which one is just?

[secondboy]

what do you about holocaust(in WW2)?

is it real or fiction?

if holocaust is real and not a fiction why palestinians should indemnify for it?

don't should those who brought it to existence indemnify for it?

is this fairly that germanies or any country in west (who brought holocaust into existence) give israel a part of their land ?don't should israel exit from palestine?

which one is just?

[Riverwind]

is this fairly that germanies or any country in west (who brought holocaust into existence) give israel a part of their land ?don't should israel exit from palestine? which one is just?

Before WW1 most of the middle east was effectively a colony of Britain. After WW1 ended Britain started carving up its middle east territories into countries that had little or nothing to do with the distribution of peoples within the territory. Iraq is a good example of an illogical union of Kurds, Sunnis and Shites imposed by Britian. Britain also created the country of Jordan by splitting the Palestine territory into two and keeping control of the holy land.

After WW2 the British and the UN decide to split the remaining Palestine territory into two parts of roughly equal size for Jews and Arabs. This was supposed to be a compromise that would ensure peace between the 600,000 Jews living in Palestine at the time and the Arabs. However, the Arabs rejected this compromise and attacked the new Jewish state.

It is not reasonable to suggest the Jews 'exit' Palestine because they were already there to start with. Furthermore, the Jews have a legitimate claim to 'aboriginal' title over Palestine that is at least as legitimate as the claims of the aboriginals in Canada. Peace in the Middle East will only come when the Arabs accept the partition of Palestine and the existance of Isreal.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the middle east fiasco is the original partitiion plan would have given the Palestinians a much larger block of terrority than they can ever hope to get under any future land for peace deal.

[Argus]

is this fairly that germanies or any country in west (who brought holocaust into existence) give israel a part of their land ?don't should israel exit from palestine? which one is just?

Before WW1 most of the middle east was effectively a colony of Britain. After WW1 ended Britain started carving up its middle east territories into countries that had little or nothing to do with the distribution of peoples within the territory. Iraq is a good example of an illogical union of Kurds, Sunnis and Shites imposed by Britian. Britain also created the country of Jordan by splitting the Palestine territory into two and keeping control of the holy land.

After WW2 the British and the UN decide to split the remaining Palestine territory into two parts of roughly equal size for Jews and Arabs. This was supposed to be a compromise that would ensure peace between the 600,000 Jews living in Palestine at the time and the Arabs. However, the Arabs rejected this compromise and attacked the new Jewish state.

It is not reasonable to suggest the Jews 'exit' Palestine because they were already there to start with. Furthermore, the Jews have a legitimate claim to 'aboriginal' title over Palestine that is at least as legitimate as the claims of the aboriginals in Canada. Peace in the Middle East will only come when the Arabs accept the partition of Palestine and the existance of Isreal.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the middle east fiasco is the original partitiion plan would have given the Palestinians a much larger block of terrority than they can ever hope to get under any future land for peace deal.

Not necessarily. You forget that present-day Jordan holds a big chunk of what was a part of that Palestinian territory, and, its people, and, in fact, many Jordanians ARE Palestinians, just under a new name.

[Riverwind]

Not necessarily. You forget that present-day Jordan holds a big chunk of what was a part of that Palestinian territory, and, its people, and, in fact, many Jordanians ARE Palestinians, just under a new name.

What are the chances of Jordan giving up this terroritory? Next to zero?

[Argus]

Not necessarily. You forget that present-day Jordan holds a big chunk of what was a part of that Palestinian territory, and, its people, and, in fact, many Jordanians ARE Palestinians, just under a new name.

What are the chances of Jordan giving up this terroritory? Next to zero?

Less than zero. However, my point was that masses of Palestinians live there. Not only did they live there before Jordan annexed it, but about half a million Palestinian refugees wound up there. At least Jordan granted them citizenship, which puts it ahead of every other Arab nation. So the Palestinians did wind up with this land - so to speak.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Not necessarily. You forget that present-day Jordan holds a big chunk of what was a part of that Palestinian territory, and, its people, and, in fact, many Jordanians ARE Palestinians, just under a new name.

Actually, in 1945 Trans-Jordan had an area of 34,740 sq mi (which converts to 89, 976 sq km), and Jordan now has an area of 92,300 sq. km. A difference of 2,324 sq km.

As to Palestine, it went from an area of 10,100 sq. mi. (or 26,158 sq km) in 1945 to presently 'zero'. from the CIA World factbook FAQ section,

Why is Palestine not listed in The World Factbook?

The areas that could potentially form a future Palestinian state -- the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- do appear in the Factbook. These areas are presently Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian 1995 Interim Agreement; their permanent status is to be determined through further negotiation

So, Palestine did exist, contratry to the beliefs of many, as an entity, albeit a British protectorate. They had borders, (the following from Britannica Book of the Year 1946) "bounded on the west by the Mediterranean, on the southwest by Egypt, on the south by the Gulf of 'Aqaba, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the northeast by Syria, and on the north by Lebanon."

If Jordan took any of 'Palestine', it certainly wasn't a 'large chunk' by any stretch.

Further, Trans-Jordan's population in 1945 was an estimated 325 000, while Palestine's was 1,750,000. Palestine had over 5 times the population that Jordan had had.

sources: Britannica Book Of the Year 1946; Trans-Jordan pg 737, Palestine pg 556,

modern stats: the CIA World Factbook, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

[Riverwind]

So, Palestine did exist, contratry to the beliefs of many, as an entity, albeit a British protectorate.

The operative word in that sentance is 'British Protectorate'. When the British left they had two choices:

1) Create a single multi-cultural state that could acccomodate the Jews and the Arabs living in the territories;

2) Divide the territory into two states for the Jews and Arabs;

There are pros and cons to each approach and we could get into an academic discussion about whether forcing a bi-national state onto people is better than chopping the state into geographically illogical parts (why does that sound so familiar?).

My personal preference would be a single democratic state, however, given the way the Arabs reacted to the partition we can assume that they would not have been that willing to respect the rights of the Jewish minority in a unified state. Therefore, a two state solution is the best in the case of Isreal and Palestine.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

we could get into an academic discussion about whether forcing a bi-national state onto people is better than chopping the state into geographically illogical parts (why does that sound so familiar?).

lol.

Create a single multi-cultural state that could acccomodate the Jews and the Arabs

We have it in Canada, but the trick seems to be that neither of them are in charge.

Therefore, a two state solution is the best in the case of Isreal and Palestine.

I am not in disagreement, but Palestine has yet to get some of it's 'statehood' back.

When the British left they had two choices:

1) Create a single multi-cultural state that could acccomodate the Jews and the Arabs living in the territories;

2) Divide the territory into two states for the Jews and Arabs;

Sadly, neither happened. Palestine was given to some of the Jews, and Palestine, de facto, ceased to exist. Funny, 'Semite' means Jews and Arabs, and they can and did co-exist relatively peacefully. While there was evidence of some anti-jewish pogroms in Islamic history, it is very muddled...from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_and_anti-Semitism

What I dislike is the creation of a state based solely on religion. I started a thread a long time ago called something like "Does Islam need a country?" and I was wondering if this might possibly be a partial solution, but I doubt it.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Not necessarily. You forget that present-day Jordan holds a big chunk of what was a part of that Palestinian territory, and, its people, and, in fact, many Jordanians ARE Palestinians, just under a new name.

Actually, in 1945 Trans-Jordan had an area of 34,740 sq mi (which converts to 89, 976 sq km), and Jordan now has an area of 92,300 sq. km. A difference of 2,324 sq km

Palestine, like Canada, has a lot of lousy land, and a little good land. The good land is near water. The chunk of land Jordan snapped up was along the west bank of the Jordan river.

So, Palestine did exist, contratry to the beliefs of many, as an entity, albeit a British protectorate. They had borders, (

So does Saskatchewan, but I would not call them a people. The geographical area known as Palestine was merely a small piece of Arab land occupied by - Arabs, and its borders were created by the British for administrative convenience. There is no linguistic, cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious difference of any kind between "Palestinians", "Syrians", "Lebanese" and "Jordanians".

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

There is no linguistic, cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious difference of any kind between "Palestinians", "Syrians", "Lebanese" and "Jordanians".

This is not entirely accurate. Syria and Lebanon both have large Christian populations, while Jordan does not. (source: Funk & Wagnall's Hammond World Atlas)Also, from the CIA world factbook, cultural breakdowns are :

Syria:

Religions:

Sunni Muslim 74%, Alawite, Druze, and other Muslim sects 16%, Christian (various sects) 10%, Jewish (tiny communities in Damascus, Al Qamishli, and Aleppo)

Languages:

Arabic (official); Kurdish, Armenian, Aramaic, Circassian widely understood; French, English somewhat understood

Lebanon:

Religions:

Muslim 59.7% (Shi'a, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant), other 1.3%

note: seventeen religious sects recognized

Languages:

Arabic (official), French, English, Armenian

Jordan:

Religions:

Sunni Muslim 92%, Christian 6% (majority Greek Orthodox, but some Greek and Roman Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, and Protestant denominations), other 2% (several small Shi'a Muslim and Druze populations) (2001 est.)

Languages:

Arabic (official), English widely understood among upper and middle classes