Org Mobile Site
Thread: Israel/Palestine Question
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?
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?
"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.
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?
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?
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
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
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
do the Palestinians have any legal claims on the land they say was taken from them?
No.do the Palestinians have any legal claims on the land they say was taken from them?
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.
At the end of the day, both people need a viable homeland. Anything less, and we get more of the same over there.
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
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
Originally Posted by :
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.At the end of the day, both people need a viable homeland. Anything less, and we get more of the same over there.
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.'"
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'
What ever happened to George and Martha?
"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'
What ever happened to George and Martha?
Originally Posted by Beirut:
Oh Lord, here we go again...
SERIOUSLY! Oh Lord, here we go again...can't the admins just setup a "no such thing as palestine" script that creates a thread once a month or so?
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
Originally Posted by 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
that's not a bad idea..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
Originally Posted by :
Maybe we should form debating teams on the subject
put a password on the game and everybody plays where they land, no artillery. Maybe we should form debating teams on the subject
ichi
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
What ever happened to George and Martha?
They're living in a settlement in Gaza. I'm sure we'll heear from them soon.What ever happened to George and Martha?
Originally Posted by Big_John:
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.SERIOUSLY!
can't the admins just setup a "no such thing as palestine" script that creates a thread once a month or so?
What I can't stand is having to prove that a millions of Palestinians actually exist. Talk about circular existentialism.
Originally Posted by :
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. What I can't stand is having to prove that a millions of Palestinians actually exist. Talk about circular existentialism.
Or has Palestine been reduced now just to what we refer to as the Westbank?Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
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.Or has Palestine been reduced now just to what we refer to as the Westbank?
Here we go again.......
Originally Posted by :
Palestine has been reduced to what the Zionists didn't steal but still occupy using torture and brutality.
Now your sounding like this guyPalestine has been reduced to what the Zionists didn't steal but still occupy using torture and brutality.
Originally Posted by :
"The Jews are the cancer spreading all over the world... the Jews are responsible for all wars and conflicts," Sheikh Ibrahim Mudairis said Friday
"The Jews are the cancer spreading all over the world... the Jews are responsible for all wars and conflicts," Sheikh Ibrahim Mudairis said Friday
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.
Besides, he's a nutbar.
I'm more of a chocolate bar.
Well then together you make a snickers bar.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
Originally Posted by 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?
I think the parrallel is closer to American Indians... what obligations do they have to the USA and vice a versa?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?
Originally Posted by 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?
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.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?
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?
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
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.If I rent a house from a man he he defaults on his mortage does that make it mine?
*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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO