Home | But eventually, they were forced out, so their fears of being forced out were correct. Leave it to a pro-Israeli source not to tell the whole truth about Israeli history.Originally posted by danholo
Before 1948, the Zionists outpopulated Arabs in certain areas but people weren't forced out.
Jewish Virtual Library
Refugee
*** The point is that Zionists "outpopulating" involved forcing Arabs out. The "right of return" is for those Arabs forced out to return. ****
The point should be to allow "Palestinian" arabs to go live in a Palestinian state, whereever it should be. that is the point of Israeli "right of return" and WE INVENTED THE TERM, SO WE DEFINED IT! What is more important, having their own state and self-sovereignty, or a specific area of land as opposed to another, particularly when there would be more land to distribute in another place.
WHY is the land so important.
Its not the home of the religion. Its not even the historic home for the VAST majority of Palestinian Arabs, as you can tell by the fact that most have closer relatives in Jordan and Syria than many of the people who are their neighbors.
**** It was never British, it was never Turkish (or Mamluk Turkish), it was never Byzantine, and it was never Roman. Those were all occupiers.
It was Jewish, then Canaan, then Arab.
But what is the point? That Jews should be allowed to return and kick out the Arabs currently living there? ***
Wrong. It belonged to the nation who was in charge. When it was Roman...it was Roman. For a while it was Jewish under Roman rule (Judea), but then the Jews revolted, eventually were put down, and were mostly exiled.
The people their WERE ROMAN. Then they WERE BYZANTINE. and so on and so forth. "Occupier" is a fake term. Should all Arabs return to the Arabian peninsula, after all, they were not the original inhabitants of most of the areas around them. Persians should certainly get Bagdad, Kuwait, etc. back, shouldn't they?
Why don't you just ADMIT that this is just about the Arab nations getting trampled by Europe and then getting their butts repetitvely kicked by a small, outnumbered state, and not being able to deal with either (pride)...because THAT IS what this, ultimately, is all about. Not sovereignty, or Justice... but ARAB PRIDE.
But that is not the point. The point is that the Palestinians are there, and they want a state there because that is where they live, regardless of who they are affiliated with.The point should be to allow "Palestinian" arabs to go live in a Palestinian state, whereever it should be. that is the point of Israeli "right of return" and WE INVENTED THE TERM, SO WE DEFINED IT! What is more important, having their own state and self-sovereignty, or a specific area of land as opposed to another, particularly when there would be more land to distribute in another place.
WHY is the land so important.
Its not the home of the religion. Its not even the historic home for the VAST majority of Palestinian Arabs, as you can tell by the fact that most have closer relatives in Jordan and Syria than many of the people who are their neighbors.
The people in an area determine the area's identity, not some foreign ruler who imposes rules. Do you think that when Jews lived in Judea that it was Roman? No, it was Jewish, and the Romans had no privelege to take control of the area against the will of those Jews. Just like the Persians have no privelege to take Baghdad and Kuwait from the Mesopotamians. Just like Britain had no privilege to distribute Arab land as it pleased.Wrong. It belonged to the nation who was in charge. When it was Roman...it was Roman. For a while it was Jewish under Roman rule (Judea), but then the Jews revolted, eventually were put down, and were mostly exiled.
The people their WERE ROMAN. Then they WERE BYZANTINE. and so on and so forth. "Occupier" is a fake term. Should all Arabs return to the Arabian peninsula, after all, they were not the original inhabitants of most of the areas around them. Persians should certainly get Bagdad, Kuwait, etc. back, shouldn't they?
I fail to see the relevance of this argument.Why don't you just ADMIT that this is just about the Arab nations getting trampled by Europe and then getting their butts repetitvely kicked by a small, outnumbered state, and not being able to deal with either (pride)...because THAT IS what this, ultimately, is all about. Not sovereignty, or Justice... but ARAB PRIDE.
First, you didn't answer the question.
Second, you are legitimating using the "population" question.
Third, Mesopotamia died, and Persia was an outgrowth of Babylon.
but by your accounts, the ARABS had NO RIGHT to take the land from the Persians, or the remaining Jews in Israel/Judea/Palestine, or the Spanish (the Moors) or most of Northern Africa, or the Greeks and other Helenics (including the Turks, who were once much more helenic but the influx from Mohammeds invasion changed the composition of the tribes in power).
Admit that!
Before the Arab invasion the area was still majority Jewish, even with the Roman expulsion of the majority of the Jews.
Finally, the last point is THE POINT.
That this is not about rights or justice, but about the ego of a loosley tied people, the last fringes of Pan-Arabism (which has a lot to do with Islamic extremism, too), and has very little if anything to do with what trying to do what is right, best and good.
The artcile quotes a GA resolution (only advisory), not a security council resolution. And I think it misquotes the resolution, also, as the term "Palestinian" wasn't in use then.Originally posted by Mehmet III
But eventually, they were forced out, so their fears of being forced out were correct. Leave it to a pro-Israeli source not to tell the whole truth about Israeli history.
Refugee
The Security Council Resolution talks about General refugees, including the Jews that were driven out of all the Arab nations as a result of the conflict.
I'm going to research the resolution.
Yep, the ARTICLE MISQUOTES THE RESOLUTION (that's what we call biased and false reporting) which says only "refugees"
http://www.mideastweb.org/194.htm
The ACTUAL LANGUAGE is:
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
note, not refugees from Palestine (in fact, the mention the "UN Palestine Refugee" whatnot thing as something seperate to be kept in touch with, so the NON-usage is even more compelling, it goes beyond just the refugees from what was supposed to be "Palestine")
Also, "in peace with their neighbors" would seem to exclude ANY ARAB AT THE TIME - SINCE ALL THE ARAB STATES were at war with ISRAEL, and presumably all the Arab populace through their representative.
In fact, its GREAT grounds for Israel to EXPELL any member of Hamas, the PLO, Jihad, etc., as they certainly DO NOT want to live at peace.
These r many complicated situations in wich many factors come into play. Let me clarify wat my stance was.but by your accounts, the ARABS had NO RIGHT to take the land from the Persians, or the remaining Jews in Israel/Judea/Palestine, or the Spanish (the Moors) or most of Northern Africa, or the Greeks and other Helenics (including the Turks, who were once much more helenic but the influx from Mohammeds invasion changed the composition of the tribes in power).
-One occupier to another occupier is (ex. Persian to Arab) is only justified if the population recieves the latter occupier with mor welcome than the former.
-Population influx (ex. Arab into Judea) is not occupation.
-On any account, if the occupier is against the will of the ppl, the occupier is unjustified in ruling.
It duznt matter. It is the duty of ppl evrywhere to do wat is rite, best, and gud. And even so, unless u can back ur claim that its all about ego, that claim is null.That this is not about rights or justice, but about the ego of a loosley tied people, the last fringes of Pan-Arabism (which has a lot to do with Islamic extremism, too), and has very little if anything to do with what trying to do what is right, best and good.
You conveniently forget to mention that the overwhelming majority of land was owned by the state. (It had also been promised by the owners to the Jewish people.)Originally posted by jcsd
Merely dismissing something as garbage, because it refuses to fit into your narrow world-view is very poor arguing.
The percentage of land owned or controlled by zionists was always much smaller than their percentage population, in 1945, they controlled 8% of the land in Palestine (this includes rented Arab land). You are quite welcome to go to middle-east.org where they have both this figure and previous figure. If you make claims against what is generally excepted as historical fact then the burden of proof must be on you. Until you give me some evidence I cannot take your claims seriously.
Since Jews were historically denied the right to own land in Europe and Russia, it's no surprise that few Jews came prepared for farming.
Still, owning only 8% of the land (the Arabs owned only slightly more), Jews were the overwhelming majority in the coastal area in which they sought self-determination -- self-determination granted by the UN's Partition plan rejected by the Arabs.
"Population influx is not occupation."Originally posted by Mehmet III
These r many complicated situations in wich many factors come into play. Let me clarify wat my stance was.
-One occupier to another occupier is (ex. Persian to Arab) is only justified if the population recieves the latter occupier with mor welcome than the former.
-Population influx (ex. Arab into Judea) is not occupation.
-On any account, if the occupier is against the will of the ppl, the occupier is unjustified in ruling.
Then the only logical conclusion is that the Arabs who immigrated to western Palestine had a right to be there, and the Jews who immigrated to western Palestine had a right to be there.
The UN Partition attempted to satisfy the legitimate desire for self-determination by both groups, but was rejected by the Arabs.
Today, there are one million Arab Israelis. The government of Israel does not demand their expulsion.
Today, there are 200,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. The PA and various Palestinian groups demand their expulsion even though in some cases (e.g., Hebron) they are reestablishing a Jewish community that was driven out of their legitimate homes by force.
Basically, you are saying it all comes down to whether a group is there "against the will of the people." This is just a convenient way of overriding all other considerations, including the ones you raised yourself. It also ignores the fact that the people whose "will" you bow to were themselves immigrants while the people whose will you ignore were the original owners.
Wat about the Arab refugees that were expelled?Today, there are one million Arab Israelis. The government of Israel does not demand their expulsion.
Bcuz they r illegal settlements.Today, there are 200,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. The PA and various Palestinian groups demand their expulsion
Plz clarify wat u mean.This is just a convenient way of overriding all other considerations, including the ones you raised yourself.
The argument of land claim. Do u also propose giving America bak to Native Americans?It also ignores the fact that the people whose "will" you bow to were themselves immigrants while the people whose will you ignore were the original owners.
You conveniently forget to mention that the overwhelming majority of land was occupied by the state.You conveniently forget to mention that the overwhelming majority of land was owned by the state.
Wat about the Arab minority in the coastal area wich was displaced bcuz of this drive for self determination?Jews were the overwhelming majority in the coastal area in which they sought self-determination -- self-determination granted by the UN's Partition plan rejected by the Arabs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks