|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 01 2021 06:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board. Show nested quote +As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland? I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. Show nested quote +The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use. I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country. Why would it matter? You might as well try to establish which parts of what we now call Isreal did the Jewish population which was a minority in the area used in any way so as to claim it as part of their country. Today, by military conquest Isreal certainly occupies the highest population city Jerusalem and control what we now call Isreal.
By the way the principle of self-determinationis ultimately about claiming land even if it isn't currently being used. For instance there are soveriegn rights being extended miles into the sea even if nobody is using the land and are internationally recognised as such, even if nobody can live at sea and nobody is using them. When the English first settled parts of Ireland, there were certainly areas of Ireland which were unoccupied. So then would it be right that the native population should establish which parts of Ireland they were occupying so as to claim it as part of their country?
|
On June 02 2021 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 06:11 maybenexttime wrote:On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board. As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland? I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use. I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country. Why would it matter? You might as well try to establish which parts of what we now call Isreal did the Jewish population which was a minority in the area used in any way so as to claim it as part of their country.
Are you serious? That is the core of the pro-Palestinian argument that the Jews colonized Palestine and had no right to form a state there. You see Arab propaganda hammering this point at every opportunity. All those maps showing Jewish settlements vs. the rest of Palestine, implicitly belonging to the Arab population.
I will address the rest of your post tomorrow.
|
On June 01 2021 21:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 21:01 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am just a bit worried about giving an "ultra-right" candidate the chancellorship bause the moderate parties have failed to create a government. This does not have the best track record. But yes, if it works and Netanyaho is out without creating more problems, then good for the region. He would be less right than Netanyahu so that should help a little. I also was reading they are doing a chancellorship rotation so there should be more center, center right and center left voices as well. Netanyahu is already talking about the left stealing the government and that he welcomes the true right to join him, so it is positive that he thinks it will move left. That being said, even people who are right wing should want the criminal out of office. My personal opinion is it's a slam dunk improvement because even 2 out of 10 is a lot better than 0 out of 10, (I mean it can always get worse, it's just unlikely with how shit the current is) but there would be a lot better options. My hope is that Netanyahu ends up in jail with a bunch of info on the corruption of his party coming to light over the trial and the next election goes better. Peace matters a lot, the left does better the safer the Israelis feel and the right does better when there is more attacks and violence. Same in Palestine.
German media is calling him more right then Netanyahu, he has some very troublesome political goals. But yes, he will share responsibilities. Let's hope for the best.
On June 01 2021 22:31 MWY wrote:
1. Not putting the borders of the partition plan into the declaration of independence is not the same as not accepting or rejecting the partition plan.
2. It's even still directly within the declaration of independence: "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
3. The jewish agency as the official representative organization of the jewish people in palestine accepted the partition plan, as well as most of the population.
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the jews were the ones declaring war here or that this was such an agressive act that the other side couldn't react any differently than to launch a full-on invasion.
They did not accept the partition plan though. They took more then the partition plan gave them. In the partition plan, Jerusalem is neither controlled by a Jewish nor by a palestinian government. It is surrounded by Palestinian land though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
These are the border after 1949:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png
Actions matter. They had the chance to honor the UN partition plan they were in favor of but they didn't. Even if we argue that the partition plan was totally fair to the palestinians, which you argue because they had no right to the land they were just sparsely settling, Israel ignored it as soon as it had the power to do so.
|
|
|
On June 02 2021 14:02 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 21:24 JimmiC wrote:On June 01 2021 21:01 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am just a bit worried about giving an "ultra-right" candidate the chancellorship bause the moderate parties have failed to create a government. This does not have the best track record. But yes, if it works and Netanyaho is out without creating more problems, then good for the region. He would be less right than Netanyahu so that should help a little. I also was reading they are doing a chancellorship rotation so there should be more center, center right and center left voices as well. Netanyahu is already talking about the left stealing the government and that he welcomes the true right to join him, so it is positive that he thinks it will move left. That being said, even people who are right wing should want the criminal out of office. My personal opinion is it's a slam dunk improvement because even 2 out of 10 is a lot better than 0 out of 10, (I mean it can always get worse, it's just unlikely with how shit the current is) but there would be a lot better options. My hope is that Netanyahu ends up in jail with a bunch of info on the corruption of his party coming to light over the trial and the next election goes better. Peace matters a lot, the left does better the safer the Israelis feel and the right does better when there is more attacks and violence. Same in Palestine. German media is calling him more right then Netanyahu, he has some very troublesome political goals. But yes, he will share responsibilities. Let's hope for the best. Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 22:31 MWY wrote:
1. Not putting the borders of the partition plan into the declaration of independence is not the same as not accepting or rejecting the partition plan.
2. It's even still directly within the declaration of independence: "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
3. The jewish agency as the official representative organization of the jewish people in palestine accepted the partition plan, as well as most of the population.
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the jews were the ones declaring war here or that this was such an agressive act that the other side couldn't react any differently than to launch a full-on invasion.
They did not accept the partition plan though. They took more then the partition plan gave them. In the partition plan, Jerusalem is neither controlled by a Jewish nor by a palestinian government. It is surrounded by Palestinian land though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_PalestineThese are the border after 1949: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.pngActions matter. They had the chance to honor the UN partition plan they were in favor of but they didn't. Even if we argue that the partition plan was totally fair to the palestinians, which you argue because they had no right to the land they were just sparsely settling, Israel ignored it as soon as it had the power to do so.
I don't think that's fair. The Jewish side openly said that they will keep any land they win if the Arabs start a war, which they did. It's similar to how Poland was fine with the border with Germany before WW2, but wouldn't necessarily want to cede the land that Germany lost back to Germany.
|
That comparison is only fair if you assume that Israel was in the same power dynamic with Palestine as Poland was with Germany. Again, you are acting as if the civil war between two nationalist parties was the fault of one party and the winner then was morally okay with occupying it's land. If i want to buy something from you, you tell me it costs 100$. I give you 50$ and take the thing from you. You complain that we never agreen on selling it for 50$ and you want your thing back. So i say, if you try to force me to give the thing back, and you fail, i will take my 50$ back and keep the thing. So you try to take it back, you lose, i keep it and take my money back. You then ask the police to retrieve the thing and they are like, nah, you weren't using the thing in the first place and besides, you were violent to retrieve it, we will throw you into Gaza.
Palestina was opposed to a jewish state in land that was settled by them. Probably sparsely, but still. 750k people did live there in 1948, and did not live there anymore afterwards. I think that is a position that should be understandable. The mental gymnastics needed to make this position illegit should show you that. Nazi germany and Palestine should be treated dfífferently in peace talks. 
|
|
|
Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 22:31 MWY wrote:
1. Not putting the borders of the partition plan into the declaration of independence is not the same as not accepting or rejecting the partition plan.
2. It's even still directly within the declaration of independence: "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
3. The jewish agency as the official representative organization of the jewish people in palestine accepted the partition plan, as well as most of the population.
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the jews were the ones declaring war here or that this was such an agressive act that the other side couldn't react any differently than to launch a full-on invasion.
They did not accept the partition plan though. They took more then the partition plan gave them. In the partition plan, Jerusalem is neither controlled by a Jewish nor by a palestinian government. It is surrounded by Palestinian land though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_PalestineThese are the border after 1949: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.pngActions matter. They had the chance to honor the UN partition plan they were in favor of but they didn't. Even if we argue that the partition plan was totally fair to the palestinians, which you argue because they had no right to the land they were just sparsely settling, Israel ignored it as soon as it had the power to do so.
Yeah alright since I layed out that the jews were in fact for a peaceful solution within the UN partition plan before the war, let's just skip to after the war to paint them as the agressors.
I mean after they somehow survived the invasion, yes they took more territory than the UN partition plan foresaw. Maybe, just maybe that had something to do with the war that was declared by one side with the goal to "kill every jew"? Maybe you should factor that in into your judgement of what happened after the war?
By the way im not even saying that the partition plan was fair or perfect. But it was the best thing there was towards a peaceful solution at this point. While one side was atleast supporting and willing to work towards that, the other side completely denied any opportunity for it by declaring war and invading.
|
|
|
On June 02 2021 08:19 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2021 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 06:11 maybenexttime wrote:On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board. As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland? I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use. I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country. Why would it matter? You might as well try to establish which parts of what we now call Isreal did the Jewish population which was a minority in the area used in any way so as to claim it as part of their country. Are you serious? That is the core of the pro-Palestinian argument that the Jews colonized Palestine and had no right to form a state there. You see Arab propaganda hammering this point at every opportunity. All those maps showing Jewish settlements vs. the rest of Palestine, implicitly belonging to the Arab population. I will address the rest of your post tomorrow. I have no idea what this Arab propaganda you speak of is, but if so they are correct in that case, for in your very own link which you selectively interpreted the Jewish population was a were a minority population since the 5th century till 1947 where the infomation ends. I wonder what happened in 1948? Zionists settled the area shortly after WW2, and after a series of military actions and several wars, were the lands controlled by what we now call and recognise as the state of Isreal were formed.
Do Jews have a right to form a state with the current areas of control they have? Depends. If you think might make right, Isreal has shown itself to be mighty indeed and so have the right to the lands that their might gives. And I also note to add that I distinguish between Jews and Isrealites.
|
|
|
On June 03 2021 02:37 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 22:31 MWY wrote:
1. Not putting the borders of the partition plan into the declaration of independence is not the same as not accepting or rejecting the partition plan.
2. It's even still directly within the declaration of independence: "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
3. The jewish agency as the official representative organization of the jewish people in palestine accepted the partition plan, as well as most of the population.
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the jews were the ones declaring war here or that this was such an agressive act that the other side couldn't react any differently than to launch a full-on invasion.
They did not accept the partition plan though. They took more then the partition plan gave them. In the partition plan, Jerusalem is neither controlled by a Jewish nor by a palestinian government. It is surrounded by Palestinian land though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_PalestineThese are the border after 1949: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.pngActions matter. They had the chance to honor the UN partition plan they were in favor of but they didn't. Even if we argue that the partition plan was totally fair to the palestinians, which you argue because they had no right to the land they were just sparsely settling, Israel ignored it as soon as it had the power to do so. Yeah alright since I layed out that the jews were in fact for a peaceful solution within the UN partition plan before the war, let's just skip to after the war to paint them as the agressors. I mean after they somehow survived the invasion, yes they took more territory than the UN partition plan foresaw. Maybe, just maybe that had something to do with the war that was declared by one side with the goal to "kill every jew"? Maybe you should factor that in into your judgement of what happened after the war? By the way im not even saying that the partition plan was fair or perfect. But it was the best thing there was towards a peaceful solution at this point. While one side was atleast supporting and willing to work towards that, the other side completely denied any opportunity for it by declaring war and invading.
Last try. I will give up on changing your mind afterwards because i am really frustrated with this conversation. You own a fresh hot pizza. I am hungry as well and i take a third of your pizza from you. You protest because it is your pizza, so we get in a heated argument. You are louder because you want your slices of pizza back and i am just trying to not irritate you more. So now the police comes over and says, okay, this dispute is too loud, we must settle it. Fairest thing would be to give me half the pizza. You protest, you want your slices back now, you do not accept the deal. I say i accept the deal and grab the other slice of pizza, so now i have half your pizza and while you are telling me that this is bullshit, i start eating the pizza.
Of course the settlers were for the partition plan, they had just achieved what they wanted. Then, the first chance they got, they ignored it and took another slice. And while the civil war from December 1947 to April 1948 started with terroristic attacks from both sides on each other, the Arab forces somehow did not simply murder every Jewish person they could find. We cannot know what they had done, had they succeeded. Maybe it is indeed better they lost. We can however clearly see what happened after the Jewish victory. But of course that is now okay, because the Arabs were mean and attacked first.
|
On June 03 2021 15:15 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 02:37 MWY wrote:On June 01 2021 22:31 MWY wrote:
1. Not putting the borders of the partition plan into the declaration of independence is not the same as not accepting or rejecting the partition plan.
2. It's even still directly within the declaration of independence: "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
3. The jewish agency as the official representative organization of the jewish people in palestine accepted the partition plan, as well as most of the population.
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the jews were the ones declaring war here or that this was such an agressive act that the other side couldn't react any differently than to launch a full-on invasion.
They did not accept the partition plan though. They took more then the partition plan gave them. In the partition plan, Jerusalem is neither controlled by a Jewish nor by a palestinian government. It is surrounded by Palestinian land though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_PalestineThese are the border after 1949: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.pngActions matter. They had the chance to honor the UN partition plan they were in favor of but they didn't. Even if we argue that the partition plan was totally fair to the palestinians, which you argue because they had no right to the land they were just sparsely settling, Israel ignored it as soon as it had the power to do so. Yeah alright since I layed out that the jews were in fact for a peaceful solution within the UN partition plan before the war, let's just skip to after the war to paint them as the agressors. I mean after they somehow survived the invasion, yes they took more territory than the UN partition plan foresaw. Maybe, just maybe that had something to do with the war that was declared by one side with the goal to "kill every jew"? Maybe you should factor that in into your judgement of what happened after the war? By the way im not even saying that the partition plan was fair or perfect. But it was the best thing there was towards a peaceful solution at this point. While one side was atleast supporting and willing to work towards that, the other side completely denied any opportunity for it by declaring war and invading. Last try. I will give up on changing your mind afterwards because i am really frustrated with this conversation. You own a fresh hot pizza. I am hungry as well and i take a third of your pizza from you. You protest because it is your pizza, so we get in a heated argument. You are louder because you want your slices of pizza back and i am just trying to not irritate you more. So now the police comes over and says, okay, this dispute is too loud, we must settle it. Fairest thing would be to give me half the pizza. You protest, you want your slices back now, you do not accept the deal. I say i accept the deal and grab the other slice of pizza, so now i have half your pizza and while you are telling me that this is bullshit, i start eating the pizza. Of course the settlers were for the partition plan, they had just achieved what they wanted. Then, the first chance they got, they ignored it and took another slice. And while the civil war from December 1947 to April 1948 started with terroristic attacks from both sides on each other, the Arab forces somehow did not simply murder every Jewish person they could find. We cannot know what they had done, had they succeeded. Maybe it is indeed better they lost. We can however clearly see what happened after the Jewish victory. But of course that is now okay, because the Arabs were mean and attacked first.
Yeah it is indeed. I think the comparison is bad and wrong, sorry. At this point, I don't think I have to repeat everything again.
I cannot understand how you can think that waging war doesn't change things. Yeah, it's technically the first chance they got, but that doesn't mean that it was their goal all along.
Starting a war is not just f.e. disagreeing with the declaration of independence. Starting a war is starting a war. And if you do, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. You, as the agressor, are atleast somewhat reponsible for everything that happens in and after it. There has never been a war in history where the winning side didn't take advantage of that and the losing side didn't have to face atleast some repercussions. I haven't read enough about what happened during and after the war to have made up my mind about wether that was okay, but to a certain extend, punishment for starting wars is justified and completely legitimate. Arguing against it is like arguing that attempted murder should not be punished because the guy didn't succeed.
|
The Arabs fought three wars against Israel and lost all of them. If anything, its the Arab wars that enabled Israel to get this large, so it's the Arabs own fault for this situation. Now the Arabs are sulking after they lost screaming its not fair.
The Armenians recently lost Nagorno-Karabakh and Russia nor the world did a thing.
The Assyrians sacrificed and the British didn't keep their promise for a nation.
The Kurds are scattered all to hell without a country.
And countless examples of Nations who have the short end of the stick.
Unfortunately reality is that not everyone gets what they want.
|
|
|
On June 03 2021 18:26 AssyrianKing wrote:
Unfortunately reality is that not everyone gets what they want.
True, i'd like the option of living in israel at some point. However, due to all this BS I remain in NA.
meh, i'm pretty happy where i am. No biggie.
A lukewarm stance like mine is very boring so its ignored. People pushing ideologies like to ignore a pragmatic position. The screaming ideologues get amplified as the only possible positions to adopt. However, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people feel that same as I do.
|
There is no such thing as a position devoid of ideology. This kind of presentation is just a rhetorical trick to convince (others or yourself) that your ideology is natural and reasonable while others can be dismissed without reflexion.
|
On June 02 2021 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 06:11 maybenexttime wrote:On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board. As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland? I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use. I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country. Why would it matter? You might as well try to establish which parts of what we now call Isreal did the Jewish population which was a minority in the area used in any way so as to claim it as part of their country. Today, by military conquest Isreal certainly occupies the highest population city Jerusalem and control what we now call Isreal. By the way the principle of self-determinationis ultimately about claiming land even if it isn't currently being used. For instance there are soveriegn rights being extended miles into the sea even if nobody is using the land and are internationally recognised as such, even if nobody can live at sea and nobody is using them. When the English first settled parts of Ireland, there were certainly areas of Ireland which were unoccupied. So then would it be right that the native population should establish which parts of Ireland they were occupying so as to claim it as part of their country?
I don't see what territorial waters have to do with the principle of self-determination. The principle is simply about people living in a given place having the right to govern themselves. But using territorial waters as an access point for your ports counts as using them in my book, so it's a moot point.
As for Ireland, if what you're describing were in fact the case (i.e. the English settling part of Ireland lying idle), I don't think it would've been wrong. The history of English colonization of Ireland is a history of centuries of ethnic cleansing, population displacement and brutal oppression, though.
On June 02 2021 18:46 Broetchenholer wrote:That comparison is only fair if you assume that Israel was in the same power dynamic with Palestine as Poland was with Germany. Again, you are acting as if the civil war between two nationalist parties was the fault of one party and the winner then was morally okay with occupying it's land. If i want to buy something from you, you tell me it costs 100$. I give you 50$ and take the thing from you. You complain that we never agreen on selling it for 50$ and you want your thing back. So i say, if you try to force me to give the thing back, and you fail, i will take my 50$ back and keep the thing. So you try to take it back, you lose, i keep it and take my money back. You then ask the police to retrieve the thing and they are like, nah, you weren't using the thing in the first place and besides, you were violent to retrieve it, we will throw you into Gaza. Palestina was opposed to a jewish state in land that was settled by them. Probably sparsely, but still. 750k people did live there in 1948, and did not live there anymore afterwards. I think that is a position that should be understandable. The mental gymnastics needed to make this position illegit should show you that. Nazi germany and Palestine should be treated dfífferently in peace talks.
I don't see how the power dynamic is relevant. And as JimmiC said, it was different in late 19th/early 20th century than it is now.
Your comparison rests on the assumption that the Jewish settlers somehow stole the land from the Arabs prior to the 1948 war. I'd like to see evidence for that. Can you finally prove that the land settled by the Jews actually belonged to the Arabs in any way? They claimed it as theirs, but so did the Jews. How do you determine whose right to self-determination should take precedence in case of conflicting claims?
The fact that 750k people got displaced is a consequence of the war their leaders had started. I don't see how that's different from ethnic Germans getting displaced. If you think the Arabs had a valid reason to wage war against the newly formed Jewish state, please, prove it.
On June 03 2021 07:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2021 08:19 maybenexttime wrote:On June 02 2021 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 06:11 maybenexttime wrote:On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board. As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland? I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use. I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country. Why would it matter? You might as well try to establish which parts of what we now call Isreal did the Jewish population which was a minority in the area used in any way so as to claim it as part of their country. Are you serious? That is the core of the pro-Palestinian argument that the Jews colonized Palestine and had no right to form a state there. You see Arab propaganda hammering this point at every opportunity. All those maps showing Jewish settlements vs. the rest of Palestine, implicitly belonging to the Arab population. I will address the rest of your post tomorrow. I have no idea what this Arab propaganda you speak of is, but if so they are correct in that case, for in your very own link which you selectively interpreted the Jewish population was a were a minority population since the 5th century till 1947 where the infomation ends. I wonder what happened in 1948? Zionists settled the area shortly after WW2, and after a series of military actions and several wars, were the lands controlled by what we now call and recognise as the state of Isreal were formed. Do Jews have a right to form a state with the current areas of control they have? Depends. If you think might make right, Isreal has shown itself to be mighty indeed and so have the right to the lands that their might gives. And I also note to add that I distinguish between Jews and Isrealites.
You really don't know what Arab propaganda I'm talking about? I mean maps like that:
+ Show Spoiler +
It claims that any land in Palestine that wasn't part of the Jewish settlements belonged to the Arabs. But just because you claim some land, doesn't mean it's yours. That's why I'd like to see some reliable data on the actual extent of the Arab presence in Palestine at the time.
The Jewish population was a minority in some parts of Palestine, and a majority in others. There were also areas that lay idle and were fair game for taking. Which ethnic group was the majority of the population of Palestine as a whole is irrelevant. Palestine was an artificial construct. If you draw borders one way, you'll end up with the Kurds being a minority in several countries. If you draw them another way, you'll end up with a Kurdistan full of Kurds. And Jewish settlers have been settling Palestine decades before the 1948 war.
Jews and Israelis, I presume. Israelites were an ancient tribe, afaik.
On June 03 2021 15:15 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 02:37 MWY wrote:On June 01 2021 22:31 MWY wrote:
1. Not putting the borders of the partition plan into the declaration of independence is not the same as not accepting or rejecting the partition plan.
2. It's even still directly within the declaration of independence: "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
3. The jewish agency as the official representative organization of the jewish people in palestine accepted the partition plan, as well as most of the population.
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the jews were the ones declaring war here or that this was such an agressive act that the other side couldn't react any differently than to launch a full-on invasion.
They did not accept the partition plan though. They took more then the partition plan gave them. In the partition plan, Jerusalem is neither controlled by a Jewish nor by a palestinian government. It is surrounded by Palestinian land though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_PalestineThese are the border after 1949: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.pngActions matter. They had the chance to honor the UN partition plan they were in favor of but they didn't. Even if we argue that the partition plan was totally fair to the palestinians, which you argue because they had no right to the land they were just sparsely settling, Israel ignored it as soon as it had the power to do so. Yeah alright since I layed out that the jews were in fact for a peaceful solution within the UN partition plan before the war, let's just skip to after the war to paint them as the agressors. I mean after they somehow survived the invasion, yes they took more territory than the UN partition plan foresaw. Maybe, just maybe that had something to do with the war that was declared by one side with the goal to "kill every jew"? Maybe you should factor that in into your judgement of what happened after the war? By the way im not even saying that the partition plan was fair or perfect. But it was the best thing there was towards a peaceful solution at this point. While one side was atleast supporting and willing to work towards that, the other side completely denied any opportunity for it by declaring war and invading. Last try. I will give up on changing your mind afterwards because i am really frustrated with this conversation. You own a fresh hot pizza. I am hungry as well and i take a third of your pizza from you. You protest because it is your pizza, so we get in a heated argument. You are louder because you want your slices of pizza back and i am just trying to not irritate you more. So now the police comes over and says, okay, this dispute is too loud, we must settle it. Fairest thing would be to give me half the pizza. You protest, you want your slices back now, you do not accept the deal. I say i accept the deal and grab the other slice of pizza, so now i have half your pizza and while you are telling me that this is bullshit, i start eating the pizza. Of course the settlers were for the partition plan, they had just achieved what they wanted. Then, the first chance they got, they ignored it and took another slice. And while the civil war from December 1947 to April 1948 started with terroristic attacks from both sides on each other, the Arab forces somehow did not simply murder every Jewish person they could find. We cannot know what they had done, had they succeeded. Maybe it is indeed better they lost. We can however clearly see what happened after the Jewish victory. But of course that is now okay, because the Arabs were mean and attacked first.
I had to stop at "your pizza". I have yet to see evidence showing that the Arab presence in Palestine encompassed the whole region and not just pockets bigger than the Jewish settlements.
|
|
|
On June 04 2021 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2021 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 06:11 maybenexttime wrote:On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board. As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland? I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use. I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country. Why would it matter? You might as well try to establish which parts of what we now call Isreal did the Jewish population which was a minority in the area used in any way so as to claim it as part of their country. Today, by military conquest Isreal certainly occupies the highest population city Jerusalem and control what we now call Isreal. By the way the principle of self-determinationis ultimately about claiming land even if it isn't currently being used. For instance there are soveriegn rights being extended miles into the sea even if nobody is using the land and are internationally recognised as such, even if nobody can live at sea and nobody is using them. When the English first settled parts of Ireland, there were certainly areas of Ireland which were unoccupied. So then would it be right that the native population should establish which parts of Ireland they were occupying so as to claim it as part of their country? I don't see what territorial waters have to do with the principle of self-determination. The principle is simply about people living in a given place having the right to govern themselves. But using territorial waters as an access point for your ports counts as using them in my book, so it's a moot point. As for Ireland, if what you're describing were in fact the case (i.e. the English settling part of Ireland lying idle), I don't think it would've been wrong. The history of English colonization of Ireland is a history of centuries of ethnic cleansing, population displacement and brutal oppression, though. Show nested quote +On June 02 2021 18:46 Broetchenholer wrote:That comparison is only fair if you assume that Israel was in the same power dynamic with Palestine as Poland was with Germany. Again, you are acting as if the civil war between two nationalist parties was the fault of one party and the winner then was morally okay with occupying it's land. If i want to buy something from you, you tell me it costs 100$. I give you 50$ and take the thing from you. You complain that we never agreen on selling it for 50$ and you want your thing back. So i say, if you try to force me to give the thing back, and you fail, i will take my 50$ back and keep the thing. So you try to take it back, you lose, i keep it and take my money back. You then ask the police to retrieve the thing and they are like, nah, you weren't using the thing in the first place and besides, you were violent to retrieve it, we will throw you into Gaza. Palestina was opposed to a jewish state in land that was settled by them. Probably sparsely, but still. 750k people did live there in 1948, and did not live there anymore afterwards. I think that is a position that should be understandable. The mental gymnastics needed to make this position illegit should show you that. Nazi germany and Palestine should be treated dfífferently in peace talks. I don't see how the power dynamic is relevant. And as JimmiC said, it was different in late 19th/early 20th century than it is now. Your comparison rests on the assumption that the Jewish settlers somehow stole the land from the Arabs prior to the 1948 war. I'd like to see evidence for that. Can you finally prove that the land settled by the Jews actually belonged to the Arabs in any way? They claimed it as theirs, but so did the Jews. How do you determine whose right to self-determination should take precedence in case of conflicting claims? The fact that 750k people got displaced is a consequence of the war their leaders had started. I don't see how that's different from ethnic Germans getting displaced. If you think the Arabs had a valid reason to wage war against the newly formed Jewish state, please, prove it. Show nested quote +On June 03 2021 07:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 02 2021 08:19 maybenexttime wrote:On June 02 2021 07:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 06:11 maybenexttime wrote:On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board. As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland? I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use. I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country. Why would it matter? You might as well try to establish which parts of what we now call Isreal did the Jewish population which was a minority in the area used in any way so as to claim it as part of their country. Are you serious? That is the core of the pro-Palestinian argument that the Jews colonized Palestine and had no right to form a state there. You see Arab propaganda hammering this point at every opportunity. All those maps showing Jewish settlements vs. the rest of Palestine, implicitly belonging to the Arab population. I will address the rest of your post tomorrow. I have no idea what this Arab propaganda you speak of is, but if so they are correct in that case, for in your very own link which you selectively interpreted the Jewish population was a were a minority population since the 5th century till 1947 where the infomation ends. I wonder what happened in 1948? Zionists settled the area shortly after WW2, and after a series of military actions and several wars, were the lands controlled by what we now call and recognise as the state of Isreal were formed. Do Jews have a right to form a state with the current areas of control they have? Depends. If you think might make right, Isreal has shown itself to be mighty indeed and so have the right to the lands that their might gives. And I also note to add that I distinguish between Jews and Isrealites. You really don't know what Arab propaganda I'm talking about? I mean maps like that: + Show Spoiler +It claims that any land in Palestine that wasn't part of the Jewish settlements belonged to the Arabs. But just because you claim some land, doesn't mean it's yours. That's why I'd like to see some reliable data on the actual extent of the Arab presence in Palestine at the time. The Jewish population was a minority in some parts of Palestine, and a majority in others. There were also areas that lay idle and were fair game for taking. Which ethnic group was the majority of the population of Palestine as a whole is irrelevant. Palestine was an artificial construct. If you draw borders one way, you'll end up with the Kurds being a minority in several countries. If you draw them another way, you'll end up with a Kurdistan full of Kurds. And Jewish settlers have been settling Palestine decades before the 1948 war. Jews and Israelis, I presume. Israelites were an ancient tribe, afaik.
You don't see see what territorial waters have to do with the principle of self-determination, yet you also claim that the principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way. But that is exactly what the principle of self determination that leads to nation states is. To lay claim to people and geograpy. Nowhere is land always constantly occupied. Whenever you divide up land to it's smallest detail, there is always a parcel of land that is not occupied. Vast deserts and mountain ranges and deep rainforests and artic tundra are claimed by nation states, where there is little or no human population. The right to claim land and even by extention waters that extend from land.
You talk of lands as fair game for the taking, and yes, they are fair game, by force of arms. You write as if somehow the boundaries of Isreal was formed by selecting areas where the Jewish population already pre-existed, not the historical reality and current situation where Isreal was formed and maintained by force of arms. That Isreal hadn't successfully conducted population displacement and brutal oppression and is currently in the proccess of continuing just that. Remember that the recent events started because Isreal was being too oppressive which sparked off the violence.
Now as to the issue of your "Arab propaganda." Never seen that before, but seems to be a fairly accurate representation of land controlled over time. If anything it understates the situation as it appears to count joint Isreali-Palestine control as under Palestinian control. Essentially what we call the state of Isreal today is under Isreali control or occupation. That is the reality, which oddly enough you dismiss as "Arab propaganda".
Jews and Isrealis are two different things. One is a citizen of Isreal and the other is semi religious ethnic group called jews whose population around the world far exceeds that of the population in Isreal. You seem to conflate the two regularily for some reason. You seem to disregard Palestinians as a people and prefer to call them Arabs as well. Which is somewhat odd for someone who likes to talk about selfdetermination, but is seemingly happy to disregard calling people as what the have determined themselves to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INTERACTIVE-Ethnic-cleansing.png?w=770&resize=770%2C770)
