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

@Merry Andrew,

Your history is pretty weak, too. Try reading General Assembly Resolution 181 some time: here is a copy from the Jewish Virtual Library which i think can reasonably be relied upon based on the provenance. Sections II and III outline the areas to be under "Arab" control and under Jewish control. The resolution also calls for a customs and economic union which the Israelis have never honored.

In 1947 (not 1948), the Jews in Palestine simply seized the territory which became pre-1967 Israeli, completely ignoring the GA Resolution and its boundaries for Arab and Jewish states. They were, therefore, attacked by Arab states in the region--Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, and reluctantly, the Lebanon. One can deplore the action of those Arab states, but it is much harder to argue against their justifiable claim that the Jews of Palestine were not honoring the terms of GA Resolution 181.

See my response to the typically self-deluded Oralloy for objections to silly claims about a traditional Jewish homeland. You would have to go back more than 2500 years to a time before the Babyloniann captivity to see a Jewish state which even approached the borders called for in the 1919 documennt, and even then their control as at best tribal hegemony. Given that the Assyrians "deported" the Jews to Babylon in the late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE, and that they were not repatriated to (a much reduced) Jewish state until the Medes/Persians released them in the late 6th century BCE, claims to anything more than that rump state on an historical basis are laughable, or would be were it not for all the tragedy which Israel has brought on Palestine.

2 Replies

By the way, no one today would entertain claims to Ulster on the part of the Republic of Ireland based on what the Irish claim to have controlled in the 15th century prior the rule of the Tudors. No one today admits the claims to a "Greater Serbia" based on what Serb nationalist claim they controlled in the Balkans in the 13th century. No one would for a moment suggest that the white boys in the Mohawk Valley of upstate New York be driven out and the Canadian Mohawks installed based on their claims about what they controlled before Washington sent Sullivan in to drive them out during the American Revolution.

The only reason that people talk about an historical Jewish homeland with a straight face is because of collective European and American guilt over what happened to Jews in central Europe in the 1930s and -40, and the western democracies turning their backs on them. Even leaving that aside, the Zionist map from 1919 claims far more land than the Jews ever historically controlled in the middle east.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Unlike Oralloy, I have not made a single statement regarding the validity of any Jewish claims to Israel as a traditional Jewish homeland (although I can see where such a claim might be argued with some validity). I am well aware of the ancient history of the region, including the half-mythic tale of Abraham's entrance into the region ca. 2,000 BCE and the Hebrews' usurpation of the territory from the original tribes dwelling there (mainly the Phillistines, whence the name 'Palestine'). The point of my post was that the map you posted does not necessarily reflect Zionist aspirations in the Levant but merely displays borders existing in 1919 under the British Mandate.

Outside of the fact that I was in error by one year (you're right -- 1947, not 1948 was the date of the Zionist takeover in what was then called Palestine), where do you find my "history...pretty weak"?

I have read GA Resolution 181. Thank you for posting it.

1 Reply

That map was drawn before the British mandate existed, and the Palestine-Transjordan mandate as it was finally determined upon did not include any portion of the Sinai, did not include the Golan Heights and did not include the southern portion of the Lebanon. I notice that although you say you did not make any claims to an historic Jewish homeland, you nevertheless say you see that the claim might be valid. I withdraw my criticism of your historical view, with the caveat that from an historical point of view, no such claim can be considered valid, in view of the Babylonian captivity, the greatly truncated state resulting from the negotiations between the Persians (Greco-Macedonians, really) and Judas Maccabeus, and the obliteration of any pretense to a Jewish state by Titus in 70 CE.

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

By the way . . .

Merry Andrew wrote:

(although I can see where such a claim might be argued with some validity)

. . . do you also think that the Irish, Serbian and Mohawk claims might be argued with an equal validity?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By the way . . .

Merry Andrew wrote:
(although I can see where such a claim might be argued with some validity)

. . . do you also think that the Irish, Serbian and Mohawk claims might be argued with an equal validity?

For purposes of debate, sure. Don't see why the Algonquins shouldn't be able to buy the island of Manhattan back for $24 worth of trinkets. (Not sure about the Serbian claim but, certainly, there's no theoretical bar to Eire claiming the entire island.)

0 Replies

For purposes of debate . . . right . . .

Eire does not exist, and hasn`t existed for over 70 years. Manhattan was occupied by the Lapani, the people we call the Delaware Indians--although certainly that is a quibble. The Serb claim is as reasonable as the Jewish claim--which is to say, dubious even on an historical basis, and hardly admissable in the contemporary reality.

How soon do you think you can get those white boys out of the Mohawk Valley? After all, their claim isn`t 2500 years old, it`s less than 250 years old.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You were consistently wrong in the thread Steveas4100 started about the Allied bombing campaign of 1945 possibly being a war crime.

No, the laws of war place limits on what acceptable levels of collateral damage can be relative to the importance of the target, and allied bombing did probably exceed those limits. I am on very solid legal ground when I say that it probably was a war crime.

Setanta wrote:

In this case, you're wildly inaccurate. The Palestinians were not interlopers who suddenly showed up in 1947, they and their ancestors have been on that land for 2000 years and more.

No, they invaded some 1300 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28637%29

Setanta wrote:

The so-called West Bank is only "Israel's homeland" in the deluded minds of people who want to erase all the history of the region since and to a certain extent even prior to the conquest of the Jewish rebels by Titus 1940 years ago.

The fact that the Romans drove the Jews out of their homeland does not in any way cause the area to stop being the Jewish homeland

Setanta wrote:

That map clearly shows areas as proposed for a Jewish state which were never historically a part of any Jewish state, including the brief period when Judas Maccabeus successfully rebelled against the Persians. They never in the last 2500 yeas, historically controlled any part of the Sinai, they never historically controlled the Golan Heights, they never historically controlled the Negev and they certainly never historically controlled the southern porition of the Lebanon.

So? I don't recall claiming any of those things.

Setanta wrote:

You're making **** up

No I'm not.

Setanta wrote:

based on your extrerme and reactionary political views,

LOL! Hardly extreme and reactionary.

Setanta wrote:

something with which anybody who is familiar with your screeds knows to be your MO.

No, people who want to distract from the truth, try to do so by pretending that that is my MO. And they always fail due to their inability to ever point to anything I've said that is wrong.

(Not that I'm claiming infallibility, I'm surely wrong now and then, just as any human is.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your history is pretty weak, too. Try reading General Assembly Resolution 181 some time: here is a copy from the Jewish Virtual Library which i think can reasonably be relied upon based on the provenance. Sections II and III outline the areas to be under "Arab" control and under Jewish control. The resolution also calls for a customs and economic union which the Israelis have never honored.

In 1947 (not 1948), the Jews in Palestine simply seized the territory which became pre-1967 Israeli, completely ignoring the GA Resolution and its boundaries for Arab and Jewish states.

The Israelis didn't just out of the blue decide to grab territory. The Palestinians reacted to GA181 the same way they always react to things (i.e. they ran around murdering people).

The Israelis only captured that land in the process of defending themselves from Palestinian aggression.

Setanta wrote:

They were, therefore, attacked by Arab states in the region--Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, and reluctantly, the Lebanon. One can deplore the action of those Arab states, but it is much harder to argue against their justifiable claim that the Jews of Palestine were not honoring the terms of GA Resolution 181.

Perhaps if the Palestinians were not running around trying to murder them, the future Israelis would have been more receptive to GA181.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By the way, no one today would entertain claims to Ulster on the part of the Republic of Ireland based on what the Irish claim to have controlled in the 15th century prior the rule of the Tudors.

I would.

Setanta wrote:

No one today admits the claims to a "Greater Serbia" based on what Serb nationalist claim they controlled in the Balkans in the 13th century.

I recognize Serbia's rightful claim to Kosovo, although I'm guessing that "Greater Serbia" includes more then just Kosovo.

Setanta wrote:

No one would for a moment suggest that the white boys in the Mohawk Valley of upstate New York be driven out and the Canadian Mohawks installed based on their claims about what they controlled before Washington sent Sullivan in to drive them out during the American Revolution.

I'm not familiar with that case, but I think the courts should force the US government to adhere to all the treaties signed with the various Native American tribes.

Setanta wrote:

The only reason that people talk about an historical Jewish homeland with a straight face is because of collective European and American guilt over what happened to Jews in central Europe in the 1930s and -40, and the western democracies turning their backs on them.

I talk about it with a straight face because I recognize that it is their rightful homeland.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I agree that it was a war crime. It's the fairy tales you tell about Dresden to which i object.

The Bedu have been there for more than 2000 years. The Muslim invasion by Arabs from the Arabian peninsula does not qualify as the first appearance of non-Jewish Semites in Palestine. In any event, the European Jews only showed up in large numbers after 1945--so that even if your right-wing propagandistic claim were true (which it isn't) the claim of the Palestinian Muslims is of an older date.

The fact that Jews once lived, almost 2000 years ago, in what is now known as the West Bank is not a sufficient reason to countenance the theft of land from people who have been in occupation for centuries.

And yes, you are making **** up, you always do. That's your MO--and your standard response is just more ipse dixit. Essentially, your basic rhetorical ploy is to attempt to get into a yes it is-no it isn't exchange.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You get out of situations what you put in to them. The European Jews were running around murdering people before 1947 themselves--including members of the British army who were in legal occupation of their mandate.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

And the casualties be damned in Ireland, right? People with attitudes like yours are the reason that thousands of people are needlessly murdered each year across the globe. The Serbian claim to Kosovo is even more ludicrous than their other claims--Kosovo is where they were finally and definitively defeated by the Turks more than 600 years ago. We should give it back to them because they're still pouting about that ? ! ? ! ? The Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Croatians, Slovenes and Hungarians don't share your views about "Greater Serbia."

The Mohawks (as the survivors of the Iroquois Confederation are now known) were not deprived of their land through a treaty-based bait and switch--the otherwise time-honored method. They were militarily driven out by General Sullivan on the specific order of General Washington.

You talk with a straight face because you sufficiently deluded to believe that those territories are their "rightful homeland." Before 1967, the Jews never contolled the Golan Heights, nor any porition of the Sinai. Before 1978, they had never controlled any portion of the southern part of the Lebanon, and they have since withdrawn. Historically, they never showed any interest in the Negev before 1947. Yet all of these territories are shown on the 1919 map, which you seem to think is reasonable.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

And the casualties be damned in Ireland, right? People with attitudes like yours are the reason that thousands of people are needlessly murdered each year across the globe.

It's not like I support the IRA (incidentally there was a large IRA bombing last night - LINK).

It's more like I'd like the British government to just say "we were wrong" and simply pull out of Ireland without a fight, because it's the right thing to do -- like when they gave up Hong Kong.

I don't think there needs to be any ethnic cleansing or anything though. Let the current residents stay (perhaps with dual Irish/British citizenship).

Setanta wrote:

The Serbian claim to Kosovo is even more ludicrous than their other claims--Kosovo is where they were finally and definitively defeated by the Turks more than 600 years ago. We should give it back to them because they're still pouting about that ? ! ? ! ?

We should let them have Kosovo because we supposedly respect the principle of territorial integrity.

The west is really quite hypocritical about this, because even if it were legitimate for Kosovo to secede, it would also be legitimate for Northern Kosovo to not secede and instead stay with Serbia. Yet we insist on carving out a chunk of Serbs and forcing them to secede along with the Kosovar terrorists.

While I don't support the IRA, as I mentioned above, I do wish the Serbs well in their endeavors if they ever decide to start killing their NATO oppressors.

Setanta wrote:

You talk with a straight face because you sufficiently deluded to believe that those territories are their "rightful homeland." Before 1967, the Jews never contolled the Golan Heights, nor any porition of the Sinai. Before 1978, they had never controlled any portion of the southern part of the Lebanon, and they have since withdrawn. Historically, they never showed any interest in the Negev before 1947. Yet all of these territories are shown on the 1919 map, which you seem to think is reasonable.

The only place that I am calling the rightful homeland of the Jews is the West Bank.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The Bedu have been there for more than 2000 years. The Muslim invasion by Arabs from the Arabian peninsula does not qualify as the first appearance of non-Jewish Semites in Palestine. In any event, the European Jews only showed up in large numbers after 1945--so that even if your right-wing propagandistic claim were true (which it isn't) the claim of the Palestinian Muslims is of an older date.

In my view, all Jews have a claim to the West Bank that dates back 3,000 years.

Setanta wrote:

The fact that Jews once lived, almost 2000 years ago, in what is now known as the West Bank is not a sufficient reason to countenance the theft of land from people who have been in occupation for centuries.

I'd hardly call it theft. More like reclaiming stolen property.

And it's a sufficient enough reason in my view.

However, it should be noted that Israel would have agreed to return almost all the post-1967 land about 10 years ago had the Palestinians not undermined negotiations by murdering Israelis until the Ehud Barak government collapsed.

The only thing that is preventing a return to 1967 borders is Palestinian aggression.

Setanta wrote:

And yes, you are making **** up, you always do. That's your MO

Cut the crap. I've never done anything like that, and you can't cite any occasion where I've ever done so.

Setanta wrote:

and your standard response is just more ipse dixit. Essentially, your basic rhetorical ploy is to attempt to get into a yes it is-no it isn't exchange.

The only cases where I refuse to provide a cite if I'm asked for one are instances where the claim that I am challenging is either utterly absurd, or is beyond the pale in terms of moral outrageousness.

EDIT -- now that I'm thinking about it, sometimes I get asked for a cite when I give my opinion. I'm really not sure how to give a cite in that circumstance. It would seem like the best evidence that something is my opinion is the fact that I say it is my opinion. So that is another class of cite request that I tend not to honor.

But in general I try to provide a cite if I'm asked for one.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By the way, no one today would entertain claims to Ulster on the part of the Republic of Ireland based on what the Irish claim to have controlled in the 15th century prior the rule of the Tudors. No one today admits the claims to a "Greater Serbia" based on what Serb nationalist claim they controlled in the Balkans in the 13th century. No one would for a moment suggest that the white boys in the Mohawk Valley of upstate New York be driven out and the Canadian Mohawks installed based on their claims about what they controlled before Washington sent Sullivan in to drive them out during the American Revolution.

The only reason that people talk about an historical Jewish homeland with a straight face is because of collective European and American guilt over what happened to Jews in central Europe in the 1930s and -40, and the western democracies turning their backs on them. Even leaving that aside, the Zionist map from 1919 claims far more land than the Jews ever historically controlled in the middle east.

Yes, using your analogies adds a bit of logic to the debate. However, let us admit that only a smaller percentage of Europeans felt guilt over the Final Solution. It was really NJIMBY (No Jews In My Backyard), that I believe motivated more Europeans to want Israel to become a state, and be the enclave for those that managed to not be murdered by German efficiency.

Also, since all the worlds religions are claiming a Kingdom In Heaven, but are still fighting over the finite land on this planet, can we have a working hypothesis that one definition of a successful religion correlates to the amount of land in its possession? So, if that is the case, then Judaism, the originator of monotheism for the modern era, can be considered the least successful of religions, since its adherents can only claim that little sliver of land called Israel. And, if we then question the possible motives for not wanting this least successful of monotheistic religions (yet the originator) to even possibly have this one little sliver of land, I would have to believe that some people would like to see Jews and Judaism gone from the world, so then the two big guys (Christianity/Islam) left on the block can claim hegemony over their respective flocks, knowing that the originator religion is now out of the game of successful religions (sort of like losing all one's of one's houses/hotels/money when playing Monopoly).

And, I do believe that many who are basically non-believers in religion, and might say it is preposterous for Jews to claim that God "gave them that land," are often hypocrites, since that God that Jews claim gave them the land is the same God that gave Christians his Son, and many of these non-believers give tacit approval to all their relatives that run to a church to get a child Baptized.

So, while it is preposterous to some to think a claim on land can be based on a divine gift, other religions' preposterous beliefs are accepted as an accepted status quo.

And, can we both agree that if the day came when Palestineans would be able to claim enough land in the current Israel to make it look more like a county than a country, many people of European descent would have more than a little shadenfreud towards Israel's loss. Sort of muddies the discussion when one accepts that not everyone is really for Palestineans as a supposedly disenfranchised people, but would really like to see Jews as a disenfranchised religion.

Perhaps, we should not have land assigned to peoples based on the historical fairy tale of ethnicity, but on a more practical concept of industriousness? Well, so much for WWII, since Germany should then be much larger. I will not say how large Israel should then be. However, the concept does exist for eminent domain. In effect, do not use land optimally, and it can be taken away. It might make more sense. I will have to ask Spock if it is the most logical approach, rather than the silly concept, in my opinion, to apportion land based on one's willingness to be part of a tribe/ethnic group/religion?

And to all a good night!

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

However, let us admit that only a smaller percentage of Europeans felt guilt over the Final Solution. It was really NJIMBY (No Jews In My Backyard), that I believe motivated more Europeans to want Israel to become a state, and be the enclave for those that managed to not be murdered by German efficiency.

That is very likely a motivating factor for some Europeans and Americans. However, although the United States like many nations would not take in European Jews, there was already a considerable Jewish population here. Larege enough that in 1864, Lee issued a general order to the Army of Northen Virginia to explain to the Jewish members of the Confederate forces that they would be obliged to serve in the lines over the high holidays, and to assure them that Christian soldiers would be in the lines for their religious holidays. European nations were shipping their Jewish problem off to Palestine, the United States was not.

The Jews have no basis upon which to claim that they initiated monotheism. Early portions of the Pentateuch read as though the Jews at one time acknowledged the existence of more than one god, and monotheism appeared in Egypt long ago, in the fourteenth century before the common era , when Akhenaten (means "Servant of Aten") made the state religion monotheistic. Additionally, the Jews were much influenced by the new things they learned during the Babylonian captivity, including the monotheism of the Medes and Persians who eventually liberated them and sent them back to Palestine.

As for their relative success, thanks to the Aramaeans, confessional Judaism spread right across the middle east, over central Asia and reached China. It was replaced in the Hellenistic world to a large extent by Christianity, and late in Arabia and central Asia by Islam. But it was at one time the most successful proselytizing religion.

Your paranoias about antisemitism are of no interest to me, and have no bearing on this thread. I am equally unimpressed by your silly, tortured arguments about hypocrisy.

I am thoroughly disgusted by your racist comments about what you call "eminent domain," a thinly-veiled apologetic for stealing land from the Palestinians.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If the Brits pull out of Ulster any time soon, there will be a blood bath, and it will likely be perpetrated on the Catholic minority by the Protestant majority, who rabidly fear the higher birth rate of those whom they see as their enemies.

Kosovo has not been a part of Serbia since the late 14th century, and even then their claim was dubious. Kosovo only became a part of Yugoslavia in 1919, and that is the sole basis for the Serb claim. There are significant Serb minorities (or until recently were) because Tito encouraged the spread of Serbs throughout Yugoslavia in the 1970s. That hardly counts for much of an historical claim. I wish any of the people of the former Yugoslavia well whenever they decide to kill the vicious Serb bastards who have been raping and murdering in their homes for decades now.

That you only acknowledge the West Bank as some kind of alleged homeland for the Jews is meaningless--this is all predicated on the map that i posted which was presented to the Allied powes in Paris early in 1919, before the British mandate existed and nearly 30 years before the Jews created the rogue state of Israel. Therefore, all references to the south of the Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the other territories are pertinent, without regard to what land you think the Israeli government should be welcomed to shamelessly steal.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your view is unrealistic, and i suspect it is largely conditioned by your right-wing thrill at seeing a militarily successful state for which you can cobble together an excuse for support. The Jews were run out by the Romans, and the beneficiaries were Hellenistic Greeks. They in their turn were replaced by Arabian Muslims. The Bedu have been there as long as the Jews, they converted to Islam, not having been run off by the Romans. They constitute the majority of the ancestors of the current Palestinians. Three thousand years ago, Gaul (France) was inhabited by Kelts, whom the Romans called Gauls. Should we insist that all of the French who have Frankish ancestors should clear out and turn the land over to those who ancestors were peasants in the days of the Frankish invasion? Your remarks about the claims of the Jews are ludicrous.

There is no crap to cut. You make **** up all the time, like your attempt to inferentially claim that Arabs overran Palestine 1300 years ago, and that that is where the Palestinians came from. Even if that were true (and it is not), the Jews were long gone by then, and as the greedy are quick to point out, possession is nine points of the law.

The Bedu have been there as long as the Jews can claim. Both the Bedu and the Arabs claim to be descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham out of the slave woman Hagar. The Bedu have claimed this since before Islam existed. The second part of the right-wing bullshit story attempts to suggest that Palestine didn't exist until it was invented by a political excuse, and attempts to claim that "Arabs" only recently arrived. The only virtue in your claim is that it is not as extreme as that one. Herodotus in his history of the Persian War mentions Palestine seven or eight times. I have several times quoted passages from Herodotus in these fora, and linked a concordance text for those passages. I'm not going to bother to do that again.

After the defeat of the Persians by the Greco-Macedonians, during the Hellenistic period, the region was claimed by the "Persians" which is to say the Greco-Macedonian kingdom of the Seleucids. Judas Maccabeus lead a successful rebellion, successful to the extent that the Seleucids allowed the Jews to operate a satapy. But they were overrun by the Romans. In 70 CE, the Romans ran the Jews out after their failed rebellion. The Bedu remained. Then the Sassanids overran the region after the collapse of Roman imperial authority. They were overrun by the Arabian Muslims (that's your "1300 years ago"). They were overrun by the Seljuq Turks. The entire region was conquered by the Ayyubids, basically Ayyub and his nephew Yusuf, who is known to the Europeans as Saladind. They were Kurds. They were overrun as far as the Sinai by the Mongols. In the power vacuum, the Mamluks of Egypt briefly took over, but were driven out my the Osmali Turks (known from Osman's Arab name as the Ottoman Empire). The Mamluks, by the way, were military slaves, and the preferred source were Caucasian tribesmen. Palestine has been claimed by many people many times.

The Osmali Turks held sway until 1917, and the rest is a fairly well known history--except to right-wing fanatical supporters of Israel. So, when out of the depths of your ignorance of the history of the region, you tell me the Palestinians only showed up 1300 years ago--as though that would invalidate their claim even if it were true, which it is not--you are making **** up.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

if the Palestinians wouldn't insist on trying to murder Israelis, then they wouldn't have to suffer the results of Israel defending themselves.

It's true that Israel is surrounded by arabs, many or most of whom would like to do them serious harm.

It's also true that since 1947 and at an increasing pace, Israel has murdered and dispossessed its neighbours, robbing them of their land and their water rights, their livelihood, their means of existence; robbing them of their future.

Now, it doesn't take an Einstein to spot the correlation there. Why, even Oralloy could do it.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know