Israel/Palestine Question

[PanzerJaeger]

The recent Palestinian glorification of Nazism thread and some of the responses got me thinking about the issue again.

Now this is probably a dumb question, and i may have asked it before, but do the Palestinians have any legal claims on the land they say was taken from them?

My understanding is that the land went from Rome to Byzantine. Then it went to the Muslims, then the Christians for a small amount of time and then back to the Turkish until WW1. After that it came under British control and they, under UN direction, gave it to the people now known as Israelis.

It seems to me the land was never theirs to argue over. Am I missing something?

[DisruptorX]

"Legal" ? Interesting concept, right there. You might as well debate what "legal" means in this context. Otherwise, there isn't much ground for a debate on this issue.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well ill use Germany for example.

The country has a documented claim on the lands it holds all the way back to the small states to the end of WW2 and finally the fall of the Berlin wall.

The government can go back and clearly point to where the previous owners of the land ceded that land to the state. They have clearly established borders based legal documentation. The same can be said for almost every country in the world.

What i want to know is: Did the palastinians ever own any of the land they claim?

[ichi]

It was Ottoman up until WWI, when the arab holdings of the Ottomans were divided between Britain and France (the Sykes agreement?) secretly at first, though the agreement was eventually exposed.

The Balfour Declaration was one of the first official papers where the Brits approved of a Jewish homeland. Waves of Jewish settlers hit the region in the first half of the 1900's.

Although legal papers in the sense of European and American land titles probably were not as well developed, approxiamtely 90% of the developed land was owned (claimed/occupied/whatever) by Palestinians.

The idea was promoted that Palestine was unoccupied, essentially empty, after WWII, when small battles began. Now I do not know who started what or why, but areas began to be cleared of Palestinians and occupied by Jewish settlers.

I'd say that there is a reasonable assertion by Palestinians that they (or their ancestors) have a legit claim to the region. But its a lot like the American natives, there is probably no hgoing back to the way it was.

ichi :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Although legal papers in the sense of European and American land titles probably were not as well developed, approxiamtely 90% of the developed land was owned (claimed/occupied/whatever) by Palestinians.

Bull. There were no 'Palestinians' until Arafat named them that.


I'd say that there is a reasonable assertion by Palestinians that they (or their ancestors) have a legit claim to the region. But its a lot like the American natives, there is probably no hgoing back to the way it was.

No comparison. Israel was there long before anyone thought of the region as Palestine or had any notion of Palestinians. In fact the original Palestinians were the Jews.

[Pindar]

do the Palestinians have any legal claims on the land they say was taken from them?


No.

[Don Corleone]

You know, Panzer, I don't know I can respect the fundamental premise, that all modern nations can trace the legality of their land claims. Let's skip the 4 hour debate over where those lines should be, exactly (is it the Sudetanland, or is it the Czech republic?) Somewhere, Charles Martel the first Holy Roman Emperor made a bunch of people that didn't want to be Holy Romans bow to his will. Since then, there's been a LOT of turnover, and unless I'm mistaken, even during WWII, Hitler was worried that the Bavarians were too independent and wouldn't follow commands from Berlin.

At the end of the day, both people need a viable homeland. Anything less, and we get more of the same over there.

[ichi]

Ahad Ha'Am, a liberal Russian Jewish thinker and a leading Eastern European Jewish essayist, who visited Palestine in 1891 for three months.

Famous Quotes

In 1891 Ahad Ha'Am opened many Jewish eyes to the fact the Palestine was not empty, but populated with its indigenous people when he wrote:

"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated." (Righteous Victims, p. 42)

In 1891Ahad Ha'Am similarly wrote of the Palestinians:

"If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily." (Righteous Victims, p. 49)

Ahad Ha'Am published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hameliz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of the Palestinian peasantry by the Zionist colonists. Ahad Ha'Am sought to draw attention to the fact the Palestine was not empty territory and that the presence of another people posed problems:

" ....[the Zionist pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ..... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7)

In a pamphlet under the heading line of "Truth from Eretz Yisrael" published in 1891, Ahad Ha'Am wrote of how Jewish settlers at the time treated the indigenous Palestinian people:

"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules." 'Ahad Ha'Am warned: "We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside." (One Palestine Complete, p. 104) How accurate 'Ahad Ha'Am description was even after more a 100 years plus of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict! The conduct of most Israelis, especially in the occupied territories, is very much similar to the way 'Ahad portrayed early Jewish settlers' conduct over a century ago.

Ahad Ha'Am warned that Jewish settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives, he said:

"Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ..."
The same lack of understanding he found in the boycott of Arab labour proclaimed by Jewish labour ... "Apart from the political danger, I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of times power in Eretz Yisrael? And if this be the Messiah: I do not wish to see his coming." (UN: The Origins And Evolution of Palestine Problem, section II)


Ahad Ha'Am returned to the Arab problem ... in February 1914 ... and he also stated:

"'[the Zionists] wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In a future when this ILLUSION will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great our duty to work for its solution." (UN: The Origins And Evolution of Palestine Problem, section II) But Ahad Ha'Am's plea went unheeded as political Zionism set about to realize its goal of a Jewish State.

In the early 1920s, there was talks of Palestine being part of a large Arab federation, but even Ahad Ha'Am said he would not remain in Palestine if that were to happen:

"Better to die in the Exile than to die here and be buried in the land of fathers, if that land is considered the 'homeland' of the [Palestinian] Arabs and we are strangers in it." (One Palestine Complete, p. 285)

So apparently there is another view than 'Bull'

ichi :bow:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

At the end of the day, both people need a viable homeland. Anything less, and we get more of the same over there.

They could have had it but turned down the UN proposal. They have no one to blame but themselves and the rest of their Arab brothers. While were at it if Palestinian refers to anyone who is born in Palestine then all Jordanians are Palestinians and they have their homeland.

[Beirut]

:no: Oh Lord, here we go again...


"Click your heels three times Dorothy and repeat after me, 'There's no such thing as Palestinians. There's no such thing as Palestinians.'"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What a surprise seeing you here Beirut ~:)

"Click your heels three times Dorothy and repeat after me, 'the land belonged to the Palestinains and the Jews stole it ' 'the land belonged to the Palestinains and the Jews stole it'
~D

What ever happened to George and Martha?

[Big_John]

:no: Oh Lord, here we go again...SERIOUSLY!

can't the admins just setup a "no such thing as palestine" script that creates a thread once a month or so?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe we should pin one and anytime we feel like blowing off steam on the matter we can go there. It will be mostly me and Goofball vs Beruit and Tribesman. Maybe we should form debating teams on the subject ~:)

[Big_John]

Maybe we should pin one and anytime we feel like blowing off steam on the matter we can go there. It will be mostly me and Goofball vs Beruit and Tribesman. Maybe we should form debating teams on the subject ~:)that's not a bad idea..

[ichi]

Maybe we should form debating teams on the subject

put a password on the game and everybody plays where they land, no artillery. ~:cheers:

ichi

[Beirut]

What ever happened to George and Martha?

They're living in a settlement in Gaza. I'm sure we'll heear from them soon.

[Beirut]

SERIOUSLY!

can't the admins just setup a "no such thing as palestine" script that creates a thread once a month or so?

I don't mind a good debate, on the contrary, I enjoy it very much.

What I can't stand is having to prove that a millions of Palestinians actually exist. Talk about circular existentialism.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What I can't stand is having to prove that a millions of Palestinians actually exist. Talk about circular existentialism.

Sure they exist and millions of them are Israeli . Millions more are Jordanians. ~;) Or has Palestine been reduced now just to what we refer to as the Westbank?

[Beirut]

Or has Palestine been reduced now just to what we refer to as the Westbank?

Palestine has been reduced to what the Zionists didn't steal but still occupy using torture and brutality. I hope they're proud of themselves. They're the new South Africans keeping an entire people in virtual slavery.

[bmolsson]

Here we go again.......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Palestine has been reduced to what the Zionists didn't steal but still occupy using torture and brutality.

Now your sounding like this guy


"The Jews are the cancer spreading all over the world... the Jews are responsible for all wars and conflicts," Sheikh Ibrahim Mudairis said Friday

[Beirut]

Naw, his voice is all squeaky. I don't sound like that at all. I'm more of a tenor.

Besides, he's a nutbar.

I'm more of a chocolate bar. ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well then together you make a snickers bar.

[Papewaio]

Lets look at the issue from another angle.

Was anyone alive in Israel before it was setup as a modern state post WWII?

If there was someone there then then place was not Terra Nullius. Would those people have any native title land rights?

[Beirut]

Yes there were people there, but the apologists for the Zionist theft of Palestinian land prefer to call them "non-indigenous indigenous people who lived there but didn't really live there even though they lived there but didn't belong there."

On other hand they support the "Never been there before, barely heard of the place, but once I've packed up and moved 10,000 miles to live there the place will be more mine than the people who live there but don't really live there because they're non-indigenous indigenous people" people.

Isn't racial supremacy fun? :balloon2: ~:)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Lets look at the issue from another angle.

Did the slaves live on land in the south? When the south lost should they have been given the land they lived on? If I rent a house from a man he he defaults on his mortage does that make it mine?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The Palestinians were there before the Israelis as far as well recorded history goes and the Israelis gained possession of the territory after WWII when the British gave it to them. Since the British were taking flak for not giving the land freedom and had been given rights to the land you could say that they could do with it as they pleased, but ignoring the Palestinians and giving all the land to the Israelis was a horrible solution.

[Papewaio]

Lets look at the issue from another angle.

Did the slaves live on land in the south? When the south lost should they have been given the land they lived on? If I rent a house from a man he he defaults on his mortage does that make it mine?

I think the parrallel is closer to American Indians... what obligations do they have to the USA and vice a versa?

[mercian billman]

Lets look at the issue from another angle.

Did the slaves live on land in the south? When the south lost should they have been given the land they lived on?

Yes* the slaves should've been given the land, and in some cases they were given land only to have it confiscated at a later date. I don't think the example of how ex-slaves were sold out, should be used as a model for anything.

Why should jews who never lived in the middle east be allowed to emigrate there and displace people who already lived there? Shouldn't they have displaced the people who oppressed them during WW2?



If I rent a house from a man he he defaults on his mortage does that make it mine?

No, because when you rent a house from a man you sign a legal contract, IIRC slaves did not sign legal contracts.

*I'm not in favor reperations, but in the period following the Civil War I would've been in favor of compensating ex-slaves for their un-paid labor.

[Don Corleone]

You know Beirut, if you quit using that term Zionist, and admit Jordan and Syria have ransacked Palestian hopes every bit as much as Israel has, you just might have a convert. No shit.

[Papewaio]

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children — and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

...

[Don Corleone]

Didn't Menachem Begin die in 1980? Your article is quoting him as the current leader. What is your point with that quote?

EDIT: I'm sorry, he died in 1992. Again, what is your point? Should we be aruging that the Palestinians are still warring against the US because of the Achille Lauro hijacking?

[Papewaio]

First who signed this letter?

Second it kind of contradicts the modern view that no one lived in Palestine.

Third it mentions some of the less then savoury methods that where used to create the current state. Which in turn is having the same methods turned back on them.

Fourth it is always good to look at history when we are discussing a historical problem...

[Don Corleone]

I apologize.

I did not realize you were making a post based on historical arguments. Perhaps a note of editorial intent would have helped.

One, I have no idea, you posted no signatories. I suspect that was your intent.

Two, I personally have never subsribed to the "There was nobody living in Palestine" argument.

Three, I fail to see where Begin asked Zionsit settler women to ask their children to strap bombs to their bodies and blow the Brittish mandate troops up.

Fourth, Yes it is. Interesting perspective. As I said in point one, I wish you had framed it in that light.

Like I said to Beirut, I will say to you, I don't disagree with the idea of two homelands. Until each people have a homeland of their own, we will continue to see more of what we have seen. I am on the side of whomever will accept that compromise. Unfortunately, I see little compromise on either side. When I see a Palestinian textbook with a map of Israel, and I see an Israeli map with charted Palestinian water rights, I will believe we have a solution. Until then, I see round 9.

[Papewaio]

(signed)

Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe

New York, Dec. 2, 1948

...

[Don Corleone]

Aaah. Of course, Papewaio. You're so clever. Albert Einstein himself, along with other noted Jews of the time, proclaimed Israel had no right to exist. You're a genius, but where have you been for the past 57 years?

[Don Corleone]

So, based on the thread of your last couple of posts Pape, I assume we should take it to mean that because Uncle Albert & company thought that Begin was a terrorist, Israel has no right to exist?

Or perhaps you could come out and say what it is you're trying to say? Do you believe in the two state solution, or do you wish to advocate the Jews keep looking for a homeland.... you've decided they don't belong there?

[Papewaio]

I'm saying that:

A) Someone obviously existed in Israel prior to it.

B) The Israelis at least owe them the same rights as Aborogines in Australia, Maoris in New Zealand and American Indians in the USA.

C) Being against Israel/Zionism does not automatically make one a Nazi.

D) Hate breeds Hate.

E) People are calling the Palestinians barbaric animals while ignoring how the state of Israel came into effect.

F) Ruling class has obligations.

I think that the Israelis should have been a bit fairer to the Palestinians once the Israelis got to power. Also it is a case of the pot callling the kettle black when either side says the other is a terrorist organisation.

The real issue though is not past wrongs. It is how do we go on from here and see a more balanced fairer society created? Would something like South Africas healing process (where crimes during Apartheid where generally pardoned if the person came forward, so that old wounds could be healed).

I don't know.

What I do know is both sides have some really poor taste in real estate over human life.

[ichi]

Gosh I wish I'd said that

Pretty nice Pape

ichi :bow:

[Don Corleone]

I appreciate your honest summary. If I may, I'd like to rebut. Before I begin, please allow me to remind you, I speak for me. Not conservatives, not the American Pro-Israeal lobby, just me. However.... (sorry folks, I'm too lazy tonight to cut & paste quote tags. Please try to pay attention to what was said by whom).

A) Someone obviously existed in Israel prior to it.

I have not argued the counter-point, and I acutally thought you all were doing a good job refuting arguments along these lines. Didn't realize this was a soft spot, sorry...

B) The Israelis at least owe them the same rights as Aborogines in Australia, Maoris in New Zealand and American Indians in the USA.

Yes, I support a sovereign and self-sustainable Palestine. Will you agree that a sustainable and sovereign Israel also has a right to exist?

C) Being against Israel/Zionism does not automatically make one a Nazi.

It depends on how you define Zionism. But you are correct, being against Israel's right to exist does not make you a Nazi. It does make you anti-Israeli, however.

D) Hate breeds Hate.

Sounds nice. Palestinians danced in the streets and handed out candy becauase a guy (Jim Greenleaf) I played football with and lifted weights with in high school crumbled thousands of feet in a concrete mass in the North tower. Should I continue to hate them?

E) People are calling the Palestinians barbaric animals while ignoring how the state of Israel came into effect.

I, personally, allow wrongs have been done on all sides. Can you?

F) Ruling class has obligations.

Yes, to defend itself, and then seek to defend others. What's your point with that statement?



What I do know is both sides have some really poor taste in real estate over human life.

Amen.

[ichi]

F) Ruling class has obligations.

Yes, to defend itself, and then seek to defend others. What's your point with that statement?

Rulers have an obligation to be benevolent and ensure fairness.

or at least that's what I thought he meant

ichi :bow:

[Don Corleone]

Can you ensure the fairness of others and be benevolent while fighting for survival?

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for the well thought out responses guys.. answered my question well.

The real question seems to be:

Do they have inherent rights to the land simply because they lived there - even though it was actually Britain's property.

Thats certainly a debatable question...

[Papewaio]

A) Someone obviously existed in Israel prior to it.

I have not argued the counter-point, and I acutally thought you all were doing a good job refuting arguments along these lines. Didn't realize this was a soft spot, sorry...



Its okay I was just outlining some of my points of view with the standard IMDHO by the way.



B) The Israelis at least owe them the same rights as Aborogines in Australia, Maoris in New Zealand and American Indians in the USA.

Yes, I support a sovereign and self-sustainable Palestine. Will you agree that a sustainable and sovereign Israel also has a right to exist?



A sustainable and sovereign Israel has probably at this point of time more of a reason to exist then a separate Palestine.

My main point is that even if a minority is different to the majority they should have got a fair go from the outset. It gets more and more difficulty to heal wounds when both sides are making fresh cuts. If they want to be a nation then they have obligations to all within its borders.



C) Being against Israel/Zionism does not automatically make one a Nazi.

It depends on how you define Zionism. But you are correct, being against Israel's right to exist does not make you a Nazi. It does make you anti-Israeli, however.



To be precise I am not against Israels borders I am against how it does things inside of them.



D) Hate breeds Hate.

Sounds nice. Palestinians danced in the streets and handed out candy becauase a guy (Jim Greenleaf) I played football with and lifted weights with in high school crumbled thousands of feet in a concrete mass in the North tower. Should I continue to hate them?



No you shouldn't because how is the hate going to make you feel better if you don't do anything with it? Hate is as much a cancer to the holder as anything else.

Also I thought the images of Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 where refuted as being media libarary images from a separate event.

Either way do you really what to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few?



E) People are calling the Palestinians barbaric animals while ignoring how the state of Israel came into effect.

I, personally, allow wrongs have been done on all sides. Can you?


Since I referred to the pot calling the kettle black I definitly do think wrongs are done on both sides. I personnally think the Palestinians have done a lot of more wrong with their terrorist activities. I don't think though Israel is lilly white and I don't think their harsh tactics have helped create a long term solution.



F) Ruling class has obligations.

Yes, to defend itself, and then seek to defend others. What's your point with that statement?


That Israels are in charge. That they do rule the Palestinians. That as long as they have them in their borders that they should treat them as human beings. Likewise the Palestinians should treat the Israelis as human beings as well.

At the moment the only ones benefiting are the right wing fundamentalists on both sides. As a state of terror gives them far more power then they would have say in a state of 'hippy-peace'.

Can you image how little political clout Hamas would have if the Palestinians had a first world middle class lifestyle...

[Don Corleone]

Bah, Panzer, come on, we have no right to sovereignty if you're going to use that criteria. Anything East of the Ohio, north of the Tennessee belongs to England, and the rest to Spain and France. You can always find prior owners.

What we're really talking about is

Is each side going to give the other the chance to survive? Will Israel give enough fertile land and water rights to allow Palestine to grow? Will Palestine ever acknowledge a neighbor?

Will any of us ever forgive?

[Don Corleone]

No you shouldn't because how is the hate going to make you feel better if you don't do anything with it? Hate is as much a cancer to the holder as anything else.

Also I thought the images of Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 where refuted as being media libarary images from a separate event.

Either way do you really what to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few?



Of course I don't. I wouldn't have offered the point for debate if I still clung to it. Honestly, Pape, don't know where you're getting your 'they weren't celebrating' proof from, but I saw it on BBC, not exactly a pro-America proganda channel.

This is my point. You say "Hate breeds hate". I say no it doesn't. Somebody has to stand up and say "I'll take it and let it end with me". As long as we're trying to sort out who did what to whom, we play the devil's game. It's been hard, harder than you could ever possibly know, but I have come to a place where I pray for Palestinians, to have a safe and happy home. I know they hate me. I know they'll continue to, long into the future. That's not the point. The point is, when my number comes up, I can answer "Yes sir, I did as you told me. I forgave". I think it's time for everyone else to.

[Papewaio]

This is my point. You say "Hate breeds hate". I say no it doesn't. Somebody has to stand up and say "I'll take it and let it end with me". As long as we're trying to sort out who did what to whom, we play the devil's game. It's been hard, harder than you could ever possibly know, but I have come to a place where I pray for Palestinians, to have a safe and happy home. I know they hate me. I know they'll continue to, long into the future. That's not the point. The point is, when my number comes up, I can answer "Yes sir, I did as you told me. I forgave". I think it's time for everyone else to.

Which makes yourself far more mature then the majority in the world. The question then is how did can we get more people to follow your example?

BTW went to Snopes.com, they confirmed the CNN footage was accurate. What a screwed up thing to celebrate.

CNN used old footage to fake images of 'Palestinians dancing in the street' after the terrorist attack on the USA. (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm)

[Don Corleone]

Pape, I respect you too much to get into this. Was every picture broadcast on 9/12 a live image? No. But let's not kid ourselves. Arafat had his guards out in the street ripping film out of foreign journalists cameras. So, did they resort to stock footage? Yes. We all know what happened. If you really insist, I'll waste my day off tomorrow dredging up links, but as a shortcut, go to Al Jazeera, they still have them in their archives, if you search with the right terms.

[Papewaio]

Dude read the link it confirms that CNN footage was not faked.

[Don Corleone]

Sorry, I read the headline, which was actually the claim proven to be false.

I stand by my original claim. We are all going to have to suck it up. I'm not going to lie and pretend I'm not boiling just thinking about all of this again. But it's not going to end until it does....


Man, this is harder to type then I thought it was going to be...


..... Okay, they're not looking for forgiveness, but I don't care. I give it. I just want them to know they celebrated the murder of a good man, a decent man, and a guy who was very good to me. Jim Greenleaf was a hell of a guy, and for all the stereotypes of jocks, he used to make the rest of us go do charity work. The world lost something when he left.


Anyways, enough with the emotional rants. They're going to have to come to a place where they can say and do what they claim they want. I dont' argue that Israel makes it easy, but, as I mentioned above, forgiveness never is.

Two states everyone?

[PanzerJaeger]

Bah, Panzer, come on, we have no right to sovereignty if you're going to use that criteria. Anything East of the Ohio, north of the Tennessee belongs to England, and the rest to Spain and France. You can always find prior owners.

No, you will find we have plenty of documentation from the Spanish, English and French that stands as proof of either our purchase of the land or our winning it in a war.

[Don Corleone]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we not, at different times, defend claims with each of the above mentioned nations, with force of arms, at one point or another? I'm not arguring we weren't right to do so, I'm arguing as far as they were concerned, the matter was far from settled.

[PanzerJaeger]

Actually i believe our issues with those countries were settled.

Spain ceded florida and some other territory first with Jackson and ending with the Spanish American war.

England was forced to cede the colonies of course and subsequently(after another war) acknowledged the fact that the US did in fact own the land England once did.

And France simply sold us a lot of land if im not mistaken.


My point is that its hard to tell if the palestinians ever owned any of the land they seek. It was turkish, then it was ceded, legally, to Britain.

[Don Corleone]

Well, not to bash France, but where do you think Pancho Villa got his guns and money from? Dude, listen to yourself. You're describing what's going on over there, right now.... THERE ARE ALWAYS territorial disputes. Some peaceful, some not so. Did the Palestinians call themselves Palestinians 60 years ago? Probably not. Did they think they were signed on for a Jewish state? I guarantee not. Maybe they have to learn to bend. Maybe we do. But we have to move past this who can F*%k the other worse, because I've got news, it all hurts.

[PanzerJaeger]

If the group has no legal claim on the land, how is this a two sided coin?

From what i have gathered from this thread, Britain did in fact give the land to the Israelis.. the only claim the palestinians have seems to be a vague link to the Turkish, but they lost that land after WW1.

So who is occupying whose land here?


Maybe they have to learn to bend. Maybe we do. But we have to move past this who can F*%k the other worse, because I've got news, it all hurts.

We can all get a circle and hold hands if you like but, as is so often the case, it is usually the side that can F*%k the other that ends up on top.

I have little sympathy for Israel and even less for the animals that currently co-habitate that area, but if we take emotion out of the equation it seems quite clear who legally owns the land. :bow:

[Ironside]

PanzerJager

Estonia, Finaland and (I think) Livonia didn't exist as states, anytime in history, until the Russian civil war in WW1 (1917). Should they exist?

Or are you claiming that (only) might makes it right?

In that case, if the Palestinians would suddenly defeat Israel and force them to sign a contract that gives Israel to the Palestinians, it would be perfectly fair and right. :dizzy2:
Actually kidnapping Sharon and force him to sign this contract would make it right. ~:eek:

Edit:
Anyway Israel was given Israel, not Gaza, the Westbank and the Golan hights. That was Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territory.

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, I'm such a peace-nick, that's how I'm known around these parts.

Honestly, what is your answer? You either have to eradicate them entirely, or give them a place to go. I'm not aruging Israel has to fall over and give Palestine everything they claim, but come on, how can you justify the settlements over there? If you want to play this 'lines are lines' game, isn't that screwing your game up?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Estonia, Finaland and (I think) Livonia didn't exist as states, anytime in history, until the Russian civil war in WW1 (1917). Should they exist?

And Israel didnt exist until 1948 Should it exist? Its the same damn thing the winners divide the spoils the way they see fit.


In that case, if the Palestinians would suddenly defeat Israel and force them to sign a contract that gives Israel to the Palestinians, it would be perfectly fair and right

Have the Israelis forced the Plaestinians to sign a contract that gives Plaestine to the Israelis? It would be perfectly fair and right.


Anyway Israel was given Israel, not Gaza, the Westbank and the Golan hights. That was Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territory.

Yes it was until they attacked Israel and lost. Would you like every nation to give back any land that it got by defendiing themselves?

All this talk of who lived there and when doesnt matter a hoot. Its all irelevant. The land was given to Britain and they gave it to Israel and Jordan case clkosed. The Palestinians were then also promised a land of their own even though they and the Jordanians are the same people but turned it down. Still they had this land for 20 years and nver asked for an independant nation until they lost another war and the land.

[Al Khalifah]

Yes it was until they attacked Israel and lost. Would you like every nation to give back any land that it got by defendiing themselves?
Gawain, you are the master of putting it best.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes* the slaves should've been given the land, and in some cases they were given land only to have it confiscated at a later date. I don't think the example of how ex-slaves were sold out, should be used as a model for anything.

I guess if your a share cropper and your landlord dies you should get his land also.


Why should jews who never lived in the middle east be allowed to emigrate there and displace people who already lived there?

Why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there and displace people who already lived there?


No, because when you rent a house from a man you sign a legal contract, IIRC slaves did not sign legal contracts.

The palestinians were not slaves but rented the land they lived on and had a legal contract to do so. The land belonged to Turkish landlords not the people working on the land.


*I'm not in favor reperations, but in the period following the Civil War I would've been in favor of compensating ex-slaves for their un-paid labor.

And who would pay then the south? They were broke. Why should the North pay they freed them.

[Ser Clegane]

even less for the animals that currently co-habitate that area

Please clarify this statement.

[Beirut]

I would say that statement is very clear. Wouldn't you?

[Beirut]

You know Beirut, if you quit using that term Zionist, and admit Jordan and Syria have ransacked Palestian hopes every bit as much as Israel has, you just might have a convert. No shit.

I say Zionist because it was the Zionists who planned and carried out the invasion (and it was an invasion) of Palestine with the premeditated goal of taking over the entire country. Not sharing it. Anyone who thinks the Zionists were happy-happy to share the country should read the words of Theodore Hertzl, ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders. They said from day one that they wanted all the land and were prepared to got to war to get it. That is an invasion.

You are 100% correct that the neighbouring Arab states have behaved terribly towards the Palestinians. This is one of the main reasons I stick up for the Palestinians, because they have no friends, everybody screws them over and people constantly refer to them as animals and terrorists and somewhat less than human. And we all now where that kind of degradation leads...

Concentration camps. Just like the ones the Palestinians live in under brutal Israeli subjugation.

[Steppe Merc]

No one can look back into the far past to justify taking over a certaint piece of land. Depending on how far you go back, you can have thousands of claimants on the same farm.
The Palestinains are being treated like shit, and that is uneceptable. The Isreali government employs evil methods. Some Palestianians are using equally evil methods. People in both groups are respnsible. But not all Isrealis are responsible and not all Palestinians are responsible.

[ichi]

Britain did in fact give the land to the Israelis.

Who owned the land in the 13 original American colonies, before the Declaration of Independence?

If you say the King of England, then you buy into imperial power and the idea that people who live in a country don't own it, but some guy on another continent with a fancy piece of paper has some rightful claim.

If you say the colonists, then you buy into the idea that people should be self-governing and have the right to own property. These are values embodied in the US Constitution. Many people focus on the right to free speech, religion, assembly, etc as the primary focus of the Constitution, but the guarantees of private property are the basis of the whole deal.

The people who lived in the Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration had rights, inalienable human rights, that were stripped away by the creation of the state of Israel.

Everybody posting that they had no rights to the land would howl like a stuck pig if all of a sudden the King o' England gave another group the rights to your land. I know I would.

ichi :bow:

[Ironside]

And Israel didnt exist until 1948 Should it exist? Its the same damn thing the winners divide the spoils the way they see fit.

Have the Israelis forced the Plaestinians to sign a contract that gives Plaestine to the Israelis? It would be perfectly fair and right.

So right by might in your eyes. Too bad that you connot deport, kill or relocate people as easy these days. Would reduce some problems.


Yes it was until they attacked Israel and lost. Would you like every nation to give back any land that it got by defendiing themselves?
No, you can keep Iraq if you want. ~D Although the Israeli pre-emtive strike was a little bit more justified on that point.

Seriously, I feel that the Israelis have failed the Palestinians and has therefor forfeight thier right to the lands. Not by might maybe, but it's the only reasonable solution.


The land was given to Britain and they gave it to Israel and Jordan case clkosed. The Palestinians were then also promised a land of their own even though they and the Jordanians are the same people but turned it down. Still they had this land for 20 years and nver asked for an independant nation until they lost another war and the land.
And Finland never asked for independence from Sweden in 600 years. ~;) You'll need nationalism to get an answer different from "Unless the leader treat us like assholes we don't care who rules us".
Was the nationalistic movement strong among most Arabs 1948-1967? If it was, then you got a point.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So right by might in your eyes. Too bad that you connot deport, kill or relocate people as easy these days. Would reduce some problems.

Not in my eyes but in the eyes of the world this has always been so. Im talking the existance of Israel here not the so called occupied teritories. In actuality they could have annexed them as part of Israel also. Instead they allow the Palestinians to stay there. Their not imprisoned there as many like to say. How did other nations take control of Palestine from the Jews. Its the way the world works. And again the Israelis didnt start it.


No, you can keep Iraq if you want. Although the Israeli pre-emtive strike was a little bit more justified on that point.

Sure we could keep it if we wanted. Who could stop us. Israel could have kept all of Gaza and the Golan hieghts plus al of the westbank if they really wanted to. No one could stop them.


Seriously, I feel that the Israelis have failed the Palestinians and has therefor forfeight thier right to the lands. Not by might maybe, but it's the only reasonable solution.

Its the Palestinians who have failed the Palestinians.


And Finland never asked for independence from Sweden in 600 years. You'll need nationalism to get an answer different from "Unless the leader treat us like assholes we don't care who rules us".

Did they have a UN resolution for 600 years saying they could be independant and turn it down? Your proving my point. They didnt want an independant nation until they lost the war.

[PanzerJaeger]

Please clarify this statement.

It will be hard to do seeing as im not allowed to express my opinion on the subject. ~;)

Who owned the land in the 13 original American colonies, before the Declaration of Independence?

The british government and it was taken from them.

I dont buy into the argument that simply because you live somewhere that land is yours and your relatives forever.

Now after the war of 1812 i believe the british recognized our ownership of the land they previously lost, therefore britain trying to reclaim that land wouldnt be acceptable.

Thats alot different than saying the palestinian land was taken from them as it appears they lost any claims to it in 1918 or whenever the turkish empire was split up.

[Tribesman]

The land was given to Britain and they gave it to Israel and Jordan case clkosed.
False .
In actuality they could have annexed them as part of Israel also.
False .
Israel could have kept all of Gaza and the Golan hieghts plus al of the westbank if they really wanted to. No one could stop them.
False .
The palestinians were not slaves but rented the land they lived on and had a legal contract to do so. The land belonged to Turkish landlords not the people working on the land.
False , unless you want to add a few calarifications and provide details of the lease agreement to those Palestinians who were only tennants not land owners .
There were no 'Palestinians' until Arafat named them that
False .
In fact the original Palestinians were the Jews.
False (read your bible ~;) 0
So Gawain , are you suffering from memory failure or just hoping that if you repeat lies often enough they will magically become true ?

From what i have gathered from this thread, Britain did in fact give the land to the Israelis..
Not quite Panzer , and as it has been wrongly mentioned several times in this thread on Land ownership , Britain did not own the land , it held the land as a trustee for the citizens of that land . In violation of the terms of its Mandate it gave some of the land to people who had abolutely no claim to the land (by residency or history) they were given , that became Jordan . Under the terms of the Mandate and the Balfour declaration Britain had an obligation to create a Jewish Homeland , but both the documents had clauses in them that meant it was nigh on impossible for this objective to be achieved , unless they wanted to put up with huge expense and decades (if not centuries) of bloodshed .
So they passed it to the UN the UN called for a fair and equitable settlement , after many failures to achieve this they settled on an unfair and unequitable settlement that was forced through despite all the protests .
The Jewish State was not given all of the land , it was given the majority even though its Land ownership holdings were miniscule (6-8%)and its population was the minority (and the vast majority of those were recent immigrants) .
On top of that they siezed several towns prior to Indepdence that they had not been allocated under the partition plan .
So back to your first question , do the Palestinians have any legal claim to the lands that are now Israel , yes , they also have the right to return to those lands as they are refugees who fled a conflict .
But they are not going to get their legal rights anymore than Israel is going to evict its own illegal settlers from all the occupied territories .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So Gawain , are you suffering from memory failure or just hoping that if you repeat lies often enough they will magically become true ?

Is false the best you can come up with. Im not going to do any more work if thats the level of your debate.


But they are not going to get their legal rights anymore than Israel is going to evict its own illegal settlers from all the occupied territories .

False ~D

[mercian billman]

I guess if your a share cropper and your landlord dies you should get his land also.

Where the hell did you get the idea I believed this?

When someone agrees to become a sharecropper they do so under a contract however unfair it may be. However people did not choose to become slaves.




Why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there and displace people who already lived there?

First of all could you show a link that Arabs emigrated to Palestine and displaced other Arabs, and secondly why should jews who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there, knowing that only violence will follow? Why should the people of Palestine be displaced following WW2, to accomodate others, when they played a relatively minor role in the conflict?



The palestinians were not slaves but rented the land they lived on and had a legal contract to do so. The land belonged to Turkish landlords not the people working on the land.

here (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html) is a link which states jewish landownership as of 1943, the survey was compiled by the British mandate for the UN.

About 6% of land was owned by jews while the British mandate lists the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews, maybe Turkish landlords owned the majority of the 94% or the British thought Arab and Turkish were interchangable, but clearly the majority of land wasn't owned by jews.

My question is this how exactly did the ownership of the land change from Turkish to Jewish? Even if they didn't own the land, are you telling me that people who have lived on land that's been farmed on by their families for generations wouldn't feel attachment? Don't you think they'd be a little pissed to learn their being displaced?



And who would pay then the south? They were broke. Why should the North pay they freed them.

As I said earlier I would be in favor of dividing plantation land and giving it to the slaves or allowing them to buy it. At the very least the original owners should not have been able to simply go back to their land. People have had their property confiscated for a lot less than commiting treason and have been punished far worse.

Seizure of plantations owned by slave owners would not have been unfair, nor would it have been overly harsh, especially when you consider the crime (treason) they commited.

[Tribesman]

Is false the best you can come up with.
Been through it all before gawain , refresh your memory , you repeat the same falsehoods in every debate about the Palestine/Israel situation .
But hey don't let little things like facts get in your way .

the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews,
Not quite Mercian , over 40% of the land was previously either Ottoman government owned holdings , land held by bankrupted companies that had been taken over under the mandate , functioning companies that signed their holdings over to the mandate authority and church owned land that had been handed over .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Been through it all before Tribesman , refresh your memory , you repeat the same falsehoods in every debate about the Palestine/Israel situation .
But hey don't let little things like facts get in your way .


First of all could you show a link that Arabs emigrated to Palestine and displaced other Arabs,

I have shown that most arabs in Palestine did so after the Jews also began emigrating there more times than I care to count. Your not new here youve seen them before.



and secondly why should jews who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there,

And why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there ?


Why should the people of Palestine be displaced following WW2, to accomodate others, when they played a relatively minor role in the conflict?

They knew the land was promised to Israel when most of them moved there. It wasnt as if it came as surprise. I guess its only fair when its the Jews who are the ones being displaced.


Seizure of plantations owned by slave owners would not have been unfair, nor would it have been overly harsh, especially when you consider the crime (treason) they commited.

The south was broke as it was. What you suggest would have caused endless conflict and even more hatred for blacks in the south. They had no legal right to the land just as the so called Palestinians had no right to the land they didnt own.

[mercian billman]

the other 94% being owned by Arabs and non jews,
Not quite Mercian , over 40% of the land was previously either Ottoman government owned holdings , land held by bankrupted companies that had been taken over under the mandate , functioning companies that signed their holdings over to the mandate authority and church owned land that had been handed over .

Thanks for the info, to me it looks like the Palestinians (or arabs since the Palestinians didn't exist then owned roughly 50%.)

What I'm wondering is how the jews then managed to get a hold of the remaining land, was it sold to them after WW2 and if so were Palestinians prevented from bidding on the land? Was the land simply handed to jews? Theres more questions, but these are all I can really think of right now.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

MYTH

“The United Nations unjustly partitioned Palestine.”

FACT

As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became known. This accelerated demands for a resolution to the question of Palestine so the survivors of Hitler's "Final Solution" might find sanctuary in a homeland of their own.

The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, but their insistence on the former's approval guaranteed failure because the Arabs would not make any concessions. They subsequently turned the issue over to the UN in February 1947.

The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations* went to the area and found what had long been apparent: The conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs could not be reconciled.

The contrasting attitudes of the two groups "could not fail to give the impression that the Jews were imbued with the sense of right and were prepared to plead their case before any unbiased tribunal, while the Arabs felt unsure of the justice of their cause, or were afraid to bow to the judgment of the nations."1

Although most of the Commission's members acknowledged the need to find a compromise solution, it was difficult for them to envision one given the parties' intractability. At a meeting with a group of Arabs in Beirut, the Czechoslovakian member of the Commission told his audience: "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided among those left."2

When they returned, the delegates of seven nations — Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay — recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave. Three nations — India, Iran and Yugoslavia — recommended a unitary state with Arab and Jewish provinces. Australia abstained.

The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.

The ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the Arab demand for a unitary Arab state. The majority recommendation for partition was subsequently adopted 33-13 with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.3



“It is hard to see how the Arab world, still less the Arabs of Palestine, will suffer from what is mere recognition of accomplished fact — the presence in Palestine of a compact, well organized, and virtually autonomous Jewish community.”

— London Times editorial4



MYTH

“The partition plan gave the Jews most of the land, and all of the cultivable area.”
FACT

The partition plan took on a checkerboard appearance largely because Jewish towns and villages were spread throughout Palestine. This did not complicate the plan as much as the fact that the high living standards in Jewish cities and towns had attracted large Arab populations, which insured that any partition would result in a Jewish state that included a substantial Arab population. Recognizing the need to allow for additional Jewish settlement, the majority proposal allotted the Jews land in the northern part of the country, Galilee, and the large, arid Negev desert in the south. The remainder was to form the Arab state.

These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.3a Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.

Further complicating the situation was the UN majority's insistence that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone. This arrangement left more than 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem isolated from their country and circumscribed by the Arab state.

Critics claim the UN gave the Jews fertile land while the Arabs were allotted hilly, arid land. This is untrue. Approximately 60 percent of the Jewish state was to be the arid desert in the Negev.

The Arabs constituted a majority of the population in Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews. The Jews never had a chance of reaching a majority in the country given the restrictive immigration policy of the British. By contrast, the Arabs were free to come — and thousands did — to take advantage of the rapid development stimulated by Zionist settlement. Still, the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.

In addition to roughly 600,000 Jews, 350,000 Arabs resided in the Jewish state created by partition. Approximately 92,000 Arabs lived in Tiberias, Safed, Haifa and Bet Shean, and another 40,000 were Bedouins, most of whom were living in the desert. The remainder of the Arab population was spread throughout the Jewish state and occupied most of the agricultural land.5

According to British statistics, more than 70% of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9% of the land was owned by Jews and about 3% by `Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18% belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.6

MYTH

“Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948.”
FACT

Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a

MYTH

“The Palestinian Arabs were never offered a state and therefore have been denied the right to self-determination.”
FACT

The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and required some Palestinians to live under "Jewish domination." The Zionists opposed the Peel Plan's boundaries because they would have been confined to little more than a ghetto of 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises.

Again, in 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been offered independence — the goal of Arab nationalists — they repudiated the White Paper.

With partition, the Palestinians were given a state and the opportunity for self-determination. This too was rejected.

MYTH

“The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.”
FACT

At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.

Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.

The decision to partition Palestine was not determined solely by demographics; it was based on the conclusion that the territorial claims of Jews and Arabs were irreconcilable, and that the most logical compromise was the creation of two states. Ironically, that same year, 1947, the Arab members of the United Nations supported the partition of the Indian sub-continent and the creation of the new, predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan.

MYTH

“The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.”
FACT

As the partition vote approached, it became clear little hope existed for a political solution to a problem that transcended politics: the Arabs' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in Palestine and the refusal of the Zionists to settle for anything less. The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:

The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.8

MYTH

“The Soviet Union vigorously opposed partition.”
FACT

After the British decided to bring the Palestine issue to the UN, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin's adviser on Palestine asked a representative of the Jewish Agency why the Jews agreed to let the UN decide the fate of Palestine. "Don't you know," he said, "that the only way a Jewish state will be established is if the U.S. and Soviet Union agree? Nothing like that ever happened. It cannot possibly happen. It will never happen."

In May 1947, however, Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko said:

The fact that no Western European State has been able to ensure the defense of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration.9

A few months later, the Soviet Union backed partition and, subsequently, became the second nation to recognize Israel.
Notes

1Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976), pp. 369-370.
2Cohen, p. 212.
3 Voting in favor of partition: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Voting against partition: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Columbia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, UK, Yugoslavia. Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48, (NY: United Nations, 1949), pp. 246-47.
3aHoward Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p. 292.
4London Times, (December 1, 1947).
5 Cohen, p. 238.
6 Moshe Aumann, "Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), p. 29, quoting p. 257 of the Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine.
6aHistoric Palestine comprised what is today Jordan (approximately 35,640 square miles), Israel (8,019 square miles), Gaza (139 square miles) and the West Bank (2,263 square miles).
7Arieh Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1984), p. 252.
8David Horowitz, State in the Making, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), p. 233.
9United Nations General Assembly, First Special Session, May 14, 1947, UN Documemt A/PV 77.

*Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

Digest that for a while.

[Tribesman]

Been through it all before Tribesman , refresh your memory , you repeat the same falsehoods in every debate about the Palestine/Israel situation .
Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?

(or arabs since the Palestinians didn't exist then owned roughly 50%.)
Read the terms of the Mandate , they did exist a citizen of Palestine is a Palestinian , it even states that immigrants to Palestine can become Palestinians :book:

Was the land simply handed to jews?
Some of it , some of it was seized by force of arms . Which is illegal , it is also illegal to annex land , and to top it off it is also illegal to transfer any of your civilian population onto land you have occupied . Silly little laws they made up to try and stop countries looking for a little living-room at their neighbours expense .

Nice cut and paste Gawain , any chance of a link to the source ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?

Same to you. I like how you ignored all the facts I posted. I guess you will call them all lies.

[Tribesman]

Same to you.
Errr... See post #69

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I say your full of it. Youve done nothing to back up your claims other than to say false.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Am I the only one who doesn't like either nation?
I think that Isreal has a right to exist and palestine doesn't, but I don't think we should let Sharon as leader of isreal live. I mean, by from what I know, the man's a terrorist, plain and simple.

[AntiochusIII]

Am I the only one who doesn't like either nation?
I think that Isreal has a right to exist and palestine doesn't, but I don't think we should let Sharon as leader of isreal live. I mean, by from what I know, the man's a terrorist, plain and simple.I think Palestine deserves to exist as a nation. If you want to play historical "we own this land" or "they weren't people" games with me I would discourage you to do so. The point is Palestinians are a people now and certainly quite sometime before and they deserve a country to lives, especially if their current landlords are hostile.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Am I the only one who doesn't like either nation?

No I think most of us agree theres more than enough blame to go around for both sides.


I think that Isreal has a right to exist and palestine doesn't

Why doesnt Palestine have the right to exist?


but I don't think we should let Sharon as leader of isreal live.

I believe we have a law against killing heads of forirgn states. You need to stop being so violent.

[ichi]

I think Palestine deserves to exist as a nation. If you want to play historical "we own this land" or "they weren't people" games with me I would discourage you to do so. The point is Palestinians are a people now and certainly quite sometime before and they deserve a country to lives, especially if their current landlords are hostile.

Damn straight.

Ask yourself, if you were born an Arab in Palestine wouldn't you want to have a nation and equal rights, self-determination and all that.

The Golden Rule applies here.

And then maybe some folks would have one less reason to want to blow themselves and us up.

ichi :bow:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

No I think most of us agree theres more than enough blame to go around for both sides.



Why doesnt Palestine have the right to exist?



I believe we have a law against killing heads of forirgn states. You need to stop being so violent.
1.Ok
2. Because they were never granted their independance, they are too small of a minority in israel to count, many of them are members of such organizations as Al Queda and Hamas, they were offered their independance several times, declined, and now want it, the list goes on.
3. I meant live as in live as head of state not live as in alive live. And No I'm a violent person by nature that will not change...ever

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And instead of getting personal and going on about what you think of me, you might consider answering my points.

Then what was the UN resolution that partioned Palestine all about?


I meant live as in live as head of state not live as in alive live

I believe that Israel is a soverign state and a democracy to boot. They elected Sharon. Do you suggest we overthrow the Israeli government?

[mercian billman]

I have shown that most arabs in Palestine did so after the Jews also began emigrating there more times than I care to count. Your not new here youve seen them before.

In 1880 the population of jews living in Palestine was 24,000 compared to 450,000 Palestinians. In 1946 the figures are 600,000 jews to 1,300,000 Palestinians. For your statement to be true at least 651,000 arabs would've immigrated to Palestine that in 66 years the population of native Palestinians would've increased by less than 50%. Assuming a birthrate of at least 1% the population of native born Palestinians should have doubled. I don't have figures for birthrates at the time, but even if your right the number of native born Palestinians would've still exceeded the number of jews.

I find the possibility of a .5 percent birthrate over 66 years hard to believe.

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestine/facts.htm



And why should arabs who never lived in Palestine be allowed to emigrate there ?

I've always been a believer in open borders so...

I have no problem with jews immigraiting to Palestine, but I'm pretty sure that the majority population would be pretty pissed off to learn that they were going to be ruled by foreigners who had never been to their country before.



The south was broke as it was. What you suggest would have caused endless conflict and even more hatred for blacks in the south.

Barring a return to slavery the treatment of blacks in the south following reconstruction couldn't have been much worse than it already was.



They had no legal right to the land just as the so called Palestinians had no right to the land they didnt own.

I'm not arguing that ex-slaves had legal rights to their land, just that they should be compensated.

What legal right did ex-plantation owners have to their land? As far as I'm concerned the government has the right to seize property from treasonous citizens and redistribute it.

I'm not debating legality here, I'm debating whats right. I could care less what a piece of paper says about who owns what plot of land, once the individual who owns that plot of land chooses to commit treason against the United States of America, they forfeit any rights they held as a US citizen and that includes the right to property.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I hate to break it to you but those figures are pretty much useless. There was never a good census.


The precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn.

Take a look at this LINK (http://www.meforum.org/article/522)

[GoreBag]

My opinion is that there were people there, so they owned the land before the Zionists brought the Jews over. Regardless of whether or not they were Arab, Egyptian, Berber, Siberian or Celtic, they were there first and they owned the land.

I see no justification for the creation of Israel other than a lust for power. The Israelis can just as well pack up and leave to head somewhere else, I'm sure; it's the same way they arrived in Palestine.

[mercian billman]

This still doesn't show any proof that the majority of Palestinians were actually recent (illegal) immigrants.

All I'm getting is that the population was undercounted, of it's 2300 and I'm not thinking clearly, I gotta get some sleep.

[Tribesman]

I hate to break it to you but those figures are pretty much useless. There was never a good census.
Oh those figures are useless as they shatter your illusions .
At least he posted figures from a census that exists , not figures from a census that doesn't as you did with the 1840s census , oh dear that was another lie on your part wasn't it . ~D ~D ~D
Youve done nothing to back up your claims other than to say false.
No , I have addressed each of those lies on previous occasions , to continue doing so to someone who is either a habitual liar or suffers from severe memory loss is futile .
So I wil repeat Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?

[JAG]

And No I'm a violent person by nature that will not change...ever

Oh dear the self deception...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh those figures are useless as they shatter your illusions .
At least he posted figures from a census that exists , not figures from a census that doesn't as you did with the 1840s census , oh dear that was another lie on your part wasn't it .

Not at all I have no illusions. I posted the above article when I quoted that one. I also quoted articles that showed arab emigration into Palestine that you choose to ignore. Besides that did I take the 1840 census, is it MY lie. Remember what a lie is before you accuse someone of it.


No , I have addressed each of those lies on previous occasions , to continue doing so to someone who is either a habitual liar or suffers from severe memory loss is futile .

Same to you once more. This is really a very poor debating tactic and one that is normally below you. It shows your position as weak


So I wil repeat Really gawain ? can you find a single example where I have lied ?

Isee youve decided that my name no onger deserves a capital G. If you want me to point out a lie by you just look at any post where you call me a liar.

[Big_John]

what you kids need to do is inspect your own pants. discover which one of you has pants that are currently (or have recently been) on fire. that one is your liar.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Im cool and havent called anyone a liar. I have said that some things are false. I give him the benifit of the doubt that he is merely mistaken not a liar. Unfortunatly my worthy opponent seems to have a different definition of liar . He is under the impression that in all our other debates on this matter he tells the truth while I lie. He is also of the wrongful impression that he has won every debate on the matter it seems. Hes right Im wrong, thats about where his argument goes these days. There is little I can do to debate a person who calls me a habitual liar. Whats the use of trying?

[ichi]

what you kids need to do is inspect your own pants. discover which one of you has pants that are currently (or have recently been) on fire. that one is your liar.

Now thats funny, I don't care who you are, that's DAMN funny

ichi :bow:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Then what was the UN resolution that partioned Palestine all about?



I believe that Israel is a soverign state and a democracy to boot. They elected Sharon. Do you suggest we overthrow the Israeli government?
No I suggest we expose Sharon for what he is though, and maybe force him to resign.

[Steppe Merc]

Who owned the land in the 13 original American colonies, before the Declaration of Independence?

Numerous American Indian tribes, and it was stolen from them, despite some legal treaties.