Civil Fights: The only state in the world whose existence is deemed negotiable

[shira]

To mainstream Israelis, Binyamin Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is self-evidently just. Yet many in the West, the Arab world and even Israel's left reject it utterly.

...

Specifically, they demand the right to relocate 4.6 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants (UNRWA's figure) to Israel - a demand from which they have never budged in 16 years of negotiations. This influx, combined with the 1.5 million Arab citizens, would make its 5.6 million Jews a minority in their own country, effectively eradicating the Jewish state.

...

Moreover, far from being an obstacle to peace, Netanyahu's demand is indeed essential to it - because the Jewish state will never agree to abolish itself via a peace treaty. Hence until the Palestinians stop demanding that it do so, no treaty will be possible.

...

Indeed, the only effect Palestinian recognition of Israel's Jewish character could have on Israeli Arabs is forcing them to abandon the delusion of someday eliminating it via mass Palestinian immigration. But since not even the most sweeping definition of democratic rights includes allowing national minorities to take over their country by importing millions of their fellow nationals, depriving Israeli Arabs of this delusion in no way violates their rights.

cont'd...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184920341&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[provis99]

1. Israel sure is like apartheid-era South Africa

Israel (South Africa) must remain a Jewish (White) state, because the Palestinians (blacks) would take over. So Israel (South Africa) must continue to keep the Palestinians (blacks) in occupied territories (homelands) to keep them under control.

Why do we support Israel again?

[shira]

2. "Mr. Madison, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things...

...I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. There seems to be some mistake - surely this article should be about Palestine?

The existence of Israel, regretable as it is, is not being negotiated; the existence of a Palestinian state sadly is.

[shira]

4. what do you think Palestinian RoR would do to Israel?

[aranthus]

5. What makes you think that he cares?

He's illustrated the big difference between pro-Israelis and Pro-Arabs. Their side regrets Israel's existence and would be very happy if it wasn't there at all.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Half right, half wrong about my views.

I regret Israel's coming into existance; it ceasing to exist now that it does exist would be a humanitarian catastrophe of the first order. It's the difference between sexual abstinence and infanticide.

As to what Arab right of return would do to Israel - it would mean a fundamental change in its nature, it would no longer be able to continue to discriminate against non-Jews as it currently does. The influx of vast numbers of impoverished people would also lead to a drop in average living standards for the current inhabitants, but a corresponding rise in living standards for the returnees, which I think would make it a price worth paying. It would not, however, lead to Israel's destruction, any more than the end of Apartheid was the destruction of South Africa.

But the right of return is not seriously on the negotiating table; it's a negotiating position there to be dropped in exchange for other concessions, just as Netanyahu's refusal to endorse a Palestinian state at all for a long time was.

Israel ceasing to be a "Jewish state" and becoming a non-racist state *would* make me happy, just as South Africa ceasing to be a white state did. There is no chance whatsoever of that, however.

Incidentally, where do you get the idea that most pro-Israelis wouldn't be happy if Palestine simply ceased to exist, and the Palestinians all emmigrated to Jordan or similar?

[shira]

8. the RoR is not just a negotiating position

Palestinian leadership will not budge on the issue. In both 2000 (Arafat vs. Barak) and 2008 (Abbas vs. Olmert), the RoR is the major reason for the sizeable "gap" between the 2 sides in peace negotiations.

Why don't you ask yourself where Palestinian settlements are within the W.Bank or Gaza? They would end the refugee crisis at least within the territories.

Palestinian leadership still don't want the refugee crisis settled, Donald. It's not a bluff. They want to use the refugees as long as possible to ultimately destroy Israel - something the "pro Palestinian" side could care less about. Regional Arab leadership's refusal to take in the refugees shows they're all operating from the same regressive playbook. They're all on the same page (except Jordan, which took refugees in).

RoR is a deal-breaker in negotiations. Israel will never agree to it and the Palestinian side will never agree to give it up after 61 years.

Arab states will never renounce their demand to send back Palestinian refugees to Palestine, that is, to the State of Israel, and some of them, maybe, to the Palestinian Authority. Why? Because these are holy issues.

These refugees define the aspirations of the Arab world, its politics, and its article of faith; this is something that one does not renounce. The demand for returning the refugees is the only common denominator connecting Hizbullah and the Christians in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and it’s worth more than gold.

RoR is far, far more than a negotiation tactic.

The Arab political establishment wishes to realize the “right of return” not for the sake of the Palestinians, heaven forbid, who are hated in most Arab States, but rather, in order to weaken Israel, destroy it from within, and sink it in the sea of returning Palestinians.

For the Arab world, this is not about the fate of the “Palestinians,” but rather, the fate of the “Palestinian problem,” and these are two separate issues: They hate the Palestinians, but admire the Palestinian problem. They hate the refugees, but admire their right of return. The Arab states have not been maintaining the refugee problem for more than 60 years in order to renounce it.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3735075,00.html

[aranthus]

12. There is a huge difference in Pro-Israeli vs Pro-Arab

Most pro-Israelis I know recognize the Palestinian right to self determination and a state of their own. I don't think a Palestinian state is inherently racist just because it would maintain a Palestinian identity and culture. Pro-Arabs on the other hand, reject the legitimacy of Israel. You claim (falsely) that it is racist, and make the false comparison of Jewish state to White state. What you object to is the Jewishness of Israel. That's a position that virtual any believing Jew would consider to be antisemitic per se.

And as others have already noted, the ROR is not merely a negotiating position.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sezu]

9. Regretable? Mask slipping?

:puke:

[shira]

10. yeah, Jews should have stayed in Europe, Russia, Arab lands, etc...

and just accepted the hospitality of their gracious hosts. :puke:

It's not like Jews have ANY historical claim to the land that makes up Israel. There were, like, ZERO Jews there from the 1st century up until the Holocaust, you know!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Here's a table you might find interesting...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html

So yes, I think that those Jews as a people have no meaningful claim to the land of Israel, although the minority of Jews who lived there or had ancestors pre-Israel have a right to be equal citizens there - the fact that many of them had ancestors who lived there 2000 years ago is entirely irrelevant. Israel is a 19th-21st century colonial exercise; the fact that it shares a name with a biblical state in the same region does not give it any legitimacy.

[shira]

18. why do you think the non-jewish population increased so much until 1946?

[Ken Burch]

14. Again with the "slipping mask" meme?

Can somebody come up with a different metaphor here, people?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. What mask?

As I have always made absolutely clear, I think that the foundation of Israel was both a crime and a catastrophe, and I wish it had never happened.

That does not, of course, mean that I want to see it destroyed - destroying it now would be wrong for exactly the same reasons creating it was.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Don't you think the same could be said of most countries?

Modern England was created through invasion; the United Kingdom became United through conquests.

The USA was in part built on slavery and on true genocide of the native peoples.

Etc.

My own view is that it's not really relevant whether any country 'should' have ever existed in its present form - probably the answer is in most cases No if one wants to go into it. You have to live with the world as it exists. What is relevant right now is whether a Palestinian state can and should exist (my answer being a resounding Yes, despite my lack of enthusiasm for current leadership), and, if so, how this can and should be implemented.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Yes, absolutely.

I'm ashamed to say I don't know enough about English history pre-1066 to have an informed opinion on the ethics of English unification or the Norman conquest, but the English conquest of Wales and the British conquest of Ireland were both clearly atrocities (the union of England and Scotland, by contrast, was on balance a good thing, I think, as it happened by accident of birth rather than by conquest and ended intercenine border warfare).

The US has its roots in genocide of the natives; Australia is not much better; the partition of India and Pakistan killed of the order of a million people.

Creating and destroying nations, or moving national boundaries, is usually a bad thing; most of the exceptions are cases of granting an oppressed or conquered minority population more self-governance (Kosovo, East Timor, Palestine, the kurds, the disolution of the British Empire - although while the last one was clearly absolutely the right thing to do, it appears to have not been done as well as it might have been - an awful lot of post-imperial states are "failed states").

The difference between the crime of founding Israel and the crimes of founding the UK, the US etc is that some of the original criminals and their victims, and many of their close descendants are still alive. I believe that a people aquire a right to a land through length of occupancy, "maxing out" after a few hundred years - Americans of European descent have as much right to the land now as Americans of American Indian descent; Northern Irish Protestants are as Northern Irish as Northern Irish Catholics, and so on.

Today's Israeli settlers have no right to the land they live on, and I want to see them expelled, but if their great-great-grandchildren are still there then they will have a right to remain. That's one of the reasons I think solving the middle east crisis is urgent.

[shira]

21. Donald, let's admit Israel came into being by an International consensus rather than conquest

and that not until your British govt installed Al-Hussayni was there any real problem between the Jews and Arabs of Israel. The point being, Israel was declared the national home of the Jews, it could have worked, but the British authorities saw to it that it did not, and installed VERY radical and extreme leadership that not only attacked Jews but also destroyed the Arab moderate movement in Palestine that was working to ensure that a Jewish homeland could succeed.

Had you lived when the Faisal-Weismann agreement was struck and Palestinians were working with Jews to ensure the success of a Jewish homeland.....BEFORE al-Hussayni was installed.....you would have still been against a Jewish state there?

[kayecy]

23. "Israel was declared the national home of the Jews"......By whom?....

Israel was declared the national home of the Jews

By whom?....Who gave them the authority?....Was there any mention of a 'Jewish State'?



"International concensus"?.....Did the people most concerned (ie the Palestinian indigenous residents and the neighbouring Arabs) approve?

And one final question, can you honestly say that the Balfour declaration or anything like it would be accepted internationally today?

[shira]

24. League of Nations and then finally, the UN

the same authority that carved out Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc... was the very same authority responsible for Israel.

Who do you believe to be the better Palestinian authority between Faisal and al-Hussayni?

[kayecy]

29. League of (which) Nations?....

League of (which) Nations?...Did the League consult the Arab populations of the Middle East or was it simply what suited the Great Powers of the time?....Surely you know that the League was devised and controlled by Britain & France for their own interests?

Israel must be the only state that still quotes that failed institution to justify its existence.....Who gave the League the authority to deny Palestinian self-determination when the other Middle East peoples (Jordan, Iraq, Syria etc) were set on the path to independence?

[shira]

32. the Int'l consensus of that time period, just as the UN was in 1948.

and AFAIK, there wasn't really any consensus taken at that time anywhere. Face it, Israel did nothing illegal and worked within the institutions of that time period.

Palestinian self-determination was given in the state of Jordan, and later in 1948 before they rejected it.

-------

Once again, who better represented Palestinians....Faisal or al-Hussayni?

[kayecy]

33. If you don't like it, just move to Jordan ........

Palestinian self-determination was given in the state of Jordan, and later in 1948 before they rejected it.

And the Palestinians living West of the Jordan River in 1948?.....Where was their self-determination?.....Just make way for lots of immigrants with no claim to the land.....If you don't like it, just move to Jordan and forget the land where you and your father were born seems to be your attitude....Between Israel and the Hashmite Kingdom, all possibility of Palestinian self-rule was eliminated.

Israel did nothing illegal and worked within the institutions at the time.

and cared not a jot about morality or what its impact was on the locals....

[shira]

36. or what was partitioned in 1948 to Palestine, but rejected

Not one Arab had to pick up and move if they chose not to do so. They could have stayed within the new state of Israel or moved to the new Palestine if that's what they wished....or of course, Jordan. That wasn't good enough for the al-Hussaynis of the Arab world, however.

You mention morality? Impact on locals? What's more moral....to live under a dictatorship as a slave to tyrannical thugs or live in a free democracy? Morality and impact on locals was tossed aside when the British installed al-Hussayni and it's been horrible ever since for the Arabs of that region due to the "moral" West supporting al-Hussayni, the PLO, and now the PA (and indirectly Hamas). Don't give me morals when the West is directly funding terror orgs....and is now about to arm Lebanon to the teeth, which will undoubtedly strengthen Hezbollah (which is incidentally against Int'l Law and every bit as immoral as ANYTHING Israel has ever done since that extreme leadership is hardest on Arab civilians and will only extend their suffering).

The installation of al-Hussayni and everyone rotten ever since has nothing to do with the Jews of Israel, who were getting along just fine with the local Arabs before al-Hussayni.

------

3rd and last time....who better represented Palestinians, al-Hussayni or Faisal? why do you keep avoiding this question? I won't answer you again until you address this.

[kayecy]

37. The West bombed Serbia to make it take back the Kosovo Albanian refugees......

Not one Arab had to pick up and move if they chose not to do so. They could have stayed within the new state of Israel or moved to the new Palestine if that's what they wished...

The West bombed Serbia to make it take back the Kosovo Albanian refugees....Israel seems to have a license to refuse refugees their right to return home and you have the gall to say “Not one Arab had to pick up and move if they chose not to do so.”...You obviously have no idea what it must be like to be a terrified civilian caught up in a conflict.

You mention morality? Impact on locals? What's more moral....to live under a dictatorship as a slave to tyrannical thugs or live in a free democracy.

Which is more moral...,To occupy and dictate to a people their future or to leave them free to chose their own destiny?....Only a Zionist could put forward such a bankrupt argument to attempt to justify the massive immigration into Palestine undertaken in 1920-1936.

The installation of al-Hussayni and everyone rotten ever since has nothing to do with the Jews of Israel, who were getting along just fine with the local Arabs before al-Hussayni.

Not true...There was already anti-Jewish feeling in Palestine before WW1. This increased as a result of Balfour and the massive Zionist immigration...al-Hussayni was merely a leader of the anti-Zionists...Don’t confuse cause and effect.

3rd and last time....who better represented Palestinians, al-Hussayni or Faisal? why do you keep avoiding this question? I won't answer you again until you address this

Al-Husayni was a Palestinian and the 1936 Arab revolt gained the Palestinians the support of the wider Arab world.....Faisal was not a Palestinian and according to Weizmann, Faisal was ‘contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs.’

Does that answer your question?


Now how about answering the question I asked earlier?...Do you honestly think that if a statement like the Balfour declaration were made today it would be accepted as fair and reasonable by the UN or anyone else?...A statement that forced the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, uniquely amongst Middle East peoples, to forgo their right to self-determination?

[shira]

39. so, relevance?

The West bombed Serbia to make it take back the Kosovo Albanian refugees....Israel seems to have a license to refuse refugees their right to return home and you have the gall to say “Not one Arab had to pick up and move if they chose not to do so.”...You obviously have no idea what it must be like to be a terrified civilian caught up in a conflict.

Israel refuses to allow hostile refugees back - just like Czechoslavkia didn't allow German hostiles back either. And many Arabs, just as all Jews did, stayed and have stayed in Israel ever since.


Only a Zionist could put forward such a bankrupt argument to attempt to justify the massive immigration into Palestine undertaken in 1920-1936.

only a hater would deny refuge to Jews knowing how they were discriminated against, murdered EVERYWHERE, and had nowhere else to go but their historic homeland where Jews already made up the majority of Jerusalem, for example.

Not true...There was already anti-Jewish feeling in Palestine before WW1. This increased as a result of Balfour and the massive Zionist immigration...al-Hussayni was merely a leader of the anti-Zionists...Don’t confuse cause and effect.

al-Hussayni was opposed by Palestinian leadership of that day who thought he was nothing but a thug, so he really wasn't so representative...and then he killed those guys because they weren't warmongering assholes like he was.

Brits messed up, didn't they? they should have left the more moderate Pal'n leadership there and maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today with the PLO, Hamas, etc..

according to Weizmann, Faisal was ‘contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs.’

at least he didn't kill off moderate Pal'n Arabs like al-Hussayni....who proved he was more contemptuous of Palestinians than Faisal.

Now how about answering the question I asked earlier?...Do you honestly think that if a statement like the Balfour declaration were made today it would be accepted as fair and reasonable by the UN or anyone else?...A statement that forced the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, uniquely amongst Middle East peoples, to forgo their right to self-determination?

today as we know it, no.

then, yes....times were FAR more desperate for Jews back then....if there were no Jewish state in 1948 after the holocaust and Jews still had it bad worldwide today as they did then, then maybe.

and I don't see how establishing a democratic Jewish state (where Arabs could vote and attain leadership roles) side-by-side with a Palestinian state is a denial of Palestinian self-determination, which BTW they never had under Turkish domination.

[kayecy]

43. And can any Palestinian refugee return who can prove he is not ‘hostile'?...

Israel refuses to allow hostile refugees back - just like Czechoslavkia didn't allow German hostiles back either.

Czechoslovakia was 60 years ago and has been criticized many times for its action....Kosovo was 12 years ago and had the support of most western states including Israel....

Are you now claiming that Israel would let any Palestinian refugee back who could prove he was not ‘hostile’?.....I suggest it is just you trying to justify the unjustifiable.

only a hater would deny refuge to Jews knowing how they were discriminated against, murdered EVERYWHERE

What a baseless accusation!...I strongly believe that the Jews should have a national home and a place of refuge, and would have supported Balfour if he had said there should be a Jewish homeland in Britain, Argentina, the USA or Australia etc where people were free to negotiate an allocation of land for the Jews...Instead, he accepted Rothschild’s draft that proposed Palestine where the locals had made it clear they did not wish to be flooded out by Jewish immigrants, but where Britain could force them to accept Jewish refugees.

today as we know it, no. then, yes....times were FAR more desperate for Jews back then....if there were no Jewish state in 1948 after the holocaust and Jews still had it bad worldwide today as they did then, then maybe.

At least you have the decency to admit that Balfour would not be acceptable today....So by today’s enlightened view of human rights, Balfour and the Zionists were wrong.....Yes Zionists were being persecuted but the Great Powers had a duty to help them....Not to force Jewish refugees on impotent Palestinians....

However, they did just that and it should now be the responsibility of the present 'Great Powers' and Israel to make amends for the subjugation forced on the 1920s inhabitants of Palestine.

[shira]

45. how do you go about doing that? where do you draw the line?

Czechoslovakia was 60 years ago and has been criticized many times for its action

1948 was 60 years ago too....and has been criticized 1000x more than Czechoslovakia was for not allowing Germans back. It's a double-standard.

Are you now claiming that Israel would let any Palestinian refugee back who could prove he was not ‘hostile’?.....I suggest it is just you trying to justify the unjustifiable.

No. But anyone, including any Arab (not Pal'n) can apply for citizenship within Israel and the rules are similar to any other nation. It's not like Israel only allows Jews to become citizens. Nothing racist there, sorry, try again.


What a baseless accusation!...I strongly believe that the Jews should have a national home and a place of refuge, and would have supported Balfour if he had said there should be a Jewish homeland in Britain, Argentina, the USA or Australia etc where people were free to negotiate an allocation of land for the Jews...Instead, he accepted Rothschild’s draft that proposed Palestine where the locals had made it clear they did not wish to be flooded out by Jewish immigrants, but where Britain could force them to accept Jewish refugees.

oh please....there was NO movement to give Jews a national homeland anywhere else in the world (deal with reality, okay) and there was already a Jewish majority in Jerusalem as far back as the mid 19th century. And once again, not until the British installed al-Hussayni into power was there any great problem between the local arabs and jews.

would you have been for or against the British White paper (late 1930's)?

At least you have the decency to admit that Balfour would not be acceptable today....So by today’s enlightened view of human rights, Balfour and the Zionists were wrong.....Yes Zionists were being persecuted but the Great Powers had a duty to help them....Not to force Jewish refugees on impotent Palestinians....

it wouldn't be acceptable if Jews were SAFE and didn't require a special homeland....if the situation today was like 60 years ago, then I believe there's a very good chance it would be accepted.

Regardless, Israel did nothing legally wrong back then...they did not 'conquer', they were voted in by Int'l consensus - which makes their founding more legit than any other nation who did it by conquest.

However, they did just that and it should now be the responsibility of the present 'Great Powers' and Israel to make amends for the subjugation forced on the 1920s inhabitants of Palestine.

right, 2 states for 2 people...you seem to be against that.

also, you bring up rights of 1920's Palestinians....but according to local authorities of that time, Arabs within the green line considered themselves southern Syrians.

[kayecy]

47. Where is the double standard?.....

1948 was 60 years ago too....and has been criticized 1000x more than Czechoslovakia was for not allowing Germans back. It's a double-standard.

Where is the double standard?.....Czechoslovakia has been criticized and now accepts any German who wishes to take up residency there....Israel has been criticized and does nothing about it .....The Czechs have changed their position...Israel has not and declares it has no intention of ever doing so....

Have you another justification for not letting the refugees return?....

No. But anyone, including any Arab (not Pal'n) can apply for citizenship within Israel and the rules are similar to any other nation.

So you admit the Law of Return is racist? – anyone but a Palestinian Arab!....A man with a Jewish mother has the right to take up residence (even if he has a criminal record providing he is not a danger to national welfare), but not an honest, non-hostile Arab whose father was born there?.......Why?

... oh please....there was NO movement to give Jews a national homeland anywhere else in the world (deal with reality, okay) and there was already a Jewish majority in Jerusalem as far back as the mid 19th century.

Not true......There were many proposals for a Jewish homeland....The 1905 Jewish Territorial Organization wanted Britain to allocate them an area in the highlands of Kenya...Rothschild himself at this time promoted Jewish agricultural colonies in Canada and Argentina. (p17, Churchill and The Jews – Martin Gilbert)...Even Sinai and Galvaston, Texas were considered, not to mention Birobidzhan, Russia.

I deal with reality...You seem to make up facts as you go along.

..... and there was already a Jewish majority in Jerusalem as far back as the mid 19th century.

What has the Jewish majority of Jerusalem got to do with the matter?...The Zionists were not just trying to colonize Jerusalem!.....They were determined to take over the whole of Palestine where there was definitely nothing like a Jewish majority....True, there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem, but in the area that was to become Mandate Palestine the proportion of Jews never exceeded 15% ....until the Zionists instituted their program of massive immigration.

...... also, you bring up rights of 1920's Palestinians....but according to local authorities of that time, Arabs within the green line considered themselves southern Syrians

No!....I brought up the rights of all the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine...Whether they considered themselves Arabs, Jews, Turks or Syrians is immaterial.....The Zionists were bent on removing any hope of self-determination for the local residents until they had flooded the place with immigrant Jews and achieved an artificial Jewish majority....
.
.

[shira]

50. Germans have been no threat to Czechs for a long time.....Paln's are still openly hostile to Israel

The law of return isn't racist. Any Arab can apply for Israeli citizenship and be treated as any other non-Jew applying for Israeli citizenship.

What happened to those proposals for homelands? They didn't materialize, did they? And wouldn't such a proposal elsewhere trample the rights of any indigenous people living in those proposed areas? Do they get to vote or are they shit out of luck?

By the time Jews were coming into Israel in great numbers, the League of Nations had already designated it the Jewish homeland. Why shouldn't they have gone there in great numbers to avoid persecution? No one else was taking them in great numbers at the time.

Once again - would you have voted for or against the British White Paper? Please answer this time.

[kayecy]

51. The homeland proposals didn’t materialize because the Zionists weren’t interested…

Germans have been no threat to Czechs for a long time.....Paln's are still openly hostile to Israel

The Germans stopped occupying Czechoslovakia 60 years ago…Perhaps the Palestinians would now be less hostile to Israel if it had withdrawn from all Palestinian lands even 40 years ago…Please don’t cite the Gaza withdrawal as an example…You know as well as I do that Gaza is nothing more than a jail where even the sea and land borders have never been fully opened...Even the UN considers Gaza to be still occupied territory.

The law of return isn't racist. Any Arab can apply for Israeli citizenship and be treated as any other non-Jew applying for Israeli citizenship.

The Law of Return only applies to people with a Jewish mother - ie a member of a particular hereditary group…Any other race must apply (and in the case of a Palestinian Arab - be rejected)

How can a hereditary condition be other than racist?

What happened to those proposals for homelands? They didn't materialize, did they?

They didn’t materialize because the Zionists weren’t interested...Churchill tried to persuade them that Kenya would be less of a problem than Palestine (which in 1910 was much more densely populated than the US) but the Zionists were set on Palestine or nothing, and the ‘Territorialist’ Jews were defeated.

And wouldn't such a proposal elsewhere trample the rights of any indigenous people living in those proposed areas?

First you say “there was NO movement to give Jews a national homeland anywhere else in the world” and now you suggest that the “non-existent proposals” would trample on the rights of indigenous peoples!....OK, let’s start with Canada and Argentina – They were both democracies with people able to vote out their governments if they proposed to accept something the voters didn’t like...Now look at the Kenyan highlands...The highlands were almost completely uninhabited in 1910 unlike Palestine with its 500,000 population.

Why shouldn't they have gone there (Palestine)in great numbers to avoid persecution? No one else was taking them in great numbers at the time.

Don’t get me wrong...If I had been a persecuted Jew in the 1920s, I too might have elected to emigrate to Palestine but I hope I would be aware that Zionist immigration to Palestine was unwanted by the indigenous population and that Zionist leaders were determined Jews would become a majority and so rule the place...I hope that I and my fellow ordinary Jews would realize we owed Palestinians a debt for being forced to accept Jews when nowhere else in the world would do so.

My complain against Israel is that it does not accept that Palestinians suffered a major wrong because of the situation the Jews found themselves in pre WW2 and far from seeking to redress that wrong, Israel insists that Palestinian refugees have no right to live in the villages where their fore-fathers were born...Israel subjects non-Israeli Arabs to military law and illegally builds more and more settler houses outside the green line…

Don’t you think it is about time Israel recognized the debt it owes the indigenous residents of Palestine?

Once again - would you have voted for or against the British White Paper? Please answer this time.

If you are going to ask my opinion on historical documents, at least have the courtesy to give a reference for the document…

To my knowledge, there are two British White Papers on Palestine, one in 1922 the other in 1939…Which one are you referring to?
.
.

[shira]

54. because during Ottoman rule, there was no movement to disenfranchise an indigenous people

1. Do you realize how comical it is to imply that Jews wanted to overrun Palestine during the time of brutal Ottoman rule?

2. Perhaps Palestinians would be less hostile if not for occupation? Then what explains the '67 war?

3. Since Israel treats Arab immigrants just as they would African or Asian, what's racist about that? Because they give first dibs to persecuted and homeless Jews?

Realize these privileges happen all over the West (from WIKI):

In addition to Israel, several other countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries. Examples include Germany<19>, Ireland, Serbia, Greece, Japan, Turkey, Spain, Chile, Finland and the United Kingdom, where those with an ancestor who was a citizen (typically a grandparent or closer) can immigrate more easily than others. (See Right of return and Repatriation laws.)....

The Israeli law is perhaps most similar to the Greek law, in that neither requires an ancestor who had citizenship or who was born in the "homeland," requiring, rather, evidence of membership in the ethnic and religious community of the far-flung, ancient Greek diaspora.

so all these other countries are racist too, according to you?

4. 1939 British white paper.

5. As for owing some debt to the indigenous people of the land, that is what this current peace process is all about, isn't it - offering and ensuring them their own self-determination in exchange for peace? And it's not Israel's fault that Pal'n refugees still live in rotten camps throughout the Arab world - they should have been absorbed into those populations long ago. In fact, it's not Israel's fault that refugees in camps throughout Gaza and the W.Bank are still there, given the $$$ BILLIONS $$$ in aid the PA has received since Oslo.

We all know why Palestinian refugees still have that status after 61 years. In a test of your credibility, I challenge you to honestly explain WHY they're still out there and homeless after all this time.

[kayecy]

56. Palestinians wishing to return to their villages are not immigrants .....they refugees.....

Do you realize how comical it is to imply that Jews wanted to overrun Palestine during the time of brutal Ottoman rule?

I don’t wish to cast a damper on your hilarity, but where exactly did I imply that?

Perhaps Palestinians would be less hostile if not for occupation? Then what explains the '67 war?

You ask “Then what explains the 1967 war?”...Do you really want to go into Israel’s attack on Egypt?...What relevance has it to Palestinian hostility caused by the occupation?

Since Israel treats Arab immigrants just as they would African or Asian, what's racist about that? Because they give first dibs to persecuted and homeless Jews?

First - The Palestinians wishing to return to their villages are not immigrants – they are returning refugees with all the international rights associated with being refugees….You comparing them to African and Asian immigrants is an insult to them.

Second – Many of the olim since 1980 have been from Europe and the Bronx – hardly places where Jews are being persecuted… They would not seem to qualify as “persecuted and homeless Jews”.

In addition to Israel, several other countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries. Examples include Germany<19>, Ireland, Serbia, Greece, Japan, Turkey, Spain, Chile, Finland and the United Kingdom, where those with an ancestor who was a citizen (typically a grandparent or closer) can immigrate more easily than others.

You are correct in that most countries give preference to people with an ancestral connection to the country concerned….Israel however, does the exact opposite…It gives no preference to those people whose forefathers were born there and in fact has declared they will never have a right to live in Israel.

Instead, Israel gives preference to people with Jewish mothers, many of whom have no proof of any ancestral connection to Palestine.

I ask you again - Why does Israel do this?...Is it simply to ensure that the Jewish race remains dominant in Israel?

1939 British white paper.

I have made it clear that Balfour was wrong to force Palestinians to accept unlimited Zionist immigration…The 1939 white paper made some attempt to recover the situation but failed to offer refugee Jews sanctuary in other parts of the world.

I would expect world Jewry to condemn the restrictions on immigration imposed by the USA, etc but for some reason they do not do so….Why?

As for owing some debt to the indigenous people of the land, that is what this current peace process is all about, isn't it - offering and ensuring them their own self-determination

I am glad to see you acknowledge that Israeli Jews owe some debt to the indigenous people of Palestine.

I might have guessed that your idea of re-paying this debt would be to simply offer them a small part of their own land and agree that they could have sovereignty (limited!) which they would have had anyway if the Zionists had not forced themselves onto Palestine.

Remind me never to rescue a drowning Israeli – He’d probably end up stealing my boat and then think he was repaying his debt by tossing me the life belt!

We all know why Palestinian refugees still have that status after 61 years. In a test of your credibility, I challenge you to honestly explain WHY they're still out there and homeless after all this time.

Some challenge!.....Like any other state, Israel has an obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes…..It has consistently failed to do so and that is why after 61 years they are still in refugee camps.
.

[shira]

57. the originals from 1948 are refugees, their children are not

I don’t wish to cast a damper on your hilarity, but where exactly did I imply that?

You imply that well before 1920, when there was some slim chance of a Jewish homeland being somewhere else in 1905 or 1910 that Jewish leadership nixed the idea b/c they were a bit more interested in disenfranchising the indigenous people of Palestine under Ottoman rule. Therefore, the Jews of that time thought they could pull a fast one over on the Ottoman Empire, maybe defeat them militarily, take Israel by force.

:eyes:

You ask “Then what explains the 1967 war?”...Do you really want to go into Israel’s attack on Egypt?...What relevance has it to Palestinian hostility caused by the occupation?

What does Israel's attack on Egypt have to do with anything? You believe Israel should have waited until their civilian population centers were bombed first? Israel didn't attack Jordan first....and that's what resulted in the W.Bank being taken. The point is, you believe regional Arabs would be less hostile to Israel if there wasn't an occupation - and you know that's a dumb, false assertion.

First - The Palestinians wishing to return to their villages are not immigrants – they are returning refugees with all the international rights associated with being refugees….You comparing them to African and Asian immigrants is an insult to them.

Palestinians from 1948 are refugees, not their children - they'd be immigrants, don't you agree? And there wouldn't be refugees had there not been an Arab war of aggression against Israel in 1948. Many chose to split due to Arab pressure, but many also chose remain in Israel and are still there.

Second – Many of the olim since 1980 have been from Europe and the Bronx – hardly places where Jews are being persecuted… They would not seem to qualify as “persecuted and homeless Jews”.

True, but what do you do with those who are persecuted and homeless? Right, they're shit outta luck in your world view.

You are correct in that most countries give preference to people with an ancestral connection to the country concerned….Israel however, does the exact opposite…It gives no preference to those people whose forefathers were born there and in fact has declared they will never have a right to live in Israel.

You know the only reason they REMAIN refugees and that's not Israel's fault. I asked before, why didn't you answer - why have they remained refugees the past 61 years? Why weren't they absorbed into other countries as all other refugees from that far back in history?

I ask you again - Why does Israel do this?...Is it simply to ensure that the Jewish race remains dominant in Israel?

Yeah, that's it....has nothing to do with historical persecution, that's so yesterday and doesn't happen anymore.

I have made it clear that Balfour was wrong to force Palestinians to accept unlimited Zionist immigration…The 1939 white paper made some attempt to recover the situation but failed to offer refugee Jews sanctuary in other parts of the world.

So would you have voted in favor of the 1939 british white paper? Yes or No?

I would expect world Jewry to condemn the restrictions on immigration imposed by the USA, etc but for some reason they do not do so….Why?

condemn the USA's immigration policy regarding Jews or all people? I don't understand the question.

I might have guessed that your idea of re-paying this debt would be to simply offer them a small part of their own land and agree that they could have sovereignty (limited!) which they would have had anyway if the Zionists had not forced themselves onto Palestine.

right, zionists - meaning jews - forced themselves onto Palestine during Ottoman rule in some conspiracy to overthrow the Turks and steal Palestine from them. :eyes:

oh, but maybe you mean 1920's- 1930's immigration....by then there was already Int'l consensus on a Jewish homeland there. No zionists 'forcing' themselves onto Palestine, but rather immigration BASED ON that Int'l consensus (League of Nations decision).

Remind me never to rescue a drowning Israeli – He’d probably end up stealing my boat and then think he was repaying his debt by tossing me the life belt!

you typify the mindset of the most hardline Arab leadership.....this conflict will NEVER be resolved if you cannot in any way admit that the Jews' claim to Israel is as legitimate and just as Palestinian claims. Reminds me of Arafat denying the Jewish Temple ever existed in Jerusalem - in an effort to show that Jews have ZERO claims to the land. Or those who say Jews are really Khazars and not the descendents of Jews who have always lived in Israel. Helps when they make their claims about jews "stealing" land...they're thieves because they're not really Jews, it was never their land, there was no Temple, etc. You're no different from them.

Some challenge!.....Like any other state, Israel has an obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes…..It has consistently failed to do so and that is why after 61 years they are still in refugee camps.

Refugees have been absorbed into other countries the past 61 years but the Palestinian problem is different - why?

You think Palestinians are still in refugee camps WITHIN gaza and the w.bank due to Israel, after BILLIONS of dollars have been given to PA leadership the past 2 decades? With those billions, Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the W.Bank could be living in their own settlements by now. But they're still refugees, just like Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

[kayecy]

59. You clearly need to read up on your Zionist history!.......

You imply that well before 1920, when there was some slim chance of a Jewish homeland being somewhere else in 1905 or 1910 that Jewish leadership nixed the idea b/c they were a bit more interested in disenfranchising the indigenous people of Palestine under Ottoman rule.

You clearly need to read up on your Zionist history!... At the 1903 Sixth Zionist Congress, there was much debate as to whether Uganda or Palestine should be the Jewish Homeland...At the 1905 Seventh Zionist Congress (Basel), it was agreed to rule out anywhere but Palestine as the object for Zionism.

The point is, you believe regional Arabs would be less hostile to Israel if there wasn't an occupation - and you know that's a dumb, false assertion.

Do, please, read what I write before you accuse me of false assertions…I merely suggested that Palestinians (NOT regional Arabs) would probably be less hostile if Israel had ceased its occupation 40 years ago (ie shortly after the occupation of the West Bank)

Palestinians from 1948 are refugees

Well at least that is something we can agree on….Why do you insist on lumping them together with African and Asian immigrants?

You know the only reason they REMAIN refugees and that's not Israel's fault. I asked before, why didn't you answer - why have they remained refugees the past 61 years?

I have already answered that question:… Like any other state, Israel has an obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes.

Why weren't they absorbed into other countries as all other refugees from that far back in history?

What legal obligation have other countries to absorb refugees created during Israel’s wars?
Most refugees are allowed back to their place of birth…You have only given me one example so far (Czechoslovakia) and that is no longer true....What do you mean by “…all other refugees from far back in history”?

I asked: ….“Why does Israel do this?...Is it simply to ensure that the Jewish race remains dominant in Israel?”
You replied:…. “Yeah, that's it”

A rather grudging admission, but I am pleased to know that you now accept that the Law of Return is racial discrimination.

So would you have voted in favor of the 1939 british white paper? Yes or No?

Yes – but I would also have voted against the 1924 US Immigration Act which limited Jewish immigration to the USA.

Now a question for you:...Would you have voted for the Israeli legislation that allowed Israelis to build settlements in the West Bank after 1967?

....oh, but maybe you mean 1920's- 1930's immigration....by then there was already Int'l consensus on a Jewish homeland there. No zionists 'forcing' themselves onto Palestine

And the clearly expressed wishes of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine didn’t matter?...When they rioted in protest, that was not due to the Zionists forcing themselves onto Palestine?......Did your “International concensus” take any account of the conclusions of the 1920 US King-Crane Commission report?:

“In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”
.
Some International consensus!
.

[shira]

60. please respond to my posts below before responding to this one

you know, the ones about how the West is "way more" ethical than Israel....and about whether you are the occupied or occupier in Nicosia, Cyprus?

You clearly need to read up on your Zionist history!... At the 1903 Sixth Zionist Congress, there was much debate as to whether Uganda or Palestine should be the Jewish Homeland...At the 1905 Seventh Zionist Congress (Basel), it was agreed to rule out anywhere but Palestine as the object for Zionism.

exactly...and the Ottomans had been ruling for 4 centuries with no signs of letting up, so it's silly to maintain from the beginning that the "zionists" had some grand scheme of displacing the indigenous people of that area....they would have to go through the brutal Turkish Empire first - which would be suicidal. It's silly to maintain that the earliest "zionists" had ill intent.

Do, please, read what I write before you accuse me of false assertions…I merely suggested that Palestinians (NOT regional Arabs) would probably be less hostile if Israel had ceased its occupation 40 years ago (ie shortly after the occupation of the West Bank)

Israel tried at Khartoum. Remember the 3 no's? Read up on your history.

Why do you insist on lumping them together with African and Asian immigrants?

you're the one calling Israel racist so I brought up Africans and Asians as well as Hispanics and non-Palestinian Arabs. There's nothing racist about Israel's policies.

I have already answered that question:… Like any other state, Israel has an obligation to allow refugees to return to their homes.

What legal obligation have other countries to absorb refugees created during Israel’s wars?
Most refugees are allowed back to their place of birth…You have only given me one example so far (Czechoslovakia) and that is no longer true....What do you mean by “…all other refugees from far back in history”?

Either you're ignorant of history or deliberately disingenuous.

- 300,000 turkish muslims pressured to leave bulgaria in the 80's....where's their right of return...being from Nicosia, Cyprus you should be aware of these recent events.

- balkan wars of 1912-15, some 600,000 bulgarians, greeks, and turks were displaced...no right of return....again, being from Nicosia Cyprus, this is something you may already be familiar with.

- during/after ww2, hundreds of thousands of serbs, hungarians, and bulgarians displaced....no right of return.

- after ww2, over 1 million poles and ukranians switched over in a population swap...no right of return

- due to ww2, some 12-16 million ethnic germans tossed out of the Sudetenland, Romania, Hungary and Poland...no right of return

- hundreds of thousands of serbs, croats, and albanians displaced from croatia of the 90's....still unresolved.

- india/pakistan, some 14 million refugees swapped...none who have refugee status today, no right of return

- within the last 20 years, some 700,000 armenian muslims still languish in Azerbaijan refugee camps.

- millions fleeing Sudan recently for Chad.

- finally, 200 thousand ethnic Greeks moved to the Greek side of Cyprus, the same Cyprus you apparently live in today. where's your outrage at that?

=============

why can't you admit that Pal'n refugees remain in that status due to regional Arab wishes to destroy Israel by flooding them with these refugees? what else could be the reason for Pal'n leadership not using their BILLIONS in aid to house refugees from gaza and the w.bank the past 15 years?

=============


I asked: ….“Why does Israel do this?...Is it simply to ensure that the Jewish race remains dominant in Israel?”
You replied:…. “Yeah, that's it”
A rather grudging admission, but I am pleased to know that you now accept that the Law of Return is racial discrimination.

That was sarcasm, genius.

So would you have voted in favor of the 1939 british white paper? Yes or No?
Yes – but I would also have voted against the 1924 US Immigration Act which limited Jewish immigration to the USA.

but by 1939, there wasn't an option to repeal the 1924 US immigration act. You'd have therefore sentenced hundreds of thousands of jews to their fate in death camps.

nice.

Now a question for you:...Would you have voted for the Israeli legislation that allowed Israelis to build settlements in the West Bank after 1967?

No.

And the clearly expressed wishes of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine didn’t matter?...When they rioted in protest, that was not due to the Zionists forcing themselves onto Palestine?......

which of the indigenous protested fiercely? those encouraged by al-Hussayni and his freak patrol?

Did your “International concensus” take any account of the conclusions of the 1920 US King-Crane Commission report?:

that Int'l consensus was 1922, League of Nations, 2 years after the King-Crane Com. report.

[kayecy]

64. What did the Zionists hope to do as a result of their 1905 decision to go for Palestine?........

..please respond to my posts below before responding to this one

Done – That sub-thread is closed unless you wish to write to yourself....

I am not prepared to waste time discussing such extremist rubbish...

...and about whether you are the occupied or occupier in Nicosia, Cyprus?

My argument is based on humanist principles and fairness which have nothing to do with my residence, ethnicity, nationality or religious affiliation....If you wish to relate the Cyprus refugee situation to the Israel/Palestinian situation I will answer you.

....so it's silly to maintain from the beginning that the "zionists" had some grand scheme of displacing the indigenous people of that area

Tell me....What did the Zionists hope to do as a result of their decision to pursue a Jewish homeland in Palestine at their 1905 Congress.....Visit Palestine as tourists?

There's nothing racist about Israel's policies

So instead of sarcasm, why don’t you honestly answer the question I asked?

“Why does Israel not allow Palestinian refugees to return to their villages in what is now Israel?...Is it simply to ensure that the Jewish race remains dominant in Israel?”

..why can't you admit that Pal'n refugees remain in that status due to regional Arab wishes to destroy Israel by flooding them with these refugees?

As I said...What law requires a state to take in refugees resulting from Israel’s wars?...

Israel has a legal obligation to take back the Arab refugees. (Article 11 UN Resolution 194 “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date)

.... which of the indigenous protested fiercely? those encouraged by al-Hussayni and his freak patrol?

That is a silly question meant to imply that most indigenous inhabitants did not object to Zionist immigrants....Have you any support for that?.....I offered the King-Crane Commission report...Let me give you another extract:

“.... then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole-are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine was more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the peoples' rights, though it kept within the forms of law.”

That makes it quite clear I think, but perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
.

[Dick Dastardly]

55. This is baseless nonsense devoid of anything factual and full of hyperbole

Arab immigration was even higher than Jewish immigration as stated in various contemporary reports from the time such as the White Paper, The Hope Simpson report, The Haycraft report and the Peel Royal commission report. The reports refute everything you claim. Jewish immigrants bought land and displaced no one. They raised the standard of living in the whole area for everyone which attracted high numbers of Arab immigrants. Obviously you only have a problem with Jewish immigration and not Arab immigration which was higher.
You also know full well that the land west of the Jordan was to be partitioned and it was not as you said "just move to Jordan". The partition was along demographic lines and Jews were the majority in the area allotted to them but obviously you don't think Jews should have self determination.

The problem with using baseless claims and hyperbole as the body of your argument is that it is easily proved false and shows the lack of concern for truth when it clashes with an agenda.

Tons of info for you as well as links to the historic documents


By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, TTrans jordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.8


The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”9

The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10


The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.13 In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.14

This rapid growth was a result of several factors One was immigration from neighboring states by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.15 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.16

The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.17
x


Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is that from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.18


In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.22

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al*Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.23

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.25



In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:


It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original).26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.27

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."28


By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el*Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.30



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.



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.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html

The Peel Commission Report
(July 1937)
LEAGUE OF NATIONS

MANDATES
P A L E S T I N E
--------
REPORT
of the
PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html


Hope Simpson Commission report
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_hope_simpson.php


The British White Paper
http://www.mideastweb.org/1939.htm

[IndianaGreen]

11. Don't you guys ever get tired of playing the eternal victim?

Don't you realize it is a crutch used to avoid dealing with reality?

:nopity:

[azurnoir]

13. Nope n/t

[shira]

15. better to live in denial?

how is bringing up these issues a "crutch used to avoid dealing with reality"?

[kayecy]

22. And if one day in the future the Israeli-Arabs become a majority?

And if one day in the future, Israeli Arabs become a majority in Israel will Israel still claim that it be recognised as a Jewish state?

Perhaps recognition by Pakistan that Israel is a Jewish State will justify Israel carrying out a little 'ethnic cleansing' to keep the Arab numbers down?

[shira]

26. it'll still be the Jewish homeland

just as any other Arab country would remain Arab should Jews become the majority there.

oh wait, that's not even possible is it? but I doubt you have a problem with that.

[kayecy]

28. Interesting that you compare Israel to Arab dictaterships - Now try a western comparison....

Do any western states define themselves by a racial class?...White USA....Anglo-saxon UK....Celtic Wales.....Aryan Germany?

Ops...I forgot.... Aryan Germmany is a no-no.....Only Israel can morally insist it be defined by a racial classification.

[shira]

31. so you don't have a problem with declared Arab nations with Muslim state religion?

and sorry to burst your bubble, but Jews aren't really a race when they come in all different shades, shapes, sizes, and beliefs.

Tell me, are they black or white? Mediterranean? Asian?

Religious, atheist, Jews for Jesus?

Blonde hair, Red hair?

Left wing, right wing, Marxist?

All the above, right?

Jews are a nationality.

[kayecy]

34. Tell that to those Jewish organization that ban other Jews becoming members .....

.....and sorry to burst your bubble, but Jews aren't really a race when they come in all different shades, shapes, sizes, and beliefs.

Tell that to those Jewish organizations that ban other Jews becoming members solely on the grounds of them not being born to a Jewish mother....If that isn't racial discrimination, what is it?

Go on....amuse yourself...tell me how the Israeli Law of Return can be anything other than racial discrimination?

[shira]

35. again, you are employing a double-standard when you could care less about 'Arab' nations with Islam

being their state-religion. You have no problem with that, do you? why do you keep avoiding this question?

And ANYONE, black, white, asian, hispanic, african, and ARAB (like half of Israel's jews who are descendents of Arab Jewish refugees).....with a jewish mommy is a JEW under Israeli Law of Return. There's nothing racist about that. If anything, it's an example of true progressivism.

[kayecy]

38. The Law of Return is racist discrimination.......

... you could care less about 'Arab' nations with Islam being their state-religion. You have no problem with that, do you? why do you keep avoiding this question?

What question?.....is Israel as immoral as the Arab states?...No. Does Israel meet western standards of racism....No, No, No

And ANYONE, black, white, ........with a jewish mommy is a JEW under Israeli Law of Return. There's nothing racist about that.

Exactly my point!...That is what the dictionary defines as 'race'....You seem to think 'race' means people of the same colour....According to the dictionary it is people of the same hereditary group....That is exactly what the Law of Return is meant to do....Discriminate against anyone not having a Jewish mother.

[shira]

40. it's positive discrimination based on Jews needing refuge and having nowhere else to go

what 'hereditary' group do Jews hail from.....white, black, asian, arab, hispanic?

any non-jew without a jewish mother who converts is also accepted.

[IndianaGreen]

41. There is no such a thing on our planet as the idea that one has more claim to land than another

Leon Trotsky

On The Jewish Problem (1934)

Question: What is your attitude about Palestine as a possible Jewish “Homeland” and about a land for the Jews generally? Don’t you believe that the anti-Semitism of German Fascism compels a different approach to the Jewish question on the part of Communists?

Answer: Both the Fascist State in Germany, as well as the Arabian Jewish struggle bring forth new and very clear verifications of the principles that the Jewish question cannot be served within the frame work of capitalism. I do not know whether Jewry will be built up again as a nation. However, there can be no doubt that the material conditions for the existence of Jewry as an independent nation could be brought about only by the proletarian revolution. There is no such a thing on our planet as the idea that one has more claim to land than another.

The establishment of a territorial base for Jewry in Palestine or any other country is conceivable only with the migrations of large human masses. Only a triumphant Socialism can take upon itself such tasks. It can be foreseen that it may take place either on the basis of a mutual understanding, or with the aid of a kind of international proletarian tribunal which should take up this question and solve it.

The blind-alley in which German Jewry finds itself as well as the blind-alley in which Zionism finds itself is inseparably bound up with the blind-alley of world capitalism, as a whole. Only when the Jewish workers clearly see this inter-relationship will they be forewarned against pessimism and despair.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/xx/jewish

[shira]

42. both have valid claims, ergo 2 states for 2 people

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. 2 states yes, 1 state and 1 bantustan no.

And, unfortunately, the latter is what you and the Israeli government and the vast majority of the Israeli electorate support.

[shira]

62. what utter nonsense.......the Palestinians are not being offered bantustans

[kayecy]

44. Your use of the word 'positive' merely shows how 'Jewish-centric' you are...

..it's positive discrimination based on Jews needing refuge and having nowhere else to go

It is plain racial discrimination based on preventing refugees from another race returning to the land of their fore-fathers....Your use of the word 'positive' merely shows how 'Jewish-centric' you are...
.
.

[shira]

46. Israel allows non-Jews to apply for citizenship just as any other nation - try again

but when it comes to Jews looking for refuge due to homelessness and persecution...like from the Soviet Union or Yemen...of course they're more willing to take such Jews in as automatic citizens.

-------------

maybe you have Israel confused with racist states like Jordan or S.Arabia who do not allow ANY jews to become citizens there.

=============

i recall reading a while back that religious leadership like Shas had a big problem with non-Jewish immigration....something like 50% of immigrants into Israel weren't legally Jewish by orthodox standards....that kinda destroys your little thesis.

just found something.

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/042000/0004066.html

Although 85 percent of immigrants in the early part of the decade were halachically Jewish, according to immigration officials, in the past two years, non-Jews have constituted just over 50 percent.

note in the article how angry some of the ultra-orthodox are at the state for being too liberal in allowing so many non-jews in.

[kayecy]

48. Lift your sights up a bit and try western comparisons for a change.....

...... maybe you have Israel confused with racist states like Jordan or S.Arabia who do not allow ANY jews to become citizens there.

Maybe I just thought Israel was part of the western family of nations.....I don't compare France, Germany, Britain to Jordan etc....What are you trying to prove...That Israel is less racist than Saudi Arabia?...Lift your sights up a bit and try western comparisons for a change.
.
.
.

[shira]

49. that's the problem with double-standards....the european nations you mentioned don't have the same

neighbors Israel has. If they did, European nation 'A' and Arab nation 'B' would have to be held to the same standards, otherwise one follows the rules while the other doesn't have to. Things don't really work out that way, agreements aren't kept, one party gets away with murder while the other is expected to just 'take it', when they choose not to take it, they're accused of breaking the faux 'agreement'......

It's easy to hold European nations to a higher standard when other hostile nations with NO expectations aren't your neighbors, isn't it?

Yours is the racism of low (or no) expectations. I suggest a single standard.

Of course, we've had this discussion before between Israel and other Western nations, and as you know Israel arguably attains higher standards than any other western nation. For example, Western nations like the USA and UK still fund and aid terror orgs like Hamas and Hezbollah (both proxies of Iran) by giving them "aid" for Gaza construction (which everyone knows will end up in Hamas hands or funding the PA, which then pays Hamas) or stockpiling/aiding the Lebanese army (which everyone knows will help Hezbollah). The West funds terror and they fund the UN (which covers for Hamas and Hezbollah). Not to mention Western military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. All that is at least 10x worse than anything you can accuse Israel of, so you have quite the nerve accusing Israel of not living 'down' to Western standards.

[kayecy]

52. There seems little point on continuing this discussion.......

For example, Western nations like the USA and UK still fund and aid terror orgs like Hamas and Hezbollah (both proxies of Iran) by giving them "aid" for Gaza construction (which everyone knows will end up in Hamas hands or funding the PA, which then pays Hamas) or stockpiling/aiding the Lebanese army (which everyone knows will help Hezbollah). The West funds terror and they fund the UN (which covers for Hamas and Hezbollah).

If you can write such rubbish as that, there seems little point on continuing this discussion.

[shira]

53. you doubt the USA funds terror against Israel? here are just 2 examples

1. The USA is sending hundreds of millions to Gaza for "rebuilding". Remember their pledge of $900 million? Guess where a lot of that money will end up? Hamas has stolen funds and aid before. That's indirect support of a known Int'l terror org.

'U.S. plans to pledge $900 million for Gaza'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1066381.html

2. Here we see the USA arming Lebanon, which will inevitably arm Hezbollah...

Israeli DM Criticizes US Military Aid to Lebanon
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/09/israeli-dm-criticizes-us-military-aid-to-lebanon/

========================

add in the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan by the USA and UK, along with French actions in Algeria and Rwanda and that's probably 100x worse than anything you could ever wish to accuse Israel of....remember we once debated what US and UK sanctions did to about a half-million Iraqis in the mid 90's - collective punishment that makes Israel's actions pale in comparison?

so please, no more of this idiotic crap about Israel having to "live up" to Western standards, okay?

[shira]

58. kayecy, now that you realize the West acts 100x worse than Israel, tell me please....

...what you think about Turkey's occupation of Cyprus, since it appears you live in Nicosia Cyprus. Turkey is 'western', right?

Think it's time for the Turks to get the hell out of Cyprus, take their settlers with them, tear down the separation barrier just miles from where you live, and join the rest of the Western world? Or are you for Turkey stealing Greek land and tossing out the indigenous people there?

Are you in the northern or southern part of Nicosia? Are you one of the settlers there trying to steal the land, or one of the indigenous?

If you're not Turkish, I'm betting you have a LOT to say about the occupation there, and it's not nice.

But if you are Turkish, do you feel like a hypocrite?

or is this where you duck out, not respond, and maybe come back in a month or two?

[kayecy]

63. If you read your supporting references you will see they make no such claim....

Western nations like the USA and UK still fund and aid terror orgs like Hamas and Hezbollah

I am not prepared to waste time discussing such extremist rubbish....

If you read your supporting references you will see they make no such claim....This sub thread is finished as far as I am concerned.

[LeftishBrit]

25. Mmmmm

There ARE people (too many) in the world who would like to see Israel done away with. But the author of the piece is wrong in saying that 'many on Israel's left' want Israel done away with.

Recognizing Israel 'as a Jewish state' could mean simply 'opposing the one-state solution'. However, demanding that a state be recognized ss a state for a particular religion/ ethnicity can open all kinds of cans of worms. When Americans on the right say that atheists or other non-Christians cannot be full citizens; that the Pledge of Allegiance needs to include 'under God'; or even that English must be recognized as the 'official language' - they are asking for a lot more than the right not to be dismantled, or even the right to secure borders.

II think that the author of this piece is to some degree using semantics to equate rather different views. (As of course are some people on the opposite side!!)

And Israel is hardly the ONLY state whose existence is disputed/ treated as subject to negotiation, though perhaps one of those where it's gone on the longest. What about Kosovo as a current example?

[shira]

27. Israel only needs to be recognized as the homeland for Jews...orthodox or atheist, doesn't matter

just as Palestine will be the homeland for Palestinians, whether Christian or Muslim.

I don't see the big issue here, honestly.

[bemildred]

30. The existence of all states and governments in the world is negotiable.

History is perfectly clear about that.

[Ken Burch]

65. Just ask Poland

n/t.