How I Regard Israel Today

[Zeek]

I am away for a day, but will address some things when I get back. Obviously the 2010 quote was meant to be Abbas and not Arafat.

Also, perhaps you could do some home-work, because as you keep saying I don't know the difference between country and State, you don't know the legal difference between a displaced person and a refugee and how one qualifies legally....you might also discover that UNRWA deliberately blurs the lines. Shalom

 

[smaneck]

I am away for a day, but will address some things when I get back. Obviously the 2010 quote was meant to be Abbas and not Arafat.

I was wondering about that.

you don't know the legal difference between a displaced person and a refugee and how one qualifies legally....you might also discover that UNRWA deliberately blurs the lines. Shalom

I know the difference between an internally displaced person and a refugee, but a refugee is a displaced person.

 

[theophilus777]

Okay, so we have 688 tenants being compensated. That's out of how many tenants who were kicked off their land?

He gave lots of figures you're dismissing, including that Jews contributed far more to displaced (or whatever the correct term is) Arab welfare than all Arabs combined.

The Bedouin are primarily camel herders. What some of them might have done on the side is not really relevant to the issue of whether they lost their grazing lands.

Is it? I think criminal activity is pretty relevant to a lot of things.

Hint: You don't have to have a nation-state to have a country. A country can refer to any particular territory. Or are you going to argue now that Palestine wasn't a 'land'?

Which is a very good way to define people without formal nation-states out of existence so you can take their land. I don't buy it.

So what you have here is not merely a conflict between Jews and Palestinians, and not only is it complicated by foreign powers divying things up w/o providing for those so divied, you also have Int'l law being applied to an area where it never has been before. That doesn't bode well for people with no census or centralized Gov't.

Of course it was. People do not have to have a nation-state to be entitled to the country in which they live.

Int'l law doesn't really have a mechanism in place to account for this. That certainly pertains here.

The Jews in Arab lands were doing fine until 1948. Yes, in some cases it became untenable afterwards, but they were never denied the right to return if they wished.

As you know doubt are aware a lot of the the Jews who left these Arab countries did so because the Israelis were airlifting them out.

These statements are incongruous. You have used the word "untenable" a lot in this discussion but do not seem willing to apply that to a lone Jew thinking he might stay in Arab land, or return to it.

I am also curious to see Zeek's response to your allegation that Jews in Arab lands were doing fine until 1948.

 

[smaneck]

He gave lots of figures you're dismissing, including that Jews contributed far more to displaced (or whatever the correct term is) Arab welfare than all Arabs combined.

You mean they contributed more to the UN? I'm sure they did. Arab countries at the time had very little to contribute. What he really proved is that the US paid for the bulk of the expenses, nearly ten times what Israel paid.

Is it? I think criminal activity is pretty relevant to a lot of things.

It is not relevant to land rights. Your argument here is what we call ad hominem. It is the same sort of argument Sepulveda (and other Europeans) used to justify the Spaniards stealing the land of the Indians and enslaving them. They were barbarians and we are civilized, therefore we can do this?

So what you have here is not merely a conflict between Jews and Palestinians, and not only is it complicated by foreign powers divying things up w/o providing for those so divied, you also have Int'l law being applied to an area where it never has been before. That doesn't bode well for people with no census or centralized Gov't.

If you mean the Palestinian people were the losers in all this, I would agree.

Int'l law doesn't really have a mechanism in place to account for this. That certainly pertains here.

You are trying to tell me that any place which doesn't have a modern nation-state can be taken from the people who live there?

These statements are incongruous. You have used the word "untenable" a lot in this discussion but do not seem willing to apply that to a lone Jew thinking he might stay in Arab land, or return to it.

By 'untenable' I am conceding that Arabs after the establishment of the state of Israel were making life miserable for Jews living in their country. But to my knowledge no Jews were expelled nor have they been prohibited from returning. In fact in Yemen they tried to stop them from immigrating.

I am also curious to see Zeek's response to your allegation that Jews in Arab lands were doing fine until 1948.

Let's put it this way. They fared much better in Arab lands than they did in Europe.

 

[smaneck]

Thank you, Zeek, for responding fully to another sympathizer of the Arab takeover movement in the Middle East.

"Arab takeover movement?" What's that?

Israel will continue to have such attacks I think, but it is despicable that professing Christians do not read and appreciate the care of God for His people, and His work in the affairs of mankind, and only look at their own ideas.

Uh, you do realize you are posting in the World Religion folder? Most of us aren't Christians here. Maybe you should be posting in the Messianic Judaism folder?

 

[1watchman]

Oh, maybe I missed my mark on the posting ---sorry for any inconvenience, but Christianity and World Religion is exactly where I should be.

 

[theophilus777]

You mean they contributed more to the UN? I'm sure they did. Arab countries at the time had very little to contribute. What he really proved is that the US paid for the bulk of the expenses, nearly ten times what Israel paid.

Yup, "we" pay most of ... most things. And get saddled with the debt. And blamed for interfering. Ever see Robin Williams' opinion of proper foreign policy? Pretty humorous.

When Zeek used an abbreviation delineating who paid what, I didn't really know what it meant but assumed it was relevant. Just because it went to the UN, does that make it bad? It seemed to me to be a specific fund rather than a slush fund. For what purpose do you hold that Israel gave those funds to ... UNWRA or whatever Zeek said they gave it to. (Which you're saying was under UN control, correct?)

It is not relevant to land rights. Your argument here is what we call ad hominem. It is the same sort of argument Sepulveda (and other Europeans) used to justify the Spaniards stealing the land of the Indians and enslaving them. They were barbarians and we are civilized, therefore we can do this?

Negative. If I commit crime that's severe enough, I lose my property rights, nothing ad hom about that. While conquest of indigenous peoples is certainly the issue here, it is not automatically as unjust as the clearing of the Indians. If Indians attacked peaceful settlers w/o provocation, they suffered natural consequences. I don't think that really happened too much on this continent. I'll watch your convo w/ Zeek for details on that in Palestine; I just question the motive of the Jews to do this. The comparison further breaks down because this is by no means first contact with a newly discovered civilization. Neither can I excuse them as if they didn't have a conscience.

If you mean the Palestinian people were the losers in all this, I would agree.

I mean more than that. It appears to not be as simple as Jew = bad, Palestinian = good.

You are trying to tell me that any place which doesn't have a modern nation-state can be taken from the people who live there?

By what standard?

Look at it this way: how many Countries are there in the world? We can't arrive at one solid answer, it depends how you count it. How much land mass is left unaccounted for? I don't know, but I'll betcha its at least some. Leaving Antarctica out of it, I bet not all of that is uninhabited. There are many disputed borders right now. And how many borders exist that weren't ever determined militarily?

But at any rate, it appears that the answer to your question here is that is exactly what the UN did in this case. Which can't very well be blamed on the Jews, can it? And when Arabs / Palestinians refused with aggression, you can't really blame Jews for fighting back and winning, can you? Now if the UN propped up Israel to be able to slaughter everything in sight while not accounting for the Palestinians, who is really to blame? In this scenario it seems the Jews were set up to be the bad guy, in the hopes that the UN could be seen as keeping its hands clean. Gee, could this have anything to do with the chosen target for 911?

By 'untenable' I am conceding that Arabs after the establishment of the state of Israel were making life miserable for Jews living in their country. But to my knowledge no Jews were expelled nor have they been prohibited from returning. In fact in Yemen they tried to stop them from immigrating.

Well that's interesting. I wonder what conditions for Jews were like in Yemen? I wonder how many stayed? I hate to ask how they might fare now.

But how is it a good thing to not be expelled from a place where life is made miserable for you? I don't know but its not hard for me to imagine most of the current Palestinians desiring to be "expelled" from their refugee camps. I think Zeek made a significant point, that their plight is not relieved in the least by their Arab Brothers, but used as leverage instead. I'd be curious to see you address that. As far as them just being absorbed into Israel, that's like looking at the most dangerous part of a fight, when the 2 contenders are broken up w/ no clear winner having been decided. That's not exactly a peaceful situation.

Let's put it this way. They fared much better in Arab lands than they did in Europe.

Eek! Gosh, I'd hope so. That's not saying much.

Maybe by the time Zeek gets back you and I can figure out what should have been done after WWII. Apart from not disturbing Palestinians, what do you suggest?

 

[smaneck]

Just because it went to the UN, does that make it bad?

No, but this pittance of a charity hardly constitutes reparations for the Palestinian people.

Negative. If I commit crime that's severe enough, I lose my property rights,

Only if a court of law does so. You can't just decide "these people are savages" take their land. What is savage is taking away other people's home and livelihood.

While conquest of indigenous peoples is certainly the issue here, it is not automatically as unjust as the clearing of the Indians. If Indians attacked peaceful settlers w/o provocation, they suffered natural consequences.

Excuse me, but if people decide to camp out in your yard indefinitely are you going to call the 'peaceful settlers'? The very act of settling in your yard would be an act of provocation!

I mean more than that. It appears to not be as simple as Jew = bad, Palestinian = good.

Not at all. I am not talking about Jews in general, I'm talking specifically about those Jews who disinherited the Palestinians. Whether the Palestinians themselves are good people is really irrelevant. I don't steal from people just because I think they are bad.

Look at it this way: how many Countries are there in the world? We can't arrive at one solid answer

There is a much simpler way of looking at it. A land belongs to the people who have been living there for generations. And the land the people belong to is their country.

But at any rate, it appears that the answer to your question here is that is exactly what the UN did in this case. Which can't very well be blamed on the Jews, can it? And when Arabs / Palestinians refused with aggression, you can't really blame Jews for fighting back and winning, can you?

First off, you haven't established that the Palestinians became violent first. The first act of terrorism (the bombing of the King David Hotel) was committed by Jews, not Palestinians. But if the Jews were willing to settle for what the UN offered them, I think the Palestinians should give it to them in the name of peace, but I can't blame them for not accepting in the first place a decision they had no voice in.

Ultimately, I blame the British. They are the ones who created this whole mess.

Now if the UN propped up Israel to be able to slaughter everything in sight while not accounting for the Palestinians, who is really to blame?

The arms mostly came from the US.

Well that's interesting. I wonder what conditions for Jews were like in Yemen? I wonder how many stayed? I hate to ask how they might fare now.

It's a very long story. Yemen was once a largely Jewish country. Jews in Yemen were not badly treated after the rise of Islam until the Zaydis (a Shi'ite sect) took over in the tenth century. Then a statue was imposed under which any Jewish orphan was to be raised Muslim. (Pope Pius IX tried to do this in the 19th century.) There were also some attempts to forcibly convert Jews in the 12th century. When Yemen fell under Rasulid in the 13th century, taking custody of Jewish orphans and all attempts at forcible conversion ceased. Eventually a symbiotic relationship developed between Jews and Muslims with Muslims providing Jews with food stuffs and Jews producing manufactured items. Under Ottoman rule the situation remained the same, and by the 18th century the Jewish community was quite prosperous. About 10% of the Yemenite Jews immigrated to Palestine in the 19th century with the encouragement of the Ottoman government, moving mostly into Jerusalem or Jaffa. After the Ottoman Empire fell, the now independent Yemenite government tried to reimpose the Orphan Decree in 1918. After the UN Partition of Palestine vote, riots broke out against the Jews in Aden, Yemen leading to the death of 82 Jews. This led to the Israeli government initiating Operation Magic Carpet in 1949 which airlifted 50,000 Jews out of Yemen. The operation was badly handled with the Israelis expecting the Yemenite Jews to wait in a camp in the desert with virtually no provisions. They were left waiting so long that hundreds died in the camp. Some even died on the planes to Israel. Ironically, given their history, Yemenite Jews have accused the Israelis of putting up over a thousand Yemenite babies up for adoption to be raised by non-Yemenites.
In more recent times Yemenite security forces have gone to great lengths to persuade the remaining Jews to stay in their home towns. In cases where these Jews were persecuted they even provided financial assistance so they could relocate to safer areas. But Jews have continued to trickle out of Yemen.

But how is it a good thing to not be expelled from a place where life is made miserable for you?

Did I say it was a good thing?

I don't know but its not hard for me to imagine most of the current Palestinians desiring to be "expelled" from their refugee camps. I think Zeek made a significant point, that their plight is not relieved in the least by their Arab Brothers, but used as leverage instead. I'd be curious to see you address that.

Here is the problem. I don't accept the premise that the Arabs in these other countries are their 'brothers.' Sharing the same language does not necessarily make people feel like they have a special obligation towards one another.

Maybe by the time Zeek gets back you and I can figure out what should have been done after WWII. Apart from not disturbing Palestinians, what do you suggest?

How about inviting them all to immigrate to the US? Or how about giving the Jews Germany? If you are going to take away someone's land why not take it away from those who tried to destroy your entire people?

 

[theophilus777]

No, but this pittance of a charity hardly constitutes reparations for the Palestinian people.

This was a charity? What was it used for?

Not at all. I am not talking about Jews in general, I'm talking specifically about those Jews who disinherited the Palestinians.

I thought that much was included in mymeaning, via context. Allow me to be more precise. What I'm saying is its not as simple as a specific Jew who disinherited a Palestinian = bad, Palestinian = good.

There is a much simpler way of looking at it. A land belongs to the people who have been living there for generations.

This would be exactly why the Jews feel they have a right to this land. Surely you realize that?

First off, you haven't established that the Palestinians became violent first. The first act of terrorism (the bombing of the King David Hotel) was committed by Jews, not Palestinians. But if the Jews were willing to settle for what the UN offered them, I think the Palestinians should give it to them in the name of peace, but I can't blame them for not accepting in the first place a decision they had no voice in.

But it is clearly established from history that the Palestinians did NOT give the Jews the UN offer the Jews in fact were willing to settle for. You know, that whole "push Israel into the sea" thing? This would seem to leave some responsibility with the Palestinians for their current plight, wouldn't you think? I mean, that doesn't exactly sound like a diplomatic call back to the bargaining table to me.

Ultimately, I blame the British. They are the ones who created this whole mess.

I'm just curious, because most of your statements on this topic seem not to account for this or any other possibility other than Jew = bad, Palestinian = good. I think British rule over the area was generally not a good thing, same as I would say about Rome. But if you blame the British, you really can't forget about ...

The arms mostly came from the US.

Most arms seem to. Unless the're Soviet. No doubt Taiwan and mainland China will catch up soon? So it would seem US might have some responsibility to Israel, and to the Middle East peace process.

Here is the problem. I don't accept the premise that the Arabs in these other countries are their 'brothers.'

That fact may be the only reason Israel still exists, as opposed to having been pushed into the sea already. And the UN may have been banking on this, and using Israel to create a fix the UN could not?

How about inviting them all to immigrate to the US? Or how about giving the Jews Germany? If you are going to take away someone's land why not take it away from those who tried to destroy your entire people?

Surely you are joking about the Gerrmany thing. Quite a few Jews did come to the US, but I have no idea why that wasn't the solution at the time instead of Palestine. Zeek?

 

[smaneck]

This was a charity? What was it used for?

To provide handouts to Palestinians instead of their dignity and their land.

I thought that much was included in mymeaning, via context. Allow me to be more precise. What I'm saying is its not as simple as a specific Jew who disinherited a Palestinian = bad, Palestinian = good.

I do think disinheriting a people is bad, if that's what you mean.

This would be exactly why the Jews feel they have a right to this land. Surely you realize that?

They hadn't been living there for generations.

But it is clearly established from history that the Palestinians did NOT give the Jews the UN offer the Jews in fact were willing to settle for.

No, the Jews were no more willing to settle with the land the UN gave them than the Palestinians were willing to give up that land to them.

You know, that whole "push Israel into the sea" thing? This would seem to leave some responsibility with the Palestinians for their current plight, wouldn't you think?

No, I really don't expect that if Mexico tried to take southern California and California fought back and lost that the entire state, that Californians would be responsible for this. However, if some 50 years later Mexico were to offer northern California back even though they have the power to keep all of it, I think Californians would have to settle for what they can get.

I'm just curious, because most of your statements on this topic seem not to account for this or any other possibility other than Jew = bad, Palestinian = good.

I think taking other people's land is wrong, period. But I also think the Jews had their back against the wall. And yes, it was the British who really created this mess.

So it would seem US might have some responsibility to Israel, and to the Middle East peace process.

I'd say the US is responsible for Israel, not to it.

That fact may be the only reason Israel still exists, as opposed to having been pushed into the sea already.

No, you are forgetting that all the Arabs states were newly formed entities themselves without military training or the weapons the Jews possessed.

Surely you are joking about the Gerrmany thing.

Why not? Is it not the Holocaust that made Israel a necessity? Wouldn't it have been better for the perpetrators to have paid the price rather than the Palestinian people?

Quite a few Jews did come to the US, but I have no idea why that wasn't the solution at the time instead of Palestine. Zeek?

Hint: We weren't willing to let them in. After Hitler came to power, but before US entry into WWII we consistently refused to permit large-scale immigration of Jewish refugees. The SS St. Louis sailed from Germany in May 1939 carrying 936 (mainly German) Jewish refugees. We turned the ship back. Only 365 of these people survived the Holocaust. The US did not change its immigration policies until the formation of the State of Israel.

So yeah, there is enough blame to go around.

 

[theophilus777]

To provide handouts to Palestinians instead of their dignity and their land.

This is fair and balanced? Sounds like those doing the giving and the handing out may have felt they were giving fair value for the land. I don't know, but currency tends to work like that.

I do think disinheriting a people is bad, if that's what you mean.

That's not at all what I mean. A person doing the disinheriting, even if they are a Jew, cannot be reduced to that and that alone. Esp when you factor in all the other things we have discussed, it seems like that really wasn't why the Jews were there at all.

They hadn't been living there for generations.

"They" is an unidentified pronoun. Some Jews moved into Palestine from Europe. This is a given, and part of a UN mandate. (Maybe "plan" is a better word?) That alone kinda makes your whole point here moot. Going on with it anyway, if you want to claim land rights for Palestinians based on having lived there for some time, why does this get removed from the Jews as a people? Their history there is ancient.

No, the Jews were no more willing to settle with the land the UN gave them than the Palestinians were willing to give up that land to them.

You may well be right and I surely don't know, but I have never heard a Jew say this. Hopefully Zeek will wade back in but now I am talking to you; what makes you say this? How do you know?

The story I hear from you goes something like this: the Jews are entirely wrong no matter what they do and they left their concentration camps to fight the Arabs who are never wrong no matter what.

Of course that is a bit of a parody, but your knowledge of the nuances never comes out in a statement. The facts are always disjointed from your position. I've never seen that from you on any other topic.

No, I really don't expect that if Mexico tried to take southern California and California fought back and lost that the entire state, that Californians would be responsible for this. However, if some 50 years later Mexico were to offer northern California back even though they have the power to keep all of it, I think Californians would have to settle for what they can get.

Your analogy makes no mention of the British drawing up the lines, nor the UN. Try again?

I have always been curious what would happen if a democratic referendum were put before the Palestinian refugees in their camps, how long they would hold out or if they would take the offers given and if any lasting peace would be reached. Of course I do not know the specifics well enough to know how any of those offers may have compared to the original UN plans, or which offers were best for the Palestinians.

I think taking other people's land is wrong, period. But I also think the Jews had their back against the wall. And yes, it was the British who really created this mess.

Is it that the Brits created it and the US financed it?

I'm really not sure what either the Jews or the Palestinians were supposed to do. Luke 17:34 "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." This always seemed a strange verse to me, but I never imagined it in this context before. Maybe this is what Jesus was talking about?

No, you are forgetting that all the Arabs states were newly formed entities themselves without military training or the weapons the Jews possessed.

Forgetting?!? Heck no, I never realized that. The whole region was tribal and no central Gov't until when?

Why not? Is it not the Holocaust that made Israel a necessity? Wouldn't it have been better for the perpetrators to have paid the price rather than the Palestinian people?

Ok, if you're seriously asking that question I think I should defer to Zeek to answer it. If he passes the baton back to me I will make an attempt.

Hint: We weren't willing to let them in. After Hitler came to power, but before US entry into WWII we consistently refused to permit large-scale immigration of Jewish refugees. The SS St. Louis sailed from Germany in May 1939 carrying 936 (mainly German) Jewish refugees. We turned the ship back. Only 365 of these people survived the Holocaust. The US did not change its immigration policies until the formation of the State of Israel.

So yeah, there is enough blame to go around.

Obviously I fail at int'l policy because I see plenty of land all around me, where we never kicked the Indians off their land. We have so much open space its crazy, and even after we remove arid areas and reduce our scope to good fertile land capable of supporting large communities we still have LOTS. Apparently it takes veteran policy makers to create an acceptably ridiculous immigration practice.

 

[Huntun]

That is not apartheid...it is a practical necessity because of security. Israel's detractors love to use the words 'apartheid' and 'racist' and make comparisons to South Africa, but despite what Tutu declared it is nothing like it.

Just because something appears to be (or is) a practical necessity doesn't imply that it can't also be apartheid. I don't think necessity factors in to the definition one way or the other. I'm certain the supporters of South African apartheid also considered the actions they took necessary too.

 

[theophilus777]

I just looked up apartheid and every definition specifies what happened in S Africa.

This thread is not about S Africa. I suggest that entering that term and attempting to re-define it (or not) might be too much for this thread, considering everything else that's on the table of discussion that has never been solved, by anyone.

 

[smaneck]

This is fair and balanced? Sounds like those doing the giving and the handing out may have felt they were giving fair value for the land. I don't know, but currency tends to work like that.

Seriously? Israel was worth only $3,000,000? Can I buy it for that? Contributions to UNHCR are like contributions to UNICEF, they are not reparations by any stretch of the imagination! If we take the original number of Palestinian refugees to be about 700,000 that is $4 per person. Some reparation!

That's not at all what I mean. A person doing the disinheriting, even if they are a Jew, cannot be reduced to that and that alone.

The thing is you are the one guilty of this reductionism. You reduced the complexity of what I've been saying to Jew=Bad and Palestinian=Good. I never made that equation. I have all along talked about acts being right or wrong, not people being good or bad. But you've tried to pigeon-hole me into your own simplistic conceptions.

"They" is an unidentified pronoun. Some Jews moved into Palestine from Europe.

Those are the ones I'm talking about, not Oriental Jews who had been living in Palestine for generations. As I mentioned earlier, these Jews mostly lived in urban centers and never disinherited anyone.

This is a given, and part of a UN mandate.

There was no UN mandate prior to 1947 but Zionists had been encouraging immigration since the late 19th century.

(Maybe "plan" is a better word?) That alone kinda makes your whole point here moot. Going on with it anyway, if you want to claim land rights for Palestinians based on having lived there for some time, why does this get removed from the Jews as a people? Their history there is ancient.

Because the Jews we are talking about hadn't been there for 2000 years? Land titles don't go back that far, not in any culture or civilization.

You may well be right and I surely don't know, but I have never heard a Jew say this. Hopefully Zeek will wade back in but now I am talking to you; what makes you say this? How do you know?

Did you see all the archival records which I referred to previously which described plans to cleanse the land of Palestinians long before hostilities began?

The story I hear from you goes something like this: the Jews are entirely wrong no matter what they do and they left their concentration camps to fight the Arabs who are never wrong no matter what.

Yeah, that's your reductionism, not mine.

Of course that is a bit of a parody, but your knowledge of the nuances never comes out in a statement.

Or maybe you are just not listening.

Your analogy makes no mention of the British drawing up the lines, nor the UN. Try again?

Would it make a difference to the people who had no say in this decision? I've already conceded that the British created this mess, but they didn't draw up the original lines of partition, the UN did and neither the Jews or the Palestinians accepted it. The Palestinians rejected it because they didn't think they should have to give up any of their land, and the Jews didn't accept it because it didn't give them defensible borders.

I have always been curious what would happen if a democratic referendum were put before the Palestinian refugees in their camps, how long they would hold out or if they would take the offers given and if any lasting peace would be reached. Of course I do not know the specifics well enough to know how any of those offers may have compared to the original UN plans, or which offers were best for the Palestinians.

Oh, I'm sure they would accept the original 1947 boundaries. I suspect they would even accept the pre-1963 boundaries. But that would require Israel giving up Jerusalem. Not going to happen. And since I've learned that Jews made up the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem even during the Ottoman Empire, I no longer think they should.

Is it that the Brits created it and the US financed it?

LOL. I suppose you could say that.

I'm really not sure what either the Jews or the Palestinians were supposed to do. Luke 17:34 "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." This always seemed a strange verse to me, but I never imagined it in this context before. Maybe this is what Jesus was talking about?

Well, it isn't a reference to the rapture, like so many people think. I think it was actually predicting the Diaspora.

Forgetting?!? Heck no, I never realized that. The whole region was tribal and no central Gov't until when?

Did you forget that the area had been divided up between the Brits and French after WWI in violation of the British promise that there would be a single pan-Arab state ruled by the Hashemites? And what did the Hashemites get out of it? Jordan. Before WWI the area was ruled by the Ottomans. Iraq gained its independence in 1947, British military presence in Egypt continued until 1954, the French evacuated their troops from Syria in 1946.

Ok, if you're seriously asking that question I think I should defer to Zeek to answer it. If he passes the baton back to me I will make an attempt.

The question was rhetorical, like why shouldn't I be serious about justice being better served if the Jews were given Germany rather than Palestine? It was the Germans who had wronged the Jews, not Palestinians.

Obviously I fail at int'l policy because I see plenty of land all around me, where we never kicked the Indians off their land.

Apparently you don't know your history, not Middle Eastern not US. I suggest you start out by reading about the Trail of Tears.

Trail of Tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[danny ski]

Whatever! Today is June 7, an anniversary of reunification of Jerusalem. On this date back in 67, Israel took the Old City from Jordanian occupiers and ended 2000 years of separation.

 

[smaneck]

On this date back in 67, Israel took the Old City from Jordanian occupiers

Jordanian occupiers?

 

[1watchman]

Whoa! Like all such issues, this one has really got off track. The original post concerns a view of Israel from the Christian standpoint. I don't expect non-Christians to agree to it all, but I did suppose the Israelites would like to see why a professing Christian nation (though certainly not all citizens being Christian) should defend Israel. And I added what is expected of Israel as a established nation, which is to treat Arabs living as law-abiding dwellers there in a right way. That then became a BIG argument (which I also suspect will continue until the Lord returns to earth).

So, as to the western world's support, it is because their Messiah (whom nationally they reject) is Lord and Savior for mankind, and the object of Christian faith. Now, before the moderators kick us all off this post, I would suggest one re-consider the orig. post:

There are a number of opinions about Israel, so I thought to share my view, and see if there is any agreement to it:

About Christian regard for Israel, I believe we need to defend them as God's covenant people, who will be restored as an earthly people and governing authority under God in the Millennium time. The Bible clearly teaches this; notwithstanding that God has them under discipline today as a scattered people, who have rebelled ---are blinded, and rejected the grace of God in Jesus, the Christ.

Israel will repent in time as prophecy shows. Though until that restoration day nationally, individual Israelites everywhere must come to Christ in this present age to be saved. They are on the same ground as the Gentiles.

Certainly, in a practical and godly way, I believe Israel should recognize that the various Arabs in the nation of Israel ought to be treated properly and adequately, if they are law-abiding and peaceful; and until they become real citizens and supportive and loyal to the government for full benefits. The Arabs dwelling outside of Israel seem to keep trying to infiltrate for harm and continually attack the Israelite citizens, which certainly is wrong on their part.

This present animosity will all likely continue, I believe, until the Lord Jesus returns. He will then purify the earth, judge and restore delinquent Israelites, and establish His reign over God's earthly people of Israel, and God's heavenly people who are of the "Bride of Christ" --the Church.

 

[danny ski]

Jordanian occupiers?

Sorry, my mistake. I wanted to say Martians.

 

[theophilus777]

Seriously? Israel was worth only $3,000,000? Can I buy it for that? Contributions to UNHCR are like contributions to UNICEF, they are not reparations by any stretch of the imagination! If we take the original number of Palestinian refugees to be about 700,000 that is $4 per person. Some reparation!

You know very well this does not account for MOST of what was paid, just under that one fund. You also know payment was made both for land and to tenants just to move away, over and above this specific fund. Why does your response not account for any of this? This is yet one more example of me finding your responses not to match what you know. It makes me wonder if you are too emotional about this issue to be able to discuss this. I don;t know what else to attribute it to.


"Because se the Jews we are talking about hadn't been there for 2000 years? Land titles don't go back that far, not in any culture or civilization."

My point is, who's standards do we use? Everyone's involved is different.

"Did you see all the archival records which I referred to previously which described plans to cleanse the land of Palestinians long before hostilities began?"

No I did not.

"the Jews didn't accept it because it didn't give them defensible borders."

I'm not at all convinced the Jews "didn't accept it." They certainly took the occasion of war to improve their position. Bottom line: the Arab locals took a gamble and lost. I don't think history can be painted such that they were peacefully moving aside and blind-sided by Jewish attack in the process, which is how you make it sound. I don't know I wasn't there, but somehow I doubt that's what happened.

"Oh, I'm sure they would accept the original 1947 boundaries. I suspect they would even accept the pre-1963 boundaries."

I have no idea how we would even know. It seems the leadership over them has never been interested in representing them, or their rights.

"since I've learned that Jews made up the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem even during the Ottoman Empire, I no longer think they should."

Jews don't think they should give up their Promised Land. Regardless of who might think their rights to the land expired in their absence.

"The question was rhetorical, like why shouldn't I be serious about justice being better served if the Jews were given Germany rather than Palestine? It was the Germans who had wronged the Jews, not Palestinians."

I really don't expect such an insensitive comment from you. Neither does the Trail of Tears have any bearing on what I said. That you conflate these is further indication to me of pure emotionalism. What else can I gather?

 

[Zeek]

"In the 1920s and 1930s, there were hundreds of examples of Palestinian Arabs voluntarily emigrating away from new or imminent Jewish settlements and enclaves because of economic reasons, Arab sales, and Jewish purchases. For example, when the Palestine Land Development Company purchased land for the Jewish National Fund (INF) in the Acre area and Jezreel Valley in the 1920s, more than 688 Arab tenants and their families from more than twenty Arab villages comprising more than 250,000 dunams (one dunam equals a quarter acre) vacated their lands after each tenant received financial compensation from Zionist buyers.
Middle East Piece - How Many Palestinian Arabs were Dispossessed?

Okay, so we have 688 tenants being compensated. That's out of how many tenants who were kicked off their land? '

Look...you made a statement prior to my answer that suggested Tenants were systematically kicked off their land, and made it look like it was a direct result of Jewish people buying land from absentee Landlords without giving a toss about the people on the land, I have given you an comprehensive example that this was not the case and that generally the Jews that brought the land went over and beyond what was legally required of them and tried to see to it that the tenants also benefited from the deal.

So for you one example of 688 is just not good enough, you need to know how many did not get a good deal...but I suspect if I put it into a % and show that the vast majority got far more than they ever expected (bearing in mind the obligation was at that time moral not legal) you will still not be satisfied and will next want me to name each individual etc etc.

The figures on record that can be checked demonstrate that out of 700,000 Arabs, just over 3,300 were classed as having been dispossessed, which as a % works out at less than one half of one %, and this was not blamed on Jewish land purchases, but on a combination of factors including Landowners who were uninterested in the welfare of their tenants and worsening economic conditions.

Middle East Piece - How Many Palestinian Arabs were Dispossessed?

So you see, much as the anti-Israel brigade love to say that the Jews 'kicked' the local farmers off their own land (two lies in one) the evidence and the facts show that this was not the case and is only part of a wider false narrative that has been carefully and cunningly developed over the last 50 years or so...why? Simply because there is a type battle being waged (fairly successfully) that has no guns or bombs, but is producing results by feeding peoples minds and compelling them to take sides in an issue that mostly doesn't concern them, or that they would never have bothered about in the first place.

The Israelis have been very slow to wake up to this, preferring to think that people are reasonable and would not be so easily hood-winked...but they have made a big mistake and are gradually countering things as effectively as they can, even getting spokespersons who speak understandable English.


What I am countering is your idea that the Bedouin are perceived as peaceful nomadic farmers who have wandered the Middle-East spreading sunshine and light for hundreds of years

In the first place 'nomadic farmers' is a contradiction in terms. Nomads don't farm. The Bedouin are primarily camel herders. What some of them might have done on the side is not really relevant to the issue of whether they lost their grazing lands. I said nothing about whether they were peaceful or not. I simply pointed out that they lost their grazing lands, and you then turned around and denounced them as thieves and rapists.

You fail to make the distinction between the Arabs farming the land and the Bedouin who used to attack the Arabs farming the land...they wiped out whole villages...here is an example of how they operated.

Until the passage of the Turkish Land Registry Law in 1858,
there were no official deeds to attest to a man's legal title to a parcel
of land; tradition alone had to suffice to establish such title— and
usually it did. And yet, the position of Palestine's farmers was a
precarious one, for there were constant blood-feuds between families,
clans and entire villages, as well as periodic incursions by rapacious118 The Case for Israel
Bedouin tribes, such as the notorious Ben Sakk'r, of whom H. B.
Tristram (The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine,
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1865) wrote
that they "can muster 1,000 cavalry and always join their brethren
when a raid or war is on the move. They have obtained their
present possessions gradually and, in great measure, by driving out
the fellahin (peasants), destroying their villages and reducing their
rich corn-fields to pasturage." (p. 488.)

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf


As it happens Israel is concerned on bettering the lives of its Bedouin population, and although the Prawer plan has been shelved for the moment, plans are afoot to come up with a better way of doing things that will be more acceptable to a wider number of the Bedouin.

Yes, in recent times they have tried to do stuff for the Bedouin. I'm talking about what happened to them as a result of Jewish immigration to the rural areas in the first place.

Seems to me you are trying to blame Israel for something once again.

It is also true to say that because of changing times, the nomadic life is disappearing in that part of the Middle-East.

I would agree that nomads have not fared very well with the development of nation-states anywhere.

The exact extent to which Mossad may be regarded as complicit in funding Hamas is not known...what can I say, Israel has made mistakes and done some foolish things like every nation under the sun.

I'm glad to see you are not denying it.

It is a story I am familiar with, but will have to check it out with friends in Mossad when I get the chance....Nobody denies that Israel has done things wrong at times or could have done things another way sometimes, what I and other pro-Israel advocates are careful with concerns the lies and revised history that is used as a weapon to demonize Israel, usually because the intent is to present Israel as some Pariah State.

If they were 'displaced' they could not maintain refugee status and receive the benefits, so most of they were persuaded to register as refugees...many milked the system by registering non-existent people.

what

What is a refugee if not someone who has been displaced from home country by war or persecution?

Sure on the surface it might seem like that, but when you check out UNRWA you find they included all sorts as refugees from Palestine, including figures for Arabs still in Israel, destitute Arabs, Arabs from other conflicts and like I said the system was further milked by the use of duplicate ration cards and such like....their figure for the 1948 refugees was over 700,000, but it has been carefully scrutinized by other organizations who describe the figure as somewhere well under 500,000, and I have even heard figures of around 375,000. Whatever the true figures are, there are obviously factors here that most people never read about or give consideration to.

Which country was that? No the claim is fraudulent, they did not have a country, and Palestine has never been a state or a country.

Still haven't learned the difference between a country and a nation-state, huh? Hint: You don't have to have a nation-state to have a country. A country can refer to any particular territory. Or are you going to argue now that Palestine wasn't a 'land'?

Well I'm not going to argue the toss with you...fact is Palestine was a district, mostly the name was used during the Mandate, and prior to that it was considered as the region of southern Syria and part of the Ottoman province and prior to that part of the Arab Caliphate...never a sovereign Country or State....never had a monarch, specific currency, language etc...

I am talking about a State or an independent country

Which is a very good way to define people without formal nation-states out of existence so you can take their land. I don't buy it.

I have already demonstrated that the Jews did not generally try and ride rough-shod over the local inhabitants and steal their land, which is once again the precariously unhistorical position you are retreating to.


It was not their Country

Of course it was. People do not have to have a nation-state to be entitled to the country in which they live.

Perhaps you could elaborate and perhaps show me a prior example of how this system of yours operates because for the life of me I can't find anything pertaining to your insistence that this is how nations are formed...bearing in mind the the Mandate for the British was to do some nation building.

.

..besides the Israelis did not want them to leave and were happy to include them as citizens

Sorry but the minutes of Israel's cabinet meetings, the Haganah Archive in Tel Aviv, and the IDF and Israel Defense Ministry Archive in Givatayim, establish that around half the Palestinians who became refugees were evicted by the Israeli army. I personally knew an old man who was living in Palestine at the time of the 1948 war. He was a Baha'i whose ancestors had accompanied Baha'u'llah to Akka in 1868. Even though these Baha'is had taken no sides whatsoever in the Arab-Israeli dispute all of his brothers were rounded up and imprisoned? Their crime? Being of military age!

I'm sure there are lot's of stories out there...I have spoken with numerous Palestinians who have had a bad time of things...yes some of it was because the Israelis saw the need to change the demography in certain areas...more from a practical and security stand point than anything else...but the majority of people fled because of rumours, because of some events like Deir Yassin, because of Arab leaders telling them to leave and so on...it was war and unfortunately by its very nature unlawful, harsh and unjustifiable acts take place.

I am making the point that you focus entirely on the rights of the dispossessed Arabs from Palestine and completely ignore the dispossessed Jews from Arab lands

The Jews in Arab lands were doing fine until 1948. Yes, in some cases it became untenable afterwards, but they were never denied the right to return if they wished.

Sorry this is laughable and I will show it to some friends who escaped with the clothes on their backs from Arab lands and who can give a very accurate description of life in Islamic countries....but I will have to address it later as I have run out of time.