|
I'll reply to this in blocks
+ Show Spoiler +
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
I am not seeing any proof of this in the webpage he "sources. Actually there was a survey of palestine done before the UN created Israel and it contradicts what this site says.
Map of land ownership survey done for UN
Land Ownership
An actual source
+ Show Spoiler +
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I can't really prove or disprove the precise accuracy of the map at this point but this guy does nothing of the sort either.. actually his first sentence is just stupid as the map clearly does show territory owned by zionists(zionists, not jews..) This guy does know that jews native to Palestine were arabic right? Sure there was a lot of european jewish immigrants but his last 2 sentences are just ridiculous..
+ Show Spoiler +
onto the next map
While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership.
what? howso
+ Show Spoiler +
The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
I have no idea wtf he just said.
+ Show Spoiler +
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.
Ummm, that doesn't mean anything. this guy is just being an asshole.
he then links to another post saying it addresses the 4th map but it doesn't... at all.
|
On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:19 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 18 2012 08:11 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:05 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 07:59 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 07:26 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
If the Arabs dropped their weapons there would be peace.
If the Israelis dropped their weapons Israel would be a graveyard.
Do you agree or disagree with this? Because if you do, then your justifications for why it's hard for the Palestinians to negotiate are mute. Again, ISRAEL WOULD BE HAPPY TO GIVE UP LAND FOR PEACE.
They would have accepted a 2 state system in Palestine. It's the Palestinians who called in their Arab possy to get all of Palestine and they lost. No shit Israel would take the land they won in the war, why wouldn't they? That's not them stealing land, that's the Palestinians taking a bad gamble with their cake. You can't gamble your cake to try to win 2 cakes, lose it and call the winner a thief.
P.S. There has never been such a thing as Palestinian land, they've never been the owners of that land. This is irrelevant to the current discussion but I wanted to point it out. Israel has continually taken land from Palestine. This has continued in recent years as well, most notably after Oslo Accords which bans Israel from taking land in the West Bank, however it does not stop building settlements. Israel has been continually condemned for their actions in taking away land by the United Nations, United States, Russia, United Kingdom, and various other organizations. To say that they won ALL those settlements through the usage of war is completely wrong, they have used various other methods. If Arabs dropped their arms, yes there would be peace. But that is what I am trying to say, it is hard for Arabs to drop their arms against a country that has blockaded ports, dropped white phosphorous, and took away land illegally. Personally, I feel as though it is Palestine's responsibility to get rid of Hamas and other terror organizations that continually deride peace talks, and come together for a two-state solution, something Israel would gladly accept in my opinion. Again, the Arabs tried 3 times to go into Israel and kill everyone. You do not think the Israeli's are justified to respond with blockading ports, taking land to strengthen their strategic position and dropping some bombs? If you can't even stand getting slapped on the wrist don't try to throw a grenade at someone's face. I never said they are not justified in that case. What I am saying is that the land they acquired was not all done when they won militarily. They have built settlements at times of peace, for example, after the Oslo Accords. The problem on the Israeli side is at least a third of Israel's population is made up of the ultra conservative Jews who really don't give two fucks about the Palestinians and have the power in the Knesset to take down any Israeli government that doesn't cater to them to their satisfaction. Totally stopping settlement building or dismantling long-standing legal (Israeli government approved) settlements would cause them to go apeshit. So do you agree, that you can't say that Israel would give up land for peace because the government would never support such a thing since the ultra-conservative Jews would vote them out? Not giving a shit about Palestinian =/ not giving a shit about peace. I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace.
The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation.
|
On November 18 2012 08:37 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:19 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 18 2012 08:11 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:05 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 07:59 Housemd wrote:
[quote]
Israel has continually taken land from Palestine. This has continued in recent years as well, most notably after Oslo Accords which bans Israel from taking land in the West Bank, however it does not stop building settlements.
Israel has been continually condemned for their actions in taking away land by the United Nations, United States, Russia, United Kingdom, and various other organizations. To say that they won ALL those settlements through the usage of war is completely wrong, they have used various other methods.
If Arabs dropped their arms, yes there would be peace. But that is what I am trying to say, it is hard for Arabs to drop their arms against a country that has blockaded ports, dropped white phosphorous, and took away land illegally. Personally, I feel as though it is Palestine's responsibility to get rid of Hamas and other terror organizations that continually deride peace talks, and come together for a two-state solution, something Israel would gladly accept in my opinion.
Again, the Arabs tried 3 times to go into Israel and kill everyone. You do not think the Israeli's are justified to respond with blockading ports, taking land to strengthen their strategic position and dropping some bombs? If you can't even stand getting slapped on the wrist don't try to throw a grenade at someone's face. I never said they are not justified in that case. What I am saying is that the land they acquired was not all done when they won militarily. They have built settlements at times of peace, for example, after the Oslo Accords. The problem on the Israeli side is at least a third of Israel's population is made up of the ultra conservative Jews who really don't give two fucks about the Palestinians and have the power in the Knesset to take down any Israeli government that doesn't cater to them to their satisfaction. Totally stopping settlement building or dismantling long-standing legal (Israeli government approved) settlements would cause them to go apeshit. So do you agree, that you can't say that Israel would give up land for peace because the government would never support such a thing since the ultra-conservative Jews would vote them out? Not giving a shit about Palestinian =/ not giving a shit about peace. I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace. The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation.
The solution to the other party acting schizophrenic when negotiations literally mean life and death is not just to clam up. The solution is to build trust in that situation rather than destroy it.
|
On November 18 2012 08:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:37 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:19 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 18 2012 08:11 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:05 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
Again, the Arabs tried 3 times to go into Israel and kill everyone. You do not think the Israeli's are justified to respond with blockading ports, taking land to strengthen their strategic position and dropping some bombs?
If you can't even stand getting slapped on the wrist don't try to throw a grenade at someone's face.
I never said they are not justified in that case. What I am saying is that the land they acquired was not all done when they won militarily. They have built settlements at times of peace, for example, after the Oslo Accords. The problem on the Israeli side is at least a third of Israel's population is made up of the ultra conservative Jews who really don't give two fucks about the Palestinians and have the power in the Knesset to take down any Israeli government that doesn't cater to them to their satisfaction. Totally stopping settlement building or dismantling long-standing legal (Israeli government approved) settlements would cause them to go apeshit. So do you agree, that you can't say that Israel would give up land for peace because the government would never support such a thing since the ultra-conservative Jews would vote them out? Not giving a shit about Palestinian =/ not giving a shit about peace. I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace. The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation. The solution to the other party acting schizophrenic when negotiations literally mean life and death is not just to clam up. The solution is to build trust in that situation rather than destroy it.
Now you're just moving into rhetoric. I can say the solution to the middle east conflict is for Israel to build friendships with their neighbors. Doesn't mean anything.
|
On November 18 2012 08:42 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:37 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:19 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 18 2012 08:11 Housemd wrote:
[quote]
I never said they are not justified in that case. What I am saying is that the land they acquired was not all done when they won militarily. They have built settlements at times of peace, for example, after the Oslo Accords.
The problem on the Israeli side is at least a third of Israel's population is made up of the ultra conservative Jews who really don't give two fucks about the Palestinians and have the power in the Knesset to take down any Israeli government that doesn't cater to them to their satisfaction. Totally stopping settlement building or dismantling long-standing legal (Israeli government approved) settlements would cause them to go apeshit. So do you agree, that you can't say that Israel would give up land for peace because the government would never support such a thing since the ultra-conservative Jews would vote them out? Not giving a shit about Palestinian =/ not giving a shit about peace. I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace. The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation. The solution to the other party acting schizophrenic when negotiations literally mean life and death is not just to clam up. The solution is to build trust in that situation rather than destroy it. Now you're just moving into rhetoric. I can say the solution to the middle east conflict is for Israel to build friendships with their neighbors. Doesn't mean anything.
That does mean something, actually. It means Israel shouldn't alienate their neighbors. It means any efforts for peace should be made knowing that everyone supports them. It means they should be helping the PA and Abbas rather than having internal politicians threaten it. It means Netanyahu should say what he means instead of what he can spin to somewhat salve the international community while soothing his own base.
It means they should look carefully at the settlement and refugee and humanitarian problems (some of which they have been doing and well). It means they minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible. It means not placing politics above preparedness and the advice of your military as they did with the flotilla.
Where's the rhetoric here? Neither side is doing everything right. That doesn't mean either side is justified in doing things wrong.
|
On November 18 2012 08:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:37 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:19 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]
The problem on the Israeli side is at least a third of Israel's population is made up of the ultra conservative Jews who really don't give two fucks about the Palestinians and have the power in the Knesset to take down any Israeli government that doesn't cater to them to their satisfaction. Totally stopping settlement building or dismantling long-standing legal (Israeli government approved) settlements would cause them to go apeshit. So do you agree, that you can't say that Israel would give up land for peace because the government would never support such a thing since the ultra-conservative Jews would vote them out? Not giving a shit about Palestinian =/ not giving a shit about peace. I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace. The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation. The solution to the other party acting schizophrenic when negotiations literally mean life and death is not just to clam up. The solution is to build trust in that situation rather than destroy it. Now you're just moving into rhetoric. I can say the solution to the middle east conflict is for Israel to build friendships with their neighbors. Doesn't mean anything. That does mean something, actually. It means Israel shouldn't alienate their neighbors. It means any efforts for peace should be made knowing that everyone supports them. It means they should be helping the PA and Abbas rather than having internal politicians threaten it. It means Netanyahu should say what he means instead of what he can spin to somewhat salve the international community while soothing his own base. It means they should look carefully at the settlement and refugee and humanitarian problems (some of which they have been doing and well). It means they minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible. It means not placing politics above preparedness and the advice of your military as they did with the flotilla. Where's the rhetoric here?
No it doesn't mean anything. There is no friendships to be built, talking about a friendship between 2 parties where one party wants the other dead is 100% pointless, that's rhetoric.
Talking about building trust when the other party want you dead is also 100% pointless rhetoric.
If I threatened to kill you would you try to convince me to not do it by building up trust so we can make an agreement?
|
On November 18 2012 08:35 travis wrote:I'll reply to this in blocks + Show Spoiler +
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
I am not seeing any proof of this in the webpage he "sources. Actually there was a survey of palestine done before the UN created Israel and it contradicts what this site says. Map of land ownership survey done for UNLand OwnershipAn actual source+ Show Spoiler +
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I can't really prove or disprove the precise accuracy of the map at this point but this guy does nothing of the sort either.. actually his first sentence is just stupid as the map clearly does show territory owned by zionists(zionists, not jews..) This guy does know that jews native to Palestine were arabic right? Sure there was a lot of european jewish immigrants but his last 2 sentences are just ridiculous.. + Show Spoiler +
onto the next map
While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership.
what? howso + Show Spoiler +
The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
I have no idea wtf he just said. + Show Spoiler +
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.
Ummm, that doesn't mean anything. this guy is just being an asshole. he then links to another post saying it addresses the 4th map but it doesn't... at all.
Hard to counter posts when the post themselves make no sense. It's a waste of time, just move along to those who try and bridge the middle gap.
|
On November 18 2012 08:35 travis wrote:I'll reply to this in blocks + Show Spoiler +
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
I am not seeing any proof of this in the webpage he "sources. Actually there was a survey of palestine done before the UN created Israel and it contradicts what this site says. Map of land ownership survey done for UNLand OwnershipAn actual source+ Show Spoiler +
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I can't really prove or disprove the precise accuracy of the map at this point but this guy does nothing of the sort either.. actually his first sentence is just stupid as the map clearly does show territory owned by zionists(zionists, not jews..) This guy does know that jews native to Palestine were arabic right? Sure there was a lot of european jewish immigrants but his last 2 sentences are just ridiculous.. + Show Spoiler +
onto the next map
While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership.
what? howso + Show Spoiler +
The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
I have no idea wtf he just said. + Show Spoiler +
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.
Ummm, that doesn't mean anything. this guy is just being an asshole. he then links to another post saying it addresses the 4th map but it doesn't... at all.
The maps are all irrelevant if you know and understand the context of how the land was exchanged. Yea, the Arabs declared war on Israel multiple times... and lost each time. Ofc land was taken during those wars.
|
On November 18 2012 08:51 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:37 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:19 Housemd wrote:
[quote]
So do you agree, that you can't say that Israel would give up land for peace because the government would never support such a thing since the ultra-conservative Jews would vote them out? Not giving a shit about Palestinian =/ not giving a shit about peace. I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace. The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation. The solution to the other party acting schizophrenic when negotiations literally mean life and death is not just to clam up. The solution is to build trust in that situation rather than destroy it. Now you're just moving into rhetoric. I can say the solution to the middle east conflict is for Israel to build friendships with their neighbors. Doesn't mean anything. That does mean something, actually. It means Israel shouldn't alienate their neighbors. It means any efforts for peace should be made knowing that everyone supports them. It means they should be helping the PA and Abbas rather than having internal politicians threaten it. It means Netanyahu should say what he means instead of what he can spin to somewhat salve the international community while soothing his own base. It means they should look carefully at the settlement and refugee and humanitarian problems (some of which they have been doing and well). It means they minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible. It means not placing politics above preparedness and the advice of your military as they did with the flotilla. Where's the rhetoric here? No it doesn't mean anything. There is no friendships to be built, talking about a friendship between 2 parties where one party wants the other dead is 100% pointless, that's rhetoric. Talking about building trust when the other party want you dead is also 100% pointless rhetoric. If I threatened to kill you would you try to convince me to not do it by building up trust so we can make an agreement?
Woah, now we're back into rhetoric and analogy land huh? Fair enough.
If you threatened to kill me one moment and made overtures of peace the next and I knew for a fact there was no way for me to kill you (which the military in Israel well knows), then yes. I would try to build up trust to make an agreement. Especially if I had vastly more control over the situation.
The idea that Israel should wipe Palestine off the map (and that is the implication of your analogy) because everyone in Palestine "wants Israel dead" only makes some people in Palestine more sure that Israel should be wiped off the map. Do you not understand this?
|
On November 18 2012 08:55 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:35 travis wrote:I'll reply to this in blocks + Show Spoiler +
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
I am not seeing any proof of this in the webpage he "sources. Actually there was a survey of palestine done before the UN created Israel and it contradicts what this site says. Map of land ownership survey done for UNLand OwnershipAn actual source+ Show Spoiler +
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I can't really prove or disprove the precise accuracy of the map at this point but this guy does nothing of the sort either.. actually his first sentence is just stupid as the map clearly does show territory owned by zionists(zionists, not jews..) This guy does know that jews native to Palestine were arabic right? Sure there was a lot of european jewish immigrants but his last 2 sentences are just ridiculous.. + Show Spoiler +
onto the next map
While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership.
what? howso + Show Spoiler +
The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
I have no idea wtf he just said. + Show Spoiler +
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.
Ummm, that doesn't mean anything. this guy is just being an asshole. he then links to another post saying it addresses the 4th map but it doesn't... at all. The maps are all irrelevant if you know and understand the context of how the land was exchanged. Yea, the Arabs declared war on Israel multiple times... and lost each time. Ofc land was taken during those wars.
You can also the land and property taken from 800,000 jews who were expelled from Arab countries. I have yet to hear of any compensation or land back offered to them.
|
On November 18 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:51 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:37 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
Not giving a shit about Palestinian =/ not giving a shit about peace. I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace. The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation. The solution to the other party acting schizophrenic when negotiations literally mean life and death is not just to clam up. The solution is to build trust in that situation rather than destroy it. Now you're just moving into rhetoric. I can say the solution to the middle east conflict is for Israel to build friendships with their neighbors. Doesn't mean anything. That does mean something, actually. It means Israel shouldn't alienate their neighbors. It means any efforts for peace should be made knowing that everyone supports them. It means they should be helping the PA and Abbas rather than having internal politicians threaten it. It means Netanyahu should say what he means instead of what he can spin to somewhat salve the international community while soothing his own base. It means they should look carefully at the settlement and refugee and humanitarian problems (some of which they have been doing and well). It means they minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible. It means not placing politics above preparedness and the advice of your military as they did with the flotilla. Where's the rhetoric here? No it doesn't mean anything. There is no friendships to be built, talking about a friendship between 2 parties where one party wants the other dead is 100% pointless, that's rhetoric. Talking about building trust when the other party want you dead is also 100% pointless rhetoric. If I threatened to kill you would you try to convince me to not do it by building up trust so we can make an agreement? Woah, now we're back into rhetoric and analogy land huh? Fair enough. If you threatened to kill me one moment and made overtures of peace the next and I knew for a fact there was no way for me to kill you (which the military in Israel well knows), then yes. I would try to build up trust to make an agreement. Especially if I had vastly more control over the situation. The idea that Israel should wipe Palestine off the map (and that is the implication of your analogy) because everyone in Palestine "wants Israel dead" only makes some people in Palestine more sure that Israel should be wiped off the map. Do you not understand this?
I understand and accept it. Who cares if 80% of them or 90% of them want you dead?
If I threaten to kill you, your response is to try to build up trust between us to make an agreement? Are you being serious?
I'm glad you accept you're in rhetoric land though.
|
I feel bad for little babies writhing in agony... let's not make that entire nations of babies
|
On November 18 2012 09:01 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:51 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:37 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 18 2012 08:29 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure the ultra-conservatives really care about peace either. A substantial portion certainly value a large number of things much more than it, certainly. That's why any Israeli peace support has been schizophrenic since they became a sizable portion of the government. But like someone mentioned, the ultra-conservatives are strengthened by the fact that previous peace treaties haven't been held up by the other party. They don't want to go for peace because peace is not possible, not the other way around. The problem is that you shouldn't take a situation where one negotiator is acting schizophrenic (like Palestine has in the past) and you are acting sensible and use the excuse that they're acting schizophrenic to walk away from negotiations-or worse, not walk away but become schizophrenic yourself. Historically peace has broken down when ideology rather than pragmatism has fueled leaders of either side. The solution to that situation is NOT to become ideologically opposed to peace. The other party acting schizophrenic in negotiations is 100% justification for walking away from negotiations. That's not even an excuse. Negotiations only happen on the consider that the parties trust each other. If there is no trust there is no negotiation. The solution to the other party acting schizophrenic when negotiations literally mean life and death is not just to clam up. The solution is to build trust in that situation rather than destroy it. Now you're just moving into rhetoric. I can say the solution to the middle east conflict is for Israel to build friendships with their neighbors. Doesn't mean anything. That does mean something, actually. It means Israel shouldn't alienate their neighbors. It means any efforts for peace should be made knowing that everyone supports them. It means they should be helping the PA and Abbas rather than having internal politicians threaten it. It means Netanyahu should say what he means instead of what he can spin to somewhat salve the international community while soothing his own base. It means they should look carefully at the settlement and refugee and humanitarian problems (some of which they have been doing and well). It means they minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible. It means not placing politics above preparedness and the advice of your military as they did with the flotilla. Where's the rhetoric here? No it doesn't mean anything. There is no friendships to be built, talking about a friendship between 2 parties where one party wants the other dead is 100% pointless, that's rhetoric. Talking about building trust when the other party want you dead is also 100% pointless rhetoric. If I threatened to kill you would you try to convince me to not do it by building up trust so we can make an agreement? Woah, now we're back into rhetoric and analogy land huh? Fair enough. If you threatened to kill me one moment and made overtures of peace the next and I knew for a fact there was no way for me to kill you (which the military in Israel well knows), then yes. I would try to build up trust to make an agreement. Especially if I had vastly more control over the situation. The idea that Israel should wipe Palestine off the map (and that is the implication of your analogy) because everyone in Palestine "wants Israel dead" only makes some people in Palestine more sure that Israel should be wiped off the map. Do you not understand this? I understand and accept it. Who cares if 80% of them or 90% of them want you dead? If I threaten to kill you, your response is to try to build up trust between us to make an agreement? Are you being serious? I'm glad you accept you're in rhetoric land though.
Wow. You have the upper hand. Your neighbor wants you dead but can't actually do it and half the time is trying to end the fight. And your response is killing him. I hope Israel is wiser than you, I really do.
And I tried to get us away from empty rhetoric and analogies with lists of concrete things Israel can do, but you just said it didn't mean anything. Which leads me to believe (along with your other posts) that it simply doesn't mean anything to you because you're reasoning from a set position instead of one that incorporates new information.
Edit: Anyway, this isn't constructive and I need to cool off. I'm just really tired of people on both sides of conflicts not doing everything in their powers to bring the conflict to an end and then blaming the other side for not doing enough. Palestinians and Israeli both.
|
On November 18 2012 08:57 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:55 SupLilSon wrote:On November 18 2012 08:35 travis wrote:I'll reply to this in blocks + Show Spoiler +
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
I am not seeing any proof of this in the webpage he "sources. Actually there was a survey of palestine done before the UN created Israel and it contradicts what this site says. Map of land ownership survey done for UNLand OwnershipAn actual source+ Show Spoiler +
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I can't really prove or disprove the precise accuracy of the map at this point but this guy does nothing of the sort either.. actually his first sentence is just stupid as the map clearly does show territory owned by zionists(zionists, not jews..) This guy does know that jews native to Palestine were arabic right? Sure there was a lot of european jewish immigrants but his last 2 sentences are just ridiculous.. + Show Spoiler +
onto the next map
While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership.
what? howso + Show Spoiler +
The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
I have no idea wtf he just said. + Show Spoiler +
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.
Ummm, that doesn't mean anything. this guy is just being an asshole. he then links to another post saying it addresses the 4th map but it doesn't... at all. The maps are all irrelevant if you know and understand the context of how the land was exchanged. Yea, the Arabs declared war on Israel multiple times... and lost each time. Ofc land was taken during those wars. You can also the land and property taken from 800,000 jews who were expelled from Arab countries. I have yet to hear of any compensation or land back offered to them.
Yea, it'd be way too much effort for people to actually learn the history of the conflict though. It's much easier to regurgitate sensational headlines from the news and misleading images from the internet ;p
|
On November 18 2012 08:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:35 travis wrote:I'll reply to this in blocks + Show Spoiler +
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
I am not seeing any proof of this in the webpage he "sources. Actually there was a survey of palestine done before the UN created Israel and it contradicts what this site says. Map of land ownership survey done for UNLand OwnershipAn actual source+ Show Spoiler +
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I can't really prove or disprove the precise accuracy of the map at this point but this guy does nothing of the sort either.. actually his first sentence is just stupid as the map clearly does show territory owned by zionists(zionists, not jews..) This guy does know that jews native to Palestine were arabic right? Sure there was a lot of european jewish immigrants but his last 2 sentences are just ridiculous.. + Show Spoiler +
onto the next map
While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership.
what? howso + Show Spoiler +
The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
I have no idea wtf he just said. + Show Spoiler +
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.
Ummm, that doesn't mean anything. this guy is just being an asshole. he then links to another post saying it addresses the 4th map but it doesn't... at all. Hard to counter posts when the post themselves make no sense. It's a waste of time, just move along to those who try and bridge the middle gap.
Agree, decent discussion on hot topics is very hard to come by which is why I try to mostly limit myself to posting news than actually discussing it here. Especially when the topic is related to Israel, considering they have an actual army unit dedicated to spreading Israeli propaganda on all internet forums.
|
So since this has been going on forever and I have do admit I don't really understand what the conflict is about, could someone briefly explain each major stand point of each side to as of why they are fighting? Did Side X get too much land at one point and side Y felt bad and tried to get it back and then it escalated, or what?
|
On November 18 2012 10:05 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 18 2012 08:35 travis wrote:I'll reply to this in blocks + Show Spoiler +
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were "Palestinian" land is simply a lie.
I am not seeing any proof of this in the webpage he "sources. Actually there was a survey of palestine done before the UN created Israel and it contradicts what this site says. Map of land ownership survey done for UNLand OwnershipAn actual source+ Show Spoiler +
In the case of this version of the map, the lie is even worse, as the implication is that pre-1948 Palestine was an entirely Arab country with no Jews and no Jewish land ownership. Of course, before 1948 the word "Palestinian" more often than not referred to Palestinian Jews, not Palestinian Arabs. For example, the Palestine exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair was entirely Jewish, the Palestine Orchestra was entirely Jewish, the Palestine soccer team was almost entirely Jewish, and so forth.
I can't really prove or disprove the precise accuracy of the map at this point but this guy does nothing of the sort either.. actually his first sentence is just stupid as the map clearly does show territory owned by zionists(zionists, not jews..) This guy does know that jews native to Palestine were arabic right? Sure there was a lot of european jewish immigrants but his last 2 sentences are just ridiculous.. + Show Spoiler +
onto the next map
While this is a somewhat accurate representation of the partition plan (with the notable exception of Jerusalem, which was meant to be an international city,), it has nothing to do with land ownership.
what? howso + Show Spoiler +
The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
I have no idea wtf he just said. + Show Spoiler +
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land "Palestinian" at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states - only in Israel.
Ummm, that doesn't mean anything. this guy is just being an asshole. he then links to another post saying it addresses the 4th map but it doesn't... at all. Hard to counter posts when the post themselves make no sense. It's a waste of time, just move along to those who try and bridge the middle gap. Agree, decent discussion on hot topics is very hard to come by which is why I try to mostly limit myself to posting news than actually discussing it here. Especially when the topic is related to Israel, considering they have an actual army unit dedicated to spreading Israeli propaganda on all internet forums.
You do understand how ridiculous you made yourself sound by saying that right? It doesn't matter if they do or not- the idea that someone in Israel right now is spreading propaganda on team fucking liquid.
Whew lol. (If you're not getting it- you're doing exactly what you chastised people for. It's outrageous, unsubstantiated claims that make discussions so fruitless.)
|
On November 18 2012 05:05 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 04:27 Cuce wrote:On November 18 2012 04:21 Goozen wrote:On November 18 2012 04:18 Cuce wrote:On November 18 2012 04:13 Goozen wrote:On November 18 2012 04:08 Cuce wrote:On November 18 2012 02:46 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 02:42 NesquiKGG wrote:On November 18 2012 01:18 sgfightmaster wrote:On November 18 2012 00:41 NesquiKGG wrote:just as i mentioned before... Israel is good at telling lies and manipulating people  .. these people who are tryin to defend what Israel did to Palastine the few years are the best example of brainwashed brats who got manipluated .... You can turn your head away and stop looking at the facts but Israel and America did kill Millions of People for "defending" theirselfs ... good example 9/11 and Alqaida ... they used this to kill Millions of Iraqis and Afghans.. Israel uses hamas to keep on their projects getting their "land" back (LOLZ) by killing more and more innocent people .. and dont ever EVER EVER try to tell me they are not innocent or hamas is to blame for their death.... i cant run arround and kill every single American just because their Soldiers (i call them Terrorists) messed up my Country... a cursory search on google/wiki reveals your figures of "millions of people" are off the mark by orders of magnitudes. this is literally a fact. also, many of the civilian casualties are caused by explosive devices of the insurgents themselves. would you stop hurting the discussion with these mistaken claims? unless of course, you've "seen things", in which case do go right ahead and quote your sources google huh? I lost 2 Uncles 4 cousins 1 aunt and my Grandfather .. you know how? Americans randomly shooted at a supermarket just for fun ... you know what the News published? It was a suicide mission of one of the terrorists ... now let me ask you one thing.. you remember the last attack from Israel against Gaza when they killed like hundres of innocent people at the Beach? when the Turkish President asked that moron how people try to defend him while he did this thing everybody tried to shut him up ... why? why do people who try to tell the truth always get cut off? Answer me some Questions and i gonna stop hatin on Israel. How do you feel as a neutral Person about what happened the last time when Israel attacked Gaza? (the Beach story and so on) + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfKwW3pkx7g&feature=player_detailpage#t=49s How do you react when people kill a member of your Family or the whole Family? ( im sure you cant answer this cause you didnt go trough something like that and i wish you and the others here never gonna live through a hell like this ) You chose Hamas over peace, you face the consequences. yeah but.. peace is quite shitty, with limited living space, razed down infrastructure, no mean on production, and ambargos both from sea and land. Sorry, I honestly can not ask palestinians to sit down and accept everything getting worse. It is not a choice of peace or killing all the jews! for most people its a choice of survival. And firing rockets at civilians or organizing terror attack helps them..... how? Also remember they have a border with Egypt, and the gaza strip was always that size. when did war helped anybody? I never said targeting civilians were helping palantenians. same goes for israel. if no other options are available to them, you gotta stop and think again before accusing people of mindless bloodlust. Why is no other option available? why cant they merge with the PLO and actually hold negotiations? As long as they are violent (and that's 100% in Hamas's interest) nothing will be accomplished. because israel already holds a very much disputed legal blockade on whole state, and not that flexiable on negotiation table. a negotiation with unconditional support from USA to israel and no leverage on palestenian side will not solve anything. Why would those people sit together with their oppresser without and promise on compremise. The goal of the Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel. Why would Israel want to compromise period? There is no trust, you give them a piece of land they move their rockets closer to you. The time for negotiating is long past.
hamas is a result of israels actions. palastine lives under military occupations 45 years now. pressure from israel on palastine only increases as time pass. Hamas might cry aloud how they want to destroy israel because thats what people feel what need to be done too survive, to take revange, for justice. even then not many hamas supporters are so extreme. I see no diffecerence between declerations of hamas wanting to destroy israel, and netenyahu's "any threat to our people will be met with lethal force" threats.
|
On November 18 2012 08:23 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 08:19 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 18 2012 08:11 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 08:05 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 07:59 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 07:26 Feartheguru wrote:On November 18 2012 07:04 Housemd wrote:On November 18 2012 06:57 SupLilSon wrote:On November 18 2012 06:54 Housemd wrote:
[quote]
Oh trust me, its not easy from both sides. I support Israel trying to make peace (I'm a believer in a two-state solution even though it may never come into existence). And the country they are giving back to you are part of illegal settlements that Israel continually does on Palestinian lands. Any issues of legality went out the window when children and women were used as living weapons to kill innocent civilians. ...Not really. Both things were illegal and both things should not be condoned. Its like saying a person killed my family and took my house. I retaliate in an extremely horrific way to try and get my land back by killing the person's family. That doesn't make me right nor does it make the person who took my house right. If the Arabs dropped their weapons there would be peace. If the Israelis dropped their weapons Israel would be a graveyard. Do you agree or disagree with this? Because if you do, then your justifications for why it's hard for the Palestinians to negotiate are mute. Again, ISRAEL WOULD BE HAPPY TO GIVE UP LAND FOR PEACE. They would have accepted a 2 state system in Palestine. It's the Palestinians who called in their Arab possy to get all of Palestine and they lost. No shit Israel would take the land they won in the war, why wouldn't they? That's not them stealing land, that's the Palestinians taking a bad gamble with their cake. You can't gamble your cake to try to win 2 cakes, lose it and call the winner a thief. P.S. There has never been such a thing as Palestinian land, they've never been the owners of that land. This is irrelevant to the current discussion but I wanted to point it out. Israel has continually taken land from Palestine. This has continued in recent years as well, most notably after Oslo Accords which bans Israel from taking land in the West Bank, however it does not stop building settlements. Israel has been continually condemned for their actions in taking away land by the United Nations, United States, Russia, United Kingdom, and various other organizations. To say that they won ALL those settlements through the usage of war is completely wrong, they have used various other methods. If Arabs dropped their arms, yes there would be peace. But that is what I am trying to say, it is hard for Arabs to drop their arms against a country that has blockaded ports, dropped white phosphorous, and took away land illegally. Personally, I feel as though it is Palestine's responsibility to get rid of Hamas and other terror organizations that continually deride peace talks, and come together for a two-state solution, something Israel would gladly accept in my opinion. Again, the Arabs tried 3 times to go into Israel and kill everyone. You do not think the Israeli's are justified to respond with blockading ports, taking land to strengthen their strategic position and dropping some bombs? If you can't even stand getting slapped on the wrist don't try to throw a grenade at someone's face. I never said they are not justified in that case. What I am saying is that the land they acquired was not all done when they won militarily. They have built settlements at times of peace, for example, after the Oslo Accords. The problem on the Israeli side is at least a third of Israel's population is made up of the ultra conservative Jews who really don't give two fucks about the Palestinians and have the power in the Knesset to take down any Israeli government that doesn't cater to them to their satisfaction. Totally stopping settlement building or dismantling long-standing legal (Israeli government approved) settlements would cause them to go apeshit. So do you agree, that you can't say that Israel would give up land for peace because the government would never support such a thing since the ultra-conservative Jews would vote them out? It's --> Israel wouldn't give up land for peace because peace is not on the table.It's not --> Peace is not on the table because Israel wouldn't give up land for peace.
Wait what? Israel won't give up land for peace?
![[image loading]](http://www.theocracywatch.org/maps_before_after_six_day_war.jpg)
What happened to all of Egypt? Surely Israel didn't...give it up for peace!
![[image loading]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQP8U4Vqhf0Ob6hlPyTPR7zYCjebbHxKLZRB8UbCjG3nT0_HsEBA)
Surely this isn't a picture of ISRAELI SOLDIERS dragging OTHER ISRAELIES out of Gush Katif, so that Israel could give Gaza to the Arabs for peace?
Seriously, what are you saying...?
|
On November 18 2012 10:26 Integra wrote:
So since this has been going on forever and I have do admit I don't really understand what the conflict is about, could someone briefly explain each major stand point of each side to as of why they are fighting? Did Side X get too much land at one point and side Y felt bad and tried to get it back and then it escalated, or what?
Israel pretty much came into existence through the usage of terrorist activities. Once it came into existence, it took land away from the Palestinians when winning wars or when forcefully removing previously inhabited Palestinian settlements. There were two main wars: Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, both of which Israel won, the former being the one which Israel absolutely destroyed Egypt, Syria, and other Islamic countries supporting the Palestinian cause. After the Yom Kippur War, efforts were made for peace, however both sides have broken these peace treaties in some way or the other. For example, Israel continued settling in Palestinian settlements after the Oslo Accords and Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel, targeting civilians, while Israel showed major restraint. Some minor things happened along the way: Israel blockaded ports and Hamas rockets continually pounded Israeli land, including targeting civilians purposefully, stating that they are enemies too. Hamas is also the very definition of a terrorist organization, killing civilians, spreading bullshit propaganda, and using their own civilians as a meatshield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
