Israeli Settlements

There's no use to talk about the 2.000 year old history, since none of those people are no more alive and the linkage with people(s) of today are extremely vague. E.g. the nowadays Palestinians are - not that it matters anything - closer relatives of those ancient Jews than the modern Jews, who are mostly Europeans/Kazhars etc. During the centuries people have changed/been forced to change their identities, religions and languages several times - as well as mixing with the other peoples.

Not that it mattered the slightest, the modern Jews have still no right to declare themselves as the only followers of those ancient Jews - which were very different people except for the religion. We cannot talk about the Jews moving "back", since the modern Jews are (mostly) not from the Palestine. We would have better grounds for talking about the English - or Americans for that matter - moving "back" to Germany(/South-Denmark/the Netherlands)...

As I wrote before, the UN's extremely unfair partition plan, forced by the USA, was un-acceptable by the original inhabitants. How would you feel, if the UN somehow got through a resolution, where 56 % of the area of the USA was to be given to the Latinos for a new country...?

The Jews SAID/SAY they accepted the partition plan, but in reality they never implemented - or even tried to - any of it.

In reality most (basically all?) Palestinian escaped, because they had to, not because they chose to - well, they chose not be killed...

Israel still occupies the rest of Palestine despite the fact, that there's no real threat against the existance of Israel. The lack of peace agreements is a straight consequence of that.

There have been occasions where the Europeans deliberately spread the diseases among the natives. The diseases killed most of the natives.

"In 1763 at the Siege of Fort Pitt, many historians claim that smallpox-infested blankets were removed from fallen British soldiers. They were then to be distributed to Native Americans who accepted the blankets as their own. An English trader is quoted concerning the two Indian chiefs given "two blankets and a handkerchief out of the small pox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."[8] A smallpox outbreak did occur in this area among Indians in the spring."

Brookhiser, Richard (2006). What Would the Founders Do? Our Questions, Their Answers. New York: Perseus Books Group.

"During the French and Indian War, Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst, Britain's commander in chief in North America suggested using the smallpox disease to wipe out their Native American enemy. It is quoted from his writings to Colonel Henry Bouquet concerning the situation in western Pennsylvania[7] that the spread of disease would be beneficial to achieve their means and Bouquet confirmed his intentions to do so."

"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians, by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." — Jeffery Amherst[7

Ewald, Paul W. (2000). Plague Time: How Stealth Infections Cause Cancer, Heart Disease, and Other Deadly Ailments. New York: Free.

 

1. There's no need to "improve the defensive position", since Israel is totally superior and nothing - except Iran perhaps in the future - really threathens her.
2. The constant building of illegal settlements prevent any agreement.
3. The Israeli negotiating positition cannot get any stronger.
4. The ever-lasting conflict has a negative effect also on Israeli politics.

 

Even the Israelis are nowadays backing from the myth they created:

"However, a significant number of Jewish scholars living outside of Israel - includig Gabbay and Peretz- since the late 1950s presented a more balanced narrative. According to this narrative, some Palestinians left willingly while other were expelled by the Jewish and later Israeli fighting forces.[78]"

"The dominance in Israel of the willing-flight Zionist narrative of the exodus began to be challenged by Israeli-Jewish societal institutions beginning mainly in the late1970s. Many scholarly studies and daily newspaper essays, as well as some 1948 Jewish war veterans’ memoirs have begun presenting the more balanced narrative (at times called onwards a "post-Zionist"). According to this narrative, some Palestinians left willingly (due to calls of Arab or their leadership to partially leave, fear, and societal collapse), while others were expelled by the Jewish/Israeli fighting forces.[79]"

Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2011). Origins of the Palestinian refugee problem: Changes in the historical memory of Israelis/Jews 1949-2004. Journal of Peace Research, 48 (2), 235-248; Nets-Zehngut, Rafi. (2012). Overview of the Israeli memory of the Palestinian refugee problem. Peace Review, 24 (2), 187-194.


Of course that was only the Jewish view. Here's some more:

"Edgar O'Ballance, a military historian, adds,
Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were home forcibly ejected from their home by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them.... From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah.... No longer was there any "reasonable persuasion". Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory.... Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them"

O'Ballance, Edgar (1956) pp. 147, 172.


"A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948, affirms that:


At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations. To this figure, the report's compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15% ... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...."

Morris, Benny (1986): The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948. Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 5–19.
Kapeliouk, Amnon (1987): New Light on the Israeli–Arab Conflict and the Refugee Problem and Its Origins, p. 21. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Spring, 1987), pp. 16–24.
Review by Dominique Vidal in Le Monde Diplomatique

Do you want more...?

"Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath has rejected the comparison, arguing that the ideological and historical significance of the two population movements are totally different and that any similarity is superficial. Porath says that the immigration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was from a Jewish-Zionist perspective, a "fulfilment of a national dream". He notes the courageous efforts of Israeli agents working in Arab countries as Iraq, Yemen, and Morocco to assist a Jewish aliyah, and that the Jewish Agency had agents, teachers, and instructors working in various Arab countries since the 1930s."

Porath, Ada (16 January 1986). "What about Jewish Nakba?". YnetNews. Retrieved 19 February 2012.

"Israeli academic Yehouda Shenhav has written in an article entitled "Hitching A Ride on the Magic Carpet" published in the Israeli daily Haaretz regarding this issue. "Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: 'I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.'"

"In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: 'I have this to say: I am not a refugee.' He added: 'I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.'"[122]"

http://www.haaretz.com/hitching-a-ride-on-the-magic-carpet-1.97357

Need more...?

What is the relevance of this question? More would have been killed if they hadn't left. I would not prefer to see my family being killed, even if 99,9 % of the others would save their lives.

Here's the estimate of the losses. You can count the percentage yourself.

"around 750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, out of approximately 1,200,000 Arabs living in former Mandatory Palestine."

General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Conciliation Commission, 23 October 1950. (U.N. General Assembly Official Records, 5th Session, Supplement No. 18, Document A/1367/Rev. 1)

"The Palestinians suffered double the Jewish losses, with 13,000 dead, 1,953 of whom are known to have died in combat situations. Of the remainder, 4,004 remain nameless but the place, tally and date of their death is known, and a further 7,043, for whom only the place of death is known, not their identities nor the date of their death. According to Henry Laurens, the largest part of Palestinian casualties consisted of non-combatants and corresponds to the successful operations of the Israelis.[188]"

Laurens 2007 p.194

 

This has been answered to you already, but to your question about Karelia the answer is of course yes. My feelings would not have anything to do with it, since the private ownership does not vanish with the change of borders - forced or not. Feel free to consult any lawyer.

The (Finnish) Karelians/the Finnish archives still have all the documents concerning the private Finnish properties. Russia does not/the USSR did not acknowledge them. Funny that you share their thinking, which is against the international laws...

About the situation in Israel: if you steel my land, it still remains as a lawful property of my children and not your children, even after you and me are dead. Same with the Israelis and Palestinians.

 

Is it not disingenuous to invalidate lwd's argument because of time and vague connection to existing people when in the same post you yourself cite an example from a time where no one now exists and comes half a globe away and to a people with no connection what so ever to those currently existing in Israel-Palastine?

 

Bit much all this...Just stop new settlements. That too hard to get our heads around?

 

Of course there is. If you don't you have a very poor understanding of the problems.

???? have they doen so?

Actually there are gentic studies which indicate that this is not the case.

Was it "forced but the USA" certainly I haven't seen anything to indicate that. The US did lobby for the plan but ended up withdrawing it support as well. The partitian plan may have been unfair but I wouldn't call it "extremely unfair". Partitian plans are never going to be completely "fair" in any case and one side or the other is almost assuredly going to end up dissatisfied.d Looke at the German after WWI or Kosovo.

Were they give a chance?

You keep saying this but the evidence does not support it.

You say "occasions" I believe this is the only documented one and it was intiated at a very local level although discussed at a higher level one. Nor is it clear how many casulaties this caused among the Indians. It clearly is insufficient to support your position.

 

??? I can't believe you said that.
As far as one goes it is true that currently the main threats to Israel are a long way from as strong militarily as Israel is but things can change quickly in the region and Israel has been challeneged pretty severely at time. In their position I would certainly feel the need and I suspect you would to if you were in their shoes.
As for 2 the settlements have inded been a problem but an even greater problem has been the terrorist attacks on Israel and the hailing of said terrorists as heros.
3 Why not?
4 Of course it does and not just politics it hurts their economy and probably creates a fair number of mental health issues.

 

Are they? Or have you just created anther sraw man.

This is certainly no different from the positoin I've taken, it is from the position you've taken. The same can be said for most of the quotes that followed. So show me a quote where it says all the Palestinains left just because of the Arab governements request. If you can't then it's a straw man.

This is the first one that on first glance appears to support your position. On looking at it deeper though does it? How many of the Arabs had all ready left? Then there's the comment about "no longer was there any 'reasonable persuasion'" which impies that there had been a to one point. Then there's the question of whether or not the area was likely to become a battlefield. If it was getting the civilians to leave is not a bad thing. It also seems to be referring to a particular spot and point in time. The use of superlatives is rather troubling as well.

This one does indeed support your case from what you've posted. However the question arrises as to their methodology. How did they determine these numbers? Especially when they couldn't be expected to be able to interview the majority of the refugees. The ones that left earliest would be especially difficult to interview.

Which of course is irrelevant. If they were expelled they were refugees the claiming that those who lost their lands, buisnesses, homes, and most of their wealth were not just because they chose to settle in Israel is absurd.

So the Palestinans suffered higher casualties. That tends to be what happens if you loose. I also note that you are ignoreing the arab efforts to remove the Jewish from the land as well.

 

Lets be blunt, The partition plan was totally unfair. They should have at most gotten a third of the land and if they needed any more then it should have come from Germany.

For the most part through out history the Jew's in the Arab region (specifically Palestine) have been treated fairly well, In fact receiving better treatment from the Muslims then from many European's. So for the Palestinians to be punished by them being forced to give up an unfair share for what could be directly linked to the actions of a European nations is totally wrong.

 

Aside from the real news here, "In regards to the Merkava I have for some perverse reason alway found this picture intersting. Not often you see a tank in a three point stance." I would call that a kick stand. Had one on my CB 750.

 

Have you looked at a map of the partition plan? The Negev Desert composed a sizable portion of what the Jewish state was to recieve. Roughly half the land going to the Jewish state was desert and, given 1940's technology, was land that they could do little or nothing with. Even with today's modern technologies, the land remains sparsely populated.

No points for the "Their slice is larger than mine." argument.

 

You're still talking about "the Press", right?

"The Press" also has very little value in a scientific study. You have not stated which press, the generic "Press" is hardly unanimous. If I were to talk about the press in generic terms, I'd say they have an abyssmal record on similar issues. Very little nuance, no depth, and no time to understand, often written with a bias, or agenda.

The points may be refuted, just not in anything you apparently read, or are willing to accept, which is another matter entirely. You still have not provided anything but anectdotal evidence yourself.

The point at hand "On the other hand since the vast majority of them are committed to the destruction of Israel this seems rather moot."

Questionable: "vast majority", "committed to the destruction". So; which reputable "press" has provided such detailed ascertainable evidence for this burning desire of 80-90% of the Palestinian population?

I might "want" China to disolve into a thousand quabbling city-states. It doesn't mean I'm "committed to its destruction". I want peace, a good job, and to provide for my family. If you think I'm going to go out and blow up Chinese, you're mad. OF course Palestinians would prefer Israel to cease to exist. It doesn't mean they are "committed to its destruction". Thousands upon thousands work there every single day.

 

Considering many Arab states supported either a two state solution or allowing the Jew's to form an autonomous state within Palestine I dealt very highly the claims that they want them destroyed. Yes there would be your hard liner's that may want that but it is a two way street and there are just as many hard liner Israelis that want the Palestinians destroyed. For the most part the Palestinians want a fair go and that means being able to choose who comes into there territories and who doesn't meaning no more settlements with out there say so...

If Israel is able to bar the return of the Palestinians then shouldn't Palestine also be able to bar Israeli entry because lets face it the Palestinians actually had relatives living within current day Israel before they left voluntarily/or where expelled forcefully while the Israeli's can make no such claim about Palestine, Hell in 1914 there where over 700,000 Palestinians to the 60,000 Jew's.

 

http://world.time.com/2012/05/02/received-wisdom-how-the-ideology-of-netanyahus-late-father-influenced-the-son/

Since the thread is still active -

I remember hearing that Netanyahu's father was a strong supporter of Greater "Biblical" Israel. Had not realised he had died but the link provides a glimpse into the mind of the current PM of Israel.

You might also know that Netanyahu's brother was a commando killed on the Entebbe Raid.

I believe that therefore his position is fully understandable - however long it takes and whatever settlements are needed, eventually the West Bank or as his Likud predecessor, Begin, always called it, Samaria will be incorporated into the Israeli State.

Israel has come along way from the idealism of the early founders, Socialism Kibbutz of Ben Gurion, Golda Meyer and Moshe Dayan and on the way has lost supporters such as me.

 

But Jewish land ownership had been artificially depressed in the years prior to that as well. I.e. their ability to buy land had been pretty strickly limited. Nor did the partition call for changes in who actually owned the land from what I've read. So "totally unfair" doesn't seem justified to me.

To a limited extent.

The press will report incidents and data sources (such as polls) that are worth additional investigation. I agree that most newspaper and television articles of pretty limited valued. The lack of depth combined with the bias (both of which you mention) are huge limiting factors.

Actually I believe I have but for the most part I've been questioning your position and that doesn't really require me to produce such evidence until you have.

Again I'm not talking about the "press". I am talking about analysis by individuals with a proven track record along with polls. Lets take an example. If we look at the poll results menteioned here:
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Poll-Palestinian-youth-divided-on-returning-to-negotiating-table-322828

Now of course this doesn't directly address the question at hand. Some of those who don't want an immediate return to negotiations may still be willing to see a two party solution as worthwhile in the long run. On the other hand it's also known that many view negotiations toward that goal not as the long term solution but simply a step along the way toward the destruction of Israel.
Here's another one:
http://972mag.com/israelis-and-palestinians-are-pessimistic-about-peace-poll-finds/74993/

Of course one has to be careful of polls as well. The wording can make a huge difference and in this day and age people can and will answer polls based on the impact their answers are likely to have rather than their opinions. One also has to look at just what terms the two sides would consider acceptable. I see no indication that the majority of Palestinians would accept "peace at any price" (nor do I think they should). However if say "right of return" in it's broadest terms is one of the conditions then there's not much difference between saying that and saying that the Jewish state needs to be eliminated.

Perhaps "committed" was the wrong word although I'm not convinced of it. As I have said on other threads if people have something to loose their values tend to change. One of the reasons we've had very little problems in the US with domestic terrorist. Indeed we have some pretty crazy Christian cults here but they have too much to loose if they go too far so very few of them do.

 

An "autonomous state" within Palestine is for all intents and purposes the destruction of the state of Israel (now IMO if minority rights could be insured this would proably be the ideal state). As for the two state "solution" the problem here is many don't see that as the end state but simply another step along the way toward the elimination of Israel.

I find this very questionable. Even most of the extreme hard line Israelis that I've read about don't seem to want to see the Palestinians destroyed. Of course their ideal solution would be peace and an Israel that includes all the land they presently hold along with the West Bank and Gaza with the Palestinains (and in some cases everyone but conservative Jews) evicted.

In areas they control I believe they can. There's just little point in doing it, indeed there are some very good reasons not to.

I don't see the logic in the first part and note that the end of your sentence explicitly refutes the basis of the first part as well.

 

As someone living outside the USA, USA can sometimes appear to be inhabited solely by former Postal Workers, polishing their guns, and waiting for their turn to go on a rampage, and presidents on the verge of declaring another war. Now this was an extreme statement, and most people are aware, because of the ever-presence of american culture in TV, that this isn't really the case, although to watch the news, you wouldn't know.

If I had to rely on the international news on TV to get a nuanced picture of USA, I'd believe attending a school there is a very dangerous thing to do. Terrorism and violence in the US can seem rampant. Mass murderers, serial killers, gun rampages, & bombers.

Palestine only ever figures in negative news, and so it appears to be full of nasty, horrible little men waiting to kill the first Jew or Gentile they see. But just as with the news I see about USA in the international media, that story is only a tiny part of reality.

Most people in the world, anywhere, are not former Postal Workers polishing a gun with a mad glint in their eye.

Palestinians don't bar entry to anyone, at least on the West Bank. They can't. Busloads of tourists bring much needed cash into Bethlehem. Israelis enter as they please.

 

Unfortunately this is also a view of a large section the "other" side.

A sizeable part of the Israeli population (and probably 100% of those half million settlers) would like to see the West Bank incorporated into Israel proper and the Palestinian Arabs be removed.

Meanwhile the young and the secular Israelis are finding Israeli claustrophobicly small. leaving if they can, resulting in the bigoted and ultra-religious gaining the upper hand.

 

I'd salute you Scipio, but none left...Add to this a small piece of good news...the orthodox folk are now subject to national service...took em long enough...Want the peasants to do their dirty work but never ones to get own hands dirty..