Free Palestine?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
If ownership of the land has international recognition, (and Britain and France’s mandate to run the Middle East was granted by the League of Nations) they can decide who it should go to when they wish to relinquish said ownership.
[/QUOTE]

You seem to be confusing *governing * a land with owning * it. If the British governance of Palestine was legitimate, that in no way entails that the British government owned the houses, the orchards, the land, etc. That land was owned by–surprise!–the people who owned it (who were, largely, Arabs). If I own a house in Texas, I may be a subject of the US government, but that doesn’t mean the US government owns my house and my land, and can give it away to whomever they please. * I own it. So you still haven’t convinced me that the British government was within its rights to promise part of Palestine to the Jews, and then give Palestinian-owned (even if it was British-governed) land to the Jews.

42

Sophistry and Illusion:

Boy, your user name certainly fits, doesn’t it?

First of all, the British did not expropriate land from the Arabs to give to the Jews. Arabs who were willing to stay in the territory that would become Israel were welcome to stay, and keep their land. The British handed over sovoreignty, but did not hand over personal property.

But that said, they would have been within their rights to do so. Ever heard of eminent domain? Sure, in the USA, you’re entitled to compensation, but in the end, the government does with the land what it wants to do with the land.

43

Except that the land WASN’T largely owned by Palestinian who lived in what is now the state of Israel, it was largely owned by Ottoman or Arab absentee landlords. Now, perhaps those colonial landlords were illegitimate landlords. So those holdings could be expropriated, happens all the time in a revolution or decolonization scenario, big landlords find themselves with nothing left or with token compensation.

44

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
Sophistry and Illusion:

Boy, your user name certainly fits, doesn’t it?

First of all, the British did not expropriate land from the Arabs to give to the Jews. Arabs who were willing to stay in the territory that would become Israel were welcome to stay, and keep their land. The British handed over sovoreignty, but did not hand over personal property.

But that said, they would have been within their rights to do so. Ever heard of eminent domain? Sure, in the USA, you’re entitled to compensation, but in the end, the government does with the land what it wants to do with the land.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for not resorting to personal insults in Great Debates. :rolleyes:

Several comments about your post. First, go read some history of the founding of Israel. The creation of the State of Israel was accompanied by active attempts by the Israeli army and militias to depopulate Arab villages and drive the Arabs out of what would become the State of Israel. So even if the British didn’t take away the Palestinian’s land, the Israelis did, and I have yet to hear an argument for how they were justified in doing so. Second, eminent domain does exist, but I have never heard of it being used to remove hundreds of thousands of people so that a displaced minority might have a place to live. Would you think it just if the US gov’t forced everyone in your state to move to a neighboring state in order to make room for, say, Rwandan refugees? Third, the issue of compensation: it is almost impossible for Palestinians to get compensation for their lost land, as those who left voluntarily (with the thought that they could avoid the fighting and return later) are excluded from compensation. Explain to me how that is just.

45

[QUOTE=Alessan]
Now That’s a straw man argument if I ever saw one. When will people understand that Israel wasn’t founded because of WW2? At most, the war acted as a catalyst for a process that began half a century earlier with the foundation of the Zionist movement by Theodor Herzl. The Jews who founded Israel weren’t refugees, they were people who had lived there for decades; many of whom had been born there.

Let me stress that again, so we could rid ourselves of this stupid, stupid meme: ISRAEL WASN’T FOUNDED AS A RESULT OF THE HOLOCAUST.
[/QUOTE]

So if there wasn’t a holocaust, would we still have an Israeli state in the Middle East? I don’t think anyone believes that. The holocaust is a “but for” cause for the creation of Israel.

46

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Israel’s Absentee Property Law, here is a fair summary (although it is from a website that is clearly pro-Palestinian):

[QUOTE=Ir Amim]
The Absentee Property Law was passed in 1950, in order to enable the fledgling State of Israel to seize and ultimately assume ownership of lands left behind by Palestinian refugees, who fled following the United Nations decision on partition. The Law states that any landowner who left his/her permanent residence at any time following November 29, 1947 to any Arab state, or to any area of the Land of Israel (as defined under the British Mandate), which is not the State of Israel (i.e., the West Bank and Gaza), automatically forfeited any property within the State of Israel to the Absentee Property Custodian - a public body, which subsequently transferred title to these properties to the State.

The fact of “absenteeism” is a statutory condition. No due process, including notice to the landowners, procedure for objections, nor any compensation, is required in order to implement the transfer of “absentee” properties to the State. This means that absentees could lose their lands without even being aware of it - as happened with the Bethlehem landowners in 2004. It is important to note that the Absentee Property Law remains in effect until the end of the period of the State of Emergency, which has continually been renewed by every Israeli Knesset to this day.
[/QUOTE]

Still think depriving the Palestianians of their land was just, cmkeller?

47

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
Why must the Palestinians “pay”? The land had to come from somewhere. The Jews had a history there. And, most importantly, Great Britain was in charge of the place and was in a legitimate position to give it to them. That’s right, Great Britain. The Arabs currently referring to themselves as Palestinians may have lived there, but the land can’t honestly be said to have “belonged” to them for eight hundred years. That’s the annoying little fact that they need drilled into their collective heads before any rational discussion can begin. SOMEONE ELSE WAS REALLY IN CHARGE, AND THEY DISPOSED OF THE LAND AS THEY, WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, DESIRED.
[/QUOTE]

The entire area was the Ottoman Empire for centuries, it wasn’t British land for centuries. They got it when they carved up the Ottoman empire after WWI. The Israelis may not be victimizers but the Palestinians aren’t crazy to feel like victims. When they created Israel, they put it to a UN vote. Noone in the region voted yes but they went ahead and created it anyway, and people wonder why Israel’s neighbors weren’t happy. At this point all, the entire arab league has agreed to recognize Israel if they go back to pre-1967 borders. Hamas has agreed to a 10 year truce if they go back to pre-1967 borders (the main sticking point is the right of return (which is another sticky issue)), Hezbollah has said they won’t queer any deal the Palestinians make with Israel.

The arabs may never stop bitching about how Israel was imposed on them but if they can figure out how to solve the right of return issue, we can have peace in the middle east

48

[QUOTE=John Corrado]
given that the land “given” to them was established in 1919
[/QUOTE]

cite please

49

[QUOTE=Alessan]
I don’t know any Palestinians who are thousands of years old.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews were living in the country in 1948. Many of them were born here. Do you posit that they had less of a right to the land than the Palestinians? Because they were immigrants and children of immigrants?
[/QUOTE]

Of course they have the right to stay but do they have a right to a Jewish state? I mean wasn’t the Jewish state created because of the need for a Jewish homeland so that Jews had someplace to go where people wouldn’t f*ck with them? Do they have the right to deny the families of refugees to return to their ancestral homes?

50

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
I am not defending the practice. However, I am pointing out that it was acceptable practice worldwide for so long that to determine legitimate aboriginal ownership of pretty much any place on Earth would be a) impossible, b) unacceptable to most if not all modern governments who rule over nations created thereby, even if it were somehow possible, and c) anti-Semitic to single out British Palestine, and therefore Israel, as illegitimate when no one has any intention (as per b) of applying the principal on a wider scale.
[/QUOTE]

And the Indians fought us every inch of the way. The point I think people are trying to make is that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance and some people don’t want to acknowledge that grievance. Of course I would be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause if they protested in demonstrations and burned themselves alive like the Tibetans but look where that has gotten them. Maybe might makes right within certain limits.

51

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
Your quote hardly disproves my argument. The text may not sound like ownership, but the British handed out scraps of land to Arab friends without a peep of protest from anyone, and “advice and assistance” ended up being total control of all foreign affairs. In effect, it was left to the discretion of the mandatory power whether or not the territory was ready for independence, as well as to whom the new state would be handed over.

Which is what I pretty much said: the British were in charge, and they had the power to give it away to whom they wanted.
[/QUOTE]

Now you are hedging. You went from “they owned it, they can legally dispose of it as they wished” to “they effectively treated it as their property so they can legally dispose of it as they wish” There is also a big difference between creating a state that incites war (like Israel) and creating a state that doesn’t incite war (like Jordan).

52

[QUOTE=col_10022]
So if there wasn’t a holocaust, would we still have an Israeli state in the Middle East? I don’t think anyone believes that. The holocaust is a “but for” cause for the creation of Israel.
[/QUOTE]

Jewish Palestine was well on its way to statehood by 1939, withquasi-governmental institutions, financial bodies, an organized military force, universities, and a vibrant Hebrew speaking cultural life. Independence was only a matter of time - in fact, the war might have set things *back *a few years.

Look at it this way: in the years following WW2 the British Empire withdrew from nearly all of its colonial possessions. There is no reason to think it wouldn’t have pulled out of Palestine, too, leading to the exact same civil war and, probably, to the exact same victors.

[QUOTE=col_10022]

Of course they have the right to stay but do they have a right to a Jewish state?

[/quote]

They had a right to whatever state they elected to have. Just like everyone else.

[QUOTE=col_10022]

I mean wasn’t the Jewish state created because of the need for a Jewish homeland so that Jews had someplace to go where people wouldn’t f*ck with them?

[/quote]

That was why we founded it originally, yes. Nowadays, it’s mostly about preserving what we have.

[QUOTE=col_10022]

Do they have the right to deny the families of refugees to return to their ancestral homes?

[/quote]

First of all, most of them left of their own volition. It’s their loss.

Second of all, yes, they do. This may shock those of the more liberatarian bent, but property is largely a fiction. Land ownership is determined not by “natural law”, but by the government issuing the deeds and by the courts determining their validity. If the government states that land parcel A no longer belongs to you, then that’s that.

Third of all, allowing the refugees (or rather, the childern, grandchildren and great-grandchildern of refugees) back would displace hundreds of thousands of israeli citizens and constitute a major - perhaps fatal - security risk to the country. Or stated differently:

I’m Israeli, I don’t want hundreds of thousand of people who hate me to come and kick me out of my home… and I vote.

[QUOTE=col_10022]

And the Indians fought us every inch of the way.

[/quote]

So why aren’t you giving them their land back?

[QUOTE=col_10022]

The point I think people are trying to make is that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance and some people don’t want to acknowledge that grievance.

[/quote]

I agree that they have legitimate grievences.

I also think that they have plenty of illegitimate grievences, and that many - if not most - of their troubles are of their own devising. And we Israelis have grievences, too.

Besides, grievences are overrated. They’re not - and shouldn’t be - a prime motivator in international relations. Countries should act in their own self interest, doing what’s best for themselves. Acting out of principle is dangerous, because it’s based upon thinking of the world as it should be, not of the world as it is. If people would stop thinking "what does the world owe us, " and instead ask “what can we do to make our lives better,” we’d all be in a better place.

53

A couple of points - Jordan has no problems with Israel.

20% of Israelis are Arab

In 1948 Egypt, Jordan, Syria et al attacked the newly formed Israel
The Arabs who fled were told to do so by their leaders, they expected to return after Israelis had been driven into the sea.

There were atrocities, but they were committed by both sides, sniping at Jews had long been an Arab sport. It is very likely that Orde Wingate (a British officer of Chindit fame) trained up Jewish guys as a defensive force - he was abruptly posted elsewhere.

In 1967 the Arabs attacked Israel again, at that time the West Bank was part of Jordan and the Ghaza Strip was under Egyption administration - oddly neither seem particularly keen on getting their territory back.

Israel was looking forward to a peaceful settlement when Mahmoud Abbas became president, unfortunately the Palestinians then elected Hamas as the actual government, and Hamas are totally intransigent.

The Palestinians may look like the underdog, but in reality they are a Pit Bull Terrier.

Probably Hamas, who provided a degree of social services, were financed by Iran which is trying to stir up trouble.

54

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
If the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel and refrain from attacking it, they’d have a state and Israel would retreat from the settlements.
[/QUOTE]

Recognise what Israel? The original borders? Greater Israel? Some or all the settlements? Jersusalem? I’ve seen no indication whatsoever that Israel has any intention of returning to its original borders and the Palestinian people are essentially being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

My personal belief is that regardless of the justice of the situation the Palestinians are victims of history now and they just are not going to get the Right of Return or even a return to originally mandated borders and should strike the best deal they can while giving up all the violence shit. (But what happens to the millions of palestinian refugees? They won’t fit in a truncated palestinian state? And they are not simply going to vanish.)

But the same goes for Israel with their expanding colonies, the refusal to abandon them. the insistence on Jerusalem and the callous disregard for Palestinian lives and suffering.

I simply don’t believe either Hamas or any conceivable Israeli government is willing to make a settlement all sides can live with. There’s always unpalatable preconditions or outrageous provocations from one side or another.

55

[QUOTE=tagos]
Recognise what Israel? The original borders? Greater Israel? Some or all the settlements? Jersusalem? I’ve seen no indication whatsoever that Israel has any intention of returning to its original borders and the Palestinian people are essentially being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

My personal belief is that regardless of the justice of the situation the Palestinians are victims of history now and they just are not going to get the Right of Return or even a return to originally mandated borders and should strike the best deal they can while giving up all the violence shit. (But what happens to the millions of palestinian refugees? They won’t fit in a truncated palestinian state? And they are not simply going to vanish.)

But the same goes for Israel with their expanding colonies, the refusal to abandon them. the insistence on Jerusalem and the callous disregard for Palestinian lives and suffering.

I simply don’t believe either Hamas or any conceivable Israeli government is willing to make a settlement all sides can live with. There’s always unpalatable preconditions or outrageous provocations from one side or another.
[/QUOTE]

I can easily see the Israelis closing the West Bank settlements, just as they did in Ghaza - there is no way they’ll give up Jerusalem or the new town around it, they are much too proud of it.

The Israelis would not mind the West Bank, but they are aware that the demographic problems would be insoluble - the population was being softened up for a withdrawel when Hamas and Hezbollah stirred things up and made even liberal (easy going) Israelis madder than a hornet.

An Israeli friend described the settlements as specks of pepper, and I suspect that was a fairly widely held view until the last blow up.

I’m pretty sure that Abbas was on track for a deal - he looked like someone you could negotiate with - a relief after Arafat.

56

[QUOTE=col_10022]
cite please
[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct, I was wrong.

The land was given to them in 1917.

The Balfour Declaration

57

Sophistry and Illusion:

How about you read? Sure, some Arab villages were depopulated for military reasons during the war of 1948. But that was not overall Israeli policy, it was on an as-needed basis, in a time of war. On the other hand, Arab pogroms in 1929 and 1936 evicted Jews from land they owned in Hebron and Jerusalem and not only weren’t Zionists being belligerent yet, but the Jews they chased out weren’t even Zionists! Where’s the call to return that property? Even the Israeli government after annexing East Jerusalem hasn’t evicted the Arabs from East Jerusalem to honor pre-1936 ownership.

The Palestinians who fled did so because the Arab governments told them to in order fot their armies to more easily overrun the state of Israel. The Israeli government at the broadcast requests begging the natives to stay, but most didn’t listen. I see no reason why the Israelis should feel responsible to give back land that was abandoned in order to contribute to Israel’s intended defeat.

Heck, I think there have been many abuses of eminent domain. But don’t have illusions of what the limits of sovoreign rights are vis a vis private property. It exists, and there’s pretty much no overcoming it, especially in Great Britain where, harmless as the monarch acts these days, a monarchy still exists.

Answered above.

col_10022:

“A ten-year truce” translates as “ten years to arm ourselves undisturbed and as soon as its over (if we keep our word in the first place) Israel is fair game.” Why the heck would the Israelis agree to that? Hezbollah has negative credibility. And Jerusalem is a sticking point as well.

No, I went to “the terms of the mandate effectively allowed them to treat it as their property and dispose of it as they wished.”

  1. In terms of whether they had the right to, there’s no difference
  2. The Arabs and Jews were at each others’ throats before partition, the state’s creation didn’t start the war
  3. Jordan has had its share of turmoil as well. It was called Black September. The difference is, of course, that Jordan’s king put down the Palestinian uprising brutally enough to shut his native Palestinians up, whereas the Israelis don’t go to those extremes, so their Palestinians keep trying.
58

[QUOTE=Alessan]
Besides, grievences are overrated. They’re not - and shouldn’t be - a prime motivator in international relations. Countries should act in their own self interest, doing what’s best for themselves. Acting out of principle is dangerous, because it’s based upon thinking of the world as it should be, not of the world as it is. If people would stop thinking "what does the world owe us, " and instead ask “what can we do to make our lives better,” we’d all be in a better place.
[/QUOTE]
Well said.

I am holding back from another participating in yet another set of historical rehashes.

So many myths.

The interested reader can find fairly objective short histories. In brief, neither side was pure and both sides have their stories that they believe to be true. Jews moving into the area neither came into an entirely empty place and made it all bloom nor displaced many. Arabs moved in to where Jews moved in as they brought with them jobs and economic opportunities. (Source) Then as now the major problem was that a few saw these Jews as a way to grab power by demonizing an “other” - in this case the Grand Mufti (who later worked with the Nazis) and his organized riots/massacres against the Jews. And some Jews fought back hard. Some engaged in terrorist tactics. Later some in high places at various points designed plans to “encourage” Arabs to leave as Israel was being born. As a general rule they were not implemented but they existed. Each side has lots that they can hold on to as evidence of having been wronged. And debating who threw the first punch is as tiresome as it is unproductive.

The question must become how one builds a best possible future for yourselves and your children. Not holding out for what you feel you “deserve” or nothing.

Meanwhile the future doesn’t wait.

59

[QUOTE=DanBlather]

Now, Palestinian apologists will point to civilian deaths from Israeli military actions, but that’s what happens when you launch rockets from civilian areas or base your actions in refugee camps. People that apologize for those who are so callous as to plant bombs in buses, cafes, and tourist hotels make me sick.
[/QUOTE]

No. It has nothing to do with that.

Israel wonton use of force in Palestine and, in partucular, Lebanon has been gratituous and frighteningly so. If memory serves correct, didn’t Israel simply start bulldozing homes everytime a rocket was launched across a border? Why not actually attack, kill, or arrest the individuals who are launching these rockets? Why bulldoze and bomb homes when the chance for civilian casualties are so high? Israel’s hands are dripping with the blood of its Arab neighbors.

If Israel has a problem with terrorism (which I believe they do), then why not employ actual intelligence and information gathering about specific targets before attacking? Even the Art of War, written over a thousand years ago, gave a nod the importance intelligence in warfare. Israel attempts to come off as the beacon of Western ideals in the tumultuous Middle East, but its my belief that no modern, Western nation would annihilate its neighbors like Israel has. Serious question that I don’t know the answer to: During the riots in France, did the government bulldoze or bomb areas where the Arabs live? Serious question. In any case, I think Israel has just as much hatred for Arab neighbors that they let on. Indeed, nothing but hatred could possibly explain Israel’s often over-the-top strategies in dealing with “terrorists”; furthermore, it is apparent that these strategies are inefficient and do nothing but foment Arab bitterness and resentment

  • Honesty
60

[QUOTE=cmkeller]
No, I went to “the terms of the mandate effectively allowed them to treat it as their property and dispose of it as they wished.”
[/QUOTE]

How can you say that? The language of the mandate says the exact opposite.

To repeat, with bolding: These nations (including Palestine) “have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.”

I don’t know why on earth you should interpret the “rendering of administrative advice and assistance” to mean slicing a country in half and giving the bigger half to a mere 7% of the occupants.