georgephillip
Diamond Member
The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.
The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.
They should still settle it by ballot box. Only, a sizeable chunk of the population in Israel/Palestine can't vote in any way shape or form. It is a homeland scenario for many, compressed into areas without the freedom of movement, reminiscent of apartheid South Africa or the American south before Civil Rights.
For me the bottom line is that the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem during or around 70 A.D. and the Jews have endured intermittant persecution, for being Jews, in almost every place they lived for the next 2000 years.
Perhaps for some the bottom line is that the Jews drove the Canaanites out of the land once called the Land of Canaan, present day Israel.
You can start your timeline in a few places but should point out to the fact that this territory has been home to a few people who feel it is theirs to call home.
You know that the Canaanites are Descendants of Abram, right?
Perhaps for some the bottom line is that the Jews drove the Canaanites out of the land once called the Land of Canaan, present day Israel.
You can start your timeline in a few places but should point out to the fact that this territory has been home to a few people who feel it is theirs to call home.
You know that the Canaanites are Descendants of Abram, right?
Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other?
To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.
The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.
You know that the Canaanites are Descendants of Abram, right?
Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other?
To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.
The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.
The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth. It is the size of one average New Mexico county. It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size. For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.
It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.
"The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs and they are subject to various forms of discrimination.The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.
They should still settle it by ballot box. Only, a sizeable chunk of the population in Israel/Palestine can't vote in any way shape or form. It is a homeland scenario for many, compressed into areas without the freedom of movement, reminiscent of apartheid South Africa or the American south before Civil Rights.
All Israeli citizens whether of Jewish or Arab or any other heritage have full rights of citizenship and full rights to vote. There are Arabs serving on the Israeli Knesset. There are no restrictions of any kind on Arab businesses homes, or mosques. The only restraints on total integration is that Israeli does require there to be a majority of Jews on the Knesset for to allow an Arab majority would invite the dissolution of Israel. Because the Arabs live so much better in Israel than they would likely be able to do anywhere else in the Middle East, Israeli Arabs quietly support that policy because they LIKE the affluence and freedom they enjoy in Israel that they would not enjoy anywhere else in the Middle East.
The other concession that Israel makes to the Arabs, unless that has changed in recent years, is that Arabs are not required to do mandatory military service. They can join the Israeli military but are not required to do so. The concept is that the Israelis will not force the Arabs to take up arms against their friends and relatives in neighboring countries if that should be necessary. Roughtly 20.4% of the Israeli population is Arab.
Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights seized by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 were offered Israeli citizenship. But because they were unwilling to recognize Israel's sovereignty, they refused Israeli citizenship. They are allowed to remain in their homes and can vote in local civic affairs, but they are not afforded a right to vote in Israeli elections any more than non citizens are allowed to vote in ours.
Accusations of Apartheid related to Israel is absurd.
Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other?
To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.
The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.
The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth. It is the size of one average New Mexico county. It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size. For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.
It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.
The resent is based on Israel using its resources to push out Arabs.
This small tiny part of the Middle East however small has always been occupied by Arabs along with Jews - neither has right to push the other out, neither should have more right to the land. That is my point. If both sides can come to that agreement - of course borders being the huge issue, then the issue is resolved. Both distant brothers occupying the same land - perhaps destiny.
The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth. It is the size of one average New Mexico county. It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size. For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.
It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.
The resent is based on Israel using its resources to push out Arabs.
This small tiny part of the Middle East however small has always been occupied by Arabs along with Jews - neither has right to push the other out, neither should have more right to the land. That is my point. If both sides can come to that agreement - of course borders being the huge issue, then the issue is resolved. Both distant brothers occupying the same land - perhaps destiny.
Israel has pushed out no Arabs. All who have had homes in Israeli territory have been invited to stay and have been offered citizenship. The 20% of Israeli population that is Arab enjoy full rights of citizenship, unrestricted rights to conduct business and worship as they please, and occupy seats on the Knesset. Only those who intended the destruction of Israel have been displaced. The land of Israel is slightly larger than the land area occupied by Dallas TX. It is the only place on Earth that the Jews can call a homeland.
Why do you some so resent the Jews having this relatively tiny tract of land?
The British call for a Jewish homeland in Palestine coincided with the Royal Navy's switch from coal to oil to fuel its fleets. This coincidence was not lost on the first British Military Governor of Jerusalem in 1922:What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.
I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.
It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.
To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.
To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.
I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.
Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.
I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.
It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.
To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.
To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.
I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.
Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.
I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.
It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.
To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.
To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.
I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.
Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.
Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas? There is no way.
The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established. All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews. It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything. They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back. The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.
The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody. Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well. The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.
The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them. It is a tiny tiny piece of land. They should be allowed to have it.
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.
I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.
It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.
To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.
To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.
I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.
Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.
Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas? There is no way.
The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established. All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews. It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything. They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back. The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.
The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody. Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well. The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.
The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them. It is a tiny tiny piece of land. They should be allowed to have it.
UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 gave Israel land, somehow Israel decided it wasn't enough land...
True at the time the Palestinians rejected it. Today however I'm sure the sentiment is entirely different for both sides.
Plan Dalet - depending on interpretation was a plan of conquest and expulsion if necessary.
Again subject to interpretation.
Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas? There is no way.
The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established. All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews. It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything. They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back. The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.
The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody. Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well. The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.
The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them. It is a tiny tiny piece of land. They should be allowed to have it.
UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 gave Israel land, somehow Israel decided it wasn't enough land...
True at the time the Palestinians rejected it. Today however I'm sure the sentiment is entirely different for both sides.
Plan Dalet - depending on interpretation was a plan of conquest and expulsion if necessary.
Again subject to interpretation.
Whatever Israel thought about how much land they were given, they acccepted Resolution 181. The Palestinians did not and have not to this day.
While history is conflicted on whether Plan Dalet was purely defensive or contained offensive components, most reliable historians go with the defensive theory. Both sides, however, agree that Israeli Arabs could stay on their property so long as they did not interfere or resist Israel's defensive measures in the face of certain attack by assembling Arab armies. Those who resisted Israeli defense measures or presumed to aid and abet the imminent Arab attack would be expelled.
I have a hard time finding any rational reason to criticize such a policy.