Israeli Territory Pull Outs

[brownjenkins]

no... just a realist

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

no... just a realist

..."Reality, what a concept".....
.....Mork from Ork

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the problem is not education (sometimes it the educated who are the problem )... it's cultural stereotyping

I think education is definitely part of the problem. A lot of people don't know much about Middle East history. Cultural stereotyping also is another difficulty. I think you and inked are both right, on this point. Americans often are not very well educated in Middle East history. They see a suicide bomb go off in Israel and then they stereotype, "oh, all those hideous Palestinians." So there's both lack of education and speed to stereotype involved.

Originally Posted by inked

Palestinians aren't an ethnic group, are they? In fact, they didn't exist until conjured by the former regime in Jordan as a warfare tactic against Israel.

They lived in Palestine before the PLO, and before 1948 many lived peacefully alongside Israelis. They did exist .

Originally Posted by inked

And their "fellow" arabian descended rulers didn't think them worthy of giving land to in their day!

If the Arabs had given them land, two things would have been done simultaneously.

1# Unemployment. Economic crisis in these small countries. We're talking well over 300,000 impoverished people here. If the Muslim nations had readily embraced them into their countries, it would have brought great economic hardship.

2# It would finalize injustice. Bring the Palestinians into your land and you're saying Israel does not have to amend any of its actions. It gets to just occupy the land it has anexed and fill it up with settlements. The Palestinians never, ever would get justice. Muslim nations are much more focused upon the importance of justice than our Western societies, because of the important role of justice and law in Islam.

These are two very good reasons for the Arab nations being unwilling to take the Palestinians into their land. They would have been accepting an evil act and bringing great hardship and economic stress upon their own nations.

Originally Posted by inked

All in all, you gotta credit more than Hamas with the intent to destroy Israel

I was responding to your article, and your article was just talking about Hamas. I know that Hamas is not the only Palestinian group that has been seeking the destruction of Israel, but I violently disapprove of your generalization to all Palestinians. And if you think that this is most Palestinians you're talking about, you'll have to bring hard evidence to back your assertion.

Originally Posted by inked

over the non-historical "Palestinian state."

Of course it's non-historical. When the Arabs rejected the proposed Partition Plan, the Israelis annexed their land anyway! They claim, "since the Arabs wouldn't settle for half the land, they forfeit their right to the whole." According to the Partition Plan, Palestine would be divided into two different states, with Jerusalem controlled internationally. Sounds good to me, thus far. However, let's look at the Partition Plan more closely.

The Jews owned 6% of the total land area of Palestine at the time the Partition Plan was proposed, and compromised only 33% of the population. However, according to the Partition Plan, they were to receive a state consisting of 56% of the land area of Palestine! Moreover, the proposed Jewish state was to have more Arabs than Jews under its jurisdiction. 509,780 Arabs would be in the new Israeli state, while only 499,020 Jews. The Arab state, on the other hand, would contain 10,000 Jews and 735,000 Arabs.

Does this sound like a fair plan to you? Of course the Jews accepted it! And of course the Arabs didn't.

[Spock]

When all is said, they have done more with their share of the land that has been or was done by it's former desert wanderers.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They lived in Palestine before the PLO, and before 1948 many lived peacefully alongside Israelis. They did exist .

What he means, I think, is that the Arabs in today's Jordan Israel were one ethnic group.. and in that sense they've already got a country. Jordan was created by the Brits as far as I know, trying to appease the Arabs after the riots in 1921.

Of course it's non-historical. When the Arabs rejected the proposed Partition Plan, the Israelis annexed their land anyway! They claim, "since the Arabs wouldn't settle for half the land, they forfeit their right to the whole." According to the Partition Plan, Palestine would be divided into two different states, with Jerusalem controlled internationally. Sounds good to me, thus far. However, let's look at the Partition Plan more closely.

The Jews owned 6% of the total land area of Palestine at the time the Partition Plan was proposed, and compromised only 33% of the population. However, according to the Partition Plan, they were to receive a state consisting of 56% of the land area of Palestine! Moreover, the proposed Jewish state was to have more Arabs than Jews under its jurisdiction. 509,780 Arabs would be in the new Israeli state, while only 499,020 Jews. The Arab state, on the other hand, would contain 10,000 Jews and 735,000 Arabs.

Does this sound like a fair plan to you? Of course the Jews accepted it! And of course the Arabs didn't.

First.. The Arabs rejected another plan, from Peel commission 1937, where they got most of Israel.. I don't think it really mattered how much they had got, as long as a jewish state is still being established.

Indeed Jews owned only 6.5% of the land, but the state - British - owned 70%.. and since the areas given to the jewish lands were where mostly jews lived, I can't see the problem.
Map of settlerments
Partition plan

Now, the only reason the jewish state would get a lot of land is because of the desert - Negev - the southern part, which isn't really populated and can't be used for agriculture.. and btw, the population of the Jewish state would've been 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews.
the Arabs rejected the offer and attacked us.. when you begin a war you know you can lose, they did, the the lands are no longer theirs. Most of it anyway. I can see a future Palestinian state in Gaza Strip and thw West Bank.

[Spock]

Thank you RTB. No one more qualified to speak on this topic IMO. NEVER AGAIN.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

First.. The Arabs rejected another plan, from Peel commission 1937, where they got most of Israel.. I don't think it really mattered how much they had got, as long as a jewish state is still being established.

There probably is some truth to that. Palestine had been a heartland of Islam for centuries. It containes Jerusalem also, and that city is one of the most holy places to Muslims. The land also was predominately Arab. That a secular Jewish state should be formed in the middle of Muslim heartland would certainly be repugnant to the Arabs, on religious and traditional grounds.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

Indeed Jews owned only 6.5% of the land, but the state - British - owned 70%.. and since the areas given to the jewish lands were where mostly jews lived, I can't see the problem.
Map of settlerments
Partition plan

Now, the only reason the jewish state would get a lot of land is because of the desert - Negev - the southern part, which isn't really populated and can't be used for agriculture..

Though the British owned the land, there were many Arabs that lived on it. Even if on paper the land belonged to the British, the reality was very different. Much of that land Jews would be gifted from the British was settled and owned by Palestinians. As we have noted, the Jews only had about 6% of the land. They were to receive about 50% of it in addition to their 6%, and much of that land would be taken from Arab owners.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

and btw, the population of the Jewish state would've been 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews.

Yes, I apologize for the misinformation I presented. After reading Wikipedia's account and cross-checking it with another source, I found that my original book was flawed in some ways. It was taking its statistics from potentially biased Arab sources. I believe there are many biased Zionist sources as well, but it appears I got some information from the opposite extreme. You have my full, and embarressed, apology.

I will be much more careful about using that particular source, in future posts.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

the Arabs rejected the offer and attacked us.. when you begin a war you know you can lose, they did, the the lands are no longer theirs.

Yet the war was utilized by Jewish leaders in a very reprehensible way. Israeli forces forcibly evicted many Palestinians from their homes. Thousands more Arabs fled because of propaganda submitted by other Arabs. The United Nations ordered that this vast number of civilians be allowed to return to their homes, but Israel refused. Instead, according to Ian Lustick's book, "Arabs in the Jewish State," Israel occupied many of these formerly Palestinian villages with their own settlers, and what they could not use, they bulldozed.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

Most of it anyway. I can see a future Palestinian state in Gaza Strip and thw West Bank.

I'm glad you're open to that possibility, though I don't know what can be done about the Palestinian demand for the return of East Jerusalem. Even in the last year many more Palestinians were forcibly evicted from the city.

[Lief Erikson]

Bump!

[Lotesse]

Lief - "gifted from the British"?? Are you really educated about what you speak of here, or not, or do you just think that you are because you read a lot and have the internet to run research on? Do you now, or have you ever lived and/or grown up in the middle-east, like our Raddy in Israel? No, Ihave not, if that is to be your comeback, but my ex did - he is a lieutenant for the I.D.F., and we were very, very close for two years, and during this period of time I actually LEARNED some truth about the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, et al, first hand.

Dear lief, the thing is you come across here as trying to school Radagast upon the truth and reality OF HIS OWN RELIGION, of his OWN COUNTRY, his own part of the WORLD which you have ABsolutely no experience in. I recently witnessed you doing a similar sort of supercilious thing in the "What religion are you" thread in which you actually find the cheek to challenge a Zoroastrian mooter about the validity of a historical point from his or her OWN unique religion's history. Chiggity-check yourself, Lief - I do like you, but man oh man, THINK about what you do when you say the things you say, sometimes! Me personally, I know you don't mean any harm, but one of these days, someone's going to take you on exactly what you say, and they are not going to split hairs & give you room about how you may have not meant what you said - what one says, is what one says. I do not believe in misunderstanding. To me, that is a cheap cop-out for those who cannot bear the responsibility of what they have said.

SO - "gifted from the British?" What other pearls of wisdom have U got for us mooters, about the state of Israel & the middle east, Lief?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There probably is some truth to that. Palestine had been a heartland of Islam for centuries. It containes Jerusalem also, and that city is one of the most holy places to Muslims. The land also was predominately Arab. That a secular Jewish state should be formed in the middle of Muslim heartland would certainly be repugnant to the Arabs, on religious and traditional grounds.

It's all truth. I really don't think they care how large it would be, as long as it's there. I agree that the way they see it, the jews came and stole their lands.. but we didn't really steal anything. I don't quite see what we did wrong here.

Though the British owned the land, there were many Arabs that lived on it. Even if on paper the land belonged to the British, the reality was very different. Much of that land Jews would be gifted from the British was settled and owned by Palestinians. As we have noted, the Jews only had about 6% of the land. They were to receive about 50% of it in addition to their 6%, and much of that land would be taken from Arab owners.

But can't you see in the map that most - much more than 50% - of the jewish areas are in the desert which wasn't populated either by Jews or Arabs? Therefore the Arabs got more fruitful land, with population potential? The whole Negev is 13,000 km^2, by wikipedia. (For comparison: whole Israel of today, if I remember correctly, is about 21,000 km^2.) I can assure these lands were not owned by Arabs, and also were probably close to empty of villages and citizens but beduins (sp.).

Yet the war was utilized by Jewish leaders in a very reprehensible way. Israeli forces forcibly evicted many Palestinians from their homes. Thousands more Arabs fled because of propaganda submitted by other Arabs. The United Nations ordered that this vast number of civilians be allowed to return to their homes, but Israel refused. Instead, according to Ian Lustick's book, "Arabs in the Jewish State," Israel occupied many of these formerly Palestinian villages with their own settlers, and what they could not use, they bulldozed.

Agreed that the war was used by us to widen the borders of the Jewish state. But I can't really see what's wrong in that, and furthermore why should we give the land back - it cost us deaths and sorrow we didn't want from the first place, and we should just be happy with it and give back all that we conquered? And no, the refugees will not come back to Israel, I strongly oppose that. Frankly, they do have a country already. I can't really understand the connection they have with their former land, either, and it's no longer their land... with all the respect, it'll only cause more problems and also a majority of Arabs in the Jewish state. if they want they can have their own country. But not in our lands.

I'm glad you're open to that possibility, though I don't know what can be done about the Palestinian demand for the return of East Jerusalem. Even in the last year many more Palestinians were forcibly evicted from the city.

When were they forced to leave? from the other side, which I didn't like personally, they let them vote for the Palestinian elections. It's like saying - East Jerusalem will be part of ta future Palestinian independent country.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Lief - "gifted from the British"?? Are you really educated about what you speak of here, or not, or do you just think that you are because you read a lot and have the internet to run research on? Do you now, or have you ever lived and/or grown up in the middle-east, like our Raddy in Israel? No, Ihave not, if that is to be your comeback, but my ex did - he is a lieutenant for the I.D.F., and we were very, very close for two years, and during this period of time I actually LEARNED some truth about the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, et al, first hand.

You are definitely right in saying that there is a great difference between reading about something in a book and experiencing it firsthand. I have done the former, and I have respect for you, your ex and Radagast. You are all in a strong position to have a better qualitative understanding of the situation than I am. Quantity, in these discussions, makes a huge difference in what we're talking about, however. I can learn quantity, numbers and percentages, from Internet sites and books. I cannot learn the quality fully, however. I can hear it described what it was actually like for the people that experienced these things, but I cannot actually know it, because I cannot experience it. That is where I am at, right now.

I cannot actually understand things about this debate in the qualitative, experiential way that Radagast can. I can understand things only from looking at the numbers. The numbers are all that I'm going from, but to a large extent, when we're talking about massive population shifts, those numbers are what is important. That means I'm in not so good a position to understand things as Radgast in a qualitative way, but in a quantitative, numerical way, we're on a pretty even footing. I think we are, anyway. We both are looking to Internet sites and books for our information, and are trying from the information, and our own personal understandings of ethics, to make the best judgment we can.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Dear lief, the thing is you come across here as trying to school Radagast upon the truth and reality OF HIS OWN RELIGION,

I'm not talking about his religion, am I?

Originally Posted by Lotesse

of his OWN COUNTRY, his own part of the WORLD which you have ABsolutely no experience in. I recently witnessed you doing a similar sort of supercilious thing in the "What religion are you" thread in which you actually find the cheek to challenge a Zoroastrian mooter about the validity of a historical point from his or her OWN unique religion's history. Chiggity-check yourself, Lief - I do like you, but man oh man, THINK about what you do when you say the things you say, sometimes!

I do try . I think a lot of people on Entmoot don't take disagreements in debates personally, however. That's just been my experience, in the course of my time debating here. Many of them like debating, and I find debating to be a form of learning. When I debate, people challenge my beliefs, and that makes me learn more. And then I'm more knowledgeable .

With the religion discussion, my challenge to that mooter I hope will lead one of us to greater knowledge as well! If he can give me a good reason for believing Alexander was a Zoroastrian, I'll be better off for knowing it! If he can't give me a good reason, then perhaps he will have learned something! Either way, one of us will have come out of it the better for it, and probably the happier! That's my opinion, anyway.

I've had a lot of people challenge me about my religious beliefs on Entmoot, and when they do, I always come out the better for it. My knowledge is increased, whether I'm right or wrong, and I love having more knowledge .

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Me personally, I know you don't mean any harm,

I assure you, I am very happy about that .

Originally Posted by Lotesse

but one of these days, someone's going to take you on exactly what you say, and they are not going to split hairs & give you room about how you may have not meant what you said - what one says, is what one says. I do not believe in misunderstanding. To me, that is a cheap cop-out for those who cannot bear the responsibility of what they have said.

It can be used that way, I agree. However, sometimes there are real misunderstandings. You used to think that I hated you and was conniving against you. I used to think you were trying to attack me wherever you could, though since then I've realized you were actually trying to defend yourself. Tessar used to think I was purposely ignoring his posts, and was terribly insulted. Now he and I are the best of friends. I hate misunderstandings, and though sometimes they can be used as an excuse and a cheap cop-out, as you say, there are some real misunderstandings too.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

SO - "gifted from the British?" What other pearls of wisdom have U got for us mooters, about the state of Israel & the middle east, Lief?

If the Jews only owned 6% of the land, and most of the rest was owned by the British, then according to the Partition plan, about 50% of their state would have been gifted them from the British. That's what the numbers say.

Of course, the Partition Plan was never adopted because of Arab dissent. Because of that, the Jews ended up taking the land the Partition Plan offered and more from the Arabs by force during the 1948 war and subsequent wars.


You know, Lotesse, I don't mean anything I'm saying as a personal attack against Radagast. I do think that many actions the Israeli state has made toward the Palestinian population were not just, however. The ethics of what happened (and a little bit the facts of it!) are what we're discussing now.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

It's all truth. I really don't think they care how large it would be, as long as it's there. I agree that the way they see it, the jews came and stole their lands.. but we didn't really steal anything. I don't quite see what we did wrong here.

Some Palestinians were forced from their homes, and others fled. None were allowed to return to their property. Israel took the property, in violation of international law. How is that not stealing?

Of course, the same thing has happened with other countries. The United States, my country, stole much Indian land in the 1800s and forced those native populations to leave. The land technically belonged to us, because the French sold it to us in the Louisian purchase. Therefore one could say that we didn't do anything wrong. But we were. We were running over native peoples and forcing them out of land that had been theirs for centuries. The same thing has happened with the Palestinians. The fact that other nations have done the same doesn't make it right.

In fact, because I, as a Christian, believe that the nation of Israel is extremely vital from a spiritual perspective (the Bible talks about it so, so much!), I religiously think Israel is even more at fault than other nations would be. This is simply because they are God's chosen people, his appointed who must do what is right as a light to other nations, rather than follow their example. That's from a spiritual perspective. I believe the injustice is plain from any ordinary perspective too, however.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But can't you see in the map that most - much more than 50% - of the jewish areas are in the desert which wasn't populated either by Jews or Arabs? Therefore the Arabs got more fruitful land, with population potential? The whole Negev is 13,000 km^2, by wikipedia. (For comparison: whole Israel of today, if I remember correctly, is about 21,000 km^2.) I can assure these lands were not owned by Arabs, and also were probably close to empty of villages and citizens but beduins (sp.).

One difficulty with the numbers is that they are grossly uneven. Israel got a large chunk of the Palestinian population, according to the Partition Plan, while the Palestinian state would have had almost no Jews. This state design is crafted to limit Palestinian power as much as possible. About 40% of Israel would have been Palestinian. About 1.2% of the Palestinian state would have been Jewish. Thus Palestinian power was being weakened as much as possible, while Israeli power maximized.

Even though the British technically owned the land they were giving, many tens of thousands of Arabs lived on the land that was being given to Israel.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

Agreed that the war was used by us to widen the borders of the Jewish state. But I can't really see what's wrong in that, and furthermore why should we give the land back - it cost us deaths and sorrow we didn't want from the first place, and we should just be happy with it and give back all that we conquered? And no, the refugees will not come back to Israel, I strongly oppose that. Frankly, they do have a country already. I can't really understand the connection they have with their former land, either, and it's no longer their land... with all the respect, it'll only cause more problems and also a majority of Arabs in the Jewish state. if they want they can have their own country. But not in our lands.

I'll start by explaining the Palestinian perspective and connection to their land. My sources are eyewitness Palestinian accounts I've read, as well as simple data and history.

Palestinians had lived in Israel, at peace with Jewish neighbors, for hundreds of years. Muslims owned Palestine since the Crusades, I believe, though I could be mistaken. It was the heartland of Muslim religion. Palestinians had a connection to the land that went many generations back. When the British took over, they owned the land, but they did not evict the Palestinian residents and resettle it with British civilians.

I may be incorrect on some of what I have said up to this point. If I am, please check me.

Palestinians had been living in this land for decades. Their fathers lived there, and their fathers, and their fathers. Most of the Jews came to Palestine in a great torrent after the Holocaust, for very, very logical reasons. I completely understand the Jewish desire for a state, and sympathize with it. I do not like how it was done, however.

There were Jewish debates amongst the leaders that have been documented about how they were to have a democracy when most of the people were Arab. Was it ethical to expel the Arabs, for the greater good of having a democratic Israeli state?

Much of the Jewish purpose was accomplished by the Arabs themselves, when many Palestinians fled during the 1948 war. Many more that did not flee were expelled. The Palestinians were ripped from homes that were theirs for generations by either force or fear, and they were not allowed to return. In time, they would be forced into what are essentially narrow, massive refugee camps. Gaza Strip is one of these, and the West Bank is far from a burning light of economic prosperity as well. Gaza is the pits. It is economically impoverished. I know that because of the terrorism, Israel is doing badly as well, but Israel's economic troubles are nothing compared to the day to day scrounging for food and work that takes place in Gaza. This is the Palestinian state you speak of: a state of refugees.

So is the connection the Palestinians have to what they see as their homeland not more understandable in this light? They lived there for many generations. It was their home. Their new home is a waste heap. Many of them are putting up with this, however, because they have no other choice and they believe violence is not the answer. Much more of the violence would stop and the justification for their cause as well would be lessened if the West Bank and East Jerusalem were given back to them. I am pleased with the withdrawal Israel implemented in Gaza Strip.

I think it should be pretty clear now where the injustice lies. Not all of the Palestinians were fighting against Israel. Many of them were very peaceful. Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of civilians were punished for the preservation of a Jewish majority in an Israeli state.

[Spock]

The Jews didn't steal anything....they didn't have anything and were given something by those in power. The desert sand is now cultivated and cities grow where camels dwelt long ago.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Some Palestinians were forced from their homes, and others fled. None were allowed to return to their property. Israel took the property, in violation of international law. How is that not stealing?

It was a part of a war they started. They took a risk - and they lost. Doesn't China have Tibet? The US conquered parts of Mexico? etc, etc... conquering something in a war is not stealing in my definition at least.

The international law has absolutely nothing to do with it, becuase we as an independent country choose to ignore what the international court in Hague says is right or wrong, and it could be seen today with the wall.

Of course, the same thing has happened with other countries. The United States, my country, stole much Indian land in the 1800s and forced those native populations to leave. The land technically belonged to us, because the French sold it to us in the Louisian purchase. Therefore one could say that we didn't do anything wrong. But we were. We were running over native peoples and forcing them out of land that had been theirs for centuries. The same thing has happened with the Palestinians. The fact that other nations have done the same doesn't make it right.

I'm not really sure what happened there... so I can't really answer.

One difficulty with the numbers is that they are grossly uneven. Israel got a large chunk of the Palestinian population, according to the Partition Plan, while the Palestinian state would have had almost no Jews. This state design is crafted to limit Palestinian power as much as possible. About 40% of Israel would have been Palestinian. About 1.2% of the Palestinian state would have been Jewish. Thus Palestinian power was being weakened as much as possible, while Israeli power maximized.

But in order to have any Jewish state, that is a state with a majority of jews, you evidently had to include many Arbas in there, becasue there were more Arabs in Israel and they were more spread. I'm sure this wasn't done to weaken the Palestinians. Also, about this, most of the UN agreed and almost only the Arab countries voted against which I think shows most countries thought it's a fair "deal".

I'll start by explaining the Palestinian perspective and connection to their land. My sources are eyewitness Palestinian accounts I've read, as well as simple data and history.

Palestinians had lived in Israel, at peace with Jewish neighbors, for hundreds of years. Muslims owned Palestine since the Crusades, I believe, though I could be mistaken. It was the heartland of Muslim religion. Palestinians had a connection to the land that went many generations back. When the British took over, they owned the land, but they did not evict the Palestinian residents and resettle it with British civilians.

I may be incorrect on some of what I have said up to this point. If I am, please check me.

Palestinians had been living in this land for decades. Their fathers lived there, and their fathers, and their fathers. Most of the Jews came to Palestine in a great torrent after the Holocaust, for very, very logical reasons. I completely understand the Jewish desire for a state, and sympathize with it. I do not like how it was done, however.

There were Jewish debates amongst the leaders that have been documented about how they were to have a democracy when most of the people were Arab. Was it ethical to expel the Arabs, for the greater good of having a democratic Israeli state?

Much of the Jewish purpose was accomplished by the Arabs themselves, when many Palestinians fled during the 1948 war. Many more that did not flee were expelled. The Palestinians were ripped from homes that were theirs for generations by either force or fear, and they were not allowed to return. In time, they would be forced into what are essentially narrow, massive refugee camps. Gaza Strip is one of these, and the West Bank is far from a burning light of economic prosperity as well. Gaza is the pits. It is economically impoverished. I know that because of the terrorism, Israel is doing badly as well, but Israel's economic troubles are nothing compared to the day to day scrounging for food and work that takes place in Gaza. This is the Palestinian state you speak of: a state of refugees.

So is the connection the Palestinians have to what they see as their homeland not more understandable in this light? They lived there for many generations. It was their home. Their new home is a waste heap. Many of them are putting up with this, however, because they have no other choice and they believe violence is not the answer. Much more of the violence would stop and the justification for their cause as well would be lessened if the West Bank and East Jerusalem were given back to them. I am pleased with the withdrawal Israel implemented in Gaza Strip.

I think it should be pretty clear now where the injustice lies. Not all of the Palestinians were fighting against Israel. Many of them were very peaceful. Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of civilians were punished for the preservation of a Jewish majority in an Israeli state.

I do understand and know that the lands are important to them, and yet, still:
1. you can say the same about us Jews, more or less. 2000 years without our own land - this land. The land is one of the most important things in the Bible, our Bible teacher calls it the triangle - God, Israelis and the land. It's a part of our history, our culture, our religion. (well some of us, the religious ones. Thoguh to tell the truth back then most of jews were religious) Land of ancestors, just like with the Arabs, just longer back. The place I live in now, was from the Bible - called then just "Ono". With years by 1900 there was a Aravic village named "kfar Ana' here, and later - till today - it's Kiryat Ono. (that's just showing the land was ours, it proves nothing at all)

2. With all sympathy, I don't think it would end very good had we let them enter freely. I'm sure many Palestinians originally from Gaza would come too, just to run from all the situation over there, and it would cause a collapse IMO of our country eventually.. Lots of unemployment, for instance, and again an Arabic majority in government. ( ) It won't end well for either of the sides, but we would suffer more.

3. This shouldn't be discussed at all because the land is ours. They have no right for it any longer, and I see no reason why they should come back. Whether their ancestors have been ther eor not has nothing to do with things today. Things change. And it sounds really bad I know, but IMO they don't belong here - Israel - any longer.

[Spock]

yes RTB, all you say is as it is; unfortunate we have to keep telling our side to those who's ears and eyes are deaf and blind.
---------Ahntoisht ---------------

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

This shouldn't be discussed at all because the land is ours. They have no right for it any longer, and I see no reason why they should come back. Whether their ancestors have been ther eor not has nothing to do with things today. Things change. And it sounds really bad I know, but IMO they don't belong here - Israel - any longer.

do you think it is possible that years in the future... be it 100 or 1,000 that arabs and israelis will be able to live together in the same country, and govern it together... or is there just too much bad blood?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

It was a part of a war they started. They took a risk - and they lost. Doesn't China have Tibet? The US conquered parts of Mexico? etc, etc... conquering something in a war is not stealing in my definition at least.

We're talking about civilians here, for the most part. We're also talking about them being expelled from their homes. If a conquest is necessary, it is necessary and there's no helping it. But an inhumane treatment of the conquered I do not approve of. I don't fault Israel for winning the war. I believe Israel is at fault for inhumane treatment of the conquered. Around 300,000 people, mostly civilians, fled or were expelled from their homes. They were not allowed to return, and their homes were occupied by settlers or destroyed. They were forced instead to live in a crammed condition of economic poverty. After the war was over, these people could have been allowed to return. They weren't, however, because if they'd been allowed to return, Israel would not have been able to have a democracy with a Jewish majority. It was a successful political maneuver, though condemned by the United Nations, which demanded that the Palestinians be allowed to return and was ignored.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

The international law has absolutely nothing to do with it, becuase we as an independent country choose to ignore what the international court in Hague says is right or wrong, and it could be seen today with the wall.
I'm not really sure what happened there... so I can't really answer.


But in order to have any Jewish state, that is a state with a majority of jews, you evidently had to include many Arbas in there, becasue there were more Arabs in Israel and they were more spread. I'm sure this wasn't done to weaken the Palestinians. Also, about this, most of the UN agreed and almost only the Arab countries voted against which I think shows most countries thought it's a fair "deal".

A fair deal, or a guilty conscience? The Partition Plan was a compromise between extremist stances on both sides. Arab culture, because of Islam, has a strong emphasis upon justice. Islam, like much of the Old Testament, seems to have a stronger emphasis on justice than on mercy. The Arabs knew a raw deal when they saw it, and having owned the land for centuries, weren't about to give up a religious homeland for a secular Jewish state. The deal was also unjust, as the evidence points out.

Even if the Arabs and Jews were strongly mingled in their cities, some of those mingled areas could have been given to the Arabs. Then they would have gotten perhaps a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand Jews in their state, rather than 10,000. You are right that the land could not have been split so as to completely separate the Jews from the Arabs. However, more of what the Jews got could have been given to the Arabs, giving a more even population distribution. As the deal stood when presented in the Partition Plan, it was certainly unjust.

We need to remember the timeframe of 1947. This is right after the Holocaust. For very logical reasons, most of the world is feeling enormously sympathetic to the Jews and very, very guilty for not having protected them in Europe.

Pro-Zionist sentiment was very high. This feeling was very prevalent in many countries and their governments while they were working out a solution to the Palestine dispute. This influenced them in favor of Israel, and, in my opinion, made a difference as they were preparing settlements like the Partition Plan.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

I do understand and know that the lands are important to them, and yet, still:
1. you can say the same about us Jews, more or less. 2000 years without our own land - this land. The land is one of the most important things in the Bible, our Bible teacher calls it the triangle - God, Israelis and the land. It's a part of our history, our culture, our religion. (well some of us, the religious ones. Thoguh to tell the truth back then most of jews were religious) Land of ancestors, just like with the Arabs, just longer back. The place I live in now, was from the Bible - called then just "Ono". With years by 1900 there was a Aravic village named "kfar Ana' here, and later - till today - it's Kiryat Ono. (that's just showing the land was ours, it proves nothing at all)

Israel had the land 2,000 years ago. The Palestinians had it 50 years ago. There is a big difference.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

2. With all sympathy, I don't think it would end very good had we let them enter freely. I'm sure many Palestinians originally from Gaza would come too, just to run from all the situation over there, and it would cause a collapse IMO of our country eventually.. Lots of unemployment, for instance, and again an Arabic majority in government. ( ) It won't end well for either of the sides, but we would suffer more.

I don't really understand your argument, because you seem to be bluring time periods. The crisis in Gaza was only made by Israel's refusal to allow the Palestinians to return. Had Israel allowed them at that time to return, there would have been no Gaza crisis to worry about. There would have been an Arab majority in the government. That is true. However, denying them access and thus keeping them from a governmental majority is committing an injustice to hundreds of thousands of civilians and also forcing them and their descendents to live in squalor. I don't care for Israel's decision, though I understand the dilemma they faced.

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

3. This shouldn't be discussed at all because the land is ours. They have no right for it any longer, and I see no reason why they should come back. Whether their ancestors have been ther eor not has nothing to do with things today. Things change.

If a man in my neighborhood steals my computer and television, things have changed as well, and I no longer have any right to the computer or television. Isn't that true?

Originally Posted by Radagast the Brown

And it sounds really bad I know, but IMO they don't belong here - Israel - any longer.

What is done is done. I agree that the Palestinians can't all come back now. However, they can at least be given back the West Bank, Gaza (as they have been), and I think East Jerusalem. Israel should acknowledge that it is responsible for what happened, should apologize, and should stop implementing further the same policy (as I think the evidence shows they are; see again the expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem that has been occurring just this year, and the expulsion of bedhoines from nearby tribal lands about a year before that, etc.). Not even Hamas is calling for all that the Palestinians once owned to be returned to them, for that would be most of Israel. It would be in a practical way simply impossible.

[Spock]

You know if you read your argument closely, it's full of holes and hogwash, IMO

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

You know if you read your argument closely, it's full of holes and hogwash, IMO

Would you please offer me examples of where my reasoning is flawed?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We're talking about civilians here, for the most part.

But the fighting was between civilians in that war, in both sides. Many "civilians" took part in the active war.

We're also talking about them being expelled from their homes. If a conquest is necessary, it is necessary and there's no helping it. But an inhumane treatment of the conquered I do not approve of. I don't fault Israel for winning the war. I believe Israel is at fault for inhumane treatment of the conquered. Around 300,000 people, mostly civilians, fled or were expelled from their homes. They were not allowed to return, and their homes were occupied by settlers or destroyed. They were forced instead to live in a crammed condition of economic poverty. After the war was over, these people could have been allowed to return. They weren't, however, because if they'd been allowed to return, Israel would not have been able to have a democracy with a Jewish majority. It was a successful political maneuver, though condemned by the United Nations, which demanded that the Palestinians be allowed to return and was ignored.

Can you tell me how many fled and how many were forced to leave? IMO mostly they fled, but I don't have the data myself. And so "they" weren't "forced", as you say.

Again, after they fled I see no reason to let them come back. Areas were conquered in a war, borders were placed, and they were no longer a part of the state of Israel but from one side part of Egypt, the other Jordan.

Let's take the hypothetical situation of you being a jew living here. Would you let the refugees back inside your country, just to have a majority of Arabs, which would eventually cause a collapse of oyour independent ex-jewish country?

A fair deal, or a guilty conscience? The Partition Plan was a compromise between extremist stances on both sides.

No it wasn't. It was a plan suggested and approved by the UN, which is supposedly neutral.

Arab culture, because of Islam, has a strong emphasis upon justice. Islam, like much of the Old Testament, seems to have a stronger emphasis on justice than on mercy. The Arabs knew a raw deal when they saw it, and having owned the land for centuries, weren't about to give up a religious homeland for a secular Jewish state. The deal was also unjust, as the evidence points out.

Oh? But both religions has a lot of violance in them. If you read the Old Testamnet, not even thoroughly, you can see it everywhere... murder, injustice, etc... And you yourself tried to prove, in another thread, that Islam is a violent religion and Muhamad is too.

Even if the Arabs and Jews were strongly mingled in their cities, some of those mingled areas could have been given to the Arabs. Then they would have gotten perhaps a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand Jews in their state, rather than 10,000. You are right that the land could not have been split so as to completely separate the Jews from the Arabs. However, more of what the Jews got could have been given to the Arabs, giving a more even population distribution. As the deal stood when presented in the Partition Plan, it was certainly unjust.

You'd create one tiny country and one large that would conquer IMO the smaller one quite soon afterwards IMO. Or, at least, wouldn't be able to survive economically. It's just not practical.
And no, but the Arabs would have started the war anyway, whether they get a larger part or not, they didn't want a Jewish state next to them. And so the results would be the same.

We need to remember the timeframe of 1947. This is right after the Holocaust. For very logical reasons, most of the world is feeling enormously sympathetic to the Jews and very, very guilty for not having protected them in Europe.

Pro-Zionist sentiment was very high. This feeling was very prevalent in many countries and their governments while they were working out a solution to the Palestine dispute. This influenced them in favor of Israel, and, in my opinion, made a difference as they were preparing settlements like the Partition Plan.

Probably. But I don't understand the ending - "settlements like the Partition Plan"?

Israel had the land 2,000 years ago. The Palestinians had it 50 years ago. There is a big difference.

57

And the difference isn't that big. The difference is big in your opinion perhaps.

I don't really understand your argument, because you seem to be bluring time periods. The crisis in Gaza was only made by Israel's refusal to allow the Palestinians to return. Had Israel allowed them at that time to return, there would have been no Gaza crisis to worry about. There would have been an Arab majority in the government. That is true. However, denying them access and thus keeping them from a governmental majority is committing an injustice to hundreds of thousands of civilians and also forcing them and their descendents to live in squalor. I don't care for Israel's decision, though I understand the dilemma they faced.

I'm not blurring, I was talking about the idea of letting them come inside of Israel now.
And I explained that somewhere up.. the idea of this part of the land was of an independent Jewish country. The areas were conquered. Are you saying they had no more land to settle in? Create new villages?

If a man in my neighborhood steals my computer and television, things have changed as well, and I no longer have any right to the computer or television. Isn't that true?

I see it more like - you had a bet on your computer and TV, you lost. In life you may be able to buy new ones if you havethe money, but here you cannot get it back. As said I can't see it as theft, especially when they've started it. They could have had their country 57 years ago. But noooooo.... they had to start a war.

What is done is done. I agree that the Palestinians can't all come back now. However, they can at least be given back the West Bank, Gaza (as they have been), and I think East Jerusalem. Israel should acknowledge that it is responsible for what happened, should apologize, and should stop implementing further the same policy (as I think the evidence shows they are; see again the expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem that has been occurring just this year, and the expulsion of bedhoines from nearby tribal lands about a year before that, etc.). Not even Hamas is calling for all that the Palestinians once owned to be returned to them, for that would be most of Israel. It would be in a practical way simply impossible.

Israel is not responsible though, the Palestinian leadership is. I'd say Jordan is as much, and Egypt. You know, they can help in the wars, but when it comes to accepting fellow Arabs - nooo. Why would they do that? But it's easier to blame Israel I see.

Expulsion of bedouin? What are you talking about? Many bedouin tribes are criminal, agreed, and they try to settle them in cities and not take the lands of the country illegalym yes. Haven't heard of any expulsion from East Jerusalem either.
Hamas doesn't say so - yet. When they get all of the West Bank as well we'll see. I can assure you they would.