Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict  
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3011 posts, RR: 9
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4123 times:

There is so much emotion on both sides of this conflict. And there are many posts among multiple threads that try to put forward facts, but they fall short. So I would like to pose questions for those who are truly familiar with history to share wisdom:

1) Who controlled the land in what is now Israel 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago?

2) What did the land look like 100 years ago?

3) How much of the land was purchased, how much was granted, how much was a result of war?

4) Why did the surrounding nations wage war against Israel was declared a nation? What about the subsequent wars?

5) What happened to the Jews in Yemen, Iraq, and other Arab nations? Weren't there historically large numbers?


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedamirc From Slovenia, joined Feb 2004, 714 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Considering all of us will answer with some bias, I will skip answering and advise getting a few good history books from both sides of the conflict and make your own picture.

The UN is also a good source (at least for historic reference, land area ownership data etc.). Other than that you'll run into a problem - depending on what agenda a source pushes you'll get at least two very different views. It is your call whom to believe, but don't forget that neither side will be entirely truthful, and the truth usually lies somewhere in between both viewpoints.

D.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8740 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

These questions don't lead anywhere.

You might as well ask the same questions relating to the USA or Canada or Australia.

Or Europe, where bloody wars have been fought over who owned what.

Reality is that we live in the 21st century, with global communication readily available to anyone, with news travelling within seconds and every point in the world reachable from any point in the world more or less within 48 hours.

The real problem in this communicatove world is, that education has yet not reached all people, religious bias is still keeping some masses dumb and that includes quran schools as well as the creation theory taught in some US areas.

The Middle east seems to be a long way from real democracy, which is not only the ability to vote but also to control those who have been voted into office. The most recent developments in Egypt say more about that than words could say.

Europe and the western world serves as a role model for a peaceful existance, at least the past 60 odd years do. May be that is why some religions fight that role model so fiercely.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4020 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 2):

Indeed. A house is the people in it. Yes, the Jews have as much ancestral claim as anyone else, but that's not relevant. At all. If we were to return every bit of land to the "rightful owners", this place would be a mess, and post haste. Especially the United States. The best course of action is to support the party most likely to safeguard the rights and quality of life for the most people involved. This is tricky here because though the answer is obviously Israel, anything beyond their own borders becomes a "gray" area (to say the least) awful damned fast.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
4) Why did the surrounding nations wage war against Israel was declared a nation? What about the subsequent wars?

All war can be boiled down to Armed Robbery. We certainly know a thing or three about that in the US, but it isn't limited to us. In this case, there's a good deal more partisanship than people realize. The best possible outcome, where the rest of the world is concerned, is to designate a winner, and back that party. There's no virtue otherwise anyway.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

Gosh, to give a detailed and comprehensive response to your questions would require a book rather than a few lines in an internet forum. Anything else will inevitably "fall short".

But some facts remain facts whatever spin people will choose to put on them. Incontrovertible facts are that:
Palestine was inhabited before European Jewish immigration commenced in the nineteenth century;
it was not all barren land, covered with mosquitoes and swamps as I have read in some forums.;
there may not have been an independent State called Palestine but the people who lived there regarded the land as their home; and
when Britain created Transjordan, Palestinians asked whether it was not their homeland replied, "it belongs to the Bedouin on the other side of the river."

Over the years the political dominance of the area may have changed but people lived there, they built towns and villages, tilled the soil, produced items for trade, married, had children, went to the mosque, the synagogue or church. At various times it has been ruled by Egyptian Mamluks, Ottoman Pashas and became British under the Sykes-Picot agreement and a mandate granted by the League of Imperialist Bandits (as Lenin liked to call the League of Nations). The people who actually lived there had no say in the matter.

Land ownership varied too. In some areas it was owned by absentee landowners though a typical ownership was communal village ownership with regular redistribution (masha'a) with co-cultivation partnerships. This system was problematic both for immigrants who wished to purchase land and later for the British. Both the Ottomans and British sought to change land ownership into individual parcels in order to facilitate the resolution of disputes, ease transactions in land and, importantly for any administration, make simpler the raising of taxes.

One effect of these changes was to produce a class of landless labourers. Initially this wasn't too much of a problem. People could still work the land for others but Jewish colonists wished to work the land themselves. This lead to resentment as the former tillers of the soil now had no means of supporting themselves, although many moved to the cities where new industries provided some jobs.

It is an enduring myth that everything was barren until migrants from Europe made the desert bloom. Far from all of Palestine being a desert and wasteland, Palestine produced crops both for local consumption and for export. In the eighteenth century, oranges were finding their way to Europe from Jaffa. Olives, dates and cereal crops were also grown. But there were areas unsuitable for cultivation and in those areas grazing stock were herded.

What were the patterns of ownership in 1947? Again it varied. In some areas Jewish and non-Jewish ownership were about even. In others there was a majority of Jewish ownership or a majority of non-Jewish ownership. Depending on the nature of the soil and access to water, some areas were under irrigation or non-arable and examples can be found under the various ownership patterns.

A detailed breakdown of ownership patterns is beyond the scope of a reply in a forum, but it is not true to say that the majority of the land in Palestine was purchased by immigrants before 1947, although it true to say that land owned by immigrant Jews had been purchased. It is true to say that since 1948 large areas of land were ethnically cleansed and that the people living on that land were not compensated.

[Edited 2012-11-24 18:31:58]

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6942 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

This is going to lead to a large-scale flamefest.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
1) Who controlled the land in what is now Israel 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago?

I believe 70 and 100 years ago it was the british Mandate of Palestine. No "religion" controlled the area; as it was under British Rule.

Between the 200 years ago and the 100 years, it was under Ottoman control.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
2) What did the land look like 100 years ago?

Large ottoman empire control.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
3) How much of the land was purchased, how much was granted, how much was a result of war?

I'm pretty sure after both the first and second wars, the UN divided the land that was controlled by the Germans, Italians, and the old Ottoman empire (now Turkey) and the mandate set up Israel as a safe-haven for the Jews, apparently.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
5) What happened to the Jews in Yemen, Iraq, and other Arab nations? Weren't there historically large numbers?

Expelled after the Arab-Israeli conflict. In Iran after the Ayatollah and in Saudi Arabia they were already being expelled (expelled further under the Ayatollah, I should add). Iraq, well I'm not sure.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 690 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

One thing that people often forget is that more or less ALL the national boundaries in the Middle East are contrived by outsiders, largely European colonial mapmakers - endorsed and given validity later by the UN and the two superpowers in the post WW2 world.

I point this out because often Israel is held up as the oddity imposed on the region from outside, but actually statehood for the KSA, the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq etc... was an invention of the UK. So I question how some voices can attack Israel's historical legitimacy when their own is equally recent and equally resulting from the whims of European politics.

With that said, clearly Europe's transfer of "the Jewish problem" onto predominately Muslim lands was a collosal mistake, or at best was handled in a collosally bad way.


Pu


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3879 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):

You have a valid point, but there is something to remember - Israel is the only one created with the explicit influx of external persons in mind.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 690 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3870 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
You have a valid point, but there is something to remember - Israel is the only one created with the explicit influx of external persons in mind.

Sure, but in that sense its not that different from Britain's colonial ambitions in North America & Australia-New Zealand, or Spain's colonisation of South America.

The native people were joined by Europeans who were better armed, wealthier etc.... and proceeded to draw map lines, make new countries and so forth.

No one question's Brazilian, Canadian or Australian legitimacy even though probably more natives were wiped out than when Israel took over from the Palestinians.


Pu


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11919 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
Who controlled the land in what is now Israel 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago?

I presume by 'controlled' you mean 'ruled' or 'governed', right?

The main transitions over that time frame happened after WWI and WWII.

Turkey had been the ruling power before that period, but in WWI the Turks joined the German/Austo-Hungarian side, then the British attacked and occupied Palestine.

After WWI, the British were given the 'Mandate' to rule Palestine.

Then the real critical transition after WWII happened.

A description of this critical time from Wiki's Israel page:

Quote:

On 15 May 1947, the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations resolved that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine".[69] In the Report of the Committee dated 3 September 1947 to the UN General Assembly,[70] the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem..., the last to be under an International Trusteeship System".[71] On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).[72] The Plan attached to the resolution was essentially that proposed by the majority of the Committee in the Report of 3 September 1947.

The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it.[73] On 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets.[74] The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but gradually moved onto the offensive.[75] The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.[76]

On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel".[77][78] The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel.[79][citation needed]

The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq—entered what had been British Mandate Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War;[80][81] Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command; Yemen declared war but did not take military action.[82] In a cablegram of the same day from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General, the Arab states gave a justification for this "intervention". After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established.[83] Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the conflict from what would become Israel.[84]

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

I'm sure others will point out where this narrative is flawed.

One thing to get from this narrative is that the Arabs could have had a much more favorable partition of the Palestine Mandate if they had accepted the UNSCOP treaty, but chose to invade instead, presumably thinking that they would end up with control of all of Palestine. In fact after the invasion they ended up with just Gaza (Egypt) and the West Bank (Jordan), and even those would be lost in the '67 war. The invasion allowed Isreal to cast the refugee problem as one the Arabs caused and thus one the Arabs had to solve.

Some more reading of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Conference,_1949

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):
One thing that people often forget is that more or less ALL the national boundaries in the Middle East are contrived by outsiders, largely European colonial mapmakers - endorsed and given validity later by the UN and the two superpowers in the post WW2 world.

I point this out because often Israel is held up as the oddity imposed on the region from outside, but actually statehood for the KSA, the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq etc... was an invention of the UK. So I question how some voices can attack Israel's historical legitimacy when their own is equally recent and equally resulting from the whims of European politics.

Indeed, we've seen this vividly displayed during and after the regretable US invasion of Iraq.

Iraq was an artificial conglomeration of Kurd, Shia and Suni.

During the lawless period, the groups largely re-aligned the area along these sectarian lines.

Something to be learned from this, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinen229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

Hi Zrs, this is not a personal attack on you, but a commentary on your arguing style here that I believe is rather problematic. I understand you are a Rabbi and have your own interest in this situation, but rather than engage in any of the threads, you have a tendency to make short posts that simply ask "why is everyone so biased against Israel?" And then you never try to answer or defend any of your own positions.

Consider the questions you ask in this thread. You don't actually try to make any arguments about them, instead presuming that if people "just learn the truth" by thinking about the questions, they will see the Israeli side. Yet each little aspect is extremely complicated even by itself, and usually there are many wrongs and many understandably human yet unproductive reactions compounded over many years by both sides.

Just take this one:

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
3) How much of the land was purchased, how much was granted, how much was a result of war?

In fact, let's just tale one part of this one question: the land purchasing. So: the great majority of Jewish land prior to the 1948 partition plan was legally purchased by Jewish settlers, yes. And yes, much (though certainly not all) was some of the worse and less arable land available. However, just because it wasn't primarily taken by force doesn't mean the situation was fair. They didn't just purchase the land, they purchased it mainly from bulk and largely absentee Ottoman landlords, and they purchased it with stated intent to outnumber the local population and then start their own country on that basis.

So let's use a loose analogy. Let's say that most of the land in California was owned by Japanese multinational corporations and rented to American tenants, or in many cases abandoned warehouses or swampland. Let's say that large numbers of Mexicans bought up that land for a good price, better than Americans could afford, and started developing it. The Japanese-owned countries wouldn't care. The white Americans would object because in some cases they were immediately being displaced, but would probably mind for xenophobic reasons even when it was abandoned warehouse land that would be developed by the purchasing Mexicans. That might be their problem to suck up. But let's add that last layer and say that all the Mexicans buying the land also claimed they were going to establish critical mass and then turn California into a new country improved and governed by and for them, because their ancestors had been on the land before the whites now living there. Don't you think that would lead to armed conflict?

These aren't simple issues. I'm Jewish, have family in Israel, yet I still find it easier to see the Palestinian side of the issues when one goes back to the critical moments in the first half of the century. At the same time, I see the reasons why Zionism formed, both before and after the Holocaust. But it doesn't mean that it was fair to the Arabs in the area. (Edward Said's famous essay "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims" is an eye-opener whether or not you agree with every aspect of it.) Israel clearly has established the right to exist now that it has been there for generations. But as I see it, Israel has to behave and negotiate with an understanding that its presence was not a God-given right from the start at the expense of the Arabs.

I hope you will come back to your thread and actually present some of the arguments you want to make.

[Edited 2012-11-25 12:27:44]


It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11919 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
These aren't simple issues. I'm Jewish, have family in Israel, yet I still find it easier to see the Palestinian side of the issues when one goes back to the critical moments in the first half of the century.

Interesting. As above, I've posted what seems to be Israel's main line of reasoning, that the Arabs could have had peace in 1948 but they chose to invade, they are the ones who created the refugee problem, and they should be the ones to settle it. What do you think is the flaw in this line of reasoning?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3778 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Palestine was inhabited before European Jewish immigration commenced in the nineteenth century;

The OP will need to look up history books on both sides to get a better picture, I posted the above quote because one might read it and assume that there were no Jews living alongside Palentinains in the land prior to the end of WWII and the European Jewish migration.

If history is to play any role in resolving this crisis it will be in the period before WWII when there was relative peace between the inhabitants of the land, note I said relative.


User currently offlinecaliatenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
These aren't simple issues. I'm Jewish, have family in Israel, yet I still find it easier to see the Palestinian side of the issues when one goes back to the critical moments in the first half of the century. At the same time, I see the reasons why Zionism formed, both before and after the Holocaust. But it doesn't mean that it was fair to the Arabs in the area. (Edward Said's famous essay "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims" is an eye-opener whether or not you agree with every aspect of it.) Israel clearly has established the right to exist now that it has been there for generations. But as I see it, Israel has to behave and negotiate with an understanding that its presence was not a God-given right from the start at the expense of the Arabs.

its good to actually here from someone there. Thing is, do you think the current Israeli government will end up making peace? Or is this cycle going to just continue forever??


User currently offlinen229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 13):
its good to actually here from someone there.

Just to clarify. I am not there. I have family members there.

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 13):
do you think the current Israeli government will end up making peace?

  

Perhaps if they are dragged into it kicking and screaming. Netanyahu is horrible. But the sad thing right now is that the whole government is so beholden to the pressure of the settler movement, and even the opposition center-left has become so cynical that it will take some kind of a a major shake-up to open up possibilities. I think outside pressure is very important here.

[Edited 2012-11-25 18:49:12]


It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently onlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2673 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
One thing to get from this narrative is that the Arabs could have had a much more favorable partition of the Palestine Mandate if they had accepted the UNSCOP treaty, but chose to invade instead, presumably thinking that they would end up with control of all of Palestine.

Well, there's one thing many think was the fault of the Arabs: the rejection of the partition. However, you have to see the reasons why they chose to reject it.

Let's use a pizza as an example. Suppose that you want pepperoni and a friend wants sausage. The logical thing is to divide it in half: one half pepperoni, one half sausage. But let's say that you eat more than your friend (or that you're paying for it). Common courtesy would dictate that the person paying gets to decide how much he wants from the pizza. But let's say the two of you start bickering because you think you should get a 75/25 split while the other thinks a 50/50 split is reasonable. Let's say that the clerk suggests you split it 60/40 and one of you agrees with the clerk but the other is not happy with it. Does it mean that you should not eat pizza at all?

Let's use another example. Suppose I write legislation and you agree most of it. We debate it over and over and when it comes up to a vote on the floor it's exactly the same as it was when I wrote it, and again you agree with everything except those parts. Assuming you can't abstain from voting, do you vote for it or against it?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11919 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3687 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 15):
Let's say that the clerk suggests you split it 60/40 and one of you agrees with the clerk but the other is not happy with it. Does it mean that you should not eat pizza at all?

No, but to further the analogy, it seems one person tried to run off with the entire pizza, the other person caught them and after a long fight that they won they took back 80% of the pizza instead of 60%.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3674 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
I posted the above quote because one might read it and assume that there were no Jews living alongside Palestinians

It would be a pity if they did take that view. People who happened to be Jewish have lived there from "time immemorial", but it was my intention to highlight the fact that the Jewish population only began to grow significantly following immigration from Europe. Prior to that, as I wrote, the inhabitants "went to the mosque, the synagogue or church."

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
and they purchased it with stated intent to outnumber the local population and then start their own country on that basis.

And in a way, this is one of the ironies. While there were those who supported the idea of a, for want of a better word, planter population settled on farms, either run individually or through kibbutzim, the majority of the migrants were urbanised Jews. Through the writings of some authors and films like "Fiddler on the Roof", some people have a romantic notion of life in the shtetl as being small communities. Yet by 1897 more than half of Jews living in the Tsarist Empire was living in major cities and this was a growing trend. Have a look at census figures for Poland in 1921 and 1931 (figures do not round to 100% as not all trades are listed and there was some unemployment.)
Changes in Areas of Economic Activity 1921-1931
Economic Activity19211931
Farmers/ Peasants4.9%4.6%
Commerce41.3%36.6%
Manufacturing36.7%42.2%
Transport4.5%3.4%
Professions4.2%6.3%

This shows a trend of increasing urbanisation. The situation in Austria, Hungary and Germany shows a similar high urbanisation.

So while the pioneers may have had a vision of a landed population, many of the migrants were unsuited for such a role and unwilling to adapt. Some (a minority)looked down on the original Jewish population, became disillusioned and returned to Europe or went to the Americas. Those that stayed became established in cities. Today, the term settler is used to describe those who would evict Palestinians from their homes. But in many instances the aim is not to establish a farm but to develop the land for housing. Today Israel is about 92% urban.

[Edited 2012-11-25 20:49:38]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18684 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):

One thing that people often forget is that more or less ALL the national boundaries in the Middle East are contrived by outsiders,

This is very true. It is also very true for most of Africa. This is partly why so many of these countries are such disasters.

Consider Nigeria. They took the Igbo, Hausa, and Yoruba and shoved them together into one country. The result? Infighting.

Consider Iraq. Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. The result? Well...Iraq.


User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3011 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3630 times:

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
Hi Zrs, this is not a personal attack on you, but a commentary on your arguing style here that I believe is rather problematic. I understand you are a Rabbi and have your own interest in this situation, but rather than engage in any of the threads, you have a tendency to make short posts that simply ask "why is everyone so biased against Israel?" And then you never try to answer or defend any of your own positions.

Point well taken about my posting! Guilty as charged... Not really a fare or straight forward way for me to post.

That said - I do believe there are many people whose posts appear authoritative on Middle East issues though they know little about the facts. (Mind you - I am not an expert on the Middle East either. Thus I seek knowledge from as many people as possible).

I will say this: While it is factual that the land was never under political control of the Palestinians, there is no question that the people had emotional and historical ties.

I'll add the following: Israel certainly has inherited a very difficult situation with no simply solution. Israel won a war and with it land with indigenous people. Has Israel made wrong moves along the way? Absolutely. But the surrounding nations have done little to noting to help the Palestinians. (Why hasn't Jordan or Egypt truly stepped in to help?)

I want peace more than anything in the region. I think Israel needs to ask the tough questions. It's next to impossible to negotiate with many of the nations. But over the course of the last 60 years, just about every time Israel has given back land, they've been attacked.

Anyway, I'll be more engaged in my posts moving forward!



14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3571 times:

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):
Has Israel made wrong moves along the way? Absolutely. But

        

THIS is what I think is a major problem in this situation. It is simple human nature: when my side does something wrong, we say "yes, we've made mistakes, we're not perfect. But ___________." And you are right...

BUT

to a Palestinian, "sorry, we screwed up, we aren't perfect, no one is" doesn't cut it!

Instead of Israel saying "yes, maybe we created too many settlements, we're sorry, we'll stop," they need to actually make an effort to correct their wrongs.

And I know this isn't one sided. What the Palestinians often do is unwise and often barbaric. But they do have legitimate gripes even if they go about them the wrong way.

I don't know you too well, but I'm going to go off on a hunch--I had this same problem. I used to think (and I legitimately tried) to see a problem from an opposing viewpoint, but I never really did it justice. I had my underlying bias that always won out. No, in order to see the other side's view, you need to adopt their bias and weigh their needs more heavily than your side's. You need to really become a pissed off Palestinian and look at it through any bias they might have.

After you see it that way, you may disagree, but at least you can see what the other side is really thinking. At the very least, you can know how to debate with them and have a better idea of what a compromise at me, instead of rattling off old arguments that obviously don't work (like oh, you tried to invade us instead of wanting peace decades ago)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3841 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):
I point this out because often Israel is held up as the oddity imposed on the region from outside, but actually statehood for the KSA, the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq etc... was an invention of the UK.

Hey, let's not forget the French. The treaty was called Sykes-Picot, not just Sykes!


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6633 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
that the Arabs could have had peace in 1948 but they chose to invade

Why say invade, I'd say fight back to reclaim what was theirs, the simple fact is the State of Israel should nave have been created. It's one of the biggest blunders the world has ever made.

Since most of the jews who immigrated there were European realistically a jewish state should have been carved out of Germany (and perhaps Poland) post WWII, that would have been a far superior solution and I doubt we would have today's issues.


User currently onlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2673 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 22):
Since most of the jews who immigrated there were European realistically a jewish state should have been carved out of Germany (and perhaps Poland) post WWII, that would have been a far superior solution and I doubt we would have today's issues.

But...Jerusalem is a holy site so that's why they picked the place. Of course, they should've rewritten the books so that Munich were the holy city.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11919 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 22):

Why say invade, I'd say fight back to reclaim what was theirs, the simple fact is the State of Israel should nave have been created. It's one of the biggest blunders the world has ever made.

Is it time to ask an Aborigine what s/he thinks of New Zealand?

Please don't tell me "we're much more civilized now", we both know that's false or we wouldn't be having this thread.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 Post contains links TheCommodore : Just for your Info.... You mean Maori, they are the original inhabitants of New Zealand. Aborigines are from Australia. Both countries now have exten
26 DeltaMD90 : He does have a point though. Blunder or not, Israel was created about 65 years ago. Most of the original settlers aren't alive now. Nor are most of t
27 TheCommodore : And Australia 1788 / New Zealand 1769, so around 200+ years ago, give or take. Yes, the same can be said about the Aboriginals and the Maoris. NZ is
28 KiwiRob : Funny you should say Abo, my great great grandmother was an Abo, so that makes me about 1/16th, as an Abo from NZ I'm pretty happy with my lot.
29 Revelation : Thanks for the correction. Does the UNSCOP treaty mentioned above qualify? I guess we'll never know what the region would look like if it had been ho
30 KiwiRob : I'm pretty sure if you asked some of the natives in NZ they would love to have some of the privilages that US natives have, i.e. being able to open c
31 Revelation : I suppose, but as you said, in the US those casinos are a privilege as opposed to a right, and they only benefit members of the particular tribe that
32 n229nw : I think that if I put myself in the shoes of the Arabs who were there at the time, and who were being told, "hey, there were a few of us here before
33 Post contains links NAV20 : zrs70, the very first 'tough question' is surely 'when is Israel going to put a stop to massive, un-controlled inward migration'? The underlying caus
34 offloaded : These are interesting figues, and rather a problem for the "right of return." If you added the two together then suddenly you have an Arab majority i
35 Post contains links KiwiRob : Under current birth rates don't the Arab Israeli citizens become the majority in Israel by 2040 or thereabouts. This article makes interesting readin
36 offloaded : Interesting article. I have seen that birthrate forecast before somewhere, and I think you are correct. So then what happens?
37 Post contains links KiwiRob : I'm sure the jewish politicians will disenfranchise the arab israelis long before the situation ever gets to the point where jews are the minority; I
38 Pu : I feel the problem is more along these lines than commonly thought. Everyone is banging on about religion and historical justifications for this or t
39 Post contains links NAV20 : Yes - which is precisely why Israel is so desperate to stop any UN recognition of Palestine. It looks, though, as if the pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian
40 Post contains links TheCommodore : Hi NAV20 Interesting article from the BBC you might find of interest. I believe Israel is somewhat "concerned" about the International Criminal Court
41 zrs70 : Let me understand... Are you saying that Israel want the same solution to Palestine as the Nazis wanted for the Jews?
42 Post contains links NAV20 : Yes. zrs70. The persecution of the people the Nazis considered 'malcontents' - a lot of them, though not all of them, Jews - began with locking them
43 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : Today the Palestinian bid is up to voting broadcasted live around the Globe With Palestinians near certain to win UN recognition, Israel increasingly
44 Pu : Interesting that the article says Abbas agreed to pursue this AFTER the US election. Certainly he did not want to risk putting Obama on the spot over
45 zrs70 : Nav, I don't believe you truly believe what you are writing. Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you studied the Final Solution? Do you know about the Nur
46 Quokkas : It is possible but I am not sure how likely. The US is still publicly opposing it after having threatened to use their veto in the Security Council l
47 DeltaMD90 : I don't think he's making an exact comparison. Just because a government does something the Nazis did doesn't make them as bad as the Nazis. What do
48 Pu : The resolution was not tabled "until after the US election ... after consultation with other countries" according to the BBC. What has changed is tha
49 Quokkas : There are indeed comparisons to be made but that does mean that the positions are identical. In Mein Kampf Hitler spelt out his view of a future Germ
50 EDKA : Zrs70 - unfortunately there are double or triple standards that seem to be applicable to Israel on this board. Just accept it. You can bang yuo head
51 powerslide : Didn't you get the international memo? Jews don't have right to protect themselves. Arabs are allowed to kill each other without repercussions and it
52 Post contains links Revelation : Is that historically correct, in the context of #9 above, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Partition_Plan ? It seems to be a plan that would have
53 zrs70 : Below is an excerpt from the Israeli Declaration of Independence. We cannot deny that at its core, Israel believe sin rights of all people. And keep i
54 racko : I don't think most people have any particular problem with what Israel does within its own territory. The problem lies beyond the 1967 borders - which
55 KiwiRob : Yet it will not allow Palestinians who were kicked out to return unless you're Palestinian Yet Arab Israeli citizens do not have the freedom to marry
56 Pu : You two are right about Israel being called to account for everything while violence in other countries is ignored. A double standard. BUT You two ar
57 zrs70 : Wow! So if I understand .... The violence around the words is because of Israel. And we should ignore the violence that is contained. I want to make
58 Post contains links TheCommodore : Rights....... Yeah right ! I never laughed so loud in my life. http://electronicintifada.net/conten...-racial-segregation-policies/11065
59 DeltaMD90 : Who is up and arms about it on this board? I think almost everyone on here would like that. In fact, it seems that many are against the Palestinian s
60 EDKA : i am glad that you have noticed it too.... Nobody is asking for free pass. But there is a deep underlying problem, which is like i said: in some peop
61 DeltaMD90 : And I agree with this. I try to call these people out as well. If you look at my posts, you'll hopefully notice that. That being said, I personally s
62 Pu : In households where English is spoken my post #56 is not ambiguous and needs no clarification. (you might also read my post #6 which might illuminate
63 Post contains links zrs70 : Didn't mean to offend. I haven't mentioned nor hinted at anti-Jewish sentiment. (If I have, please show me where. I don't want to be the impetus for
64 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : The hostility is ironic considering the OP wanted to start a rational debate and get others' opinions. I'm still unconvinced there is any antisemitis
65 zrs70 : Hey, Delta! Sorry for the delay in my response. You deserve answers that you asked. Again, I'm not a Middle East expert. And while I stand with Israe
66 powerslide : Well, had Hitler not ruled Germany........ Stop. Living. In. The. Past. Deal with the issues that are present NOW. Arabs and Palestinians are still l
67 Pu : Ok. To restate my reaction to the point that there is a double standard such that the Palestinians (and other countries) get a pass for things Israel
68 PHX787 : ALL of this. This is why the political system pisses me off!!!!! Nobody is willing to actually talk. This is pathetic that we actually have to say th
69 DeltaMD90 : Completely anecdotal, but my experience was flipped... Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other Israeli cities were pretty well maintained while Bethlehem was
70 PanHAM : I was going to reply, but then I rather did pot. The fndamental difference between Hitler and his national socialist party and the democratic Israel
71 bjorn14 : Most Israeli Arabs want to keep their citizenship. Israel has already agreed to peace talks, it's the Palestinians who want preconditions on those ta
72 Post contains links Quokkas : Israel was founded on ideology and has allowed ideology to shape its policies towards the Palestinians. It is simply not the case that Israel is an in
73 Post contains links NAV20 : All true enough. And they deservedly gained a lot of sympathy from the rest of the world because of it. What isn't as well-known, though, is that sai
74 Quokkas : While Israel and the US repeatedly call for negotiations without preconditions, both have stated their own preconditions. The Israelis require not si
75 777way : does not compare, the Syrians are doing it to their own people which is not the case with Israel or Palestine, I dont think anyone discusses when two
76 Revelation : Right, not a lone crank, but put another way, 75% of Likud's members did NOT vote for him, neither did all non-Likud party members. It's not very har
77 Quokkas : At an internal party conference that would not have been possible but I accept that just as the majority of party members did not support Feiglin, so
78 moo : Oh look, new Israeli building projects announced for the occupied territories... Coincidence in the timing? I think not.
79 NAV20 : You can't have watched the video, Revelation? It's fully covered in that; some neighbouring countries sent troops in in an attempt to protect the Pal
80 caliatenza : ive seen this video before, as part of a bigger piece on the issue. Ive also read that the majority of Palestinians were not forced from their homes.
81 Post contains links damirc : Fully agree, however need to clarify a few facts (just for posterity and not to skew the reality of the situation). Benny Morris, one of the new hist
82 victrola : I have yet to see anyone in Israel address the demographics problem that that country faces. If you consider the 1967 borders of Israel, roughly 20% o
83 cws818 : No. Neither the Germans nor the Italians had land holdings in the Levant. After the First World War, Britain controlled what is now Israel and what w
84 PHX787 : Wasn't the Trans-jordan held by Britain under a trusteeship or am I mistaken?
85 Post contains links NAV20 : Actually a 'mandate' from the League of Nations, PHX787. Prior to the First World War the whole area - from the Turkish border to the Egyptian one -
86 Post contains links Revelation : Indeed, my reference to "your narrative" meant your text in your post not the video, which I did not have the chance to watch before my posting. Now
87 par13del : Hence the issue keeps going around and around, did it happen or did it not, but........ Is there anyone else who also had access to the records verif
88 damirc : Unfortunately I can't answer to that question. His figures however have been generally accepted as truthful and I haven't seen them disputed from eit
89 moo : Which would be deliberately pointless because the Palistinians do not have the ability to grant "right of return" for other countries.
90 777way : ^ Not just that, no muslim country would want Israeli nationals most of who are second and third generation Israelis, returning to their countries, al
91 damirc : No, but they could accept the fact that 800.000 Palestinians were displaced just as well as 800.000 (now) Israelis were displaced and take that into
92 777way : Fair enough, to acknowledge that would be a good move.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Stupid Immigration Questions In The US posted Fri Apr 6 2007 03:15:49 by Tonytifao
A Couple Of Notes On The Israel/Palestine Issue: posted Tue Dec 11 2001 16:48:50 by FlyBoeing
Here's How I'd Fix The Israel/Palestine Issue... posted Tue Dec 4 2001 07:54:43 by FlyBoeing
Questions On The Parliment Square In London posted Mon Apr 20 2009 08:29:25 by DXing
Israel Plans 73,300 Housing Units In The West Bank posted Mon Mar 2 2009 10:13:04 by Mortyman
Questions About Living In The UAE posted Wed Dec 12 2007 11:30:00 by Longitude
Why Is The Water So "cold" In Eilat, Israel? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 17:29:39 by LY777
Questions About Cost Of Living In The UK posted Sat Jul 8 2006 05:38:22 by WindowSeat
Israel In The EU? posted Thu Sep 29 2005 09:53:25 by RootsAir
Israel Unites In The Search For Peace posted Mon Jul 12 2004 13:41:03 by Go Canada!