so the answer to the original question would be what?
yes?
more or less?
No?
None of the above?
thanks,
Thank you for your well reasoned response. Judging from the few posts of yours that I’ve read, I’ll take your personal attack on me as a compliment. And nice use of the word “fuck”! It lends a great deal of credibility to your arguments.
Col, you’re worrying me. Can you maybe eliminate the effing word that starts with Fang, every time I see F, you see K?
In other news, I’ve been wondering about something Sharon has proposed recently for a long while. Most of those darn Palestinians are refugees from Jordan, right?
Why not use part of Jordan as Palestine? They got land.
Do you mean the West Bank?
That’s called ethnic cleansing.
No, E-Sabbath abouy 50-60% of Palestinians are refugees from the area which Israel proper now occupies, the rest are indigenous to the area.
This is the inverse of history that Edlyn’s source is pushing. When, as the result of actions by the Israelis and the surrounding Arab states and the prospective Palestinians, no Palestinian state got off the ground in 1948, Jordan annexed the area that is now called the West Bank. Israel annexed it away from Jordan in 1967. Through the late 60s and early 70s, some of the displaced Palestinians who had moved east across the Jordan plotted to overthrow the government of Jordan, after which Jordan expelled many of them. After the Camp David accord, Jordan began to look upon Israel as an inevitable neighbor and, by 1988, Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank.
However, the Arab and Christian Palestinians who owned and held the land on the West Bank were never Jordanians and never left Paestine (except when removed by Israel to build new communities).
Remind me to check sources on things I think I ‘know’ from history class.
I freely admit there is a large hole in time and space for me, circa 1983-1988 or so, when I was a little schoolrat. I certainly learned about historical things, but I never quite knew what was actually going on at the time. Despite reading the Times on a weekly basis. I’m not sure why, perhaps I just didn’t have the context for it. This certainly sounds like the sort of thing where I got the 1970s story and never updated it in my head when it changed. Anything from 1960 and before, I’m dead keen on. Contrawise, 1990 and later, I certainly understand.
Is probably what I learned about
Ahem. Clicked too fast. Erase that last sentence. And what do you mean, annexation is ethnic cleansing, jjimm? I’ll admit it seems less appropriate now, and certainly much less possible, but, considering Israel seems to want a certain amount of land to make their country up, say, take half the annexed land, and about the same amount of the neighboring land of another country, and make it into Palestine? For one thing, it’s a way to make a corridor that’s not cutting through Israel…
Yes, I understand the practical problems with it, it’s just something I’ve always thought, “You know, bet this would work.”
If it were done, what would the likely result be?
Well for a start if you mean a land corridor between the West Bank and Gaza, the only land routes between the two necessitate going through Israel. Also why should the Palestinians give any more land to Israel? Just because Israel WANTS more land is no reason to give it to them, they already have already taken 3/4 of mandate Palestine, expelling almost one million Palestinians.
Actually, it could hook through Jordan and Egypt.
http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm
What do you mean, ‘mandate Palestine?’
And the question isn’t, “Why should the Palestinians give any more land to Israel.” The question is, “Why should Israel give up land it currently controls?” I think there is a good answer to that, but I’m afraid, currently, I don’t see any standing to your opinion. Israel took the land it currently controls in two wars, mostly because… and yes, I know one of them may or may not have been a setup, they were about to be invaded by the arab countries. Frankly, if I had enemies like that, I’d want some land between them and me, myself.
Why should Israel give land to the “refugees?” Were they chased out of Israel or did they leave trusting on promises from the surrounding Arab countries?
Aha! This must be mandate Palestine.
http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm
Yeah, that’s not going to last very long, is it?
http://www.mideastweb.org/mpalestine.htm
Mmm. Yes, Jordan did get some of the land that was to be Palestine, I wasn’t wrong. But, as pointed out to me, that was the West Bank, which Israel now has.
It’s odd how sometimes you just don’t connect two facts that you know.
Monty most of the Palestinians fled in terror, also the issue of the Isarel giving land from inside Israel proper was not what I was discussing, I was pointing out that the only way to get to the West Bank to the Gaza Strip by land is through Israel.
E-Sabbath, Jordan and Egypt don’t share a land border, the little body of water you see at the bottom of Israel is not a lake, but the Red Sea. Isarel cannot claim the land while not offering full citzenship to the people there. The people of Palestine have the right to a) rule themselves and b) not have their land stolen from them.
Okay, so they fled in terror. Why? Did the Israelis actually do anything (along the lines of “We’ll kill you if you don’t get out of here right now!”) to cause that terror or was it something the aforementioned Arab countries helped instill in the local Arab population?
Yes, I suppose there’d have to be a bit taken out of Israel right there, but nothing too major.
So, yes, they fled in terror. Terror of the less than half as many jews. Jews are very terrifying.
Why do the people of Palestine have the right to rule themselves and not have their land stolen from them? The South of America didn’t have the right to rule itself. Do you truly believe the ‘mandate’ lands would have resulted in a livable state? Ideally, wouldn’t the best solution be the healthy integration of Palestine into Israel?
Well E-Sabbath that little bit of land is very important to Israel as it is their access to the Red Sea (a war took place when some of the Arab countries tried to close the Red Sea to Israeli shipping).
The Deir Yassin massacre and a few other tactics used by Irgun caused widespread panic among the Arabs living in Palestine. The UN partition is a different issue. If there was to be a single-state solution the Palestinians must have full rights, this is not something Israel is prepared to offer. The only realistic solutoion that is going to bring peace to the area is the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories and a full Palestinian state concsisting of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (with some leighway in occupied East Jerusalem).
Yes, that would be important, wouldn’t it?
Okay, why must the Palestinians have full rights? No, then you get into Apartheid, don’t you.
Ugly situation any way you look at it.
This I most defintely agree with you on.
As I recall, it was a part of the Ottoman empire- definitely not a “State.” And before that, it was part of the Byzantine Empire, and still not a state, and before that, it was part of the Roman empire, and * still* not a state.
According to this page, The Economist reported that on April 28th 1948 (note: before large scale hostilities began in mid May) only 4000-6000 of the previous 62 000 Arabs who lived in Haifa were left after Arab leadership requested them to leave. In response the Jewish Haifa Workers Council released the following statement: "“For years we have lived together in our city, Haifa…Do not fear: Do not destroy your homes with your own hands…do not bring upon yourself tragedy by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens…But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace for you and your families.”