NationStates Jolt Archive

I was/am watching a speach by Afief Safieh( Ambassador of Palestine ) on Capitol Hill, who said that they are asking for less then they think belongs to them, only 22% of what they think is their's by right. Now I'am interested. Can someone humor me and give me a little backstory on this?

( Thanks! )

They believe either
A: that all of the area currently called Israel is theirs

or

B: they are entitled to the area designated for an Arab state by the 1947 UN Partition Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan)

I believe the only area that is currently called for to be a Palestinian state would be the West Bank plus the Gaza Strip. There you go.

Well it is more a question of the people accepting that Israel isn't going anywhere.

There are the extreamists that believe that Israel will be destroyed and or they are going to force the rest of the world to take back those dirty jews.

The history of the conflict is rather complex as there is no clear right or wrong side on this.

For example, the state of Palistine ceased to exist about 400 or was it 600 years ago. Jews had been living in the country up until the 1928 arab revolts.

Fact remains is that they don't really have something good to build on. For example water rights is not secure.....

Was Palestine formed from dissendent Israelie's?, or the other way around? Is that is why there is a conflict?

Jews are accepted?

Or do you mean the Palis?

In the case of the Palis, well that was their home before 1947 so there is that ideal of trying to get back something that was yours.

Israel has kicked out a great deal of them so many other countries have a large base of them. Jordan in particular.

Not too many countries are eager to accept a large base of people.....

Was Palestine formed from dissendent Israelie's?, or the other way around? Is that is why there is a conflict?

There was once was a country that was conquered. The modern Palistine was created by the British after beating the Turks in WW1. They wanted to break up the Ottoman empire which controlled the area.

Or do you mean the Palis?
Thats what I meant..
In the case of the Palis, well that was their home before 1947 so there is that ideal of trying to get back something that was yours.

Even after the United Nations of the world tell you that you only get this and this, no more? How stubborn. There's conflict over this?


Israel has kicked out a great deal of them so many other countries have a large base of them. Jordan in particular.

Good on Jordan.. So the ones kicked out decide to live on the G. Strip and other Palestine areas instead of immigrating to another country? Seems reasonable.

Not too many countries are eager to accept a large base of people.....

Of course, but over time they cannot just desolve into other countries?

There was once was a country that was conquered. The modern Palistine was created by the British after beating the Turks in WW1. They wanted to break up the Ottoman empire which controlled the area.

Again, thanks for the info. It seems unnessecary now, since the empire no longer has control over Turkey, to have Palestine?

EDIT: What I mean to ask is; What legitmate reason has been given for the continuence of Palestinian Independence.

Even after the United Nations of the world tell you that you only get this and this, no more? How stubborn. There's conflict over this?
[\quote]
Well it didn't happen that way. The Brit's controlled the area and then were booted out(it depends on your view). The jews and the palis fought and Israel was born. There is bad feelings as you are only talking a generation or two. It will take a few generations before it gets passed.

[quote]
Good on Jordan.. So the ones kicked out decide to live on the G. Strip and other Palestine areas instead of immigrating to another country? Seems reasonable.

Well again. You have issues like water rights. Never mind the fact your country has another country in the middle of yours so there is travel rights.


Of course, but over time they cannot just desolve into other countries?

Not everybody readily takes people. Especially in the days of terrorism.


Again, thanks for the info. It seems unnessecary now, since the empire no longer has control over Turkey, to have Palestine?

It's the nature of country building. Why is it necesary to have a United States? A Viet Nam? People tend to want to live under they own ways rather then somebody elses.

If you want to read a history of Isreal.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671662414/sr=1-6/qid=1137546431/ref=pd_bbs_6/002-1187971-6184824?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I am sure some would argue it's one sided but the author pair does a great job. They did a great one on India as well....

Go read a history of the middle east. You're not going to get a detailed or balanced account here.

Very crudely; a jewish state once existed where Israel now is. Variety of invasions dispersed a lot of jews and dissolved the jewish state, though it remained an area where you'd expect to encounter jews.

The land where Israel now is was variously controlled by romans, byzantines, persians, arabs, and the Ottoman Empire. It was only in the later 19th C that jews started to drift back to and try to settle in the area we call Israel again.

An awful lot of non-jews, local arab people were already living there, and had been for... well, hundreds of years!

After WW2, the state of Israel was set up, and the arabs told the land wouldn't be theirs, but belong to the people who'd been coming there for the past couple of generations instead. Understandablt, a lot of them were and are miffed at this!

A very potted history, but starts to give you an idea of it all...

May I be so bold as to set a basic premise? If so, here it is: Israel isn't going anywhere. It may eventually choose to totally evacuate some or all of the Palestinian claim, but between its strength, the strength of its allies, the utter stupidity of trying to make two wrongs a right and the fact that no one has the right to cease Israel's status as a state, it isn't going to just "disappear".

Elgesh'] SNIP...

Actually that is a reasonable quick and dirty summary. ;)

Go read a history of the middle east. You're not going to get a detailed or balanced account here.

Why not offer some suggestions ;)

Elgesh']-

Thats exactly what I was looking for, thanks!:)

Actually that is a reasonable quick and dirty summary. ;)

You sound just like my ex-girlfriend...:p

Naw, cheers! Nice of you to say :)

Thats exactly what I was looking for, thanks!:)

Heh, you're welcome! :D Help you solidify your views, at all? Be interested to hear them, btw...?

-After one of the big wars in the 20th century, some dumb (american or british) politican was like 'funny how the jews are the only major religion without their own country' (which isnt true but anyway) and since there aren't realy people in the are of the world known as 'the holy land' it could be "land for a people without land, and people for a land with none" (thats actuallly a quote[or close to one]) so all the jews started flocking to the new state called Isreal. However it turned out the there were people there, they were just largely nomadic, and were angry when they were displaced by the jews. Although the displaced palesitnians outnumbered the jews, Isreal had a better trained, better equipped, better motivated army (service compulsary), in short very effective, so they beat back the arabs who refused to jsut leave the region and are now unahppy and without permentant homes while most of the west backs isreal.

I actually jsut saw steven speilberg's Munich and I was wondering if it might work for some country to jsut give up a nice tract of land for the jews to live in instead (I know that Isreal contains many of their hoyl sites but...) I was thinking they might like Ohio...

Palestine never existed and should never exist. I am defining Palestine as a country for so-called "Palestinians". Look at Gaza now, it is in almost total anarachy. "Palestinians" can't even run a small strip of desert. Israel must kick out or eliminate "Palestianians".

Both wrong. Genocide isn't an viable option. Israel in Ohio makes no saense whatsoever. Israel is where it is because it has a deep cultural connection to the land, as do christians and Muslims. So, neither solves the problem.

Palestine never existed and should never exist. I am defining Palestine as a country for so-called "Palestinians". Look at Gaza now, it is in almost total anarachy. "Palestinians" can't even run a small strip of desert. Israel must kick out or eliminate "Palestianians".

...if I can:

"Israel never existed and should never exist. I am defining Israel as a country for so-called "Israelis". Look at it now, it is in almost total anarachy. "Israelis" can't even run a small strip of desert. Palestine must kick out or eliminate "Isaelis".

Your views are pretty damn bigoted, man

Elgesh']...if I can:

"Israel never existed and should never exist. I am defining Israel as a country for so-called "Israelis". Look at it now, it is in almost total anarachy. "Israelis" can't even run a small strip of desert. Palestine must kick out or eliminate "Isaelis".

Your views are pretty damn bigoted, man
We've given them almost 60 years of possibilities and they won't accept one.

Elgesh']Heh, you're welcome! :D Help you solidify your views, at all? Be interested to hear them, btw...?

Given Unogal's and your post, my views would be;

> Palestine is pointless, but as they we're there first Israel should Atleast accept them. They should also spearhead the politics as the original people.
> I know this will never happen and therefore think that Palesitine should just dissolve into Israel.
> I dislike that the Western Powers pet project [Israel] disrupted original people, like we did with Native Indians, and they will not admit it was a mistake and force Israel officials to accept Palestinians.

Palestine never existed and should never exist. I am defining Palestine as a country for so-called "Palestinians". Look at Gaza now, it is in almost total anarachy. "Palestinians" can't even run a small strip of desert. Israel must kick out or eliminate "Palestianians".
Kind of hard to run anything without

1) the ability to protect your people
2) control of your borders
3) an infrastructure
4) a reasonable way to access the outside world
5) an economy

We've given them almost 60 years of possibilities and they won't accept one.
My father visited Israel many years ago, and what he saw were the children of those who had owned the land a generation before forced to work on that same land for a pittance wage for the sake of survival. If someone came to your home, threw you out, moved in, and told you to get over it, I have a feeling you would be pretty keen on taking up arms, too. Palestinians in this situation may feel as though they shouldn't *have* to compromise, as their land was stolen from them by western powers who don't give a damn about their families and livelihoods. I am not sympathetic to the killing of innocents, but I can certainly understand their motivation for not accepting these one-sided compromises.

Remember Israel is an extraordinary case: Trying to create a democracy in the middle east, surrounded by hostile nations and being in possesion of major sites of 3 major religions. It is important to fix things, but anyone searching for the "ONE" solution to the conflict is way off.

Given Unogal's and your post, my views would be;

> Palestine is pointless, but as they we're there first Israel should Atleast accept them. They should also spearhead the politics as the original people.
> I know this will never happen and therefore think that Palesitine should just dissolve into Israel.
> I dislike that the Western Powers pet project [Israel] disrupted original people, like we did with Native Indians, and they will not admit it was a mistake and force Israel officials to accept Palestinians.

It's all a matter of timing. Although there were several occupations through the centuries, Isreal really existed until he initial spread of Islam(the one where they butchered anyone who didn't convert, and spread all the way to spain through africa). Biblically, the conflict goes to when the Jews first moved into the area, and went to war against the Philistines(which is still the arabic word for Palastinians) I'm relatively certain that things would be slightly less explosive if their arab neighbors hadn't flatly refused to acknowledge them as a country and invaded the year it was formed. They invaded several times after that, and were defeated each time. There's a lot more to the story, but I can't remember it offhand (apparently, learning Arabic at DLI, which includes quite a bit of culture and history, is useful for something)

-edit - If you were kicked out of your home and told to get over it you might be upset. But how justified would that be if the people kicking you out had been kicked out of that same place by your parents? Should they "just get over it"?

We've given them almost 60 years of possibilities and they won't accept one.

"Possibilities" like that small strip of deser you mentioned?
:rolleyes:

-edit - If you were kicked out of your home and told to get over it you might be upset. But how justified would that be if the people kicking you out had been kicked out of that same place by your parents? Should they "just get over it"?

Make that great-grandparents. No, great-great-grandparents... no, I think you'll have to go even further back... how many "great" do you need until you come back to Roman times?

Elgesh']...if I can:

"Israel never existed and should never exist. I am defining Israel as a country for so-called "Israelis". Look at it now, it is in almost total anarachy. "Israelis" can't even run a small strip of desert. Palestine must kick out or eliminate "Isaelis".

Your views are pretty damn bigoted, man

He is actually right

Historically there is no such thing as Palestine as a seperate entity, where as there is such a thing as Israel

The term Palestine is derived from the Philistines who settled in the areas now known as Israel and the West bank in aproximately 1200 BCE. The word Palistineia was first applied by the Romans in the second century CE after crushing the Jewish revolt in an attempt to minimise Jewish identification with the land. The Arabic word 'Filistin' (phonetic) derives from this latin name

The Jews arrived in the area now known as Palestine in aproximately 1300 BCE, living in a tribal confederation till united under King Saul. When the kingdoms later split, the Northern kingdom (Israel) lasted till 722 BCE when the Assyrians destroyed it and the Southern kingdom (Judea) lasted till 586 BCE when the Babylonians destroyed them there (Despite warnings from prophets in both cases). After that, when Israel was re-constucted later, they enjoyed varying lengths periods of soverignity up untill 135 CE when they were driven away. Israel has enjoyed over 400 years of independence and if it were not for forigen conquerers, it would be 3000 years old today.

Palestine was never exclusively an Arab country, but Arabic did become the popular language after the Muslim conquests of the seventh century CE. There has never been an independent Palestianian state in the area known as Palestine, it has always been considered as part of Syria. Professer Philip Hitti an Arab-American historian said before the Anglo American commitie in 1946 - "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not"

Before the partition, Palistianian Arabs did not view that they had a seperate identiy to Syria. According to the First Congress of Christian Muslim Asscocations met in Febuary of 1919 they came up with a resolution which said

"We consider Palistine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been seperated from it at any time. We are connected to it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds"

In 1937 a local Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel commision

"There is no such country [as Palistine]! 'Palistine' is a term the Zionists invented! The is no Palistine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria"

The representative from the Arab Higher Committe to the UN said "Palistine was part of the province of Syria. Politicaly the Arabs of Palistine were not independent in the sense of forming a seperate political entity" in 1947. And later Ahmed Shuqeiri (later chairman of the PLO) said before the security council "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria"

EDIT: What I mean to ask is; What legitmate reason has been given for the continuence of Palestinian Independence.

May as well ask the same thing of Native Americans in, oh say, 1880.

He is actually right... snip

? I know he's right, and there was never a state called Palastine - that wasn't my point at all! I was pointing out that his views on some of the non-Jews living in Israel were extremely bigoted, and he wouldn't dream of using language like that about Israel and the Israelis.

As it happens, I would say that it's a bit of a stretch to call for the 'continuity' argument _for_ Israel when there was a 1500-2000 year 'hiatus' (!) in ownership compared to local non-jewish people who'd been living there for 100s of years suddenly turfed out. If they wanted a state of their own and wanted to call it Palestine, could you blame them?

May as well ask the same thing of Native Americans in, oh say, 1880.

:confused: Ok, then flip that. What reason has been given, despite being a Western pet project, for continued Israelie Independence?

:confused: Ok, then flip that. What reason has been given, despite being a Western pet project, for continued Israelie Independence?

Jewish people wanted it (needed it, even, I think).

Going back a couple thousand years, there was an Israel in the Middle East, and some jews had been going there semi-privately for thepast 50 years or so to set up homes for themselves anyway, so everyone making the decisions for these things decided to plonk down 'Israel'. They didn't figure on the non-jewish people living there making much of a fuss...:confused:

Retrospectively, this was a somewhat optimistic assumtion.

They believe either
A: that all of the area currently called Israel is theirs

or

B: they are entitled to the area designated for an Arab state by the 1947 UN Partition Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan)

I believe the only area that is currently called for to be a Palestinian state would be the West Bank plus the Gaza Strip. There you go.
They can get the West Bank and Gaza. ANything more will be over my dead body. They would have more if the bastards had accepted the Partition instead of following the Mufti in trying to wipe my people out and finish what Hitler started. I feel no sympathy for the Palestinians because if they won they would never consider giving the Jews an inch of land so why should we give them any? Besides, they were planning genocide and deserve everything bad that happened to them when they failed.

Israel has kicked out a great deal of them so many other countries have a large base of them. Jordan in particular.

Not too many countries are eager to accept a large base of people.....
I'm calling bullshit here. The Jews didn't kick them out. Ben Gurion encouraged the Arabs to ignore the genocidal Grand Mufti and ignore his call for them to leave their homes to fight. They listend to the Mufti and fled their homes to allow him to move in and kill the Jews. WIth 50,000,000 Arabs vs. 500,000 Jews they didn't expect failure so they thought they'd have their land. Some ARabs did listen, that is why there are over 1,000,000 Israeli Arabs. (of course no one ever mentions them as their existence kills any debate Palestinians have when they claim they were kicked out.) The Israeli Arabs have more civil rights than Arabs in Saudi Arabia or any other Middle Eastern nation do.

As for accepting a large population base. There were over 500,000 Jews kicked out of Arab nations after 1947. They didn't have the option to stay, if they did they would die. Israel absorbed them with Operation Magic Carpet.

They can get the West Bank and Gaza. ANything more will be over my dead body. They would have more if the bastards had accepted the Partition instead of following the Mufti in trying to wipe my people out and finish what Hitler started. I feel no sympathy for the Palestinians because if they won they would never consider giving the Jews an inch of land so why should we give them any? Besides, they were planning genocide and deserve everything bad that happened to them when they failed.

Granted but wether its now or 40 years down the line there will be a Palestine in demographical terms if not politically, Israel cannot afford to not compromise, its long term future depends on it.

They can get the West Bank and Gaza. ANything more will be over my dead body...bastards...wipe my people out...Hitler started...no sympathy for the Palestinians...genocide...deserve everything bad that happened to them...

While saluting the magnamity displayed in the first sentence... you do kind of spoil the effect later on! If my land was 'stolen' by foreign interlopers, I know I'd be pissed at them. And more pissed if they offered a small part of my possessions back to me and acted like I should be jumping up and down for joy.

Something I have _no_ clue about - what sort of reparations/settlements were given to the people living on the land Israel now occupies? Not baiting a trap, literally just wondering if someone knows what happened...?

-After one of the big wars in the 20th century, some dumb (american or british) politican was like 'funny how the jews are the only major religion without their own country' (which isnt true but anyway) and since there aren't realy people in the are of the world known as 'the holy land' it could be "land for a people without land, and people for a land with none" (thats actuallly a quote[or close to one]) so all the jews started flocking to the new state called Isreal. However it turned out the there were people there, they were just largely nomadic, and were angry when they were displaced by the jews. Although the displaced palesitnians outnumbered the jews, Isreal had a better trained, better equipped, better motivated army (service compulsary), in short very effective, so they beat back the arabs who refused to jsut leave the region and are now unahppy and without permentant homes while most of the west backs isreal.

I actually jsut saw steven speilberg's Munich and I was wondering if it might work for some country to jsut give up a nice tract of land for the jews to live in instead (I know that Isreal contains many of their hoyl sites but...) I was thinking they might like Ohio...

You have no idea of history obviously. The British had promised that they would give land in Israel to the Jews long before the Holocaust. In WWI, the Arab populations were fighting of course under the Ottoman flag against the British. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised that if the Jews living in Palestine helped the British they would be given a homeland. This promise went unanswered until political pressure after the Holocaust forced them to act on their promise.

If the promises of the Balfour Declaration had been carried out, the Holocaust would've killed less Jews. The British made matters worse with the White Paper banning Jews from immigrating to the land. This trapped the Jews in Germany. There were even cases where when a ship carrying Jews was found on the seas the fucking British would send it back to Germany when they knew damn well about the Holocaust.

The Jews who originally came there in the first few Aliyahs didn't displace ARabs. In fact ARab landowners sold the swamp land of the Jezreal Valley to the Jews. The land couldn't be farmed according to their experience. They actually thought they were ripping the Jews off, but the Jews discovered how to turn the swamps into Kibbutzim that flourished.

The Jews weren't well armed in 1948. They had 0 nations supporting them. The US didn't even give them arms until 1968 or 1969. (OK, they did managed to get some weapons out of Chzeckoslavakia, but not much.) The Jews were armed primarily with home made Sten guns. Most of their other weapons were confiscated by the British as they were leaving. They didn't have the best training either as their fighters were really famers on the Kibbutz. You are right that every Jew had to fight. With only 500,000 against 50 million you have to do that, especially wehn the other side is plotting genocide. The Jews won because they fought with all their heart and determination.

The Jews weren't kicking the Arabs off their land. The Jews offered the Arabs a chance to stay, but the Arabs followed their Mufti's orders to leave to allow him to kill everyone who lived there. If the Jews really wanted to kick all of the Arabs out of their land, then why are theire over one million of them living in Israel? Once again you are showing no real knowledge of history.

Elgesh']While saluting the magnamity displayed in the first sentence... you do kind of spoil the effect later on! If my land was 'stolen' by foreign interlopers, I know I'd be pissed at them. And more pissed if they offered a small part of my possessions back to me and acted like I should be jumping up and down for joy.

Something I have _no_ clue about - what sort of reparations/settlements were given to the people living on the land Israel now occupies? Not baiting a trap, literally just wondering if someone knows what happened...?
I can turn right around and ask you what reparations were given to the 600,000 Jews who fled with nothing but their lives from Arab nations like Iraq and Yemen. THey never got a dime. My Rabbi's parents were kicked out of Iraq with the threat of death if they didn't leave. They left behind a home and a successful business they owned. They never got a dime. There were actually more Jewish refugees from Arab nations that Arab refugees from Israel.

The Palestinians never had to leave their homes. They left because the Mufti asked them to leave so he could carry out his genocide with the help of the Nazis he was harboring (yes the Arabs hid Nazi war criminals and worked with them to try to exterminate my people.) Thousands of Muslims did realize Israel would give them rights and didn't flee. Their decendents are the 1 million Israeli Arabs.

The land was never stolen by the Jews. The Arabs could stay on the land, but chose not to. As for the land captured during the 1947-48 war. The Arabs started it and if they didn't try to commit genocide they would still have it. Spoils of war. If the ARabs won there wouldn't be a single Jew living on that land. They would all be butchered and you damn well know that.

Whether or not i agree with the formation of israel, ceding land, even if it is land lost to you when you were attacked, is the height of stupidity. "palestinians" (syrian and jordanian expatriates) looking for a homeland have numerous choices in the neighborhood of israel. for israel to give them land to create a nation nextdoor at cost to themselves is idiotic and will surely haunt them for many decades to come. they are basically caving in to their enemy's demands, people who would surely destroy the jewish nation if given the chance.

whatever happens should happen quickly so we can stop funneling billions to one side or the other, saving us 50%.

I was/am watching a speach by Afief Safieh( Ambassador of Palestine ) on Capitol Hill, who said that they are asking for less then they think belongs to them, only 22% of what they think is their's by right. Now I'am interested. Can someone humor me and give me a little backstory on this?

( Thanks! )

I think (im too lazy to check) that what they want is gaza and that other bit israel have occupied lately. whereas in principle they think they are entitled to all the land israel currently occupies, since it was taken from them by force in the 40's.

Elgesh']As it happens, I would say that it's a bit of a stretch to call for the 'continuity' argument _for_ Israel when there was a 1500-2000 year 'hiatus' (!) in ownership compared to local non-jewish people who'd been living there for 100s of years suddenly turfed out. If they wanted a state of their own and wanted to call it Palestine, could you blame them?

I cant see who you mean. The Palestinans are not descended from the Cannanites, so I'm not sure who your talking about. The earliest Arab colonisation of the area came about as a result of the Muslim conquests in the seventh century. The Jews were there long before that, 1300 BCE aproximately

I was/am watching a speach by Afief Safieh( Ambassador of Palestine ) on Capitol Hill, who said that they are asking for less then they think belongs to them, only 22% of what they think is their's by right. Now I'am interested. Can someone humor me and give me a little backstory on this?

( Thanks! )

I support Palestine in its cause for justice

I can turn right around and ask you what reparations were given to the 600,000 Jews who fled with nothing but their lives from Arab nations like Iraq and Yemen. THey never got a dime. My Rabbi's parents were kicked out of Iraq with the threat of death if they didn't leave. They left behind a home and a successful business they owned. They never got a dime. There were actually more Jewish refugees from Arab nations that Arab refugees from Israel.

The Palestinians never had to leave their homes. They left because the Mufti asked them to leave so he could carry out his genocide with the help of the Nazis he was harboring (yes the Arabs hid Nazi war criminals and worked with them to try to exterminate my people.) Thousands of Muslims did realize Israel would give them rights and didn't flee. Their decendents are the 1 million Israeli Arabs.

The land was never stolen by the Jews. The Arabs could stay on the land, but chose not to. As for the land captured during the 1947-48 war. The Arabs started it and if they didn't try to commit genocide they would still have it. Spoils of war. If the ARabs won there wouldn't be a single Jew living on that land. They would all be butchered and you damn well know that.

OK - first of all, Mr. Angry Young Man, no, I don't know that. Thank you, however, for enlightening me, and I shall remember you said it.

Thank you also, in this and other posts, for your potted history lesson. I still don't follow the nature and extent of how all the land-that-makes-up-Israel changed hands (for example, I had no idea that some Israeli land represented war gains, this was news to me); and I'm still not trying to bait you, I just don't know, and would appreciate learning - from you or another reliable source, makes no odds to me, so don't feel any onus on you to continue teaching. It'd be helpful, but I don't want to put you out :)

I cant see who you mean. The Palestinans are not descended from the Cannanites, so I'm not sure who your talking about. The earliest Arab colonisation of the area came about as a result of the Muslim conquests in the seventh century. The Jews were there long before that, 1300 BCE aproximately

The fact is though that its the Palestinians land two. The Americans would be annoyed the native Indians took all their land. After all they were there long before the first settlers from England.

Elgesh']? I know he's right, and there was never a state called Palastine - that wasn't my point at all! I was pointing out that his views on some of the non-Jews living in Israel were extremely bigoted, and he wouldn't dream of using language like that about Israel and the Israelis.

As it happens, I would say that it's a bit of a stretch to call for the 'continuity' argument _for_ Israel when there was a 1500-2000 year 'hiatus' (!) in ownership compared to local non-jewish people who'd been living there for 100s of years suddenly turfed out. If they wanted a state of their own and wanted to call it Palestine, could you blame them?

How about we give Turkey back the entire contents of the Ottoman empire? after all, that was broken up by the Western powers around WWI. Isreal wouldn't be an issue then, since the land would already be spoken for. The local non-jewish people thought of themselves as Syrians until recently, and didn't have to leave. Those who wanted to leave could have gone to Syria. This is an issue of racism, even more severe than exists against America. There have been public statements from national governments in the area stating that terrorist attacks are inexcusable...except against Isreal. There are at least 4 countries actively funding terrorists who attack there. For all these reasons, yes I can blame them. Almost every country in the Middle East was created by the Western map drawing...I don't see anyone challenging the validity of their existance, even though Iraq should really be 3 countries.

I cant see who you mean. The Palestinans are not descended from the Cannanites, so I'm not sure who your talking about. The earliest Arab colonisation of the area came about as a result of the Muslim conquests in the seventh century. The Jews were there long before that, 1300 BCE aproximately

Old Israel ceased to exist during the period we call the ancient world - 1500-1800 years ago, the length of the hiatus I mentioned, which sort of knocks the 'continuity' argument for an Israel*. Arabic people started to live there from the 7th C. onwards - the 'hundreds of years' of non-jewish folk living there I mentioned. I'm not talking about Cannanites at all! Can't see where the confusion arose, but apologies for contributing to it:)


*It's worth mentioning I think there are other arguments that dictate a need for an Israel, just that 'continuity' isn't one of them!

Elgesh']OK - first of all, Mr. Angry Young Man, no, I don't know that. Thank you, however, for enlightening me, and I shall remember you said it.

Thank you also, in this and other posts, for your potted history lesson. I still don't follow the nature and extent of how all the land-that-makes-up-Israel changed hands (for example, I had no idea that some Israeli land represented war gains, this was news to me); and I'm still not trying to bait you, I just don't know, and would appreciate learning - from you or another reliable source, makes no odds to me, so don't feel any onus on you to continue teaching. It'd be helpful, but I don't want to put you out :)

Actually, most of Isreals war gains they were forced to return by the UN. In the 6 day war they increased their holdings by at least 200%, and it was probably more than that, including much of northeastern Egypt.

How about we give Turkey back the entire contents of the Ottoman empire? after all, that was broken up by the Western powers around WWI. Isreal wouldn't be an issue then, since the land would already be spoken for. The local non-jewish people thought of themselves as Syrians until recently, and didn't have to leave. Those who wanted to leave could have gone to Syria. This is an issue of racism, even more severe than exists against America. There have been public statements from national governments in the area stating that terrorist attacks are inexcusable...except against Isreal. There are at least 4 countries actively funding terrorists who attack there. For all these reasons, yes I can blame them. Almost every country in the Middle East was created by the Western map drawing...I don't see anyone challenging the validity of their existance, even though Iraq should really be 3 countries.

? <sigh> Mate, crudeness! I'm bloody well _pro_- the state of Israel! I also think the folk who were living there whose land didn't belong to them anymore may have been hard done by, and have legitimate greivances. That's one of the reasons I'm posting and reading here, to _find out more_!

Your post doesn't advance understanding one bit, and seems kind of irrelevant to the points under discussion in my posts.

The fact is though that its the Palestinians land two. The Americans would be annoyed the native Indians took all their land. After all they were there long before the first settlers from England.

It wasnt even the Palistanians land. In the time of the first and second Alliyah (the waves of imigration in the late 19th and early 20th century that resulted from Pogroms around Europe) the land was practically unocupied. The vast majority of Palestine was owned by absentee landlords, living in Egypt and Syria. This land was sold (perfectly legitamately) to the migrating Jews who set up communities and built up their towns and other settlements there. There was a tiny population living there, and the Jews were quite happy to let them co-exist with them. But the Arabs wernt, which is why in 1948 Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq an Lebanon attacked it, with the help of Saudi Arabia, Yemn and Lybia. The number of Arabs who were displaced by the creation of Israel was a tiny ammount when considering the number displaced by the creation of the Aswan dam.

Plus also the number of Arabs who fled Israel during the Independece War, was roughly equal to the number of Jews who fled Muslim lands in a backlash.

Only difference is....all those Jews got intergrated into Israel, while the Arabs got to live in refugee camps all over the Arab lands....

But seriously there is no ethnic difference, between say Jordanians, Syrians, Palestinians...etc.

Except for accent really. But that's no excuse.

Elgesh']OK - first of all, Mr. Angry Young Man, no, I don't know that. Thank you, however, for enlightening me, and I shall remember you said it.

Thank you also, in this and other posts, for your potted history lesson. I still don't follow the nature and extent of how all the land-that-makes-up-Israel changed hands (for example, I had no idea that some Israeli land represented war gains, this was news to me); and I'm still not trying to bait you, I just don't know, and would appreciate learning - from you or another reliable source, makes no odds to me, so don't feel any onus on you to continue teaching. It'd be helpful, but I don't want to put you out :)
The land is a mix of buying it and war gains. The area partitioned to the Jews was mostly land that had been bought from absentee landlords during the first aliyah when they thought the land was useless for farming. New techniques brought over by the Jews suceeded in making the swampland of the Jezreal Valley suitable for farming.

The land in the Negev was also given to the Jews in partition, but that land was primarily unoccupied. In the partition, the Arabs got a majority of the fertile land (but irrigation did eventually turn the Negev into good farming land, but that is after the partition.)

The land won in wars would be areas besides the West Bank and Gaza strip. These are wars that were captured in a war that was a defensive war for the Israelis. As the Arab attack fell apart, the Jews counterattacked and captured the land.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip were captured in the 1967 6 Day War. This war was started when the Egyptians and Syrians mobilized troops for a planned invasion of Israel. Egypt then blockaded the Straights of Tiran and thus shut off the port at Eilat from the rest of the world. The Mossad knew that an Arab attack was coming soon. A defensive war in this situation would've been more costly than the 1973 Yom Kippur war and Israel may have lost as they didn't have the American arms support that helped them win that war. The Israelis knew they would possibly be defeated so they attacked first and in 15 minutes destroyed the whole Egyptian Air Force. They captured Gaza and Sinia from the Egyptians, the Golan Heights from the Syrians, and they eventually captured the West Bank from the Jordanians. They never planned on taking the West Bank or fighting Jordan. Israel pleaded with them to stay out of the war, but Jordan wanted to come to the aid of its Arab allies so Israel had to fight and take the West Bank.

In 1973, the Arabs launched the attack, but Israel's buffer, the Sinai Penninsula, and control over the Golan Heights saved them from defeat. Israel eventually gave the Sinai back to Egypt with the Camp David accords. 27 years later, Israel and Egypt are still at peace.

Cheers for the info, IDF! :) Adds to my understanding and reinforces my thinking (included only because, in your place, I'd be mildly interested to see what my "pupil's" thinking was) - an Israel is needed; extrordinary problems need extrordinary solutions; a state has the right to defend itself; and new problems require new solutions.

bump for more debate

bump for more debate

Debate? Israel/Palestine doesn't generate debate here in so much as it generates stomach ulcers.

For example, the state of Palistine ceased to exist about 400 or was it 600 years ago. Jews had been living in the country up until the 1928 arab revolts.


True, however the vast majority of those in Israel today are settlers who arrived from Europe.


However it turned out the there were people there, they were just largely nomadic, and were angry when they were displaced by the jews.

They were not Nomadic, in the main. Secondly it was Jordan and Egypt who were defeated by Israel. The 750,00o Palestinians driven from their homes in 1948 were in the main civillians.


. Israel must kick out or eliminate "Palestianians".

You mean "the rest of the Palestinians" presumably.

We've given them almost 60 years of possibilities and they won't accept one.".

The first possibility was "leave or be shot". Then Israel invaded where many had gone to. One would have thought that stealing a peoples home once was enough.

But how justified would that be if the people kicking you out had been kicked out of that same place by your parents? Should they "just get over it"?.".

The Palestinians parents were Romans? Dear me. I think you are somewhat confused. The Azkehanazi Jewish population, as distinct from the Sephradic, most recently hailed from Eastern Europe. The Sephradic population, the minority, lived under muslim rule for centuries and never left the middle east. Its worthy of note that modern rabbinical judaism began and flourished not in Europe, but under muslim rule. Please spare us the "butcher" stories, as they don't hold up to scrutiny.


Besides, they were planning genocide and deserve everything bad that happened to them when they failed."?.".

Total shite, bereft of a shred of truth. Had those expelled been "planning genocide" then why was it so easy to remove them? Were they planning to use dirty looks against the Hagannah until they dissappeared?

The "flee" claim does not stand up to scrutiny.


Some ARabs did listen, that is why there are over 1,000,000 Israeli Arabs. ."?.".

O yes. Lucky them. “The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country’s Jewish citizens.” according to the US state department (http://http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm)

Not even compensated the same way if they're victims of terrorism, if the killer is Jewish...
Full story (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1560147,00.html)


The Palestinans are not descended from the Cannanites, so I'm not sure who your talking about. ."?.".

There is a common ancestor some 12,000 years ago. Both peoples have inhabited the area for millenia. However the majority within the state of Israel now have not lived there continously, or anything like it.

This land was sold (perfectly legitamately) to the migrating Jews who set up communities and built up their towns and other settlements there."?.".

A small percentage of what is now the state of Israel was purchased this way. Under 15% if I remember correctly. The rest was obtained by the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

Total shite, bereft of a shred of truth. Had those expelled been "planning genocide" then why was it so easy to remove them? Were they planning to use dirty looks against the Hagannah until they dissappeared?

The "flee" claim does not stand up to scrutiny.



O yes. Lucky them. “The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country’s Jewish citizens.” according to the US state department (http://http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm)

Not even compensated the same way if they're victims of terrorism, if the killer is Jewish...
Full story (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1560147,00.html)


A small percentage of what is now the state of Israel was purchased this way. Under 15% if I remember correctly. The rest was obtained by the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

Cheers also for informing the thread :)

I'm calling bullshit here. The Jews didn't kick them out. Ben Gurion encouraged the Arabs to ignore the genocidal Grand Mufti and ignore his call for them to leave their homes to fight. They listend to the Mufti and fled their homes to allow him to move in and kill the Jews. WIth 50,000,000 Arabs vs. 500,000 Jews they didn't expect failure so they thought they'd have their land. Some ARabs did listen, that is why there are over 1,000,000 Israeli Arabs. (of course no one ever mentions them as their existence kills any debate Palestinians have when they claim they were kicked out.) The Israeli Arabs have more civil rights than Arabs in Saudi Arabia or any other Middle Eastern nation do.

As for accepting a large population base. There were over 500,000 Jews kicked out of Arab nations after 1947. They didn't have the option to stay, if they did they would die. Israel absorbed them with Operation Magic Carpet.

Call it what ever you want. Fact remains there are many Palis that can't return.

A small percentage of what is now the state of Israel was purchased this way. Under 15% if I remember correctly. The rest was obtained by the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

There was no ethnic cleansing in 1948. The Palestinians fled and Israelis took their land because no one was living there. This is why the Right of Return for Palestinians is such a hot issue in Israeli Politics and the Peace Process.

What reason has been given, despite being a Western pet project, for continued Israelie Independence?

Money.

I wish there were more, but there isn't. Sorry.

Incidently, even though I am a Jew by birth, I tend to side with the Palestinians.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

There was no ethnic cleansing in 1948.

Whoa.... way off the mark. I'd be cautious to call it ethnic cleansing personally- but a lot of Arab villages (49 I think) were destroyed in 48.

They were not Nomadic, in the main. Secondly it was Jordan and Egypt who were defeated by Israel. The 750,000 Palestinians driven from their homes in 1948 were in the main civillians.

Firstly, it was way less than that. More like 100,000. Read Alan Dershowitz's books for the sourcing for that. And secondly, the number of people moved as a result of the creation of Israel was far far less than the number required to move as a result of the creation of the Aswan dam. Arab governments are quite happy to move their own people about without giving them much in return


The first possibility was "leave or be shot". Then Israel invaded where many had gone to. One would have thought that stealing a peoples home once was enough.

You clearly havent studied this. The Arabs were the ones with the leave or be shot mentality. Just after the Balfour decloration became binding in international law, there was a massive riot amoung the Arabs in Westen Jerusluem. People were stoned, beaten, raped and killed by the rioters. Haj Amin Al-Husseini who became the Grand Mufti of Jeruselum just after these riots later lead the cries of "Itbah Al-Yahud" (Kill the Jews). As for 1948, I think you will find that five Arab states ganged up on Israel and tried bombed civilian sites of Tel Aviv and the Israelies did not respond in kind. They bombed millitary instalations in Damascas and around Amman. Considering the main battle cry of the Arab armies was "Murder the Jews" I dont think you have any case for saying that the Jews started the war.


There is a common ancestor some 12,000 years ago. Both peoples have inhabited the area for millenia. However the majority within the state of Israel now have not lived there continously, or anything like it.

Wrong answer. They may have a common ancesstor (as do all humas) but Israel existed where it is now since 1300 BCE aprox and only went away as a result of the Babylonian and Assyrian attaks.


A small percentage of what is now the state of Israel was purchased this way. Under 15% if I remember correctly. The rest was obtained by the ethnic cleansing of 1948.

What Ethnic clensing? Please if there was any ethnic clensing it was done by the Arabs. What exactly do you call five nations ganging up on one nation and with cries of "Murder the 'X race'" you cant expect the world to sympathise with the Arabs. Along with bombing civilian targets in the war intentionally and massacaring civilian populations AFTER the civilians in question had surrendered there cities. Husseini said of the 1948 war "this will be a war of extermination". The fact is that at the heart of the conflict is the continual rejection by the Arabs of the two state solution, first proposed in 1937

Firstly, it was way less than that. More like 100,000. Read Alan Dershowitz's books for the sourcing for that. And secondly, the number of people moved as a result of the creation of Israel was far far less than the number required to...
HAH! Nothing to do with your points- but I learned a long time ago to distrust Dershowitz. His theories on the 'ok' of torture pushed me over the line.

There was no ethnic cleansing in 1948. The Palestinians fled and Israelis took their land because no one was living there. This is why the Right of Return for Palestinians is such a hot issue in Israeli Politics and the Peace Process.

"Land" was not occupied because the inhabitants fled threat of violence or actual violence (eg Deir Yassir, Balad El Sheikh). Their property was either taken or destroyed (eg Abu Shusha, Khulda, Abu Zurieq, Al Mansi etc were all destroyed by the Hagganah in 1948).

As regards returning - Ben Gurion had this to say - "I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war." (Benny Morris, p. 141 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 75)

Whoa.... way off the mark. I'd be cautious to call it ethnic cleansing personally- but a lot of Arab villages (49 I think) were destroyed in 48..

Far more, if you consider the removal of the inhabitants as "destruction". And I think three quarters of a million qualifies.


Firstly, it was way less than that. More like 100,000. Read Alan Dershowitz's books for the sourcing for that...

Well, you might read a number of tomes and sources - from the Encyclopedia Britannica to the BBC, and in fact you won't find an estimate under 400,000. Thanks to some brave work by Israelis such as Benny Morris, the figure often stated, and that seems to be proven by the numbers of the current Palestinian population, is around 750,000.


I don't think you have any case for saying that the Jews started the war....

I actually haven't referred to who started the war at all. I am and have been talking about the expulsion of the Arab-Palestinian civilian population. Please try to read whats written, and not what you'd like to see. The Arab states launched an attack, by the way.

What Ethnic cleansing? Please if there was any ethnic clensing it was done by the Arabs....

Then why were there already refugee camps in Gaza etc before the 1967 war? Did the Palestinians all go on a giant picnic and decide to stay?

What prompted Yitzhak Rabin to say.."Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action." (Interview with David Shipler, NY Times, 1979)


Along with bombing civilian targets in the war intentionally and massacaring civilian populations AFTER the civilians in question had surrendered there cities.....

I'm sure some of them did. So did Israel. So does Israel. The difference between the two is that now there is a state of Israel, but no state for the victims of the 1948/1967 expulsions who were not the instigators of the 1948 war but civilians. And while the various Arab regimes are notorious for corruption and repression, the semi-apartheid practices of Israel go relatively uncommented on. Its a double standard I don't care for.

Money.

I wish there were more, but there isn't. Sorry.

Incidently, even though I am a Jew by birth, I tend to side with the Palestinians.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Go to Israel, talk to the arabs, see if they want a jew/christian/westerner on their side. All they want is to see themselves over you, us, all of us infidels. There is no reasoning with them. Israel gives the arabs part of Israel for the arabs to settle in, you know what they do, they jump around and act like they won and finally forced Israel to surrender some of its land, but they are not stopping, they want more land, they want more and more until they get it all, and then once they have it all, they will kick out/kill all the non muslims/infidels there and add it to the rest of the muslim middle east. Let me give you an example of what Israel/Jerusalem would become should it become Arab. The Jews control Jerusalem and let anyone, Jews, Christians, Arabs...whoever come visit and see the JEWISH holy places. Even the western wall, the holiest spot, anyone can go to. Now I was recently in Jerusalem and we tried to go to the Dome of the Rock (Muslim owned..not even a mosque) which holds religious/historical significance to all abrahamaic religions, they wouldnt even let us in because we were muslims. The muslims wouldnt let us into the dome of the rock because we arnt muslim. Anyone who sides with the palestinians over the Israelis needs to actually go there and see what its really like, then, and only then, will your opinion hold any sway. Also, if you do go there, good luck getting a cab if the driver is arab, and being able to have money left for the trip. If they see someone not arab, they charge him through the freaking nose.

Actually they greatly appreciate assistance, or so I've found.

And I don't think the standard of taxi drivers are relevant to a peoples right to self determination....

You have no idea of history obviously.
Or mabye I was trying to give a simple summary to an ininformed person without being a pedantic jerk...
The British had promised that they would give land in Israel to the Jews long before the Holocaust.
Largely irrelevant as the British made many such promises which didn't actually happen...

There were even cases where when a ship carrying Jews was found on the seas the fucking British would send it back to Germany when they knew damn well about the Holocaust.
You extravegate. There were a limited number of ships with jews on them before the holocaust, and of those few most reached other countries before they were sent back to Germany. the "fucking British" had about the same knowledge that the holocaust was going to happen as the world did before rawanda. Not realy relevant to the topic at hand though....


The Jews weren't well armed in 1948. They had 0 nations supporting them. The US didn't even give them arms until 1968 or 1969. (OK, they did managed to get some weapons out of Chzeckoslavakia, but not much.) The Jews were armed primarily with home made Sten guns. Most of their other weapons were confiscated by the British as they were leaving. They didn't have the best training either as their fighters were really famers on the Kibbutz. It won't do the dude who asked about palestine any good to know how the first couple years of the conflict went. Although yes, again, your quotations of some website are right on the money:) !!!

You are right that every Jew had to fight. With only 500,000 against 50 million you have to do that, especially wehn the other side is plotting genocide. The Jews won because they fought with all their heart and determination. Yup the whole arab world was plotting a genocide

The Jews weren't kicking the Arabs off their land. The You're right; technically, the jews did not physically kick the arabs all the way out of palestine. However if I came and sat down in the same small, dry and relativly inhospitable chair as you, you would probably say something like: :Ye gadz, I was kicked out of my chair