Israel vs Palestine

[Gromnir]

the post ww1 british and the UN in 1947 disagreed with you. the jewish folks had as much historical right to the land in what is now Israel as did folks now known as palestinians, which is to say, not much right at all. sure, the jewish refugees were a third o’ the population o’ the british mandate and many o’ them were moved from their homes when that mandate ended, but we can just ignore them as is inconvenient for you to do so.  nobody in Europe were stepping forward to give jewish refugees (you seemed to put stock in refugee status earlier, but not now? Interesting) following the late 19th century pogroms, ww1 and ww2 a place to live. so, what were your solution then and now? 

 

if the right thing to do is give the poor and unfortunate palestians back lands that they were only holding at the sufferance o’ the ottomans and brits anyway, then am s’posing you thinks the displaced jews should be given back their lands and properties in Europe? *chuckle* no? do you even comprehend where your reasoning takes you in the present context? 

 

and again, were the British mandate. ain’t talking about Texans in America is we?  nevertheless, the government does take land from folks all the time here in the US. those people gotta be compensated, but government can take and does. too bad for the palastinians, that they weren’t british, eh? 

 

and no, we don’t agree that an ethnocracy is necessarily detestable. Gromnir is Oglala you small-minded little yutz. we is technical a citizen o’ an ethnocracy as the Oglala is a domestic-dependent nation that survives within the boarders o’ the United States. as much as the Oglala and Lakota would like to have their ancestral lands back, even they/we ain’t so ignorant as to believe that the Americans who occupy those lands should be dispossessed at this point.  and btw, as the lands in the Dakotas were subject o’ a treaty ‘tween the US and the Lakota people, there is far greater legal merit for Lakota claims as ‘posed to palestinains living in British mandate.  regardless, no, we don’t find an ethnocracy necessarily detestable, particularly when that ethnicity has suffered historic abuses at the hands o’ other ethnic groups that approach genocide.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is also worth noting that most historical palestinan refugees is the result o' warfare. is not as if arabs living in the UN planned jewish portions o' israel were sudden denied citizenship rights and had their lands taken from them. the jewish territories were all having either a jewish majority or were so underpopulated as to make such distinctions pointless. negev desert? *snort* war starts and arabs flee. and when did war start? less than a day after end of british mandate.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

I don't know the history so bear with my ignorance. If at the end of WWII, the land now know as Israel was occupied by Palestinians, why was it given to the Jews? I get that there is a long past religious connection but is that the only reason? Why didn't they carve a new Jewish homeland out of Germany?

[kgambit]

I don't know the history so bear with my ignorance. If at the end of WWII, the land now know as Israel was occupied by Palestinians, why was it given to the Jews? I get that there is a long past religious connection but is that the only reason? Why didn't they carve a new Jewish homeland out of Germany?

 

The term "Palestinian" also referred to Jews residing in Palestine until the PLO redefined it in the 1960's.  ".....  the PLO's Palestine National Council in July 1968, defined "Palestinians" as "those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there."  Earlier historians such as Herodotus used the term to refer to all residents of Palestine, making no distinction between the Jews and other inhabitants of the region.

 

As for the historical record as to who has occupied the region, here is a decent breakdown tracing the area's "ownership" all the way back to the Canaanites. 

 

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

 

In fairness, some scholars date the origin of the term back to the Palestinian Uprisings in the early 20th century.

Edited July 10, 2014 by kgambit

[Gromnir]

I don't know the history so bear with my ignorance. If at the end of WWII, the land now know as Israel was occupied by Palestinians, why was it given to the Jews? I get that there is a long past religious connection but is that the only reason? Why didn't they carve a new Jewish homeland out of Germany?

oversimplification, but we ain't a true expert, so perhaps others will clarify better.

 

what is israel on a map today were, after ww2, part o' what were called the british mandate. the british mandate has origin going back to fall of ottoman empire... gets confusing. at the time the UN carved up the british mandate in 1947-48, creating jewish and palestinian territories, there were many jews living in the mandate. in fact, in many areas, the jewish folks were a majority.  one reason there were so many jews in the mandate (don't call it palestine or it makes you believe it were run by and for palestinans) is 'cause as of late 19th century and before, there were concerted efforts throughout europe to get rid o' jews from many european countries. most o' the pogroms were in eastern europe, but jews were taking it pretty hard everywhere, with particular escalation from late 1800s... is not as if hitler picked jews randomn. ok now, here is one o' those dirty little not-so secrets o' european history that doesn't get much coverage in the history books. when jews in concentration camps were fed and eventual released by allied soldiers, some historians suggest near 1/3 as many jews were killed by local populaces as were killed by the nazis during all o' ww2. and the earlier pogroms had killed between 100 and 200 thousand jews as well.

 

in another bit o' historic irony, 'cause so many jews were fleeing europe before and during and after ww2, the british set up concentration camps in cyprus to reduce the flow o' refugees to the british mandate. and yeah, they were technical concentration camps, and the conditions were pretty horrendous, but "concentration camp" necessarily conjures up nazi death camps, and that ain't what the cyprus camps were.

 

nobody wanted the jews in europe. seriously, nobody. the jews were still being killed in europe even after world war 2. so the UN takes a look at a map o' the british mandate and recognizes that the jews there is already a majority in many areas and there is a lot o' useless desert area to dump new refugees into. also, the british had already promised to create a jewish homeland in the mandate territory back in 1917. at the time it were no doubt seeming like a great idea to let the jewish majority in the british mandate run things for themselves. nobody need be displaced and there were additional space, albeit inhospitable, for new jewish refugees. wins for everybody.

 

*groan*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we purposeful did not mention holocaust victims, but keep in mind you is talking 'bout millions o' jews killed during the holocaust. to give perspective, total casualties we has seen for isarelis and palestinians (leaving other arabs out o' the mix for the moment) from 1948 to today might be a tragic but tiny number for many jews. 50,000 total casualties is probable high side for israeli-palestinian conflict, but even if you feel like bloat helps make some kinda point, add 20 thousand.  assume 70k total and you got death totals for single death camps over a course o' a handful o' months. perspective can be a terrible thing.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Gromnir

[Rostere]

I don't know the history so bear with my ignorance. If at the end of WWII, the land now know as Israel was occupied by Palestinians, why was it given to the Jews? I get that there is a long past religious connection but is that the only reason? Why didn't they carve a new Jewish homeland out of Germany?

 

That's actually a very good question. The only thing you can say for sure is that it wasn't really in the end given to the Jews, strictly speaking (although in practice, it was).

 

Here are the relevant background facts:

 

In 1917, at the end of WW1, the British authored the Balfour declaration. The exact wording is this: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

 

At the same time, British and French divided territories of the Ottoman Empire among themselves pretty much arbitrarily according to the Sykes-Picot treaty. Absolutely zero consideration was given to the ethnicities of the peoples living there, and their democratic and human rights. We must remember that this was still the time of colonialism: at the time, the Middle East was simply a playground for Western imperialists, archaeologists and tourists. Today we form states on the basis of democracy - people should rule over themselves, and countries have a legitimate case for independence if cultural or ethnic national traits can be clearly confined to a certain territory. So The Middle East was divided between Britain and France, and a British puppet king was chosen to lead Transjordan, and later Iraq (which was the start of the dominance in Iraq of the Sunni minority, which is behind the current unrest in Iraq). Palestine was ruled according to the principles of colonial dictatorship by the British High Commissioner of Palestine.

 

Later in 1921, the British still stated that "His Majesty's Government are responsible under the terms of the Mandate for establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people.".

 

So let's look at the demographics. In 1850, 4% of the Palestinian population were Jews. In 1920 (almost at the time of the Balfour declaration), about 10%, almost all of which had moved there during the last 40 years, according to the League of Nations. By 1948 (at the time of the declaration of the state of Israel) about 32% of Palestine were Jews.

 

So the British promised to "give" Palestine to the Jews at a time when Jews were only 10% of the population. Absurd, right? But let's remember that this was the age of colonialism, when unspeakable crimes were committed on a whim, and no thought was given towards what the colonial populations thought about anything. Giving a piece of land just like that to a foreign people was completely within what could be considered normal at the time.

 

However, with the shift in world balance towards democracy and the US, away from the European colonial powers and authoritarianism, things changed. By the time of WW2, the British were very unsure how the heck they could resign Palestine to Jewish rule, when Jews were in such a minority. By this time, the British were trying desperately to restrain Jewish immigration to Palestine. This triggered acts of terrorism from Jewish militant organizations such as the Irgun and the Lehi (from which later two prime ministers of Israel came - Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin - worth thinking about for those who say "you can't negotiate with terrorists"!). The Haganah, the largest militia which was to later become the IDF, joined this struggle in 1945. In total, 338 British nationals were killed in acts of terrorism in Palestine, London and occupied Germany before Winston Churchill decided to withdraw, leaving Palestine to the UN - although in practice, the Haganah were the principal authority on the ground.

 

At this time, the UN had made and voted on a partition plan - although Jews were 32% of the population, this plan allocated them 56% of the land. The Arabs objected to this, and said that Palestine should never be partitioned, but ruled as one state by it's inhabitants. The Jews then declared their state anyway, the majority satisfied with the partition plan. This was followed by a war in which a numerically superior and more well-equipped Israeli force beat back the Arabs who were trying to take control of all of Palestine, a war in which 10,000 Jews and 700,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes.

 

So that is why Israel exists in it's current form. The British had the intent to give the land to the Jews from 1917 to 1939, when British colonial rule facilitated Jewish immigration. In the end though, Jewish insurgents chased the Brits (who had changed their minds) away and unilaterally declared their state. Since then it's pretty much this:

 

 

Occupation and ethnic cleansing on a much slower scale.

 

I don't believe in the notion that any ethnicity "needs" their own nation, but this would have made a way better place for a Jewish homeland than Palestine.

[Gromnir]

is nothing like a misleading map to brighten your day. point out negev desert on the map ros provided. lots o' that green crap is area that were complete unoccupied and were functional "owned" by the British government and nobody else. show us a map o' utah in late 1800's. go ahead, we can wait. now imagine that the US government is gonna complete pull out o' utah and divide land between mostly mormon settlers and the indigenous peoples. any place on the map not having a settler recorded deed will be showing green as is rightful belonging to the indigenous peoples. divide up map that way and how much o' utah shows green as "owned" by indigenous peoples? statistics is also misleading. the jews were given control o' the portions o' the british mandate where they already had a majority population. they also got places like the negev freaking desert and other virtual wastelands. 56% nonsense complete ignores what were there.  Americans is perhaps more able to grasp that not all % o' land is alike. using utah, you want area around salt lake city, or the mojave desert if you is looking to add additional settlers in 1900? 

 

am not knowing if ros is doing this purposeful or not, but is comical.

 

"So the British promised to "give" Palestine to the Jews at a time when Jews were only 10% of the population."  

 

he can't even read his own quoted material. the brits did not promise to give palestine to the jews when they were only 10% o' the population. the brits agreed to create a jewish homeland in palestine... you know, back when all those jews were being chased out of eastern europe. it were never evisioned or suggested that the jewish folks would get all o' the british mandate. heck, one plan were to settle the jewish folks in uganda... serious.

 

*eye-roll*

 

yeah, am genuine sorry that the jackarse UN folks ignored the bedouins living in the desert. am also not forgetting that the zionist terrorists in the british mandate pre-1948 were killing palestinians and brits. jews were sometimes on the receiving side o' those bloody conflicts, but the zionists in the british mandate were well and fully steeped in blood. there is no nice guys in this, but don't get suckered in by the bs that ros and others is trying to spin. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps eastern prussia as a homeland for the jewish peoples? did we not just mention those pre ww2 pogroms and post ww2 jew huntings? and no doubt the ussr with it security council veto woulda' gone for that idea. *snort* come up with a worse idea... we dare you.

 

pps is another funny about the map ros provides. near bottom o' 1947 map it says that the un partition were never implemented. next map shown in 1967.  immediate after the brit mandate ended, the palestinians, egypt, jordan, syria, lebanon and others immediate attacked the jewish settlements with announced purpose o' wiping them out entirely. 1967 is six day war. you can read up on that if you wish. the maps is most amusing for what they don't tell you.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Gromnir

[Rostere]

is nothing like a misleading map to brighten your day. point out negev desert on the map ros provided. lots o' that green crap is area that were complete unoccupied and were functional "owned" by the British government and nobody else. show us a map o' utah in late 1800's. go ahead, we can wait. now imagine that the US government is gonna complete pull out o' utah and divide land between mostly mormon settlers and the indigenous peoples. any place on the map not having a settler recorded deed will be showing green as is rightful belonging to the indigenous peoples. divide up map that way and how much o' utah shows green as "owned" by indigenous peoples? statistics is also misleading. the jews were given control o' the portions o' the british mandate where they already had a majority population. they also got places like the negev freaking desert and other virtual wastelands. 56% nonsense complete ignores what were there.  Americans is perhaps more able to grasp that not all % o' land is alike. using utah, you want area around salt lake city, or the mojave desert if you is looking to add additional settlers in 1900? 

 

Wrong. If only the parts which had a Jewish majority at the time of the partition plan were to be allotted to Israel, they would receive only the sub-district of Jaffa and nothing else. The Negev had a population of less than 1% Jews, but was still allocated to Israel, as per the Israeli negotiator's demands.

 

If you mean to say that we are not to take into account sub-districts, but divide the land into smaller units, the Israeli land would be even smaller.

 

 

"So the British promised to "give" Palestine to the Jews at a time when Jews were only 10% of the population." 

he can't even read his own quoted material. the brits did not promise to give palestine to the jews when they were only 10% o' the population. the brits agreed to create a jewish homeland in palestine... you know, back when all those jews were being chased out of eastern europe. it were never evisioned or suggested that the jewish folks would get all o' the british mandate.

 

Others would disagree on that interpretation

 

 

What you see is the logo of the the terrorist group Irgun, which would over time morph into the Herut and then the Likud party, the party of the current Israeli prime minister. Although he had nothing to do with the terrorist group directly, one of Irgun's top commanders was Menachem Begin, who later became Israeli prime minister.

 

The logo depicts the entire Transjordan, which Irgun believed to be promised to them by their spaghetti monster god, and the British by the Balfour declaration. By 1939, the British explicitly did NOT want to give the entirety of Palestine to the Jews. Before that, it is a much more difficult question to answer what was "envisioned". The quote does not say explicitly whether it refers to the whole of Palestine or only parts of it. Certainly some of the British which drafted the declaration were against binding them to declare a Jewish state at all, and also against one necessarily on the entire area of Palestine. Nevertheless, other people, such the then-leader of Transjordan, spoke about Jews settling in all of Palestine, although interestingly he did not mention a specifically "Jewish state" at all.

 

So at the time, a lot of people (especially Zionists) were definitely interpreting the Balfour declaration as an invitation for Jews to settle in all of Palestine. Even if the British did not intend that, that was the effective interpretation until 1939 (like I wrote earlier).

 

 

ps eastern prussia as a homeland for the jewish peoples? did we not just mention those pre ww2 pogroms and post ww2 jew huntings? and no doubt the ussr with it security council veto woulda' gone for that idea. *snort* come up with a worse idea... we dare you.

 

I don't believe any Jewish "homeland" is needed, in the same way I don't believe in a Swedish "homeland" or a nation solely made for the purpose of one ethno-religious group. I believe on nations based on values, not ethnicity. I think the US is a very good example of a nation which is not based on any ethnicity. Nations everywhere should be based on similar principles.

 

In any case, just who do you mean would be left in Ostpreussen to persecute the Jews? Taking the predominantly German (pre-WW2) lands and making that a Jewish homeland would be strictly better than Palestine. Especially Poland had pre-war the largest Jewish population by percentage, so that larger region historically has had the largest Jewish connection in Europe (again, relatively speaking. And I'm not necessarily talking about Ostpreussen in itself, but the larger surrounding region).

[Zoraptor]

In 1917, at the end of WW1, the British authored the Balfour declaration.

It should also be explicitly noted that the British promised Palestine to the Arabs as well, and previous, to promising it to the Jews, in order to incite the arabs to rise up against the Ottomans- the McMahon Hussein correspondence mentioned in the wiki article. The only bit that wasn't promised to them is modern Lebanon. Though the thought of France deciding to have Lebanon be a Jewish Homeland is possibly the only thing that would be more potentially combustible than what we have now, given Lebanon's religious mix.

 

So everything about it being promised to the Jews is also applicable to the Arabs as well, and previous.

 

The wikipedia entry for Mandate Palestine is also pretty decent for giving background to Israel's creation, and has some useful tables about half way through that summarise land ownership/ demographics etc.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hamas calls on civilians to act as human shields : http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/10/hamas-is-using-civilians-as-human-shields-but-its-latest-directive-is-the-most-shocking/

[Gromnir]

reading skills here is baffling.

 

" the jews were given control o' the portions o' the british mandate where they already had a majority population. they also got places like the negev freaking desert and other virtual wastelands."

 

we didn't say that the jews had a majority in the negev. we said that the jews were given areas where they had a majority and were also given wasteland.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Palestine_Index_to_Villages_and_Settlements%2C_showing_Jewish-owned_Land_31_March_1945.jpg

 

you and your busted map reading. look at the big section o' southern israel. how many towns is there in 1945? why so few? 'cause it were a wasteland... and that shows only northern most part o' the negev.  a very substantial portion o' their 56% were the negev freaking desert, and at the time, there were nothing there worth having. imagine how the jews felt when the first see partition and realize that the single largest portion o' their partition were wasteland.

 

oh, and not-red on the map doesn't mean it were owned by arab palestinans. there were brit and turk and french ownership o' land in the mandate as well. and there were also a sizeable quantity o' what would best be described as State-owned land. 

 

example

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2013/10/Pasted_Image_10_15_13_2_12_PM-2.jpg

 

and that don't include individual state owned land neither.

 

and who the hell cares what the zionist terrorists were claiming? your own quoted material o' balfour is:

 

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

 

the fact that some terrorist groups wanted all o' palestine is important why? how does that represent the intentions o' the brits, or the UN? or even the jewish majority... not that they matter in this instance. why should we care what admitted terroists groups wanted when figuring out what brits or UN promised? 

 

as for zor input, there is absolute nothing about granting arabs an autonomous state within the british mandate that conflicts with offering the same to the jews... which is what the UN partition were clear looking to accomplish.

 

" Especially Poland had pre-war the largest Jewish population by percentage, so that larger region historically has had the largest Jewish connection in Europe (again, relatively speaking. And I'm not necessarily talking about Ostpreussen in itself, but the larger surrounding region)."

 

and over 90% o' that population were slaughtered. and stalin, given his historic love for the jewish people, would have ever have agreed to an independent jewish nation smack-dab in the center o' the eastern bloc? you are a lunatic if you is trying to peddle that product.

 

...

 

why?

 

before we bother with further dismantling your increasingly bizarre argument, give us a why? why did the UN attempt to partition the british mandate as they did. you see the partitioning as manifest unfair, but explain to us their partitioning and their rationale. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 11, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

"I think the US is a very good example of a nation which is not based on any ethnicity. Nations everywhere should be based on similar principles."

 

aside, cause we don't wanna complete derail, but ros is again being monumental obtuse. did you bother to look up lakota and oglala? probably not. should all nations be based on US principles regarding ethnicity? is debatable, but if you believe that then you got a serious problem.

 

http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/documents/RESERV.PDF

 

each o' those colored portions on the map is representing a domestic dependent nation, an ethnocracy if you will, existing within the united states.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[TrashMan]

 

 

As long as you agree with initial point, that as far as good faith efforts goes, it has been pretty much one way street, with Israel doing all the heavy lifting. I am fine.

 

I don't. Israel doing the heavy lifting?

Please, it keeps ignoring all UN resolutions, it keep bulldozing settlements, it keeps building it's own settlements.

Israel has done nothing but expand and taking the best pieces of land.

 

Oh sure, there is condemnation and pressure from the world, but it amounts to nothing. In 5 minutes people are distracted with other news and forget about. But nothing has changed. Israel knows it can get away with what it does, so it does it.

 

 

 

 

 

what a novel concept. we congratulate you, sir. moral superiority as measured by an absolute and objective standard: body count. we will look forward to reading your thesis when you publish. is your system simple or complex? what we mean is, is one corpse equal to any other corpse?

 

Never said it was the only standard, BUT body count IS more objective that any other standard you can provide. Especially in the context that most of those bodies belong to civilians.

 

I don't really care which country does this s****, but you don't friggin bulldoze homes and cluster bombs entire areas just to get one guy (that probably isn't there to begin with).

 

Israel is supposed to be a modern country, with high-tech, drones, accurate weaponry and such. The civilian body count it keeps racking up among the palestinains is inexcusable and unaceptable.

 

[TrashMan]

 

the post ww1 british and the UN in 1947 disagreed with you. the jewish folks had as much historical right to the land in what is now Israel as did folks now known as palestinians, which is to say, not much right at all. sure, the jewish refugees were a third o’ the population o’ the british mandate and many o’ them were moved from their homes when that mandate ended, but we can just ignore them as is inconvenient for you to do so.  nobody in Europe were stepping forward to give jewish refugees (you seemed to put stock in refugee status earlier, but not now? Interesting) following the late 19th century pogroms, ww1 and ww2 a place to live. so, what were your solution then and now? 

 

 

And the WW1 british and the UN were idiots.

Deportation and forced re-location has never, EVER solved a problem in history.

 

And speaking of "rights" to the land - if you lived there long enough, you have "right". That's it. Ancient historical right - irrelevant. History is history.

Even just 2-3 generations is enough. A child who was born in that land, and it is all it knows, for that child - for that person - that land *IS* his. The emotional connection is there.

So at this point taking exclusive claims is pointless and self-defeating.

 

The jews should have never been settled there in the first place, but now that it's done, it's done. They feel like it's their land and they are right to feel that. But the Palestinians aren't wrong either. Their land WAS taken from them and they are treated like crap.

The UN was rather generous with OTHER PEOPLES land, so there a massive amount of d***ery going on.

 

A compromise is needed, but it looks like it ain't happening. Israel has no interest in it as long as it knows it can get away with what it does, and it's hard for any moderate to get into position of power on the palestinian side (in no small thanks to Israels actions)

[TrashMan]

Tally of the conflict so far: 0 Israelis killed. 9 (!) treated for light injuries. 88 Palestinians killed, and about 600 wounded. Meanwhile only one Hamas commander has been killed. The Hamas leadership have hidden themselves underground. Why does Israel keep bombing? 9 people killed as they were bombed sitting on a beach café watching the World Cup. A family was killed after the Israeli army phoned them and told them their house would be demolished. A first missile hit a structure outside the house and the family went inside again, only to be killed by a second missile shortly afterwards. Why were they forced to bomb the house in the first place?

 

This is pure and sheer indiscriminate terror bombing. When you justify that, you should pretty much expect your opponents to respond with this or this. Between the Israeli army and Hamas, there is no one trying to hold the moral high ground. The game is just about killing as many as you can while evading international sanctions. Israel does it to beef up home opinion and gain right-wing credentials for the sitting government. Hamas does it... yeah, I don't even know. It's probably just a mind-numbingly stupid compulsive psychological reflex. I don't think anyone has thought longer than "Allahu akhbar".

 

Other ****ed-up news from the Israel/Palestine region: Ben Gurion detention guard tells humanitarian worker she is being deported for ‘trying to change Israel and make it free of racism’, Death threats follow minister’s condolence call to family of burned teen

 

 

 

"While in the detention facility I had the opportunity to converse with several guards. The first guard was a young woman. Upon entering the facility another male guard had made comment about how beautiful she was.

As we sat outside I said to her, “You know that is sexual harassment. This is your work space. He can’t treat you like that.”"

 

Really now?

Saying a woman is beautiful is sexual harassment now?

 

Now I know to never call them beautiful.

[Mor]

Isreal quite often has to cave to international pressure to get the peace process back on track, these overtures are, arguably, started with the knowledge that it will come to nothing. Concessions are not in Israel's interest, they already have what they want. The Palestineans don't have a moderate leader capable of pressing the point.

Since Palestinians don't have a moderate leader capable of pressing for concession, which is fundamental requirement for lasting peace (both sides need to compromise and work together) so what you describe is nice extortion racket for industrial quite. Edited July 11, 2014 by Mor

[Zoraptor]

You cannot simultaneously promise the same land to two peoples for their state, that isn't how states work and is exactly how wars start, because both believe they own it. The sole exclusion to the arab promise was stated explicitly as Lebanon, not Palestine. Palestine in toto was clearly included under the putative arab land. It's only later that Britain decided promising the same land to someone else was a good idea to get their support vs Johnny Turk. The Balfour Declaration validating Israel's claims de jure is and always has been a load of rubbish, because the prior claims of 90% of the population had already been explicitly acknowledged and never expunged. While it isn't Israel's fault that Britain did the equivalent of selling the same house to two different buyers it most certainly ain't the fault of the original buyer, and habitual occupant, the Palestinians.

 

And because I believe in enlightening thoroughly plus it should help anyone who cannot be bothered wikiing the stats...

 

Land ownership of Palestine in 1945 by district District Sub-district Arab-owned Jewish-owned Public / other Haifa Haifa 42% 35% 23% Galilee Acre 87% 3% 10% Beisan 44% 34% 22% Nazareth 52% 28% 20% Safad 68% 18% 14% Tiberias 51% 38% 11% Lydda Jaffa 47% 39% 14% Ramle 77% 14% 9% Samaria Jenin 84% <1% 16% Nablus 87% <1% 13% Tulkarm 78% 17% 5% Jerusalem Hebron 96% <1% 4% Jerusalem 84% 2% 14% Ramallah 99% <1% 1% Gaza Beersheba 15% <1% 85% Gaza 75% 4% 21%

 

Here's the percentage ownerships, from the same ultimate source Gromnir's map came from. Again, it's not majority ownership 'in many areas', indeed, not a majority in any actually defined area*- including the area defined by proposed partition Israel. Indeed indeedy, while Gromnir is careful to explain that not all the non coloured land on his map is arab owned he doesn't explain that not all the coloured land are Jewish owned either, the dotted pink appearing zones are actually state owned, just leased by Jews. So, the 'many areas' of Jewish majority are one single area, taken across both demographics and land ownership. The areas of majority Arab population are all except Jaffa, the areas of majority arab ownership (excluding state land, otherwise some are pluralities but then the Jewish share dilutes further too) are, well, every single district. And really, that's about as definitive as the subject gets.

 

Demographics of Palestine in 1945 by district District Sub-District Muslim Percentage Jewish Percentage Christian Percentage Total Haifa Haifa 95,970 38% 119,020 47% 33,710 13% 253,450 Galilee Acre 51,130 69% 3,030 4% 11,800 16% 73,600 Beisan 16,660 67% 7,590 30% 680 3% 24,950 Nazareth 30,160 60% 7,980 16% 11,770 24% 49,910 Safad 47,310 83% 7,170 13% 1,630 3% 56,970 Tiberias 23,940 58% 13,640 33% 2,470 6% 41,470 Lydda Jaffa 95,980 24% 295,160 72% 17,790 4% 409,290 Ramle 95,590 71% 31,590 24% 5,840 4% 134,030 Samaria Jenin 60,000 98% negligible <1% 1,210 2% 61,210 Nablus 92,810 98% negligible <1% 1,560 2% 94,600 Tulkarm 76,460 82% 16,180 17% 380 1% 93,220 Jerusalem Hebron 92,640 99% 300 <1% 170 <1% 93,120 Jerusalem 104,460 41% 102,520 40% 46,130 18% 253,270 Ramallah 40,520 83% negligible <1% 8,410 17% 48,930 Gaza Beersheba 6,270 90% 510 7% 210 3% 7,000 Gaza 145,700 97% 3,540 2% 1,300 1% 150,540 Total 1,076,780 58% 608,230 33% 145,060 9% 1,845,560

 

(Will the tables copy across properly, I wait with bated breath... No, but I really cannot be bothered pnging them.)

 

*The only way to get Jewish majority 'areas' is to do exactly the sort of things that gives Estonia and Latvia and Ukraine heart attacks when done to them, ie arbitrarily define said 'areas' based solely on the criterion of ethnicity.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Mor]

I don't know the history so bear with my ignorance. If at the end of WWII, the land now know as Israel was occupied by Palestinians, why was it given to the Jews?

While timeline wise it was after WW2, its actually correlates to the end the end of the British Mandate for Palestine. This ~25years process, has been the same that was taken undertaken for the rest of the region (which formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire). During that time they tried to appease everyone, it didn't worked all to well and ended with both Arab and Jewish nationals not too happy, led to sharp escalation. After the British declared their intention to end the mandate, the UN worked the partition plan between the two people. Which led to a civil war, Israel declaration, Arabs from the whole region ganking on the Jews leading to Arab(now called Palestinian) part being occupied by Jordan and Syria, with borders redrawn.

 

OT afterward:

 

 

In the 1967 war, when Israel took those areas from Jordan and Syria. After Israel signed peace process with Egypt and Jordan, started the peace fiasco with Palestinians. Ironically, while Israel relationships with Egypt and Jordan improved (at least in the practical sense, not in the public arena) the peace process with Palestinians led to deterioration, before the Palestinian intifada (first cycle of violence) there was EU-ish kind of borders, no fences, no checkpoints with Palestinians and Israeli free traveling to Tel-Aviv or Gaza beac.

 

EDIT: also here is a nice historic summary that should elude to the British position at the time.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angap04.asp

Edited July 11, 2014 by Mor

[Gromnir]

 

 

*The only way to get Jewish majority 'areas' is to do exactly the sort of things that gives Estonia and Latvia and Ukraine heart attacks when done to them, ie arbitrarily define said 'areas' based solely on the criterion of ethnicity.

so? all o' your wikilinks is very nice and yet still extreme misleading. what is with you people and statistics and maps? break down based on ethnicity were exactly what the partitioning were meant to achieve. the jewish communities already had jewish schools and medical facilities and infrastructure that they developed by themselves. arabs wanted their own such facilities. the communities were already broken according to ethnicity, and ethnicity were far less arbitrary than were the lines drawn on maps without any consideration o' the deep political and practical divisions existing between the arab and jewish populations. the partitioning were done specifically in recognition o' ethnicity, duh. how on earth is you gonna come up with a jewish partition that isn't based on ethnicity? did that make sense in your head? 

 

and again, there were no palestinians pre balfour. the notion o' palestinians as a distinct group o' arabs arose contemporaneous with the british mandate and balfour. palestinians were having as much legitimacy as jews insofar as promises made by the brits. lord knows the ottoman empire didn't make any such promises to jew or arab.

 

"And the WW1 british and the UN were idiots.

"Deportation and forced re-location has never, EVER solved a problem in history."

 

we read unscop report. the folks don't sound like idiots, and there were never forced relocation and deportations, save for the jewish settlers who were in excess o' the extreme limited and arab (not palestinian) protective white paper standards. as noted earlier, the arabs left the proposed partition areas and then attacked.

 

that being said, the UN folks did have a clear misunderstanding 'bout the degree to which the arabs in 1947 were resistant to the notion o' an independent jewish homeland anywhere in the middle east and the degree to which jews didn't trust the arabs. the true tragedy being that as unscop observed, "The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfillment now." the brits weren't dumb, but they had decades to learn that the arabs and jews were not gonna be able to exist together. the UN had 3 months to come up with a plan, and we suspect that they very much underestimated the hate that had developed between arabs and jews under the british mandate. the UN folks were smart. maybe that were the problem. smart people could look and see that every would benefit from their plan. rational and reasonable were meaningful to smart folks, but not to the folks in the british mandate.

 

"Never said it was the only standard, BUT body count IS more objective that any other standard you can provide. Especially in the context that most of those bodies belong to civilians."

 

*eye roll*

 

is terrible that you believe what you is saying. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 11, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hormalakh]

http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/

 

The occupied territories are as much Jewish lands as they are Roman, Egyptian, Greek, and Persian lands.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Hormalakh

[BruceVC]

http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/

 

The occupied territories are as much Jewish lands as they are Roman, Egyptian, Greek, and Persian land

 

 

 

Don't mean to offend anyone but when I look at these interminable conflicts like what is going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians I'm so glad I'm an agnostic. End of the day for the more dogmatic people on both sides of  this conflict this is about some area in the desert and some old buildings that both groups feel they have a historical and religious right to. And its very difficult to convince zealots that compromise is the way forward, they don't believe in compromise. So how do you ever really resolve any problem with this type of intransigence ?

[Hormalakh]

it's a fallacy to think that any of this has to do with religion. Religion is just a tool used by politicians to further their own agenda. If you look at those who represent their churches, synagogues, and mosques in the area, you'd see that they aren't the ones who further the bloodshed.

 

Jews Muslims and Christians were all living "peacefully" back when Britain was the big baddie in town.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Oerwinde]

I'm confused by all the "Israel was attacked I the 6 day war" stuff. Everything I've read indicates it was an Israeli sneak attack on the surroundig countries.

[Zoraptor]

so? all o' your wikilinks is very nice and yet still extreme misleading. what is with you people and statistics and maps?

 

By misleading you mean "they don't show what you want". The statistics themselves simply are what they are and you were happy enough to use them when you thought they showed what you wanted, that they don't actually show what you want is unfortunate, for you, but that's all.

 

There are very good reasons for using stats and maps with properly defined regions; it's far more rigorous and objective than appeal to emotion and what any person wishes was true. If you run around arbitrarily defining demographic areas based on particular agenda you can 'prove' just about anything you want, right down to the Armenian family down the road having an ethnic majority in their area, so 32 Jones Street shall now be known as the Republic of Armenia Really Minor heretofore.

 

how on earth is you gonna come up with a jewish partition that isn't based on ethnicity? did that make sense in your head? 

 

Easy, I wouldn't have a partition.

[Walsingham]

I've decided to abandon all the complex philosophical arguments on this issue.

 

The Palestinians' mates keep exploding people from my country. **** those guys.

 

There ya go. My hat is now in the ring.

[AGX-17]

Implying "Palestine" exists? That's not a right proper Israeli point of view. Settlements for one, settlements for all! International law (like how not a single country on Earth aside from Israel recognizes Israeli settlements as legal,) is trumped by "oh yeah? HOLOCAUST! You're an anti-semites if you oppose anything we do!" That's the Anti-Defamation League's ironclad response to any criticism of Israel as a state. Keep pouring those tax dollars into Israel, US government. You're bound to get a return one of these days. Or never. 'Murrica's devotion to capitalism is less solid than some seem to believe (e.g. Israel as a worthwhile investment.)

Edited July 12, 2014 by AGX-17