by Greenpalmtreestillmine 208 Replies latest social current
avishai,
we are not talking about empty land that no one had ever seen before. these people LIVED there before 1947! would it help you if mexico takes texas, california etc. back that you can move to nebraska? if you say yes you would happily move up there with no bad feelings for the mexicans than i guess i am wrong...if you would say no i would defend my property than i guess my standpoint and that of the palestinians should be understandable to you!
I never said we were. But, the British moved in A HUGE amt. of Jordanians, Lebanese, etc. In the 40's, And gave all of the armored emplacements to the "palestinians". Again, I ask, why won't these countries allow their brethren to emigrate back?
I see some of your points. Would you do me a HUGE favor? Scan over this page, at your convenience, and tell me where it's wrong? I AM open to other Ideas.
Unrealist,
You fool! That was the Roman Empires land far before your precious little Arabs claimed it. It should be given back to Italy.
avishai,
if you look at the available censi for the early 20. century you will see that about 500.000 arabs lived in the area versus some 20.000 jews.
those numbers grew on both sides to the UN numbers i posted above. clear is that more of the land was owned by arabs than by jews and that they represented the vast majority of people in 1946.
the decision to create israel was made due to the holocaust. nevertheless it was a great injustice towards the arabs in that area.
the page you listed can hardly be viewed as objective. and most of the statements - at least the ones that make the gist of the story - have no citations. (for instance many jews were slaugthered by arabs... etc.).
i can list you a dozen pages with exactly the alternative view. to find neutral ones is hard.
on this page it is interesting however how the writers try to paint the picture that all the worlds politicians including ghandi and the US gov. are anti jewish. according to them all UN or other international observers of the situation were without counter example anti jewish. i find that extremely hard to believe if the situation of the jews in the area is indeed as they say it is. (and given that the UN created israel requireing a majority of nations voting for them)
especially interesting is what they said regarding ghandis opposition:
... my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. ... Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?... if [the Jews in Palestine] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb.I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German might... I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment
they discredit this with the holocaust argument. true the jews had suffered a lot in europe BUT that had nothing to do with the arabs. why were the arabs made to pay for this? israel should have been founded either in the part of germany that was given to russia respectively poland or they should have gotten nevada or arizona. to pick an area were the inhabitants are too poor to defend themselfs against an invasion is not justifyable by anything.
crazy,
what is unrealistic? the numbers i posted? or the fact that arabs lived there for centuries?
israel should have been founded either in the part of germany that was given to russia respectively poland or they should have gotten nevada or arizona
Well, on that, at least, we agree.
they should have gotten nevada or arizona
Instead, they got Florida.
I thought this was an interesting article and maybe something to add to the discussion.
valis,
thank you for this excellent link! really a great read!
i agree with almost everything he says.
"Transfer," he writes in Revisited, "was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism?because it sought to transform a land which was 'Arab' into a 'Jewish' state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population." In a much-publicized recent interview with Ha'aretz entitled "Survival of the Fittest," Morris took this position to its logical conclusion. Referring to Prime Minister David Ben Gurion's hesitant support for the wartime expulsions, he said:
I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered... If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types, but my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all.
the matter of fact is that the arabs have not forgiven israel and the jews for this. and i cannot blame them. it would have required at least a decent apology and a financial settlement 50 years ago. building up the arab communities would have been cheaper than spending billions on defense.
in the historical perspective i would be worried too about israel. it would be interesting to know whether it will survive the next 200 years.
Realist,
When Samuel Clemens toured the Holy Land it's population was about 100,000...PERIOD, of which 10, were Jewish...SO EVERYONE immigrated...not just the Jews. Most of the land the Jews lived on was bought and paid for...at exorbitant rates...and they turned the swamps, marshes, and desert land they bought into fertile farms, orchards and ranches....
Many of today's trouble makers are also immigrants....Both Arafat and the now dead founder of Hamas are Egyptian.
We can hash out the historicals all we want...that doesn't change the fact that you continue to justify the murder of babies, women, kids going to school, men going to work...by radical Palestinians. So again, rather than hide behind your species arguments about the existence of Israel...ACCEPT that they exist by mandate of the UN (I thought you liked the UN). SO, GIVEN ALL THIS, What should the Israelis have done when they were attacked by Egyptians (they didn't take Egyptian land) by Jordanians (they didn't take Jordanian Land), By Syria (they didn't take Syrian Land) By Saudis (they didn't take Saudi Land), By Iraqis (they didn't take Iraqi land), and by Lebenon (they didn't take Lebonese land).
I'll answer your question about the partition, it was MORE than fair. The best farm land was given to the Arabs, the overwhelming supply of fresh water given to the Arabs...most of them immigrants from other countries into the Holy Land in which no Arab government EVER existed.
The cited article is quite interesting, by the way. Seems that yes, there were attrocities committed by the Jews...just like with the Arabs...but that the Arab leaders themselves were MOST responsible for the mass exodus of Arabs...also interesting is the fact that the Palis' refugees were treated better by their "oppressors" than by their Arab "brothers" and that the living standard of Arab-Israelis is the highest for Arabs in the region.
building up the arab communities would have been cheaper than spending billions on defense
They have, for over a hundred years.
Most of the land the Jews lived on was bought and paid for...at exorbitant rates...and they turned the swamps, marshes, and desert land they bought into fertile farms, orchards and ranches....
They also brought in irrigation, hospitals, electricity roads, etc., etc. Which benefited the "arabs" among about 40 other nationalities, and religions, languages, etc. that lived there, mostly in medieval sqalor. As Yeru said, much of the land, which 80% of the population, Israeli and OTHERWISE lives on now, was bought and paid for, long before 1948, from the turks, an arabic, muslim nation.
yeru,
Samuel Clemens toured the Holy Land it's population was about 100,000
how was this number derived?
Most of the land the Jews lived on was bought and paid for...at exorbitant rates
you mean before 1947?
We can hash out the historicals all we want...that doesn't change the fact that you continue to justify the murder of babies, women, kids going to school, men going to work...by radical Palestinians.
terrorism is the war of the poor. i do not condonce terrorism as i do not condone war but i do understand the arab standpoint and frankly i am not so arrogant to say i would certainly act different when i would have been unfortunate enough to be born in a arab refugee camp in gaza.
I thought you liked the UN
where exactly did i state that i like the UN?
What should the Israelis have done when they were attacked by Egyptians (they didn't take Egyptian land) by Jordanians (they didn't take Jordanian Land), By Syria (they didn't take Syrian Land) By Saudis (they didn't take Saudi Land), By Iraqis (they didn't take Iraqi land), and by Lebenon (they didn't take Lebonese land).
the 47 war did not justify the removal of arab civilians from israeli territory, it did not justify the annexation of additional territory and similar did the 67 war not justify the de facto annexation of gaza and the west bank. israel should have tried to develop the arab part of palestine ....wealthy people do not fight. instead of spending enormous amounts on defense they should have made real peace.
