Leaked documents: Palestinians agreed to 'symbolic' return of refugees
57 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Miskav;27749045]I love how none of you even consider the fact that the jews persecution complex is the problem.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's all in their heads.
In the US it was only very recently after everyone else got civil rights that the Jews were treated ok. The USSR tried to cast off the Tsarist anti-semitism but they were just as bad to them. All throughout Europe the message that the Jews weren't the vermin the Nazis made them out to be took a while to sink in. The Arab nations surrounding Israel expelled the million Jews they had as citizens when Israel was formed, but that was because Israel had committed so many war crimes a few days after they were formed, didn't they? Everywhere else treats Jews worse than normal white people, just a fact of it.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27749062]My argument still stands. Whether it was throughout history or not, that doesn’t change jackshit. “Oh well, it might be more justifiable since they were treated harshly before the holocaust as well.” [/quote]
They are not using their history as an excuse to treat Palestinians poorly, get that out of your head. As for the initial creation of Israel, persecution of them was still rampant at the time so all of your "anti-semitism is dead" arguments are retarded. You wanna tell Israel no-one is anti-semetic any more and they can just dissolve?
[quote]Nah, you never actually brought upon an argument. All it consisted of was mindless childish names, no ones going to bother and say, “No I’m not!” and if there was an argument hidden beneath your flaming, it was already refuted.[/QUOTE]
Is that how you think? Don't even read it if it's got some abusive language and eventually someone else will refute it. You haven't refuted anything else I have said so why would that be different?
Speak for yourself I've never seen anti semitism in scotland, and we are some pretty fucking racist people.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;27749085]Yes, it's all in their heads.
In the US it was only very recently after everyone else got civil rights that the Jews were treated ok. The USSR tried to cast off the Tsarist anti-semitism but they were just as bad to them. All throughout Europe the message that the Jews weren't the vermin the Nazis made them out to be took a while to sink in. The Arab nations surrounding Israel expelled the million Jews they had as citizens when Israel was formed, but that was because Israel had committed so many war crimes a few days after they were formed, didn't they? Everywhere else treats Jews worse than normal white people, just a fact of it.[/QUOTE]
YES, we knows the oh poor Jews were treated horribly throughout the years, the problem is them exploiting those actions to justify whatever the fuck they want.
Why don’t we go and justify actions committed by Muslims because they had to go through holocaust genocide in the mid 90s?
[quote]They are not using their history as an excuse to treat Palestinians poorly, get that out of your head. As for the initial creation of Israel, persecution of them was still rampant at the time so all of your "anti-semitism is dead" arguments are retarded. You wanna tell Israel no-one is anti-semetic any more and they can just dissolve?[/quote] No one said anti-Semitism is dead, it’s impossible to absolve anti-Semitism in its entirety just like how Islamophobia is rampant in Europe.
[quote] They are not using their history as an excuse to treat Palestinians poorly, get that out of your head. As for the initial creation of Israel, persecution of them was still rampant at the time[/quote]They using their history to justify their explosions of the Palestinians to create their own Jewish State
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
The expulsions of Palestinians in order to create a Jewish State based on a biblical myth due to being persecuted harshly is never justified.
[QUOTE=bravehat;27749186]Speak for yourself I've never seen anti semitism in scotland, and we are some pretty fucking racist people.[/QUOTE]
Is it faux-racism like we have in Australia? Also how many Jews do you actually have in Scotland?
Regardless, a lot of the civil rights things have eliminated it recently. Not completely but it's mostly negligible. Still, wasn't the case in 1948 and are you gonna say to Israel there's no need for them to exist any more because people aren't racist?
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27749207]YES, we knows the oh poor Jews were treated horribly throughout the years, the problem is them exploiting those actions to justify whatever the fuck they want.
Why don’t we go and justify actions committed by Muslims because they had to go through holocaust genocide in the mid 90s?[/quote]
It's just like talking to a brick wall. Read the sentence after that one, no-one is using Jewish persecution to say Arab persecution is ok. Part of what you consider persecution is hateful remnants (on both sides) from the wars and the rest is just from the very existence of Israel which they can't help.
[quote]No one said anti-Semitism is dead, it’s impossible to absolve anti-Semitism in its entirety just like how Islamophobia is rampant in Europe. [/quote]
You really wanna compare a backlash against immigrants to what happened to the Jews? Jews were always subjugated and kept in ghettos during the middle ages, they were always there but people still persecuted them. "Islamaphobia" is like Americans hanging shit on the Irish, they'll get over it after a few years when they integrate. Anti-semitism lasted for centuries, Islamaphobia is an immigrant scare.
[quote]They using their history to justify their explosions of the Palestinians to create their own Jewish State
The expulsions of Palestinians in order to create a Jewish State based on a biblical myth due to being persecuted harshly is never justified.[/QUOTE]
Their explosions of them? There wasn't really anything against the Palestinians when they created Israel, they were just the unfortunate ones to come off worse. The reasons for Israel's existence are far more than just biblical so don't act like that's the only one.
It was full on racism until about 10 or 15 years ago, there was a fucking huge campaign to try and kill it off, it's still there but now it's more based on humour but frankly no one gives a fuck about hurting each others feelings so they'll bust out the slurs as soon as they have an issue with someone, and no idea about the jew situation in scotland.
[QUOTE=bravehat;27749457]It was full on racism until about 10 or 15 years ago, there was a fucking huge campaign to try and kill it off, it's still there but now it's more based on humour but frankly no one gives a fuck about hurting each others feelings so they'll bust out the slurs as soon as they have an issue with someone, and no idea about the jew situation in scotland.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, a lot like us. Used to have a policy that only white people could immigrate here, now the worst we do is call the Lebanese guy a wog cunt in jest.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27732730]So do you want a Jewish autocracy or an Arab autocracy? Either way, the problem still isn't solved regardless of secularism.
Religion is only half the problem. Don't forget ethnic differences as well.[/QUOTE]
If you deploy enough security forces (UN or otherwise) there won't have to be a problem.
[QUOTE=bravehat;27749186]Speak for yourself I've never seen anti semitism in scotland, and we are some pretty fucking racist people.[/QUOTE]
Probably because there aren't many Jews in Scotland. The thing with antisemitism is that it mostly exists in places where Jews live. In the 1930's when a good number of Jews wanted to escape Nazi Germany and asked a bunch of countries if they can move there, when asked, the Australian prime minister, I think, said "we don't have any antisemitism here in Australia, but, we don't want any either". What he meant was that if the Jews would move to Australia, the people there might become antisemitic just because of that.
Or Israel just run everything over and be done with it.
So people actually got something to bitch about.
Also, it's not like the Jews said "hey let's build our country in Palestine" "but wait, what about all the Arabs living there?" "ah, who cares! We'll just kick them out!".
No, the Jews bought the lands from the Arabs, the problem was, that the people who sold the lands didn't live there, and let other Arabs live there, so the Jews bought the lands from their legal owners, but to those who actually lived there, it seemed like the Jews just came in and kicked them off.
Still, the Jewish leadership tried to buy land where it wouldn't force Arabs to leave.
You can read all about it here: [url]http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_howmany.html[/url]
[url]http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_jewishmethods.html[/url]
So the Jews didn't invade the Arabs or forced them off of their lands and then created Israel, they bought the lands fair and square. The Arabs also knew that the Jews were planning on creating their own country there, after all, the British promised both the Arabs and the Jews their own state, each.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27751632]Also, it's not like the Jews said "hey let's build our country in Palestine" "but wait, what about all the Arabs living there?" "ah, who cares! We'll just kick them out!".
No, the Jews bought the lands from the Arabs, the problem was, that the people who sold the lands didn't live there, and let other Arabs live there, so the Jews bought the lands from their legal owners, but to those who actually lived there, it seemed like the Jews just came in and kicked them off.
Still, the Jewish leadership tried to buy land where it wouldn't force Arabs to leave.
You can read all about it here: [url]http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_howmany.html[/url]
[url]http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_jewishmethods.html[/url]
So the Jews didn't invade the Arabs or forced them off of their lands and then created Israel, they bought the lands fair and square. The Arabs also knew that the Jews were planning on creating their own country there, after all, the British promised both the Arabs and the Jews their own state, each.[/QUOTE]
The Jews bought the land, and the sheer volume of them coming into the country was beginning to frighten the Arabs, so they started acting violently against them. The British knew that if they started letting even more Jews in then a civil war would kick off. However, because of the holocaust and all that jazz the international community where on Britain's back to let the Jews go there if the wanted. So Britain handed over control of the area to the UN, who then divided the area up into Jewish and Arab states. Eventually the Jewish state became Isreal, and the resulting conflict has forced a huge amounts of Palestinians to flee to Jordan and Syria. Originally the lands were bought, but post 1947 they certainly weren't.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27751632]Also, it's not like the Jews said "hey let's build our country in Palestine" "but wait, what about all the Arabs living there?" "ah, who cares! We'll just kick them out!".
No, the Jews bought the lands from the Arabs, the problem was, that the people who sold the lands didn't live there, and let other Arabs live there, so the Jews bought the lands from their legal owners, but to those who actually lived there, it seemed like the Jews just came in and kicked them off.
Still, the Jewish leadership tried to buy land where it wouldn't force Arabs to leave.
You can read all about it here: [URL]http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_howmany.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.middleeastpiece.com/dispossession_jewishmethods.html[/URL]
So the Jews didn't invade the Arabs or forced them off of their lands and then created Israel, they bought the lands fair and square. The Arabs also knew that the Jews were planning on creating their own country there, after all, the British promised both the Arabs and the Jews their own state, each.[/QUOTE]
No, the Jews didn’t acquire the land “fair and square”. First, private landownership does not mean statehood, despite this; the Jews only acquired 11% of Palestine, just 11 percent. At the end, the Jews were then granted freely and forcefully from the Arab land owners, 48% of land. (The partition plan gave the Jews 58% of Palestine, 58 minus the already bought, 11 percent = 48).
Having clarified and said that, only 11% of the land was acquired legitimately. This figure is usually left out to deceive and make one think that all the lands the Jews got were bought. So yes, the Arabs who owned 48% of that freely acquired land were actually kicked out and had to surrender their property without compensation.
During the partition plan, the Jews had nothing to lose but everything to gain, as for the Arabs, they only had everything to lose, but nothing to gain.
[editline] d [/editline]
[QUOTE=Smasher 006;27752187]Originally the lands were bought, but post 1947 the certainly weren't.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Smasher 006;27752187]The Jews bought the land, and the sheer volume of them coming into the country was beginning to frighten the Arabs, so they started acting violently against them. The British knew that if they started letting even more Jews in then a civil war would kick off. However, because of the holocaust and all that jazz the international community where on Britain's back to let the Jews go there if the wanted. So Britain handed over control of the area to the UN, who then divided the area up into Jewish and Arab states. Eventually the Jewish state became Isreal, and the resulting conflict has forced a huge amounts of Palestinians to flee to Jordan and Syria. Originally the lands were bought, but post 1947 the certainly weren't.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the people in this thread are saying that the Jews always kicked the Palestinians out, they're talking about how the Jews should have just gone somewhere else, well, my answer to that depends on, what time are they referring to? The 1880's-1930's? Because then my answer is the last post, because the Jews never kicked anyone out at those years, only bought lands. Are they saying that in the 40's, the Jews should have just forgotten about all the lands they bought and improved and all the people already living there for several generations and just move to somewhere else like Africa or Siberia as some here said? Well, I'm sure I don't need to explain why that's even dumber.
-snip automerge-
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27752371]Yeah but the people in this thread are saying that the Jews always kicked the Palestinians out, they're talking about how the Jews should have just gone somewhere else, well, my answer to that depends on, what time are they referring to? The 1880's-1930's? Because then my answer is the last post, because the Jews never kicked anyone out at those years, only bought lands.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, they only bought 11% of the land, at the end they had a total of 58% of the land. Only 11% was bought.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27752340]No, the Jews didn’t acquire the land “fair and square”. First, private landownership does not mean statehood, despite this; the Jews only acquired 11% of Palestine, just 11 percent. At the end, the Jews were then granted freely and forcefully from the Arab land owners, 48% of land. (The partition plan gave the Jews 58% of Palestine, 58 minus the already bought, 11 percent = 48).
Having clarified and said that, only 11% of the land was acquired legitimately. This figure is usually left out to deceive and make one think that all the lands the Jews got were bought. So yes, the Arabs who owned 48% of that freely acquired land were actually kicked out and had to surrender their property without compensation.
During the partition plan, the Jews had nothing to lose but everything to gain, as for the Arabs, they only had everything to lose, but nothing to gain.
[editline] d [/editline][/QUOTE]
We've been through this so many times, the Negev wasn't anybody's land, it's more than half of Israel, and the Jews got almost all of it because they had a few settlements in it, other than that, nobody lived there, it wasn't stealing lands from the Arabs because the Arabs didn't lose any land.
There were many other partition proposals, a lot of them gave just about 20% of the land to the Jews (the 11% they owned plus some land so that the country won't be divided into little blobs, most of it without Arab villages or anything), the Arabs turned down all of these offers even when the Jews agreed, they said that the Jews couldn't even have a grain of sand. The Arabs back then just couldn't accept a Jewish country, doesn't matter how big or how small it was.
And the private landownership is nothing, the land wasn't owned by each Jew individually, it was all owned by the Jewish agency which was like a semi-government for the Zionists. It doesn't matter anyway, the Jews had every legal right to declare their state in the area agreed upon in the UN partition plan.
This is no different to if North and South Korea were to merge peacefully, you'd have millions of North Koreans rushing across the 38th parallel to get jobs in South Korea.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
Guys, Israel is already here, you may want to argue all you want about how it should've never existed, but it exists, and pointing out crimes or injustices it committed in the past won't make it magically disappear.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27752372]-snip automerge-
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
Like I said, they only bought 11% of the land, at the end they had a total of 58% of the land. Only 11% was bought.[/QUOTE]
Was there any expulsion of Arabs from the 47%? No, (probably because pretty much no Arabs lived in those territories) the Arabs who were expelled during the independence war were only those who lived in lands which were acquired by Israel outside of the lands they were granted by the UN.
If you want to complain about that expulsion, fine, but don't make it sound like the Jews came in, kicked the Arabs out, and then declared their own state, because that's not what happened.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27752512]We've been through this so many times, the Negev wasn't anybody's land, it's more than half of Israel, and the Jews got almost all of it because they had a few settlements in it, other than that, nobody lived there, it wasn't stealing lands from the Arabs because the Arabs didn't lose any land.[/quote] The Negev wasn’t the only source of land besides the already purchased land in the new Israel. Even if the Negev wasn’t heavily populated at the moment, the Arabs had every right to reject annexation of the Negev. It’s utterly dumb to assume that since it’s not populated at that moment when the Jews wanted Palestine, that it somehow will never be. Constructions have been spreading throughout Palestine and would obviously eventually reach the Negev, and as I said, the Negev did not fill in the remaining 48% of the free Jewish land.
[quote]There were many other partition proposals, a lot of them gave just about 20% of the land to the Jews (the 11% they owned plus some land so that the country won't be divided into little blobs, most of it without Arab villages or anything), the Arabs turned down all of these offers even when the Jews agreed, they said that the Jews couldn't even have a grain of sand. The Arabs back then just couldn't accept a Jewish country, doesn't matter how big or how small it was.[/quote] Do you have any sources for these? I couldn’t find any personally and I cannot respond correctly without reading the full context etc.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27752788] Do you have any sources for these? I couldn’t find any personally and I cannot respond correctly without reading the full context etc.[/QUOTE]
About 1937-39 Britain tried to partition Palestine but the Arabs would have no truck with it. That might be what he's on about.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27752788]The Negev wasn’t the only source of land besides the already purchased land in the new Israel. Even if the Negev wasn’t heavily populated at the moment, the Arabs had every right to reject annexation of the Negev. It’s utterly dumb to assume that since it’s not populated at that moment when the Jews wanted Palestine, that it somehow will never be. Constructions have been spreading throughout Palestine and would obviously eventually reach the Negev, and as I said, the Negev did not fill in the remaining 48% of the free Jewish land.[/quote]
The Negev was given to the Jews instead of the Arabs since at least the Jews had a few settlements there, unlike the Arabs who had nothing at all. Also, it was a lot more likely that the Jews would spread to the Negev rather than the Arabs, taking into account the fact that the Jews have been improving their lands since the 1880's while the Arabs were a lot less willing to do that.
And finally, the main reason for why the Jews got the Negev and not the Arabs, was because of the holocaust. The holocaust wasn't a cause for Israel's creation, it may have been a huge factor considering the year Israel was created (nobody in the early 40's thought the Jews will have their own state before the 50's), but it was pretty much the deciding factor for the Negev, since it was given to the Jews so that all the refugees would have a place to live in Israel. If the Jews would have only gotten about 20% of the land, without the Negev, there wouldn't be any place for the holocaust refugees. In the end however Israel's borders expanded in the independence war so there was more place than expected even without the desert, but that's just because the Arabs attacked Israel.
And yes, the Negev didn't fill the whole 48%, as I've said in many other posts (though I admit not the last one specifically) the Jews also got some land they didn't own other than the Negev, only so that the lands they did own would be connected, you can easily see it in these two pictures:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg/200px-UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg.png[/img]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Map_of_1947_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine.png/240px-Map_of_1947_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine.png[/img]
You can't possibly suggest that the Jewish state should have consisted only of the orange blobs in the second pictures, can you? Such a country can't function. It's bad enough that the proposed state was 3 big blobs (well, so was the proposed Arab state).
You can also see that some lands the Jews owned would be a part of the Arab country, for example in the northwest near the Lebanese border.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;27753683]The Negev was given to the Jews instead of the Arabs since at least the Jews had a few settlements there, unlike the Arabs who had nothing at all. [/QUOTE] If the Jews were able to purchase some land from the Negev then that essentially shows that Arabs were inhabiting and would eventually groom the Negev. It may of not been heavily constructed on during the time since Arabs were more likely focusing on projects north of the Negev, but they’d get there eventually.
[quote] Also, it was a lot more likely that the Jews would spread to the Negev rather than the Arabs, taking into account the fact that the Jews have been improving their lands since the 1880's while the Arabs were a lot less willing to do that.[/quote] The Jews may have been improving the land as well, but more of the improvements are credited to the Arabs as they were the majority there and more work was done due to their numbers.
[quote]
And finally, the main reason for why the Jews got the Negev and not the Arabs, was because of the holocaust. The holocaust wasn't a cause for Israel's creation, it may have been a huge factor considering the year Israel was created (nobody in the early 40's thought the Jews will have their own state before the 50's), but it was pretty much the deciding factor for the Negev, since it was given to the Jews so that all the refugees would have a place to live in Israel.[/quote] And this was the thing everyone had a problem with, the Palestinians shouldn’t have to sacrifice their land because the Jews endured the holocaust. Especially since the Negev was unconstructed at the time, it doesn’t matter. I don’t see how anyone can justify it by saying it was not fully constructed. Everyone was finally getting their independent from the British and were finally settling in and starting whatever. As I said previously, the Negev would be touched inevitably.
[quote] If the Jews would have only gotten about 20% of the land, without the Negev, there wouldn't be any place for the holocaust refugees.[/quote] And there wouldn’t be any place for the Palestinians. You’re giving the holocaust refugees more special rights and privileges right now. [quote] In the end however Israel's borders expanded in the independence war so there was more place than expected even without the desert, but that's just because the Arabs attacked Israel.
And yes, the Negev didn't fill the whole 48%, as I've said in many other posts (though I admit not the last one specifically) the Jews also got some land they didn't own other than the Negev, only so that the lands they did own would be connected, you can easily see it in these two pictures:
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg/200px-UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg.png[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Map_of_1947_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine.png/240px-Map_of_1947_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine.png[/img_thumb]
You can't possibly suggest that the Jewish state should have consisted only of the orange blobs in the second pictures, can you? Such a country can't function. It's bad enough that the proposed state was 3 big blobs (well, so was the proposed Arab state).
You can also see that some lands the Jews owned would be a part of the Arab country, for example in the northwest near the Lebanese border.[/quote] Yeah, I don’t see how that should be the Arab’s fault and as an excuse for the Jews to gain more land The Jewish Agency who started to purchase land should of planned that out beforehand. Only buy land that will border the land previously bought. They can’t just buy chunks of land throughout Palestine and say “How can there be an Israel like this?” then get the free land in all the blank spots at the Arab's expense due to Jewish Agency's poor planning. I have a feeling this was also deliberate. Really, this shouldn’t be the Arab’s problem at all and they shouldn’t have to compensate for the Agency’s mistakes. The Agency themselves should pay the price for their poor planning either by attempting to fill in the spots via more land purchases and if they are unable to purchase the remaining land then to bad, they only brought it upon themselves, their fault.
Maybe Britain should have stayed in control and killed all the Jewish terrorists.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;27754427]Maybe Britain should have stayed in control and killed all the Jewish terrorists.[/QUOTE]
It would of turned into Britain's version of Vietnam, I'm sure.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;27750754]If you deploy enough security forces (UN or otherwise) there won't have to be a problem.[/QUOTE]
You can't simply "put in forces to keep the peace" everywhere all the time. And that won't promise any end to any problems, you'll just create a third occupying force everyone resents.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27754186]If the Jews were able to purchase some land from the Negev then that essentially shows that Arabs were inhabiting and would eventually groom the Negev. It may of not been heavily constructed on during the time since Arabs were more likely focusing on projects north of the Negev, but they’d get there eventually.[/quote]
I never said they purchased land in the Negev, they settled it, as in, the land was empty, they came, and built settlements.
[quote]The Jews may have been improving the land as well, but more of the improvements are credited to the Arabs as they were the majority there and more work was done due to their numbers. [/quote]
That is simply not true, the Jews worked the lands that they bought heavily, turning them from shitholes and wastelands into farmlands, the Arabs however were mostly satisfied with deserts, etc, due to their nomadic lifestyles. The Arabs only truly began improving their lands after '49, and that was only in the West Bank and Gaza, obviously. There were farmlands in Palestine before the Jews arrived, I'm not denying that, but you also can't deny the fact that the majority of the improvement in Palestine was done by the Jews.
[quote]And this was the thing everyone had a problem with, the Palestinians shouldn’t have to sacrifice their land because the Jews endured the holocaust. Especially since the Negev was unconstructed at the time, it doesn’t matter. I don’t see how anyone can justify it by saying it was not fully constructed. Everyone was finally getting their independent from the British and were finally settling in and starting whatever. As I said previously, the Negev would be touched inevitably. [/quote]
But it wasn't their land, it might as well have been Egypt who was angry about the Jews getting the Negev, hell, it could have been some north European country getting angry that the Jews got the Negev, that would have the same relevance, the Negev wasn't the Arabs', it was a no-man's-land, empty, devoid, untouched, unsettled, whatever, the fact that the Jews got it shouldn't matter to the Arabs, it wasn't their, they didn't sacrifice anything, it wasn't stealing, why can't you just get it?
[quote]And there wouldn’t be any place for the Palestinians. You’re giving the holocaust refugees more special rights and privileges right now. [/quote]
The Arabs in the West Bank are not only living in a much smaller area but are also much larger in number and they're just fine. I'm sure they would have survived with the area they were given in 47 had they accepted it.
[quote]Yeah, I don’t see how that should be the Arab’s fault and as an excuse for the Jews to gain more land The Jewish Agency who started to purchase land should of planned that out beforehand. Only buy land that will border the land previously bought. They can’t just buy chunks of land throughout Palestine and say “How can there be an Israel like this?” then get the free land in all the blank spots at the Arab's expense due to Jewish Agency's poor planning. I have a feeling this was also deliberate. Really, this shouldn’t be the Arab’s problem at all and they shouldn’t have to compensate for the Agency’s mistakes. The Agency themselves should pay the price for their poor planning either by attempting to fill in the spots via more land purchases and if they are unable to purchase the remaining land then to bad, they only brought it upon themselves, their fault.[/QUOTE]
Hey go complain to the UN then.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27754466]It would of turned into Britain's version of Vietnam, I'm sure.
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
Why not this, keep both sides on 2 different sides of Palestine/Israel then a strip of neutral UN/international land.
You can't simply "put in forces to keep the peace" everywhere all the time. And that won't promise any end to any problems, you'll just create a third occupying force everyone resents.[/QUOTE]
Split up the territory and keep a small strip between them filled with a multinational force.
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;27767852]Split up the territory and keep a small strip between them filled with a multinational force.[/QUOTE]
I think it's a lot more complicated than merely "You sit in that corner and you sit in that corner and stay until I say so"
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27768048]I think it's a lot more complicated than merely "You sit in that corner and you sit in that corner and stay until I say so"[/QUOTE]
For some of the Holy sites, they require an international agreement to keep people happy. For connecting Gaza and the West Bank, they are actually negotiating for a corridor between the two areas so they understand these issues fairly well.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27754186]
And there wouldn’t be any place for the Palestinians. You’re giving the holocaust refugees more special rights and privileges right now. Yeah, I don’t see how that should be the Arab’s fault and as an excuse for the Jews to gain more land The Jewish Agency who started to purchase land should of planned that out beforehand. Only buy land that will border the land previously bought. They can’t just buy chunks of land throughout Palestine and say “How can there be an Israel like this?” then get the free land in all the blank spots at the Arab's expense due to Jewish Agency's poor planning. I have a feeling this was also deliberate. Really, this shouldn’t be the Arab’s problem at all and they shouldn’t have to compensate for the Agency’s mistakes. The Agency themselves should pay the price for their poor planning either by attempting to fill in the spots via more land purchases and if they are unable to purchase the remaining land then to bad, they only brought it upon themselves, their fault.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with this.
When Israel was attacked in 1948, you can't exactly expect them to keep the lands they got as they were-defending a country that is split into 3 individual parts is impossible. If the arabs didn't attempt to attack Israel, the country would have probably stayed as it is.
Also, what is all of this stuff about "arabs losing land"? Even if the lands the palestenians were on suddenly changed sovereignty, that doesn't somehow make the land already in their possesion to magically switch hands-they still have it, they just pay their taxes to the new state their land is on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.