montelatici, et al,
Yes, this is a very widely used Map, in fact --- overused, that attempts to support the disposition of territory to the various entities. AND if this were relevant and dominate factor to the material evidence used in deliberations made by the UN Special Committee of Palestine, it could even be useful. BUT, it was only a minor piece to the puzzle. Maybe even a discarded piece as trivial.
We actually know who owned the land in Palestine. The UN was kind enough to perform a survey of the deeds in 1945 and came up with a map. As you can see about 95% of the land belonged to the native inhabitants.
(COMMENT)
It is even more trivial today. If the UN were to make the same survey today, using you logic, the Palestinians would probably be awarded even less territory on recommendation.
Remember: To Israelis really don't want the Arab Palestinians (alla 1988) for the same reason that none of the other Arab League Nations wants the Arab Palestinians.
• The Arab Palestinians represent an unproductive burden, and parasitic in nature.
√ The burden on social Programs.
- Primary and Secondary school Education
- Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention Costs.
√ Cost of food assistance programs.
√ Cost of Medical care passed on to taxpayers.
There is no Arab League Country that similarly comparable to the Human Development to that of Israel
(especially anywhere in the Middle East to the Persian Gulf). And there is no regional nation that expects the Palestinians to positively contribute to their slow but steady progress.
Most Respectfully,
R
It doesn't matter a wit, what Israel's development is. There was no African country anywhere close to Apartheid South Africa in human development. By not giving South African citizenship to most non-whites, considering them citizens of territories the whites effectively controlled, the Bantustans, Apartheid South Africa had one of the highest Human Development indices in the world.
Israel is doing the exact same thing as Apartheid South Africa. The human development index does not consider the condition of nearly 40% of the population under Jewish control.
You and your friends sound so much like the Apartheid apologists it's uncanny.
For example:
"Contrary to popular belief, the whites did not take the country from the blacks. When the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652, they found a barren, largely unpopulated land. Together with French and German settlers, they built a dynamic society."
and
"Contrary to myth, the blacks were never run off their land. They settled in tribal lands of their own choice. "
and
" South Africa is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that can feed itself. Blacks possess one of the highest living standards in all of Africa. Although black living conditions in South Africa (as in America) cover a wide spectrum, the housing is unequaled anywhere on the continent. "
and
"Although the country accounts for only 4 percent of Africa's surface area and 6.5 percent of the continent's population, it is credited with 25 percent of the continent's gross national product, 40 percent of its industrial output, 45 percent of mining production, 66 percent of all steel consumption and electricity generated, 46 percent of all motor vehicles and 36 percent of all telephones."
and
"Income in South Africa is higher for blacks than in any other African state. In reality, there is a strong emerging black middle class. There is a steady increase in the number of dentists, doctors, lawyers and other senior positions. South Africa's black prosperity and emerging black middle class is rarely mentioned."
and
This one is the most poignant and replicates the ravings of the ZioNazis:
"the 42 black-ruled states have now disintegrated into a political, social and economic nightmare. Under colonial rule, these states produced 95 percent of their own food. Today, despite their richness in natural resources and manpower, these countries increasingly have become beggar states."
South Africa Shouldn't be Singled Out
