difference is that the Arab countries expelled the bulk of their Jewish populations a long time ago (a fact which does not justify the like-minded expulsion of Arabs from Palestine nor is in itself justifiable) while Israel continues its colonialist policies today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 continued... for that matter it was to separate the jews from the arabs who have repeatly shown they can not live together....And i agree with you it was not fair to every last person but it was the only way to give each their own homeland....Another note even with there own homelands that are mostly inclusive to thier own race...they still can not live together. First: I don't beleive Arabs and Jews are congenitally incapable of living together anymore than any other two races are (ie. blacks and whites). The animosity between the two has been excrabated immensely by the ham-handed and paternalistic actions of the western powers. I would argue that the "solution" was far worse than the problem it was suppossed to solve. As for the notion that everyone has a homeland, I reject the notion of race-based states entirely. People should be entitled to live wherever they want and should enjoy the same rights regardles sof race. And you still haven't given me a good reason why people living on the same land as their fathers and their fathers before them should be obliged to move elsewhere because they suddenly find themselves in another races' territory. Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. but why are you making an exception with these lands... because the palestinans refuse to move to Trans-Jordan, or any of the surrounding countries. Why should they have had to? What right did Britain or the UN have to tell people where to live? And do you honestly believe even if that territory had been alloted to the Arabs that thos revolts would not have happened...because they Have stated that they wanted it all and it was thier right .... The problem is the Zionist ideaology is by definition exclusionary. It demands Israel exists as an exclusively Jewish state. Even today, Arabs in Israel face institutionalized discrimination as a result of their race. So, while the Arab position (championed by the PLO) has ben that israel shoukld exists as a secular democracy, the Zionist position claims all of Israel as a Jewish state. Personally I think race-based states are anathe Where were they going to put them:The rest of the free world did not want great numbers of jews... It's interesting that the Palestinians who were shoved off their land by are subject to so much condemnation for their unwillingness to accept the sudden influx of European Jews, yet the West gets a free pass for its anti-Semetism. There was a lot more rrom in North America fopr those DP's than in a land already occupied. I get your piont and have stated if it was me i would be pissed...but we both agree that those mandates and decissions by the UN are legal...you don't have to like them just obey them That's authoritarianism. The right to resist immoral and unjust laws and decrees is fundamental to human freedom. No law can touch that. You mentioned armed gangs evicting Arabs yes that did happen everyone else was playing nice and moving except those in what is now called palestine, they refused to move...UN would not do anything about this situation ,so they took matters into thier hands...was it legal NO but what chioce did they have... Land taken by force was stolen. UN decree or no UN decree, theft is theft. You're defending the indefensible here. AG, I'll leave you with this quote: "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" - David Ben Gurion, first PM of Israel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketRocket Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 When we consider the question which began this thread........ "What is wrong with the Islamic world?" Then the answer is far simpler than any so far posted..... After sitting on a camel all day, these people are badly in need of a shipment of Preparation-H Sorry gang, but it needed some lightening-up in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Black dog: And i will agree that they may not have been just to everyone, to both Israelis jews and Arabs, However when dealing with this amount of people one would hope that the majority rules...and in the case of the palestinians the majority of thier people left for Trans-jordan and thier own Arab state....Wrong again. I've already posted stats breaking downthe population of Palestine (post-1922 partition) and Jews made up but 31 per cent of the people west of the Jordan River. Both of US can tell by reading the Agreements, and decissions that the final decissions had nothing really to do with what the population concentrations where. And there primary goal was to give each thier own homeland....not based on lines on a map,population concentrations, but race and to divide the two....by giving them thier own homelands... Much of the Zionist claim to the holy land stems from the biblical record(I've seen reports of bands of Jewish settlers evicting Arabs from their homes while claiming the Torah gives them ownership over all property owned by non-jews). However, I think that's a ridiculous notion. Some connection with the land in question (beyond race or religion) should be demonstrated. It seems frankly insane to me to allow one group, whose members may be hundreds if not thousands of years removed from the land, free reign while denying those dispossesed of their land less than 60 years ago the right to return. Is it funny that you only see reports that are one sided ....you do not report any jewish settlers evicted or killed by Arabs... What do you base this arguement on, bible refs....or historical fact....Jews have as much claim to this land as the Arabs. You yourself have said many times that any land that was siezed or captured during war or conflict was stolen...but how far back in history do we have to go to prove that piont ... Why should they have had to? What right did Britain or the UN have to tell people where to live? What rights does the UN have to do anything...What right did they have to tell the US they could not invade Iraq....What right did they have to recogize any of those states that were created in the same agreement ...Why is there a UN ? The problem is the Zionist ideaology is by definition exclusionary. It demands Israel exists as an exclusively Jewish state. Even today, Arabs in Israel face institutionalized discrimination as a result of their race. your first staement is BS, there are many people NON Jewish people living in Israel as Israelis 1.5 million was the lastest estimate....out of 6 million thats a fair chunk...How many Jews are living in Jordan...Eygpt..Syria. How about S Arabia ... Iran or Iraq.... No one race has experianced more institutionalized discrimination than the Jewish race faced world wide... Which Arabs Israelis Arabs or Palestinian Arabs are facing discrimation those running around with explosive packed on thier bodys... Land taken by force was stolen. UN decree or no UN decree, theft is theft. You're defending the indefensible here.AG, I'll leave you with this quote: QUOTE "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" - David Ben Gurion, first PM of Israel Am i really, you have on occasions quoted UN decissions that proclaim the US invasion of Iraq illigal....and to reverse this one decission would mean that most deccisions involving the World concil, UN to be invalid..IE the split -up of the former Yugoslavia is one that comes to mind...another After WWI the break-up of Germany...the list goes on and on...you can not pick and choose which agreements are right or wrong I'll follow that one but not this one.... It's interesting that the Palestinians who were shoved off their land by are subject to so much condemnation for their unwillingness to accept the sudden influx of European Jews, yet the West gets a free pass for its anti-Semetism. There was a lot more rrom in North America fopr those DP's than in a land already occupied. I agree 100 % Canada's role in that crisis was not our finest hour....But the "world" choose to solve this problem in another way....by creating homelands for everyone....for favours owed by the British during the war...Plus the creation of a Jewish homeland well before the WWII had even started... That's authoritarianism. The right to resist immoral and unjust laws and decrees is fundamental to human freedom. No law can touch that. That depends on yous side your on does it not...for example groups against Abortion firmly believe that our current laws in regards to abortion are immoral and unjust does that give them the right to murder doctors and torch clinics or even to harass people visting those clinics....because it it a fundamental right to human freedom ...what about those you believe the opposite...that abortion is OK what of thier rights...and your right it is a form of Authoritarianism or is it part of democratic process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Both of US can tell by reading the Agreements, and decissions that the final decissions had nothing really to do with what the population concentrations where.And there primary goal was to give each thier own homeland....not based on lines on a map,population concentrations, but race and to divide the two....by giving them thier own homelands... And, as a result of ignoring such trifles as "where people actually live", the plan(s) were doomed to failure from the get go. You simply cannot expect someone to move, give up their land and livliehoods and head off to parts unknown at the behest of a foreign body. Is it funny that you only see reports that are one sided ....you do not report any jewish settlers evicted or killed by Arabs... What do you base this arguement on, bible refs....or historical fact....Jews . Jewish settlement and expropriation of Palestinian Arab land and property is sanctioned by the Israeli government. There's a lot more instances of Israel absorbing others' land than vice versa. Now, if you're talking about someone getting killed whle trying to steal someone elses property, I'd call that a legitimate act of self-defense. have as much claim to this land as the Arabs I don't accept that. As I said before: "It seems frankly insane to me to allow one group, whose members may be hundreds if not thousands of years removed from the land, free reign while denying those dispossesed of their land less than 60 years ago the right to return." your first staement is BS, there are many people NON Jewish people living in Israel as Israelis 1.5 million was the lastest estimate....out of 6 million thats a fair chunk...How many Jews are living in Jordan...Eygpt..Syria. How about S Arabia ... Iran or Iraq.... Yes there are many non-Jews in Israel. However, Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state, and Jews enjoy a great deal more benefits from living within Israel than non-Jews. Discrimination against non-Jews No one race has experianced more institutionalized discrimination than the Jewish race faced world wide. Does this then give Jews the right to discriminate? Do two wrongs suddenly make a right? Which Arabs Israelis Arabs or Palestinian Arabs are facing discrimation those running around with explosive packed on thier bodys... Nice.... Am i really, you have on occasions quoted UN decissions that proclaim the US invasion of Iraq illigal....and to reverse this one decission would mean that most deccisions involving the World concil, UN to be invalid..IE the split -up of the former Yugoslavia is one that comes to mind...another After WWI the break-up of Germany...the list goes on and on...you can not pick and choose which agreements are right or wrong I'll follow that one but not this one.... Yes you can. Some laws mae sense, some ar stupid. Some decisions are good, some are not. That depends on yous side your on does it not...for example groups against Abortion firmly believe that our current laws in regards to abortion are immoral and unjust does that give them the right to murder doctors and torch clinics or even to harass people visting those clinics....because it it a fundamental right to human freedom ...what about those you believe the opposite...that abortion is OK what of thier rights...and your right it is a form of Authoritarianism or is it part of democratic process. Your abnalogy is flawed. Someone oppossed to abortion can resist by not having an abortion. In other words: no one is forcing them to comply with an unjust law. A law mandating abortions would be contrary to the principle of self-determination that I believe is the basis of all human rights: that is the simple right to do as one wants so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Black dog: And, as a result of ignoring such trifles as "where people actually live", the plan(s) were doomed to failure from the get go.You simply cannot expect someone to move, give up their land and livliehoods and head off to parts unknown at the behest of a foreign body. Because the plan is flawed does not make it illigal, or for that matter wrong....these decissions were made in 1922 when the world was a much simplier place....and i'm sure a great deal of thought went into the mandate....I'm sure if there was another way they would have taken it into consideration.... Jewish settlement and expropriation of Palestinian Arab land and property is sanctioned by the Israeli government. There's a lot more instances of Israel absorbing others' land than vice versa. Now, if you're talking about someone getting killed whle trying to steal someone elses property, I'd call that a legitimate act of self-defense. If the palestinians had obeyed the orginal mandate then there would be no problem we have today. you disagree with the mandate, your opinion ...it does not make it illigal or wrong as i stated before....If the UN or British had moved those Arabs to thier new homeland and enforced the mandate then again we would not be having these posts.... You have consistantly have taken the PA's side during this debate and yet what have the other arab countries done for the palestinians and why? And if the PA's are legal then why has the UN not stepped in and demanded that Israel return the land....for that matter what of the rest of the world done to correct this injustice.... Why is that, because the Arabs bit off more than they could chew and bargined by trying to push Israel into the sea and take thier lands by force...they lost and are now crying foul.....and want thier lands back....most of those so called lands were given to the Israelis in the orginal mandate and taken by the Arabs during conflict...and the UN and the british declared it legal....and then in addtional conflicts Israel takes those lands back in conflict...and everyone says the Israelis are brutes mistreating those poor palestinians....you truck with the bull and you get the horns...They don't like the way the Israelis are treating them MOVE.... Yes there are many non-Jews in Israel. However, Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state, and Jews enjoy a great deal more benefits from living within Israel than non-Jews. Yes they do... just as Canada identifies itself as a bilingual country we don't take into account the other minorities such as chinese,or others Your statement is untrue Israelis ( which includes 1.5 million NON jews )enjoy more benifits than the palestinians because it is thier country...Palestinian people are not part of Israel or citizens ...they are just a homeless people without a country because they were defeated in conflict.... Does this then give Jews the right to discriminate? Do two wrongs suddenly make a right? No it does not ,but you should practice what you preach...you and many others have on many occasions discriminated against the US and its people. Yes you can. Some laws mae sense, some ar stupid. Some decisions are good, some are not. Show me were any of those decissions are illigal ? You can not pick and choose which you are going to follow....you can through the courts have them changed but you can not simply say i don't want to follow that law or decission because i think it's dumb.... Your abnalogy is flawed. Someone oppossed to abortion can resist by not having an abortion. In other words: no one is forcing them to comply with an unjust law. A law mandating abortions would be contrary to the principle of self-determination that I believe is the basis of all human rights: that is the simple right to do as one wants so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others Thats the problem both sides believe there rights were violated and are not going to give this up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Because the plan is flawed does not make it illigal, or for that matter wrong....these decissions were made in 1922 when the world was a much simplier place....and i'm sure a great deal of thought went into the mandate....I'm sure if there was another way they would have taken it into consideration.... What makes you so sure? If the palestinians had obeyed the orginal mandate then there would be no problem we have today. you disagree with the mandate, your opinion ...it does not make it illigal or wrong as i stated before....If the UN or British had moved those Arabs to thier new homeland and enforced the mandate then again we would not be having these posts.... I'm getting frustrated here because I've put this forward at least a half dozen times and you've not addressed it, and that is: why should the Arabs have moved? Why? You have consistantly have taken the PA's side during this debate and yet what have the other arab countries done for the palestinians and why? And if the PA's are legal then why has the UN not stepped in and demanded that Israel return the land....for that matter what of the rest of the world done to correct this injustice.... UN resolutions vis a vis Israel are constantly vetoed by the U.S. As for what other Arab countries are doing, that's beside the point. It doesn't change the nature of the problem. Why is that, because the Arabs bit off more than they could chew and bargined by trying to push Israel into the sea and take thier lands by force...they lost and are now crying foul.....and want thier lands back....most of those so called lands were given to the Israelis in the orginal mandate and taken by the Arabs during conflict...and the UN and the british declared it legal....and then in addtional conflicts Israel takes those lands back in conflict...and everyone says the Israelis are brutes mistreating those poor palestinians....you truck with the bull and you get the horns...They don't like the way the Israelis are treating them MOVE.... You're a broken record: "UN" this and "British Mandate" that: it's all bullshit. The simple facty of the matter is: Israel was created by imperial decree against the will of the majority of the population affected, its lands seized by force of arms and unjust expropriation, its original inhabitants herded into camps where they languish today, victims of the unequal, discriminatory and oppressive policies of Israel. And yet somehow, its their fault for being driven from the land? It's their fault for not willingly giving up what was rightfully theirs? WTF? Yes they do... just as Canada identifies itself as a bilingual country we don't take into account the other minorities such as chinese,or others Your statement is untrue Israelis ( which includes 1.5 million NON jews )enjoy more benifits than the palestinians because it is thier country...Palestinian people are not part of Israel or citizens ...they are just a homeless people without a country because they were defeated in conflict.... Read the link: the discriminatory laws and practices it references affects non-Jews living within Israel. the folks in the OT have it even worse. No it does not ,but you should practice what you preach...you and many others have on many occasions discriminated against the US and its people. WTF? How do any posts on an internet forum constitute "discrimination"? It certainly doesn't compare to invading a country or stealing another persons land. Show me were any of those decissions are illigal ? You can not pick and choose which you are going to follow....you can through the courts have them changed but you can not simply say i don't want to follow that law or decission because i think it's dumb.... Why not? How do you think bad laws get changed? "Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." -Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Black dog: What makes you so sure? One would hope that all those involed give it some thought and make decissions that was best for the greater good. I'm getting frustrated here because I've put this forward at least a half dozen times and you've not addressed it, and that is: why should the Arabs have moved? Why? 1) Not all the lands were owned by the palestinians As describe below Jewish settlers were buying up huge tracks of land....The same land that the Palestinians claim as thier home land..... The other major transformation in Palestinian Arab society during the Mandate concerned the issue of land ownership. During the years of Ottoman rule, the question of private property rights was never fully articulated. The tenuous nature of private property rights enabled the Zionist movement to acquire large tracts of land that had been Arab owned. The sale of land to Jewish settlers, which occurred even during the most intense phases of the Palestinian Revolt, reflected the lack of national cohesion and institutional structure that might have enabled the Palestinian Arabs to withstand the lure of quick profits. Instead, when increased Jewish land purchases caused property prices to spiral, both the Arab landowning class and absentee landlords, many of whom resided outside Palestine, were quick to sell for unprecedented profits. In the 1930s, when Palestine was beset by a severe economic depression, large numbers of Arab peasants, unable to pay either their Arab landlords or taxes to the government, sold their land. The British did not intervene in the land purchases mainly because they needed the influx of Jewish capital to pay for Jewish social services and to maintain the Jewish economy. Another development resulting from the 1929 riots was the growing animosity between the British Mandate Authority and the Yishuv. The inactivity of the British while Arab bands were attacking Jewish settlers strengthened Zionist anti-British forces. Following the riots, the British set up the Shaw Commission to determine the cause of the disturbances. The commission report, dated March 30, 1930, refrained from blaming either community but focused on Arab apprehensions about Jewish labor practices and land purchases. The commission's allegations were investigated by an agrarian expert, Sir John Hope Simpson, who concluded that about 30 percent of the Arab population was already landless and that the amount of land remaining in Arab hands would be insufficient to divide among their offspring. This led to the Passfield White Paper (October 1930), which recommended that Jewish immigration be stopped if it prevented Arabs from obtaining employment and that Jewish land purchases be curtailed. Although the Passfield White Paper was publicly repudiated by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in 1931, it served to alienate further the Yishuv from the British. More Palestinian history Below proves that the Palestinians did put together a military force with the intention of invading Israel... Meanwhile, Arab military forces began their invasion of Israel on May 15. Initially these forces consisted of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 Egyptians, 2,000 to 4,000 Iraqis, 4,000 to 5,000 Transjordanians, 3,000 to 4,000 Syrians, 1,000 to 2,000 Lebanese, and smaller numbers of Saudi Arabian and Yemeni troops, about 25,000 in all. Israeli forces composed of the Haganah, such irregular units as the Irgun and the Stern Gang, and women's auxiliaries numbered 35,000 or more. By October 14, Arab forces deployed in the war zones had increased to about 55,000, including not more than 5,000 irregulars of Hajj Amin al Husayni's Palestine Liberation Force. The Israeli military forces had increased to approximately 100,000. Except for the British-trained Arab Legion of Transjordan, Arab units were largely ill-trained and inexperienced. Israeli forces, usually operating with interior lines of communication, included an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 European World War II veterans. This goes to show you another side of the coin ... that they were not driven from thier homes but urged to leave by thier own countrymen to avoid war... Events immediately before and during the War of Independence and during the first years of independence remain, so far as those events involved the Arab residents of Palestine, matters of bitter and emotional dispute. Palestinian Arab refugees insist that they were driven out of their homeland by Jewish terrorists and regular Jewish military forces; the government of Israel asserts that the invading Arab forces urged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their houses temporarily to avoid the perils of the war that would end the Jewish intrusion into Arab lands. Forty years after the event, advocates of Arabs or Jews continue to present and believe diametrically opposed descriptions of those events. They left to avoid war...The lands now occupied by Israelis troops are of those captured in combat, or legally purchased by Israelis, either way they are now part of Israel, Israel has already given most of that land that was captured during the war...And still the PA is not happy as they want the return of all of it including those lands sold to the jews....does this sound fair to you.... According to British Mandate Authority population figures in 1947, there were about 1.3 million Arabs in all of Palestine. Between 700,000 and 900,000 of the Arabs lived in the region eventually bounded by the 1949 Armistice line, the so-called Green Line. By the time the fighting stopped, there were only about 170,000 Arabs left in the new State of Israel. By the summer of 1949, about 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were living in squalid refugee camps, set up virtually overnight in territories adjacent to Israel's borders. About 300,000 lived in the Gaza Strip, which was occupied by the Egyptian army. Another 450,000 became unwelcome residents of the West Bank of the Jordan, recently occupied by the Arab Legion of Transjordan. As for what other Arab countries are doing, that's beside the point. It doesn't change the nature of the problem. It go's to show that even the other Arabs are not willing to solve this problem...that they are not willing to give any of they're own land to the palestinians ... You're a broken record: "UN" this and "British Mandate" that: it's all bullshit. The simple facty of the matter is: Israel was created by imperial decree against the will of the majority of the population affected, And you forget that it was not only Israel that was created by these mandates ...to erased Isreal would mean erasing those other countries created by the same agreement....I may also remind you that they were sanctioned by the world concil, and the UN made up of just more than imperial countries....and are legal under international law.... its lands seized by force of arms and unjust expropriation, its original inhabitants herded into camps where they languish today, victims of the unequal, discriminatory and oppressive policies of Israel. And yet somehow, its their fault for being driven from the land? It's their fault for not willingly giving up what was rightfully theirs? WTF?Palestinian Arab refugees insist that they were driven out of their homeland by Jewish terrorists and regular Jewish military forces; the government of Israel asserts that the invading Arab forces urged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their houses temporarily to avoid the perils of the war that would end the Jewish intrusion into Arab lands. Did they not enter into war with Israel ? with what intentions planting flowers or driving the Israelis into the sea....They lost thier land in conflict, and what ever thier claim is on it....regardless of what your opinion is that land was now part of Israel....Stolen, NO was it thier intentions of giving the Israelis back thier lands if they had won that conflict... I highly dought it....I know it is the Israelis that pushed them to attack, it is all the Israelis fault ... they knew that this conflict could swing both ways they knew the risks ....and yet they still attacked,with every intention of wiping out the jews....Now you and the PA are arguing that the Israelis should play nice and give them thier land back and act like nothing happened because you and the PA think they stole it....They captured it in combat....It's time for them to grow -up... you play adult games you pay adult prices....you go to war and lose don't expect your country back...or for that matter your land.... Read the link: the discriminatory laws and practices it references affects non-Jews living within Israel. the folks in the OT have it even worse. Israel's Arabs are guaranteed equal religious and civil rights with Jews under the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. They have voted in national elections and sent members to the Knesset since 1949; following the 1984 elections, seven Arabs sat in the Knesset. Nevertheless, until the end of 1966, Israel's Arabs lived under a military jurisdiction that severely limited their physical mobility and ranges of permissible political expression. They have also lost much land to the Israeli government, a good deal of it expropriated by the army for "security purposes," but much more turned over to Jewish settlements in attempts to increase the Jewish presence in northern and western Galilee, the centers of Arab population. Things are not perfect, but they are alot better....better than say Jordan, Syrai, Iran, Iraq, and many other muslim countries.... and if they don't like it tell them to move.....do you think any of the Muslim countries would allow in a jew..... My Webpage WTF? How do any posts on an internet forum constitute "discrimination"? It's all about perception is it ...like racists remarks, It certainly doesn't compare to invading a country or stealing another persons land. Again Israel did not invade any one ....and has not stolen anything Why not? How do you think bad laws get changed? They get changed legally in the courts ...not by picking which law don't i like today...and breaking it....You have yet to prove that any of the decissions made by the UN in this case are illigal, so the PA does not have a leg to stand on ....Is their decissions morally right i say yes ,...you say no....until you can prove that they are you have no case...NONE..... nithier does the PA and until they stop the bombings or attacks they will continue to rot in thier Refugee camps and impoverished towns until they piss the Israelis off enough and they finish the job and forceable move them all into Arab territory....then they will have something to complain about.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 1) Not all the lands were owned by the palestinians As describe below Jewish settlers were buying up huge tracks of land....The same land that the Palestinians claim as thier home land..... Jewish land ownership at the tiemof partition amounted to just 10 per cent of the land allotted to them by the UN. This goes to show you another side of the coin ... that they were not driven from thier homes but urged to leave by thier own countrymen to avoid war... Some left, but many, many more were driven out. Israel's leadership knew there could be no Israel with a large and hostile Arab population in its midst, so during the 1948 war, the Haganah and its affiliates were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves, which they did, even massacring the imhabitants. According to pro-Zionist historian Benny Morris, "the worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion. That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres." They left to avoid war...The lands now occupied by Israelis troops are of those captured in combat, or legally purchased by Israelis, either way they are now part of Israel, Israel has already given most of that land that was captured during the war...And still the PA is not happy as they want the return of all of it including those lands sold to the jews....does this sound fair to you.... The PA does not want all lands returned, but eitehr a binational state or a sperate and viable Palestinian state. It go's to show that even the other Arabs are not willing to solve this problem...that they are not willing to give any of they're own land to the palestinians ... IIRC, since 1949, Jordan has offered automatic citizenship to any Palestinian refugees from Israel and Occupied lands. I would agree taht Arab states need to do more, but still don't see why anyone should be forced to leave the land of their forefathers because of Israeli expansion. It's all about perception is it ...like racists remarks, Pointing out the failings of the state of Israel is not rascism. Again Israel did not invade any one ....and has not stolen anything Actually Israel started the 1967 war which led to the occupation of the west bank and Gaza strip. hey get changed legally in the courts ...not by picking which law don't i like today...and breaking it....You have yet to prove that any of the decissions made by the UN in this case are illigal, so the PA does not have a leg to stand on ....Is their decissions morally right i say yes ,...you say no....until you can prove that they are you have no case...NONE..... nithier does the PA and until they stop the bombings or attacks they will continue to rot in thier Refugee camps and impoverished towns until they piss the Israelis off enough and they finish the job and forceable move them all into Arab territory....then they will have something to complain about.... I guess military occupation, land expropriation, second-class status, and daily humiliation, poverty and widespread death isn't punsihment enough for the crime of being born an Arab in Israel occupied land... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.