The last Arab, no. The last Palestinian, no. The last member of Hamas, yes.
Be that as it may, your argument isn’t. Witnessing rarely is.
I still can’t get you to identify what a non-binding resolution that wasn’t accepted, enforced, and which informed nothing actually did. But it’s an article of faith so mere facts don’t get in the way.
No crocodile tears please. You’re busy accusing me of “rewriting history” and “ignoring inconvenient facts”. To say nothing of some of your disingenuous arguments like when it was pointed out how the BD wsa violated by immigration restrictions, you responded and implied that anybody was saying that the BD itself attempted to limit Jewish immigration. If you don’t want to have it pointed out that some of your arguments are disingenuous, don’t do things like respond to the facts of the British White Paper and imprisonment of Jews trying to reach the region ever after the Partition resolution and the creation of a soverign state of Israel… by saying “Balfour declaration was an attempt to keep out Jews?”
And much of the time you simply gloss over those little details, like you still haven’t explained how a non-binding resolution without the force of law behind it sets up a legal “right”. Or for that matter, you haven’t quoted or cited which resolution you’re even claiming set up the RoR, and you’ve claimed that it somehow existed 50 years before there was a single refugee.
Or, for instance, how the Balfour Declaration serves something of a talismanic function in your Witnessing (as does the UN Partition), but you were unaware of how it relates to the creation of Transjordan or how it was violated by the White Paper, and you’ve tried to handwave away the British habit of imprisoning Jews, even after the UN Partition vote and even after the creation of Israel, and the British acts of arming and training the Arab armies and allowing them to prepare for war while they kept the proto-Israelis under control until the last possible moment… while you claim that Britain helped create the state of Israel.
You have faith that the British established the state of Israel and the UN did something, too. That’s fine, Witnessing is allowed in this forum. But faith isn’t proof, and the facts of history show that you’re wrong. If you want to have something you’d consider to be a reasonable conversation, stop with the Witnessing and analyze the facts.
And yet, you still can’t show any aside from your hypotheses that:
-a community that had been building a nationalistic for more than half a century and saw its sovereign power fall and the Mandatory power leave, would have been less likely to want self determination if some other nations hadn’t voted in favor of it.
-nations which accepted the right to self determination for an Israeli state wouldn’t have accepted that if they didn’t vote for it first, and rather than the vote evincing their support for the concept, their support somehow flowed from their vote.
But again, we’ve been over this. The Arab powers did not declare war or initiate a war after the resolution. The British did not allow Jews into what would become Israel after the resolution (in fact they kept them imprisoned without charges until roughly a year after Israel Israel already existed as a sovereign nation). There was a war of extermination once the proto-Israelis declared independence.
That you are now essentially arguing that the Arab nations would have been an iota less likely to declare war (and thus, would have allowed the creation of a state of Israel) if there hadn’t been a resolution… simply contradicts all the facts we have. Again, the states that voted for the resolution did so because they supported the creation of Israel, without the vote, they still would have supported it. The nations that voted against it did so because they didn’t’ support it. Without the vote, they still wouldn’t have supported it.
No. There are a certain number of refugees (using the standard that the UN applies to every single other refugee population on the planet), and then a certain number of their descendants which the UNRWA also classifies as refugees (using a standard not used by the UN in regard to any single other refugee population on the planet.)
This might be a tricky one for some of you pro-Israel people, but let’s see how you fare.
What would YOU do if you were a moderate Palestinian and wanted to improve your world?
Yeah so when push comes to shove, physical force is teh basic building block of power, I get it. And in a world full of sovereigns there is no such thing as a rule of law except what the current world order can enforce.
Of course I thik that this sort of atittude promotes violence and terorism…
So the UN plan was a failure, I get it. I doubt the UN could have carved out an acre of land for Israel and garner arab support. I still think that the UN partition gave the new state some legitimacy. But putting that aside, do you believe as Finn Again does taht the concentration of jews in palestine (that allowed for the creation of the state of Israel) was merely the result of jewish hisotircal connections with teh area of did the balfour amendment play a role in that?
See, where we diverge is in thinking that this is merely a difference it attitude. To my mind at least, it is a description of what is.
I could wish it otherwise. A world in which a real sovreign authority existed who could, in effect, outlaw war, could be a much better world than the one we live in - but that is not the world we live in.
In another thread, I was introduced to the “Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalise War”, which is I think a perfect example of the sort of wishful thinking I’m describing:
One may ask ‘what’s so bad about wishing the world were a better place than it is’? To which I would answer ‘because it leads to mistaking what are the imperfect mechanisms for, in theory, preventing excessive anarchy, with morality and justice - simply because they co-opt the terms of morality and justice’.
This “initiative” is pretty well a perfect example, assuming it had any impact at all. Under this program, war would only be “non-criminal” if authorized by 2/3 of the UN General Assembly. Let’s say some unpopular country was attacked (and Israel is a good example) - even if it was clearly defending itself, its leaders etc. would be judged “criminals” under this doctrine unless it could get a 2/3 majority! That it probably could not do, given large blocks of countries would doubtless vote against it anyway.
Muddle-headed idealism does not make the world better - it makes it worse.
I think that the Balfour Declaration enheartened Zionists generally, but it certainly did not cause Zionism, which was already well established before the Decleration was made. Ironically enough, of far greater historical significance in the birth of Zionism was the so-called “Dreyfus Affair” in France, which led pretty well directly to the founding of modern Zionism. The “historical connections to the land” merely aided in the choice of location - others were in fact considered.
I’m talking about peace with people other than Hamas. If you agree taht we can achieve a partial peace with all willing parties without making the new Palestine responsible for the actions of hamas then fine but you seem to be saying that we cannot have peace with Palestine as long as hamas is still chucking rockets at israel. I just have a problem with withholding peace from all palestinians because some palestinians are terrorists.
Then why treat all Paestinians like they are members of hamas. Don’t we have some physical isolation of haams in gaza?
They are when they are still sitting in refugee camps. If their host coutnries allowesd them to settle, they wouldn’t be refugees anymore.
[quote]
You’re contradicting yourself. If people who didn’t actually own the land there (the fact that you’ve argued shouldn’t matter as land ownership doesn’t enter into your calculus) can “reclaim” land, then obviously they’re being given land since they never had land in the first place.
[quote]
Geez, what is with you and land ownership. Forget land ownership for a second. I am talking about repatriating displaced refugees.
I own land in Mexico, I don’t have a right to mexican citizenship. WTF does land ownership ahve to do with anything. The Palestinian refugees are refugees because of wars in israel.
Why do you keep making this about land ownership?
Once again I don’t think land ownership means anything but now it sounds like you are saying that only certain types of ownership count. Communal ownership by a Palestinian village isn’t really ownership so taht knowcks out everyone in that Palestinian village.
OK I will use that definition then. The current peace plan is being amended to step back from the UNGAR 194 ROR. What is the problem with peace now? Aren’t you really looking for a disarmed Palestinian authority to guarantee your protection from a militant and armed Hamas?
They were displaced, yes or no?
So it was just state owned land, like our national parks? Who cares? The refugees were displaced from israel regardless of their status as landowners, theya re prevented from coming back to where theyw ere ebfore the war.
It is fiction according to you and fact according to wikipedia. I don’t know who to trust.
Only in YOUR mind. I think you are twisting and cherrypicking facts to fit your view of the world. You might know a few more facts than me but you ignore many of those facts.
The white papers? the ones from 1937 that I mentioned in other posts? 1937, you call that an immediate refutatyion of the Balfour declaration?
How many times did you say that the Brits almost immediately reneged on the Balfour declaration (as if though it was a contract or treaty or something).
So the brits supported a jewish state (and Jewish immigration for 20 years allowing a large enough jewish population to develop in Palestine to agitate for a Jewish state and bomb hotels and you say that the Balfour declaration did NOTHING? PUHLEEZE.
But that’s not what the balfour declaration says. Thi is just another one of your reconstructions of history. Here is teh entirety of teh balfour declaration:
"Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour"
Do you find it odd that I provide cites and quotes and you provide you opinion?
Your saying so doesn’t make it so. You have not only been ignoring inconvenient facts, you have been making up convenient ones out of whole cloth. Isn’t there supposed to be some sort of moderation that prevents you from calling me stupid for not knowing your rewritten version of history?
I’m providing cites (sure they’re to wikipedia but its a heck of a lot more than what you are providing). Support your argument with cites and stuff, don’t expect us to simply take your word for it.
Please provide a cite. I’ve repeeatedly provided cites. I am willing to learn and change my mind but don’t expect me to do so because you say that I have the facts wrong.
Once again I don’t think land ownership is particularly important here but please provide cites to support your assertions. You also seem to prefer one type of interest in land to the EXCLUSION of others
And where does it say how much land was owned by arabs? WTF does land ownership have to do with displaced refugees? Are they not refugees from Israel because they didn’t own land in israel? If not Israel then where did they come from?
Like I said, I have no connection to the middle east or Islam or Judaism, why would I witness one way or the other. Can you say the same about your objectivity?
Well, when every nation in then world other than the arab states (and a few others) voted for it i think it created the state of Israel. the fact taht the state was immediately attacked and the UN didn’t rush t its defense doesn’t really contradict that.
Well, mostly because you are.
What? When did I say that the Balfour declaration was an attempt to limit jewish immigration? i said that the Balfour declaration does not state an unequivocal British commitment to the creation of jewish state in Palestine come hell or high water? Have you read the whole balfour declaration or only the first 31 words (its a really short document, you should take the time to read it)?
Almost everything else you say is just an excuse for ignoring history.
I have my opinion supported by cites and facts you have your opinion supported by well your opinion.
(With the aid of the Brits)
(as a jewish state despite the fact that most of the inhabitants were muslim arabs)
So youa re saying that teh UN would have voted the same way after the war of 1948 as before so the vote iself meant nothing? Huh?
So? How does that diminish the role others played in the creation of the state of Israel?
thats what YOU think.
[quote]
No. There are a certain number of refugees (using the standard that the UN applies to every single other refugee population on the planet)
[quote]
I have already posted and linked to their definition. Please tell me how thier definition is irregular?
(because tehre is no other refugee population that has been around long enough to have several generations of refugees, something tells me that if a baby is born to a Sudanese refugee in a refugee camp, they would be considered refugees as well)
Plenty of historical maps at that site showing the distribution of people and land pre-birth of Israel. They will, of course, be denied by some of the more zealous pro-Israeli posters in this thread – or any other one that touches upon the issue. Therefore the link is being posted for those willing to educate themselves on the matter.
Posted from an obviously unbiased source, that being the always scrupulously fair and balanced www.palestineremembered.com. Thanks, Red, for that wonderfully balanced read, and for not posting a drive by link, but for your thoughtful and insightful comments and excerpts from the site, detailing in depth the points you were trying to draw our attention to! Kudos man…eyes start to tear up from the emotion of the moment
-XT
Is there anything in particular you wished to draw our attention to? The link contains 1,300 pages of PDFs.
I found all 1,300 pages a fascinating must-read.
But if you’re short on time, you can do worse than taking a look at these two pages:
Isn’t it true that Palestine was empty and inhabited by nomadic people?
Palestinian And Zionist Land Ownership Per District as of 1945
Hope that helps.
I think he’s trying to draw attention to the fact that he’s citing a document which was already rebutted and shown to be in error, but he’s re-citing it anyways.
As pointed out at the time:
Which, in general, is the problem with the arguments you are making from ignorance, and part of the problem with substituting Witnessing for an analysis of a thoroughly researched history, which I’ve been trying to point out to no effect. The definition that literally the entire rest of the world uses for determining refugee status defines a refugee as an individual (not all of his descendants in perpetuity) who is “outside the country of his former habitual residence”. whereas Palestinian “refugees” are actual refugees plus “descendants of fathers fulfilling the definition [of a refugee]”.
This is another problem, as the facts of how their definition is irregular has been pointed out to you several times.
Yet again, the UNRWA considers actual refugees plus their descendants, in perpetuity to be refugees. This differs from how the UN defines “refugee” status for every other population on the planet planet.
Yet again, you can’t “repatriate” someone who wasn’t a citizen in the first place, you can’t claim that people have a right to move back to land that they didn’t own in the first place and your logic for assigning “refugee” status means that if, 100 years from now, Lebanon still kept Palestinians in refugee camps, that someone born 150 years after the '48 war… would be a refugee of that war.
Right, and if Mexico denied you entry at the border, you wouldn’t have the right to vacation at your land there either. And if you didn’t own land there but once rented a house before you left due to cartel wars, or whatever, and Mexico denied you entry at the border? You’d have even less of a valid demand that it was your “right” to return to Mexico, get citizenship and then be given some land to live on.
There are no “certain types”, it seems you didn’t read the Ottoman Land Law I pointed out. communal ownership wasn’t valid for about 100 years before '48.
No, I’m not. A sovereign government would have to be able to provide a credible monopolization on the use of force.
Correct. The leap you’re making is to go from there, to “so they (or their great grandchildren) have a right to live in Israel, get Israeli citizenship and live on land there.”
This is why your claims about the “right” are really just your repeating Palestinian demands and calling them rights.
I just cited the UN’s own report.
Yet again, please learn the facts at hand. The British violated the BD with Churchill’s White Paper of 1922 which rescinded the previous guarantee of allowing “close settlement” and instead limited immigration if it would threaten the employment of any Palestinians. In the context of the Palin Commission of 1920 and the British reaction to the Arab Riots in general, it was clear what their decision was based on.
Later the British would go on to admit that their arguments about ‘absorptive capacity’ were false when the Peel Commission concluded that “The heavy immigration in the years 1933-36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.".
- Several times, because they did.
- And yes, you can reneg on a promise even if it’s made in a declaration rather than a treaty.
- It’s very, very, very interesting that you’ve said that a resolution with no legally binding authority, which wasn’t enforced, wasn’t observed, and informed nothing at all in the real world was the basis for global and regional events… but the BD can’t be reneged on because it wasn’t a contract or a treaty.
Fiction. The British supported a Jewish national home, in words only, but never explicitly said that it would be a sovereign, autonomous entity. When it came time for the UN resolution (remember, the one you keep talking about?), the British abstained. They did not support it.
5 years. After which point they knuckled under to Arab pressure and put severe restrictions on Jewish immigration (for reasons they’d later admit were simply wrong) and then did their best to keep Jews who were fleeing the Holocaust out of the region and imprisoned them even after the UN partition vote and even after Israel already existed as a sovereign state.
We’ve been over this.
It’s rather odd for you to provide text proving that I was 100% correct, and then claim that I am “reconstructing” history. They promised that there would be a Jewish national home in Palestine, then they gave away more than half of the territory to form Transjordan. They also stated that there would be a Jewish national home as long as nothing was done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine and then reneged on that promise too as they helped draft and agreed to the Mandate whose terms were, instead, that instead of religious and civil rights, nothing could be done which would impact the rights and position of other sections of the population.
I haven’t called you stupid, and it is rather odd of you to call the actual facts “rewritten”. Again, I don’t have a problem in principle with you Witnessing, but it’s a bit silly for you to allege that all the facts which contradict your narrative must be “rewritten”.
Like the cite I provided that you’re ignoring… while demanding a cite?
Because only mulk was privately owned and could not be taken away by the state.
I’ve already cleared up your factual errors here, and it’s odd that you’re repeating them again. The Arab states did not immediately attack Israel after the Partition plan. They attacked Israel after Israel declared independence.
Reality is getting in the way of your narrative. Again, you can Witness for your narrative, but acting as if it’s strange when reality falsifies it simply makes no sense. The resolution 1) wasn’t binding 2) never went into effect 3) was never agreed to by both of those parties who were involved and so formed no contract or treaty 4) did not inform the geography of the resulting state of Israel or the added geography to the states of Egypt or Jordan.
Faced with all these facts you can still Witness about what words on a piece of paper did, but it’s pretty clear that they did not do anything, at all.
This is what I mean when I talk about disingenuous arguments. I just quoted exactly what you said, and what you said it in response to. Rather obviously:
“when it was pointed out how the BD wsa violated by immigration restrictions, you responded and implied that anybody was saying that the BD itself attempted to limit Jewish immigration.”
You’re challenging that saying that you never claimed that the BD was an attempt to limit Jewish immigration when I just pointed out, and quoted you when you were implying that other people said that.
Again this is fictional (please, no more nonsense about how fiction is history and reality is an opinion). The Brits were not helping to build Jewish nationalism and as already pointed out to you, did much in their power to discourage Jewish nationalism. And as you yourself have already cited, the partition was drawn along ethnic majority lines and only 45% of the populace of the proposed Israeli state were Arabs. It is disingenuous for you now to claim that “most” were Arabs.
I haven’t diminished the role anybody actually involved in the creation of Israel played. You’re just claiming that writing words on a piece of paper is something akin to a magic spell, and created a nation even when the resolution wasn’t binding, wasn’t accepted, wasn’t enforced, yadda yadda (you know all the facts, we’ve been over them, but you’re Witnessing for your belief that the UN created Israel).
Look, you have your own individual ideas about “facts”, “fiction”, whether or not you’ve “debunked” things and all the rest of it.
Here are some actual facts for anybody reading to consider.
**According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)”…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html
**
Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas.
In Ha’aretz today, Brad Burston, an Israeli journalist,offers ten ways that the Israeli right both helped create Hamas and keeps it going. None of this is particularly surprising to those of us who follow Middle East events closely but it will certainly upset those who believe that Israelis always prefer Palestinian moderates to Palestinian radicals.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/25/how_israel_created_hamas_and_k/
Now you can find something in say the WSJ article where there’s a quote that says oh no Israel didn’t help Hamas for that specific purpose, or go off on some tangent, but the historical record shows quite clearly that Israel have done this to undermine any existing Palestinian leadership at the time. And Israel have always taken every opportunity to claim that they can’t negotiate with the Palestinians for whatever reason. They’re delighted to see Hamas and other groups become powerful so that they can claim that it’s impossible to make peace with all these extremist groups as part of the other side. They’ve been doing that for some time now, it’s not a “conspiracy theory” that Israel like Hamas becasue it gives them an excuse to avoid peace talks, it’s Israel’s current negotiating position. They “won’t talk to terrorists.” Any good faith negotiations have to include all groups. For decades the Brits also refused to talk to terrorists in Northern Ireland but when eventually pressured into making a good faith peace offer they sat down and talked to them.
As for the truce thing, they definitely made the offer and they’d definitely make it again should Israel ever show signs of wanting to enter into good faith negotiations. What one Hamas guy has to say about it as reported through the filter of a volunteer IDF prison guard who wrote the thing you cited is irrelevant, there’ll always be members of any group like Hamas that are opposed to any peace deal. There are members of the IRA who are still opposed to any Northern Irish peace deal! Anyway, these are points for people to consider.
Just to remind you, your original fiction was not that Israel used Hamas as a counterweight against the PLO, as both wanted to destroy Israel but Israel wanted to pit them against each other in order to weaken them, but that:
You’re simply invented that, and it’s telling that you pulled a bait-and-switch where you provided a bunch of cites that either refute or simply don’t prove your point, at all. Your claim remains a Conspiracy Rheory. Even then, all your cites deal with how Israel had helped Hamas counter the PLO close to thirty years ago. Your fiction was that Israel “has had a policy”, not “used to have”, and even then your description of the policy was fictional as the goal was never to undermined groups dedicated to peace, but the PLO while it was dedicated to war.
The fact that you used a bait-and-switch and tried to change the subject shows that your rhetoric about “actual facts” isn’t worth the electrons it’s written with.
Also fiction. You are deliberately ignoring Oslo, Wye, Camp David, the Clinton Bridging Proposal… your rhetoric is divorced from reality.
Also fictional, Israel had just recently agreed to talks with Fatah before Abbas canceled them.
This is just obfuscatory nonsense. The idea that Israel must include a group which explicitly calls for genocide and says it will never accept peace, lest Israel not be making a good faith attempt to make peace with the only faction that will accept peace, is sophistry designed to sell bullshit.
Fiction plus disingenuous obfuscation. Nifty.
The “one Hamas guy” was the liaison between their military and political branches. One thinks he might just have an idea of what Hamas’ strategy was. Your ad hominem fallacy is simply a personal attack on Goldberg because he served in the IDF, naturally you can’t rebut what he says so you attack him as a person and try to handwave away the facts.
You are also deliberately ignoring Hamas’ actual position, reiterated time and again, that they will never accept peace with Israel, that despite any temporary agreements their charter holds true, etc, etc, etc… And yet you allege that it is Israel that refuses to have good faith negotiations. :rolleyes:
And of course you are whitewashing the entire context and meaning of Hamas’ use of the word “hudna”, because it helps sell your narrative.
[
](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html?pagewanted=2&ref=middleeast)
And strangely you just cited things that reiterate that you were wrong, and I am right. I guess they must have their own individual claims about facts too and they just happen to match up with mine. Go figure.
Which is exactly what I said: Israel used Hamas to oppose the pLO.
Your second cite reiterates the same thing, which is exactly what I said, because, gorsh, it’s a fact.
You evidently didn’t even read your third cite, as it simply reiterates the fact I’ve already mentioned (that Israel used Islamists as a counterweight to the PLO) but goes on to point out that Israel did things like invoking sanctions against Gaza. It also doesn’t touch on your claims but instead is a long screed about all the things the author doesn’t like about Israel’s strategies and includes such talk about ‘helping’ Hamas as that Israel “[promises] to dismantle Hamas, topple Hamas, annihilate the terror infrastructure.”
Great cite there, Dick.
This is the fiction I pointed out that you were using, and simply repeating it is nonsense. Israel acted to undermine the PLO, not “any leadership”, and they did it because the PLO was a genocidal organization dedicated to destroying the state of Israel, not because the PLO was bent on peace talks. You haven’t provided any cite for that because your claims are fictional and you can’t cite a fiction. So instead you provided cites that were for something else entirely and acted as if your fictional was, thus, supported.
Or a child loving dressed by its parents in a vest full of explosives?
I think that we have some control over “what is” if the mighty refuse to abandon a world where might makes right then we will live in a world where people will seek “might” to ensure that they are treated “right” There will be constant violence as people struggle to get the upper hand. We may not be there yet but as democracy percolates throughout the world we will increasingly live in a world where right makes might.
Well these sort of interests in land do not count. The only type of interest in land that counts is the type the Jews had. :smack:
I don’t think land ownership matters all that much. We are talking about repatriating people who were displaced by war.
The Palestinian refugee crisis is unique, that’s why the UN (whose definition of Refugee you seem to be adopting) created a special agency to deal specifically with Palestinian refugees.
I believe that is correct. If in the year 2100, people who used to live in Palestine (or their descendants) are still sitting in refugee camps because of the war of 1948, they would still be refugees of that war. If they assimilate or emigrate somewhere else and start a new life then they are no longer refugees but until someone steps up and takes them in (as the arab league seems to be contemplating at the moment), they are refugees. They are refugees from what is now Israel and it doesn’t matter whether you think they were ever citizens of Israel, that is where they came from.
My point was that land ownership isn’t really that relevant. If I had a 1 year lease on my home in the United States and because of war I fled to Canada and sat in a refugee camp, I would be a refugee from America regardless of my citizenship or whether my lease had expired.
Hrmm, well, OK if they can exercise sovereign police powers I think it is reasonable to burden them with at least some responsibility. But aren’t you worried that the Palestinians will use their newfound police powers to launch attacks on Israel?
Well, I don’t know that they have to get immediate citizenship and I certainly don’t think everyone is entitled to land but they do get to live in Israel if they want, you don’t get to wait until the refugees die and then claim there are no more refugees when all the descendants of those initial refugees are still sitting in refugee camps.
You cited it? Can you provide a link? The same UN that has a special agency for Palestinian refugees, the same UN that has a special definition for Palestinian refugees, the same UN that supports the right of return?
Riiiight so when the Brits issued the 1937 white papers the Zionists got all upset because…
Have you actually read the Balfour declaration because you seem to be reading several passages into it that don’t exist and reading out some words that are actually there.
How did the Jewish population expand so rapidly in Palestine if British support was in words only? Did they have to get their army to drive out the Palestinians to make room for Jews before you think they actually did something real?
I’m looking at the Jewish population charts during the period between 1917 and 1947 and either the majority of Jews in palestine were illegal immigrants or there was in fact significant jewish immigration and you are simply mischaracterizing the facts. I wonder which it is?
You are holding the Brits to YOUR interpretation of THEIR words.
Well ignorant and disingenuous at the very least. That seems to be your fallback position.
/sigh. Once again, I don’t think land ownership really matters when trying to resolve the refugee issue (it might matter in terms of reparations but thats a separate matter). But if you are going to hang your hat on land ownership please provide a cite that Palestinians did not own land.
So? Fee simple is not the only form of land ownership. Even Fee simple is subject to condemnation, property rights are not nearly as cut and dried as you think they are. Even in the US where property rights are fairly well defined, things can get very very sticky. I still think this is a BS line of argument but it is especially BS because it is based on such a contrived distinction.
In the context of my post wtf difference does that make? My point was that Israel was (at least in part) created by the UN when almost every nation in the world approved the plan.
I have no skin in this game, I am about as objective third party as it gets. Can you say the same? Why would I try to evangelize anyone? I have no reason to approach this issue with a specific result in mind, do you?
WTF are you getting at? I never claimed that the BD was an attempt to limit Jewish immigration, why the heck would I ever say that?
In your bizarro world, sure, I guess so.
WTF!?!? MOST OF PALESTINE WAS ARAB not most of the jewish part of the partition. You read stuff into what I say a lot. I don’t know if its straw man or psychosis. If you see something that might be contradictory to something I said before then try to read it in a way that makes it not contradictory rather than looking for ways to pick apart the words I use to look for typos and loose language.
Words have meaning, they have significance.
Wait a minute… so Hamas is like the Taliban? We encouraged their growth and creation? :smack: really? I’m disappointed in us… again.
Still it seems a bit odd that Israel would WANT to have people chucking rockets at them just so they can have an excuse for not engaging the Palestinians (especially when it seems like they DO in fact engage the Palestinians, just not as equals).
Who’s “we”? The US had nothing to do with the formation of Hamas and Israel had nothing to do with the formation of the Taliban (The US didn’t have much to do with the formation of the Taliban either, but that’s another story).
Some people have accused the Israeli government in the 1970s and 1980s of taking covert action to help create Hamas as a counter to the PLO, but those are just accusations. What the most of the post above is about is how Israeli poor policy decisions in the territories have led to increased support for Hamas.