Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

@McTag,

I'm not sure the facts support you there. The British destruction of the Ottoman Empire in WWI and the Balfor declaration to Lord Rothschild did indeed open up Palestine to Zionist immigration, beginning in 1919. However the numbers were relatively small until 1946 and the post war mass migrations of Germans from Czechoslovakia and western Poland and, importantly, displaced Jews from just about everywhere in continental Europe. There occurred a huge surge in displaced Jews from across the continent migrating en masse from ports in Southern France, Greece and Cyprus to Palestine. The euphanism for them then was "displaced persons", and many had found they were no longer welcome in their former homes or even able to prove ownership to the new occupants. Hard to blame that on Zionism.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Its a combination. Herzog and the Zionism of the early 1900's did'nt advocate for a separate Jewish state. The relationship between Palestinians and the first settlers peaceful.

World War II changed that. And then you get these charismatic Christians who look for a restoration of Israel not because they love the Jewish people - A majority do not - but because they are tryng to bringabout the return of Christ. They are a sort of Zionist antisemites.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

World War II changed that. And then you get these charismatic Christians who look for a restoration of Israel not because they love the Jewish people - A majority do not - but because they are tryng to bringabout the return of Christ. They are a sort of Zionist antisemites.

How do you know what "charismatic Christians" think or what may be their feelings towards Jews.?

In any event that has nothing whatever to do with the mass movement of European Jews to Palestine after WWII. Zip, nada, nothing.

1 Reply

@HesDeltanCaptain,

HesDeltanCaptain wrote:

All country's are the result of land grabs, force of arms, and winning battles over where lines are drawn on maps. Winner gets the land, losers can shut up.

Actually Israel offered the Palestinians an opportunity to share the land, and offered it over and over and over again. Every single time, the Palestinians preferred to just keep murdering Israeli children.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Except in 1948 the UN allowed "a homeland for the Jews in Palestine".
Not OF Palestine.

The Palestinians were given many many chances to share the land in peace.

It's their own fault that they refuse to ever make peace.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
Israel is partially the result of western antisemitism. The west did not want Jewish refugees so they were settled somewhere the indigenous population had no power. Palestine.

Partly true I suppose, but a minor factor I would suggest. Consider the strength of the Zionist movement among Jews. They didn't select Palestine for those reasons.

The indigenous part of what you quoted isn't even remotely true.

The Jews are the indigenous population of the West Bank.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Not true. After the 1967 War the Palestinians of the West Bank lived under Israeli military rule with no political rights whatever for well over a decade. During this period a large portion of their land was expropriated by Israeli settlers and the Israeli government simply through the pretense of not recognizing historical titles to land from the Ottoman and Jordanian years. Various peace proposals were made purporting to enable the creation of an "autonomous" Palestinuian state, but for the most part it was entirely surrounded by Israeli territory (Israel announced its intent to keep the Heights above the West Bank of the Jordan river in perpetuity immediately after that war), having no external border other than Israel, very limited water and air rights over its "territory" and no possibility of real independence.

We can only speculate on what might have been now if Israel behaved differently after their triumph in 1967. The problem with history is that it doesn't reval its alternatives. However, I believe that Israel missed its main chance for peace by foregoing a single state solution in 1967. In the present circumstances it's hard to see any outcome other than perpetual conflict. It took the Irish only three centuries to partly resolve a similar problem in Northern Ireland.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I know enough. What qualifications do you have for an opinion on this topic? Excuse you.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

I haven't expressed an opinion on what others think. That's your thing.

The opinions I have expressed are all based on readily verifiable hisstorical facts. There's a difference.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Various peace proposals were made purporting to enable the creation of an "autonomous" Palestinuian state, but for the most part it was entirely surrounded by Israeli territory (Israel announced its intent to keep the Heights above the West Bank of the Jordan river in perpetuity immediately after that war), having no external border other than Israel, very limited water and air rights over its "territory" and no possibility of real independence.

This nonsense has already been debunked:
http://able2know.org/topic/127639-305#post-5999505

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

This nonsense has already been debunked:
http://able2know.org/topic/127639-305#post-5999505

It's not nonsense and your link offered nothing whatever to debunk it. Merely an evasive and deliberately vague statement about unpublished Israeli "offers". If you can offer something specific I'm willing to read it. Do you contest the fact that Israel still occupies and controls the border with Jordan?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It's not nonsense

It is a list of outright falsehoods.

georgeob1 wrote:

and your link offered nothing whatever to debunk it. Merely an evasive and deliberately vague statement about unpublished Israeli "offers". If you can offer something specific

The fact that Israel repeatedly and endlessly offered the Palestinians: all of the Gaza strip, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and east Jerusalem as their capital, is not vague, and is very specific.

The fact that the Palestinians would have had sovereignty over their own airspace and control over their own borders, is not vague, and is very specific.

The fact that negotiations with Ehud Barak collapsed before they had reached agreement over water rights, is not vague, and is very specific.

The fact that your characterization of that as "Israel refusing to grant water rights" is Orwellian in the extreme, is not vague, and is very specific.

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you contest the fact that Israel still occupies and controls the border with Jordan?

At this point Israel has an absolute right to kick the Palestinians out of the West Bank and claim it all for themselves.

Israel gave peace more than enough of a chance. Now they get to use whatever force they choose to.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Israel declared its firm intent to retain control of the heights over the Jordan Valley in perpetuity soon after the 1967 war. It has never rescinded that claim and it has never offered the Palestinaians a state with any direct acces to Jordan ever since. Only since it has given up direct control of Gaza has Palestiunain territory had ANY external border with any state other than Israel. Jewish settlements have since 1967 encroached over nearly a third of former West Bank territory and the wall Israel has erected surrounding the remaining West Bank territory contains less than half of the former territory. These are facts. Contest them if you can.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

and it has never offered the Palestinaians a state with any direct acces to Jordan ever since.

Israel's repeated and endless offers to let the Palestinians have all of the Gaza Strip, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and East Jerusalem as their capital, would have given the Palestinians a rather large border with Jordan.

georgeob1 wrote:

and the wall Israel has erected surrounding the remaining West Bank territory contains less than half of the former territory.

The Security Fence puts about 10% of the West Bank on the Israeli side, and about 90% of the West Bank on the Palestinian side.

georgeob1 wrote:

These are facts.

Except for the two that weren't.

georgeob1 wrote:

Contest them if you can.

Done.

EDIT: Found a third falsehood.

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel declared its firm intent to retain control of the heights over the Jordan Valley in perpetuity soon after the 1967 war. It has never rescinded that claim and

Offers of 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block would almost certainly involve offering to give up the specified land.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Are you going to admit you were wrong, bobsy ?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

And you quoted from The Times of Israel's blog.

I dont know why you keep saying that . I know that . I gave the link for it, remember ? That blog started it all, but these clowns cant see that .

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

What about you, dizzy ? Will you admit you were wrong ?

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

The west did not want Jewish refugees so they were settled somewhere the indigenous population had no power. Palestine.

Rubbish ! They were all set to come and live in Tasmania but WWII interrupted it . If you were a Jew, you would choose Israel as first choice . So according to you (and who else?) giving the Jews their first choice was anti-Semitism ?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Lots of people are suicidal . Big deal . Anyone heard of the Irish hunger strikers ? And what did Britain do....

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

In the present circumstances it's hard to see any outcome other than perpetual conflict.

Yes to that.

0 Replies

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know