jbg Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) The situation with Poland and Germany...similar deal to what happened in the Arab-Israeli Wars. Germany attacked and lost the war...and lost land in the process. The drill is well known to them. But...Arabs are somehow supposed to be different with UN242 et al which is only applied to Israel. I remembered this situation vaguely from past years and I decided it needed to be looked into.Israel is under unrelenting pressure, and not just from this Board, to return to "1967 borders", supposedly to protect the rights of the "Palestinians". It is less known, and totally beyond anyone's caring, that the Poles indulged in a mass expulsion of Germans from the former East Prussia when Poland gained the "Oder-Neisse Line" as the boundary of Poland and former East Germany. Below, I have excerpted a New York Times article dated March 4, 1950 (link, excerpts below): Poland Expelling Last 125,000 Germans;Oder-Neisse Area fo 'Be Cleared in a Year BERLIN, March 3 (iPI-Poland's expulsion of the last 125,000 Ger- mans in the western territories she occupIed after the war got under way today. Twenty-five thousand are to go to Western Germany under a Polish agreement with the Western Allies and the Bonn Republic. One hundred thousand are to settle in the Soviet zone of Germany. Within a year, there will be no Germans left in the East German provinces "recovered" by the Warsaw Government, a semi-official Polish source declared. "These territories had about 8,000,000 Germans before the war," the informant said. "Now they phy have over 5,000,000 Poles. In addiion, there are still about 200,000 Polish citizens in the Soviet Union whom we expect to become settlers in the (Polish) West." Completion of the population transfer is sought by Poland to justify the Oder-Neisse river line as her permanent frontier. The line, was established in 1945. (snip) Germany absorbed those refugees, despite the fact that the country had just been devastated by WW II. Oh, on another topic. After WW II the Russians occupied the formerly Japanese Kurile Islands, imported settlers, and exiled their Japanese inhabitants. Sound familiar? Where are the U.N. commissions? The security counsel resolutions? The demands for countless investigations? Where's NaomiGlover, Dub, and Bud? Link, excerpts below: With Visit, Russia Reinforces Its Custody of Islands, Angering Japan By ELLEN BARRY MOSCOW — President Dmitri A. Medvedev on Monday visited one of the southern Kurile Islands, which the Soviet Union seized from Japan at the end of World War II, making it clear that Russia had no plans to cede the mineral-rich territory despite Japanese demands. Mr. Medvedev is the first Russian or Soviet leader to visit the disputed Kuriles, part of an archipelago that stretches from the southern tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula in eastern Russia to Hokkaido in the northernmost part of Japan. The four southernmost islands, called the Northern Territories by Japan, are home to only around 20,000 people, but grant access to prize fisheries and promising oil and gas fields. **************** Soviet forces occupied the southern islands in 1945, deporting their Japanese inhabitants and bringing in settlers. In the 1956 declaration that re-established ties between Russia and Japan, Russia offered to return two of the islands as part of a peace treaty. But Japan rejected that compromise, maintaining that all the islands should be returned, and the issue has never been resolved. ******** Oh, and where's Barack Obama's pressure for a "negotiated solution"? Oh where? Edited July 3, 2011 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Jack Weber Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 I can speak personally to the German issue... My Great Grandfather was Pomeranian and came from the City of Stettin...The city had been in Teutonic/Germanic hands for centuries... Thanks to Herr Schicklegruber and a generous helping of Uncle Joe,Stettin is now some virtually unpronouncable Polish city with far too many consonants and not enough vowels... Most of West Prussia,East Prussia,Pomerania,Upper and Lower Silesia ended up in either Polish or Soviet hands with the Germanic population almost completely gentrified... Because of this we lost the great city of Konigsburg and East Prussia split in two...Half to the Poles/half to the Soviets...Konigsburg is now "Kalliningrad"...Danzig is now Gdansk...And in fact,the heart of historic Eastern Germany (and the birthplace of Teutonic/Prussian militarism) pretty much all but a memory... Sadly,this is the geographic spoils of war.And the spoils always go to the victors...The Palestinians,Syrians,et al really need a lesson in that bitter fact of history... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Oleg Bach Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 My grandfather had 2000 acres. The soviets took it and that is that...now it is probably back in private hands...so does it belong to me or the new owner? Israel does not have to give back anything - They should expand and by removing all boarders and perhaps rename the new nation. Or keep the name Israel ...In other words welcome their Palistinian brother semites back into the fold and embrace them as their own. If Isreal were clever and had vison - they could expand peacefully..but it would mean having to share resources and give up the advantage of being the eternal victim. Quote
jbg Posted July 3, 2011 Author Report Posted July 3, 2011 Sadly,this is the geographic spoils of war.And the spoils always go to the victors...The Palestinians,Syrians,et al really need a lesson in that bitter fact of history... And Western politicians and pundits really need to stop villifying Israel on a selective basis. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 And Western politicians and pundits really need to stop villifying Israel on a selective basis. Well...the irony of an escaped Nazi big-wig who was part of the Final Solution being the titular head of the 'Palestinian Cause' should be enough laffs for any sane person. But...I'm just a One Shot Pony who has been around a while. What do I know about what's right and what's wrong? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Saipan Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) I can speak personally to the German issue... My Great Grandfather was Pomeranian and came from the City of Stettin...The city had been in Teutonic/Germanic hands for centuries... Thanks to Herr Schicklegruber and a generous helping of Uncle Joe,Stettin is now some virtually unpronouncable Polish city with far too many consonants and not enough vowels... Stetin is still Stetin. But it could be worse, with German name like say Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhaupbauunterbeamtengesellschaft Most of West Prussia,East Prussia,Pomerania,Upper and Lower Silesia ended up in either Polish or Soviet hands with the Germanic population almost completely gentrified... It will change no doubt. Germans will either gradually move into neighbouring countries or instantly like in 1939. And of course will get pounded and moved back to Germany again. Not necessarily in that order. Edited July 3, 2011 by Saipan Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 There are some fundamental differences. Palestinians did not invade Israel, or start a major war. In fact it would be more fair to say that the Palestinians are more comparable to the Poles. They were generally minding their own business and next thing you know, their land was taken away from them. Quote
Saipan Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 There are some fundamental differences. Palestinians did not invade Israel, or start a major war. In fact it would be more fair to say that the Palestinians are more comparable to the Poles. They were generally minding their own business and next thing you know, their land was taken away from them. Really? So how do you explain old Jewish holy city like Jerusalem to be claimed by Islamists. A religion invented centuries later. Same happen in Afghanistan and elesewhere. Quote
Bob Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) There are some fundamental differences. Palestinians did not invade Israel, or start a major war. In fact it would be more fair to say that the Palestinians are more comparable to the Poles. They were generally minding their own business and next thing you know, their land was taken away from them. Ah, the classic false narrative. Although your entire post is based on false suppositions, one of your major problems is being unable to differentiate between privately owned or leased land and sovereignty. You seem to think that Arabs living scattered around the pre-Israel British Mandate for Palestine consititues sovereignty over the entirety of the land. Living somewhere doesn't mean you have sovereignty over the land. Even if they had had sovereignty over the land (which they did not), you think we would care? You think the Jewish people will continue to accept stateless and fragmentation while living at the mercy of the Gentiles? You don't think we're a bit tired of pogroms, expulsions, and death camps? You don't think we were going to reclaim our homeland, one way or the other? Basically, you view Israel as an unjustifiably established state that occurred at the expense of another people (the pre-"Palestinian" Arabs). Unfortunately, you don't realize that these Arabs were given the opportunity to be granted sovereignty over most of the land (after about 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine was cut off for "Transjordan"), and they rejected it and chose to go to war. They viewed, and still view, the entirety of the land as belonging to them. And therein lies one of the primary drivers of this conflict. You cannot compromise with a people that overwhelmingly views the entirety of the land ("from the river to the sea, 'Palestine' will be free!") as belonging to them. Things could have been different had the Arabs not rejected the idea of Jewish independence in Israel. Imagine the possibility of a binational state with Jews and Arabs living in peace in both Israel and "Palestine". Alas, the Arabs chose, and continue to choose - war and terrorism. This description of the Arabs as noble non-actors who had the rug pulled out from under them is completely untrue. They were opposing (via mass murders/pogroms) Zionism many decades before the reestablishment of Israel. They initiated the violence that culminated in its peak with the civil war of 1947 and subsequent War of Independence of 1948-1949. But of course, the Arabs never "invaded Israel" or "started a major war", according to your delusional understanding of history. If you don't know anything about the history and choose to make things up as you go along, why are you even here? Edited July 3, 2011 by Bob Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Sir Bandelot Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Ah, the classic false narrative. Although your entire post is based on false suppositions, one of your major problems is being unable to differentiate between privately owned or leased land and sovereignty. You seem to think that Arabs living scattered around the pre-Israel British Mandate for Palestine consititues sovereignty over the entirety of the land. Basically, you view Israel as an unjustifiably established state that occurred at the expense of another people (the pre-"Palestinian" Arabs). Unfortunately, you don't realize that these Arabs were given the opportunity to be granted sovereignty over most of the land (after about 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine was cut off for "Transjordan"), and they rejected it and chose to go to war. Things could have been different had the Arabs not rejected the idea of Jewish independence in Israel. Imagine the possibility of a binational state with Jews and Arabs living in peace in both Israel and "Palestine". Alas, the Arabs chose, and continue to choose - war and terrorism. This description of the Arabs as noble non-actors who had the rug pulled out from under them is completely untrue. They were opposing (via mass murders/pogroms) Zionism many decades before the reestablishment of Israel. They initiated the violence that culminated in its peak with the civil war of 1947 and subsequent War of Independence of 1948-1949. But of course, the Arabs never "invaded Israel" or "started a major war", according to your delusional understanding of history. If you don't know anything about the history and choose to make things up as you go along, why are you even here? I never said any of those things, you did. I pointed out that the previous posts comparisons to nazi Germany invading Poland is not valid. I never said I think the Palistinains or other Arabs are the good guys. Nor do I think it. But nor do I think the extremist zionistist are good. I know you'd like me to just go away, so you can freely hyperventilate your bullshit but too bad for you, I won't. Quote
Bob Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) Well, now you're dishonestly backing away from the natural extension of your statement. You falsely claim that the Arabs never invaded Israel (1948-1949 being the foremost example of Arab invasion, followed by 1973, but there are other examples). You then compare the Arabs to the Poles, as if they constituted a sovereign state invaded by Zionists. You then describe the Arabs as "minding their own business" (when they were murdering Jews in pogroms decades before Israel's reestablishment), until "their land was taken away from them". I accurately described your statements. Now you're backing away from them. Typical. Edited July 3, 2011 by Bob Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Jack Weber Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) Well...the irony of an escaped Nazi big-wig who was part of the Final Solution being the titular head of the 'Palestinian Cause' should be enough laffs for any sane person. But...I'm just a One Shot Pony who has been around a while. What do I know about what's right and what's wrong? This is the sad thing about all of this... If the Palestinian cause was a legitimate geographical greivance,they would have a serious point!Frankly,it would be one I could side with... The fact of the matter is,whether we are talking about Pan-Arab Ba'Athists or the more "pious" Islamist's,the roots of both of those causes are based in some link to NAZI Germany...And simple out and out hatred of Judaism... Edited July 3, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Sir Bandelot Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 If you know about Poland, then you should know they took some land away from Germany as well. And that is why Hitler claimed it was their right to take this land back. The Poles also were not completely innocent, were they. None is without blood on their hands. Not even Israel. I do not dispute that Jews came from that land several thousand years ago, having left in the great diaspora after the Romans burned Jerusalem. This was some 100 years after Jesus, I believe. But you will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. The Jews spread throughout the Roman empire, but maintained their own culture and were alienated, hated by many Europeans and by the church. The writings of Martin Luther are about as bad as anything Hitler and the nazis said about them. Anti semitism is ancient and what the nazis did, the final solution to the jewish question, was sickening and deplorable. But I also know too that it was not just a nazi phenomenon, not confined just to Germany but was throughout europe, including almost every European country who used the nazi system to rid themselves of their jews. This blame extends even to Canada. I have done the research and have written articles on the internet about it. To this day, these countries have not atoned for their actions. I also have jewish friends and have been to their childrens bar mitzvahs. You do not know me but you act like you know what I'm all about, and you are wrong. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Sadly,this is the geographic spoils of war.And the spoils always go to the victors...The Palestinians,Syrians,et al really need a lesson in that bitter fact of history... If you folks believe in this, and I'm inclined to generally agree, then why does Israel get a special sense of entitlement, to land that it was forced to give up centuries ago? Does not the same logic apply? As you know the land was returned to them after WWII by western powers, in a sense to give European Jews a place to go if they wanted to leave Europe. And leave many of them did. Now my personal view is what's done is done and the best thing is for all parties to cease taking more land, or demanding their ancient lands back. I do not support Obamas demand that they return to the 1967 borders, but I think they should recognize Palestine and stop moving into new settlements. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) Palestinians did not invade Israel, or start a major war. Lol...the 'Palestinians' had the kick-off. Edited July 3, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jack Weber Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 If you folks believe in this, and I'm inclined to generally agree, then why does Israel get a special sense of entitlement, to land that it was forced to give up centuries ago? Does not the same logic apply? As you know the land was returned to them after WWII by western powers, in a sense to give European Jews a place to go if they wanted to leave Europe. And leave many of them did. Now my personal view is what's done is done and the best thing is for all parties to cease taking more land, or demanding their ancient lands back. I do not support Obamas demand that they return to the 1967 borders, but I think they should recognize Palestine and stop moving into new settlements. I cannot disagree with anything in your last paragraph... The fact of the matter is that what is done is done and nothing is going to change it...I'm no fan of the "Bob's" of the world,and their sadly misplaced Beginite false ethnosupremacy... However... The Jews ,in 1948, said that wanted to work with there new "neighbours"...The Arabs(with a heavy dose of NAZI influence) decided killing the Jews in that region was a better way... Hence the crux of the issue... How does one negotiate with a group of people (I do not believe all Palestinians,or Arabs feel this way)who are Hellbent on the total destruction of an entire ethnic group of people?It seems that some on the Arab side simply wish for Israel to pick it's form of execution?? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Bonam Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) As you know the land was returned to them after WWII by western powers Incorrect. After WWII (in 1948) Jews fought for and won Israel's independence, in the face of invading Arab hordes that wanted to kill every last Jew, and "western powers" did not lift a finger to help them. In fact, right up until 1949, the British were still holding Jews in concentration camps on Cyprus. Jews returned the land to themselves, they were not "given" anything. Edited July 3, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Bob Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 If you folks believe in this, and I'm inclined to generally agree, then why does Israel get a special sense of entitlement, to land that it was forced to give up centuries ago? Does not the same logic apply? We get a special sense of entitlement because we refuse to live at the mercy of non-Jews. Like I've said several times in here, we've had enough pogroms, expulsions, and death camps. Thank you very much, but we'll take our destiny into our own hands, from now on. That means statehood. As you know the land was returned to them after WWII by western powers, in a sense to give European Jews a place to go if they wanted to leave Europe. And leave many of them did. Now my personal view is what's done is done and the best thing is for all parties to cease taking more land, or demanding their ancient lands back. I do not support Obamas demand that they return to the 1967 borders, but I think they should recognize Palestine and stop moving into new settlements. The land was much less "returned" than it was taken back. The powers that be simply acknowledged the inevitable. We were coming here to reestablish our state and assert our national rights. The "illegal immigration" of the early Jewish pioneers wasn't going to be stopped. As far as a peace settlement goes, it's simple. If and when the Arabs/Muslims change (meaning no more incitement to hatred and violence), and reconcile themselves to the permanent existence of Israel as the Jewish state, we can talk. Until then, the status quo will continue. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Bob Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Incorrect. After WWII (in 1948) Jews fought for and won Israel's independence, in the face of invading Arab hordes that wanted to kill every last Jew, and "western powers" did not lift a finger to help them. In fact, right up until 1949, the British were still holding Jews in concentration camps on Cyprus. Jews returned the land to themselves, they were not "given" anything. Exactly. The "international community" passed a resolution to partition the remaining ~20% of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states, another Arab state and a Jewish state. Did that resolution really do anything? No, it didn't. The Arabs invaded and lost. It really drives me nuts when people say things along the lines of Israel being "given" to us by the powers that be. It was fought for and built up by the Jewish people (honourable mention to some non-Jewish minorities). And it continues to be fought for and built up by the Jewish people (again, with honourable mention to some non-Jewish minorities). Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Oleg Bach Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Why is it that in our so-called evolved world that we still have terms such as "spoils of war" - We are so so primative. This ecceptance of war being a normal and exceptable event is sickening. This is no different than a man who spots his neighbor's wife who is very attractive - then the interloping man goes and hits the husband on the head with a rock...and takes the woman for himself and calls it a spoil of war. Why is this historically bad behaviour still considered good.. History is not to be repeated if it played out badly or immorally. The Israeli banner - the Star of David celebrates a man that murders another man and takes his wife...and some how this is good? From what I understand is that Solomon was King David's father - He naturally came first. The original name of the Star of David was Solomons Seal...so why is it called the Star of David - David did not originate the banner...His father did. It appears that stealing the legacy of your own father is acceptable. So I suppose stealing from non-relatives might be even more so. Quote
Saipan Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Why is it that in our so-called evolved world that we still have terms such as "spoils of war" For all anyone cares you can call it "punishing agressor". Better? The original name of the Star of David was Solomons Seal...so why is it called the Star of David Because they like it that way. And mainly because it's their business. They never worry what other nations call their emblems. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Incorrect. After WWII (in 1948) Jews fought for and won Israel's independence, in the face of invading Arab hordes that wanted to kill every last Jew, and "western powers" did not lift a finger to help them. In fact, right up until 1949, the British were still holding Jews in concentration camps on Cyprus. Jews returned the land to themselves, they were not "given" anything. That is true but you omit some important details, and this is why people say things along the lines of Israel being "given" by the powers that be. In the face of increasing violence after World War II, the British handed the issue over to the United Nations. The result was Resolution 181, a partition plan to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jewish state was to receive around 56% of the land area of Mandate Palestine, encompassing 82% of the Jewish population, though it would be separated from Jerusalem, designated as an area to be administered by the UN. The plan was accepted by most of the Jewish population, but rejected by much of the Arab populace. On 29 November 1947, the plan was put to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly. The result was 33 to 13 in favour of the plan, with 10 abstentions. The Arab countries (all of which had opposed the plan) proposed to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, but were again defeated. The division was to take effect as part of a British withdrawal from the territory United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted in 1947 Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) How does one negotiate with a group of people (I do not believe all Palestinians,or Arabs feel this way)who are Hellbent on the total destruction of an entire ethnic group of people?It seems that some on the Arab side simply wish for Israel to pick it's form of execution?? They cannot negotiate due to longstanding hatred and resentment. Peaceful democratic solutions are only possible when there is a willingness to cooperate. It might be best to rule the entire region as in places like former Yugoslavia, as in former Iraq. ie. by oppressive dictatorship. And that is what Israel is trying to do, in my opinion. Edited July 3, 2011 by Sir Bandelot Quote
GostHacked Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 Living somewhere doesn't mean you have sovereignty over the land. I think this will be usefull in future debates against Bob's position. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 3, 2011 Report Posted July 3, 2011 SB: That is true but you omit some important details, and this is why people say things along the lines of Israel being "given" by the powers that be. How nice. But, it still isn't true. Bevin and crew had their own agenda when it came to the "Jewish Question" which was quickly getting away from their desired control...propping-up a known war criminal in the name of "peace" while keeping Jews locked-up in concentration camps claiming the Mandate couldn't hold one more Jew least it burst. Handing things over to the UN...which Bevin threatened as a punishment...didn't impress either the Arabs or the Jews. Meanwhile, Jews arriving in the Mandate in large numbers had been a reality since the Great War ended. The greatest number arrived in 1935 (thanks to Hitler)...well before the war broke out...well before any UN resolution or partition. It should also be noted that the Jews (alone) in the Mandate formed their own brigade of volunteers which fought with battle honours in the Italian campaign of WW2. Not bad for a place that wasn't yet 'given' to them. I shouldn't need to remind you what camp the Arabs ended up in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.