Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shadowy Man · 04-08-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optional
So if somebody comes to my house, throws me out, and commences to take up housekeeping, the fact that I actually lived there and owned it would not be good enough grounds to get the police to lock the bum up?

Not if the police side with the guy who threw you out.

Ultron · 04-08-2003, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The problem is that a third party in there stops Israeli retaliation but does nothing to stop the terrorists. That's why Israel doesn't want peacekeepers. They are useful against open combat but useless against covert combat.

Understood. And lets be honest. The UN was nigh useless for instilling peace in the region from day one. I would just rather the UN be there to provide a military force to protect the Palestinians rather than have a Palestinian army. Right now the main problem in the middle east is what to do with the millions of Palestininan Arab refugees in that region. Provide a solution to that problem and the world will collectively sigh with relief. It won't be perfect, but it has to be better than what we have now.

John Hancock · 04-08-2003, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xi-theses
The refugees have a claim to the land they were kicked off of. Now obviously Israel can't give it back to them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a moral responsibility for some form of compensation. I should've again made myself more clear and for that I apologize.

Yes, I know they did that. But you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' in my opinion. I think the people that were forcibly expelled in the forties deserve some form of compensation for the massive psychological damage they suffered.

They were not kick off they moved to not get in the way when the armies of 7 Arab nations intended to "sweep the Jews into the sea"

Once again I've not a dog in this fight but historical distortions serve but to yield warrant less emotional appeals.

Martin Buber

Ultron · 04-08-2003, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Buber
Let's be historically correct after WWII the Ottoman empire was divded into the French Mandate up in the North (Lebanon area) and the Brittish Mandate Isreal and Jordan. The area in dispute "West Bank and Gaza were taken by force in 1948 by Seven Arab armies. The Arabs that left Isreal did so as not to interfere with the stated aims of that invasion "to sweep the jews into the ocean". Your statement Yes that was Trans-Jordan. The remaining land was a smaller Palestine mandate. is not factual.

Oh really?

Let's fix all the problems with what you just said.

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Buber
Let's be historically correct after WWII the Ottoman empire was divded into the French Mandate up in the North (Lebanon area) and the Brittish Mandate Isreal and Jordan.

Israel was NOT a British mandate. Palestine was. Israel wasn't declared until the Brits gave up their mandate. Furthermore the British mandate of Trans-Jordan was not called Jordan until it's independence from Britain. Remember, Trans-Jordan was released from British control before it released Palestine.

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Buber
The area in dispute "West Bank and Gaza were taken by force in 1948 by Seven Arab armies. The Arabs that left Isreal did so as not to interfere with the stated aims of that invasion "to sweep the jews into the ocean".

What became the West Bank of Jordan was added to Jordan during Israel's war of independence. Just as Egypt claimed the Gaza strip at the end of that war. When Israel was accepted into the UN in 1949, Jordan and Egypt were actually a little larger than they were before the end of the British mandate.

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Buber
Your statement Yes that was Trans-Jordan. The remaining land was a smaller Palestine mandate. is not factual.

But it is! When Britain originally claimed all that land after defeating the Ottoman empire, it named the entire mandate after the geological name of the region: Palestine. This was in 1917 and remained the case through 1922. In 1923 Britain split up that into two regions. Nearly 75% of the region became Trans-Jordan, which was set aside for Arab immigration. The remaining 25% became a smaller region called...Palestine.

No offense, but if you're going to criticize me for historical accuracy, you should at least have the facts on your side.

Ultron · 04-08-2003, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xi-theses
The refugees have a claim to the land they were kicked off of.

Sure. I can also claim that land. What right do I have claiming it though? Palestinians have at best a legal claim of property in that region. As far as the rest of Israel, the undisputed part, they don't have that right. In 1950 Israel passed a law called the Absentee Property Law which authorized Israel to take all that land abandoned/left behind by Palestinians who fled the country. As far as I know, no such similar law has been passed after the Six-Day War where Israel won the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At best that means Palestinians have property rights.

Quote:

Originally posted by xi-theses
Now obviously Israel can't give it back to them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a moral responsibility for some form of compensation.

I respectfully disagree. I personally think Israel CAN give them their own state, but that they aren't obligated too. But Israel could very well give up 80-90% of that if they chose to and most of the world wouldn't fuss.

Quote:

Originally posted by xi-theses
I should've again made myself more clear and for that I apologize.

You have nothing to apologize for. It's all good.

Quote:

Originally posted by xi-theses
Yes, I know they did that. But you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' in my opinion. I think the people that were forcibly expelled in the forties deserve some form of compensation for the massive psychological damage they suffered.

I agree, but Israel's national sovereignty is the law of their land. Let's face it, Jordan and Egypt gave up on that land they claimed in 1949 but lost in 1967. Israel is the only nation in the world that lays claim to that area. I think that for compensation they should give up a major portion of that land and either Jordan or the new improved PA can take over that territory as their own nation. However keep in mind that once they become a nation they will have their own soverignty and we may not neccessarily see a decrease in conflict. But I prefer to take the optimistic view on that.

Ultron · 04-08-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xi-theses
I'm not talking about a citizen of Israel. I'm talking about a Zionist that immigrates from New York (or whatever) and becomes a citizen of Israel and then goes into the Occupied Territories and starts kicking people out of their homes with bulldozers and guns. Like I said, I think that's sick. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.

Well when you phrase it like that I can't argue with you.

Yes in the same year Israel passed the Absentee Property Law they also passed the Law of Return which allowed any Jew to move in and become an Israeli citizen. But that's the law of their land. Just as we cherish our own US Constituion, Israel has it's own body of laws that are their legal backbone.

Ultron · 04-08-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie
ultron: There hasn't been a Palestininan nation in over 2000 years.

From Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict:

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation

I'll do some more research on this. BTW I do have the pro-Palestinian Cactus48 site in my collection of links but IIRC the Philistines lost to the Roman Empire and there was no Philistine/Palestinian independant nation since. Sure peoples who lived there were under different rules but not as their own nation since Rome ruled that land. I'll stand corrected in the meantime until I can get some time to read up on that.

Thanks for the info!

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie
Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314."
-- Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

As you'll no doubt see I've already said as much already. There has always been a small Jewish and Christian population there but never of any significant size. Actually throughout that region there's been some mixing of religion, though not as prevelant as in other parts of the world.

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie
"Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights... Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise."
-- Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

Well I'm not going to get into Zionist/anti-Zionist debates. I'm not Jewish or Muslim so I don't care about that issue really.

LymanLover · 04-08-2003, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Buber
They were not kick off they moved to not get in the way when the armies of 7 Arab nations intended to "sweep the Jews into the sea"

Once again I've not a dog in this fight but historical distortions serve but to yield warrant less emotional appeals.

Martin Buber

Well, some did, others were kicked off. It's not an all or nothing situation in terms of why the refugees left. Extreme Palestine supporters tend to highlight the forcible expulsions. Extreme Israel supporters tend to point out the types of things you were (not saying you are an Israel supporter). I only pointed out the Palestine side because I was arguing with Evangelion and disagree with his/her take on the issue. So its not a "historical distortion" because it did in fact happen.. depending of course on what source you read.

LymanLover · 04-08-2003, 05:44 PM

"Sure. I can also claim that land. What right do I have claiming it though? Palestinians have at best a legal claim of property in that region. As far as the rest of Israel, the undisputed part, they don't have that right. In 1950 Israel passed a law called the Absentee Property Law which authorized Israel to take all that land abandoned/left behind by Palestinians who fled the country. As far as I know, no such similar law has been passed after the Six-Day War where Israel won the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At best that means Palestinians have property rights."

Well, you never lived there. Did you?

As for the laws, you are of course factually correct, but that doesn't help in finding a solution. It may be law, that doesn't make it just.

"I respectfully disagree. I personally think Israel CAN give them their own state, but that they aren't obligated too. But Israel could very well give up 80-90% of that if they chose to and most of the world wouldn't fuss."

OK we agree to disagree.

"You have nothing to apologize for. It's all good.

"

I was addressing Evangelion.

"I agree, but Israel's national sovereignty is the law of their land. Let's face it, Jordan and Egypt gave up on that land they claimed in 1949 but lost in 1967. Israel is the only nation in the world that lays claim to that area. I think that for compensation they should give up a major portion of that land and either Jordan or the new improved PA can take over that territory as their own nation. However keep in mind that once they become a nation they will have their own soverignty and we may not neccessarily see a decrease in conflict. But I prefer to take the optimistic view on that."

Well, there isn't much I find to disagree with here. Yes, Israel will exist now and will exist far into the forseeable future. Problem is, obviously, finding a solution that will get both sides to chill out.

John Hancock · 04-08-2003, 05:44 PM

What the hell are you talking about.
__________________________________________________
Israel was NOT a British mandate. Palestine was. Israel wasn't declared until the Brits gave up their mandate. Furthermore the British mandate of Trans-Jordan was not called Jordan until it's independence from Britain. Remember, Trans-Jordan was released from British control before it released Palestine.
__________________________________________________

The entire area encompassing what is now call Isreal and Jordan inclusive of West Bank and Gaza strip was the Brittish Mandate. The name Palestine was a region not a country and it was inhabited by peoples of all religions. The Zionist that were there at the time had purchased the land from the previous rulers of the area.

The British split thier mandate utilizing the Jordan River as a boundry. They called west of the river Isreal and east of the river Trans Jordan. Immediately the armies of seven Arab Nations amassed for an assult of Genocidal intent. They capture what is now called the occupied territories. In the 1967 War Isreal recaptured that land and the Golan Hights and the Sinai as well as the Gaza strip. They have since relinquish all lands that were not ceded them by Britian

FIND A NONPARTISIAN HISTORY SOURCE AND READ. The Arabs felt cheated by Balfour Declaration because they had supported the British in WWII and believe themselves entitled to all the areas of the Ottoman Empire which came under British control. This may be true but it is now and that was then. :banghead:

Martin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2003, 05:44 PM	#109
LymanLover Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,982	"Sure. I can also claim that land. What right do I have claiming it though? Palestinians have at best a legal claim of property in that region. As far as the rest of Israel, the undisputed part, they don't have that right. In 1950 Israel passed a law called the Absentee Property Law which authorized Israel to take all that land abandoned/left behind by Palestinians who fled the country. As far as I know, no such similar law has been passed after the Six-Day War where Israel won the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At best that means Palestinians have property rights." Well, you never lived there. Did you? As for the laws, you are of course factually correct, but that doesn't help in finding a solution. It may be law, that doesn't make it just. "I respectfully disagree. I personally think Israel CAN give them their own state, but that they aren't obligated too. But Israel could very well give up 80-90% of that if they chose to and most of the world wouldn't fuss." OK we agree to disagree. "You have nothing to apologize for. It's all good. " I was addressing Evangelion. "I agree, but Israel's national sovereignty is the law of their land. Let's face it, Jordan and Egypt gave up on that land they claimed in 1949 but lost in 1967. Israel is the only nation in the world that lays claim to that area. I think that for compensation they should give up a major portion of that land and either Jordan or the new improved PA can take over that territory as their own nation. However keep in mind that once they become a nation they will have their own soverignty and we may not neccessarily see a decrease in conflict. But I prefer to take the optimistic view on that." Well, there isn't much I find to disagree with here. Yes, Israel will exist now and will exist far into the forseeable future. Problem is, obviously, finding a solution that will get both sides to chill out.

04-08-2003, 05:44 PM	#110
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	What the hell are you talking about. __________________________________________________ Israel was NOT a British mandate. Palestine was. Israel wasn't declared until the Brits gave up their mandate. Furthermore the British mandate of Trans-Jordan was not called Jordan until it's independence from Britain. Remember, Trans-Jordan was released from British control before it released Palestine. __________________________________________________ The entire area encompassing what is now call Isreal and Jordan inclusive of West Bank and Gaza strip was the Brittish Mandate. The name Palestine was a region not a country and it was inhabited by peoples of all religions. The Zionist that were there at the time had purchased the land from the previous rulers of the area. The British split thier mandate utilizing the Jordan River as a boundry. They called west of the river Isreal and east of the river Trans Jordan. Immediately the armies of seven Arab Nations amassed for an assult of Genocidal intent. They capture what is now called the occupied territories. In the 1967 War Isreal recaptured that land and the Golan Hights and the Sinai as well as the Gaza strip. They have since relinquish all lands that were not ceded them by Britian FIND A NONPARTISIAN HISTORY SOURCE AND READ. The Arabs felt cheated by Balfour Declaration because they had supported the British in WWII and believe themselves entitled to all the areas of the Ottoman Empire which came under British control. This may be true but it is now and that was then. :banghead: Martin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.