Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by Coyote, Apr 15, 2018.
The Palestinians are being forced into the bantustans.
They are being relocated to South Africa?
Damn, and here nobody told me!!!
TInmoore...the Palestinians DO have problems uniting behind representative leadership...do they not?
You have been watching the process for decades but probably did not understand the concept. We hear regularly that Israel has destroyed a village. Israel destroys food, water, and shelter. Can people survive out in the sand without food, water, and shelter? Of course not, and the only places that Israel allows these things is in the bantustans.
Indeed, but that would require a whole new thread.
Who is the "we" in question? It sounds like you have been receiving nothing but one-sided accounts.
I do think your idea of shipping all the Palestinians to South Africa is brilliant, though. Talk about problem solved!
The British got the legal Mandate to ‘baby-sit’ Palestine [the region; it was and still is a geographic PLACE!] till the two peoples here:-the Palestinian Jews, and the (Syrian) Arabs each got their Emirate here under the British Empire Flag. The British started the process in 1920, but ‘became confused’ by the Arab (religious) riots and Arab inducted deaths (from 1929 onwards), that created the anarchy here, that the British could not control.
The two major leaders of the two people -Chaim Weizmann for the Jews [called the Yishuv, then], and prince Faisalibn Hussein of the Hashemite religious family-that was in charge of Mecca !, had meet, corresponded and both in Paris and near Aqaba (1916–1922), and has an agreement to divide up the Palestine region. The agreement (that was later supported by the British Empire, the Paris Peace talks and legalized by the League of Nations) was clear:- the Arabs, under the three brothers of the Sharif [king] Hussein would get the triangle of Mecca, Damascus and Baghdad as their new Chalifat (Arab Muslim Kingdom), and this included the East Palestine region. (about 70% of Palestine).
The Jews would get the West.
The British minister Winston Churchill, (1922)- while he was drunk!! gave away East Palestine to Abdullah ibn Hussein as his Kingdom when the FRENCH were forcing Faisal out of his Damascus Kingdom [he went to Baghdad]. This was both ILLEGAL, and stupid.
So, now, the Arabian Bedouin (the Hashemites) have taken the land that was to be (Syrian) Palestinian!
The Palestinians could have had their STATE -in East Palestine from 1922, but it was given to an outsider.
So, now, the Palestinians ‘dislike’ [or hate], the Hashemites, they have lost their place in Palestine and the Jordan King will not have any Palestinians in his kingdom-to protect himself.
The tribal disputes of Iraq are no different than tribal disputes in Syria or Gaza.
It's when the many tribes are forced into unity of one government, that an additional level of rivalries is introduced into the equation.
When tribes are given their autonomy the govt of such a state enjoys the most popular legitimacy and cooperation, because tribes that naturally didn't live together are not forced upon each other.
Centralization in the Arab world only enforces the boundaries of tribalism, while tribal autonomy allows for less friction and cooperation.
This way a confederation of Emirates is a better alternative than Syria or Iraq.
Separate names with a comma.