Which the Palestinians have exercised to the full in 1988 when they declared independence under UN res 181. Just as the Jews did in 1948. Now it cant be invalid or the Jews yet valid for the arab muslims can it, as that would be taking away the Jews INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF-DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDNCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND NATIONAL UNITY. The link you provided spells it out very clearly that the Jews have as much right to declare independence in Palestine as the arab muslims do. The demographics mean nothing at the end of the day as they are just numbers with no basis in law. In reality the Jews should have had all of Palestine because the arab muslims had already declared in other parts of the Palestine mandate.
Who Are The Palestinians?
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
- Status
Which the Palestinians have exercised to the full in 1988 when they declared independence under UN res 181. Just as the Jews did in 1948. Now it cant be invalid or the Jews yet valid for the arab muslims can it, as that would be taking away the Jews INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO SELF-DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDNCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND NATIONAL UNITY. The link you provided spells it out very clearly that the Jews have as much right to declare independence in Palestine as the arab muslims do. The demographics mean nothing at the end of the day as they are just numbers with no basis in law. In reality the Jews should have had all of Palestine because the arab muslims had already declared in other parts of the Palestine mandate.
You can go back to May 15 1948 when Jordan invaded Palestine and annexed the west bank. That was also an " actualisation of free determination" as the arab muslims did not disagree with Jordan's invasion and subsequent occupation of the west bank. Prior to this there was no actual show of self determination in Palestine
Then how about you show hen the relevant INTERNATIONAL LAW came into force that granted the whole of the Palestinian peoples the right to free determination while not allowing the Jews their inalienable rights to set up as promise THE RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS.
No, you can't simply relocate people against their will.
The partitian of India was a bloody nightmare and an object lesson in ignorance. Those who carved up India assumed religion was the only division and lumped Muslim Bengali's with Muslims in the tribal Pakistani region despite the fact that the Muslim Bengali's had more in common with the Hindu Bengali's culturally and educationally.
The mass forced moving of entire ethnic populations is often tragic and certainly a violation of human rights. People are tied to land and regions and the culture thaty is a part of it. Stalin forceably moved masses of ethnic groups out of their regions and ethnic Russians in - the results are still playing out. Many were moved to Siberia where the death rate was high and they did not prosper.
Just because it HAS been done does not mean it SHOULD be done. It benefits no one but the people who can then take over the land. You could make a similar argument for moving the Jews back to Europe. Would you do that?
How would a Palestinian diaspora be any different than a Jewish diaspora? Why would you think that generational ties to land and heritage would be any different than it is with Jews?
Even if you had all the support you lay out - how do you know those promises will be kept? Look at the long history of broken promises...for example the Kurds. It takes more than a couple of decades to establish and when you are talking about millians of people - you have th3e effect on local communities that are already there. The establishment of Israel is a good example of this. You would just be repeating the process somewhere else only - unlike Israel, the people would be expelled from their homes involuntarily - not immigrating in voluntarily.
Because these men, women and children are afraid to admit that they are not from Palestine originally and are recent migrants. When for 150 years they called themselves Syrians, Egyptians and Saudis and would start a war if they were called Palestinians. That is why it is so difficult to answer this question.
Some are recent immigrants some are not.
This has been well established.
There are many Jewish immigrants from European countries. Why are they afraid to admit they are not from Palestine originally but are recent migrants?
- Thread starter
- #407
What "just solution that recognizes and respects the shared humanity and needs of both peoples" would you suggest for Israel with a people who duly elected Hamas to annihilate Israel off the face of the earth?
No the vast majority are illegal immigrants with less than 150 years occupancy in Palestine, the Jews have a common ancestry to the M.E. as shown by DNA testing of all the worlds Jews. The Jews who never left the land have a very close match to the Jews of Eastern Europe, Iran, Ethiopia, America and the UK. The arab muslims show a varied DNA mix with very little in common wit even people living in the same village. Now this is either inter breeding with close family members or recent migration from outside the area. So how can they be as indigenous a the Jews when less than 10% of their DNA is the same. ( outside of the human genome )
If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa. After all, that is their genetic homeland. hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
Even more recently we have seen mass forced migrations in the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia etc to make way for mulsims. Can you see the common denominator in these forced migrations, and how the same thing would have happened in Palestine if the Jews had not fought back against the muslim land grabs. The majority of the land allocated to Israel was owned by the Jews in the first place so the arab muslim claims were based on arab nationalism and the teachings of the koran
Incorrect. Happens all the time. On both a small and a large scale.
Quite probably true, at least in part, but it can also serve as an object lesson in what not do to, the next time around. And, of course, close cultural symmetry does not exist between the Jews and the Muslims of the region, so we can probably set that particular concern off to the side, in evaluating barriers to such an action.
When it comes down to a choice between (1) violating a people's human rights in the interim in order to ensure the safety and future happiness of two enemy populations, and (2) condemning those same populations to perpetual warfare and death on a large scale, if the Gordian Knot remains uncut... well, the choice becomes obvious, very quickly.
Yep. There are, indeed, examples, in which Population Relocation did not work out very well, but, of course, such efforts were undertaken without the friendship and support of the world community.
There is every bit as good a chance that a Palestinian Relocation would have a happy ending, rather than a tragic one, and, given present circumstances and future prospects, we're pretty much already out of options, except for a couple of Draconian possibilities.
This is already boiling down to a choice of the lesser of two evils; the first being the slaughter of a problematic population, the other being their forcible relocation. There is no other viable alternative on the horizen, and this has gone on long enough. Time to put an end to it, by removing the losers from the field of conflict as a humanitarian gesture. The victors are too strong to try that kind of shit with them, and they have very powerful friends that would not allow it, anyway.
Quite true. Then again, in this context, we're out of options, and we're out of time. Slaughter or Expulsion seem to be all that is left. I wish I were wrong, but I have a sinking feeling that I'm right. It's logical, albeit heartless. If those two options are all that is left, practicaly speaking, then, I choose Expulsion for the Palestinians. Is it fair? Quite possibly not. But, then again, what-the-hell does 'fair' have to do with anything? Life isn't fair. But even an Unfair Thing can result in Good Things down the road.
Incorrect. Should the Palestinians be granted new and different lands, in Egypt's Sinai and/or in Jordan and/or in Lebanon and/or in Iraq, et al, they will greatly benefit from such an action, in that they will then be permanently out of harm's way, they will be positioned for generations to come, to control their own destiny, to live in peace, and to build and to enjoy happy and prosperous lives, dwelling amongst their own kind, in the arms of loving co-religionists, and far from the madness and squalor of their present circumstances.
The Palestinians are not a Regional Superpower, nor do they possess a nuclear arsenal with intercontinental warhead-delivery capabilities, nor is their sliver of land the only place in the world controlled by their own co-religionists.
A Palestinian Diaspora would be short-lived, given that so many of them are of Egyptian or Bedouin or Jordanian or Lebanese (and their predecessor polities) ancestry, in whole or in part, and given that they would be repositioned into lands already steeply saturated in their religion and similar culture, such as it is. When the Jews were scattered, they were scattered into a world of dissimilar peoples and religions and found themselves 'forting-up' and becoming reclusive and self-contained. There will be no such pressure upon so-called Palestinians, and they will melt into the surrounding Arabic Muslim populations within a handful of generations, until they are little more than a footnote in history and a Pal-Pride Parade every year, by the 22nd or 23rd century.
I don't - nor does anyone else - but with the UN running the show, and with the backing of most of the world community, the project stands a better chance of attaining a desirable outcome than most other projects might. And - come to think of it - relocating with the promise of decades-long support, is a damned sight more attractive than dying in-place, and living in squalor while you're waiting to die or be overrun for the last time. Taking a chance on life is always preferable to dying - either quickly or slowly.
If I, as a family man, were given the choice between being assisted into a new homeland and a new home and economy, or continuing to make my family sit in a shithole for another 66 years, and if most of my outer family and friends and neighbors were coming with me, I know which one I'd choose - the choice that any sane person would make.
Perhaps.
But it's a chance.
A chance at life, rather than death.
Population Relocation is an extreme measure, it is unpopular, rather frightening, seemingly heartless, fraught with practical constraints, and subject to an ultimately unpredictable outcome.
Trouble is, we're now probably moving into the Era of Extremes, in this context - we're out of options, we're out of time, and the Palestinians are out of luck.
Undertaking an Extreme that ultimately preserves life and provides an alternative path to life and happiness and prosperity - as radical as that might be - sure as hell beats rotting in shitholes and dying in place - which seems to be the only alternative remaining, that is likely to materialize.
I choose Evil #2 - relocation - as better than Evil #1 - slaughter or slow death (metaphorical, or actual).
Silly me.
Last edited:
The vast majority of arab muslims are recent arrivals with no historic ties to the land, the vast majority of Jews have ties to the land as shown by their DNA. They are not afraid to admit they are migrants, but they are in the minority as the vast majority of the Jews are from the M.E. and had been expelled at the point of a gun from their homes an property between 1948 and 1967
Those so-called forced migrations are due to a variety of factors. For example - Serbia committed genocide on Yugoslavia's ethnic Muslim minority. What "forced migrations" are you talking about?
Conflicts - war inevitably produces refugees, which are largely what you are talking about. It's tragic, but it's another issue. That is not the same as taking a group of people and forceably removing them from their homeland to another country - which is what Stalin did and what Hitler started out with. It's even what America tried to do when Liberia was created - it was to be a "homeland" to send American blacks to. In otherwords, get them out of America.
They have a state already that they refuse point blank to be held accountable for. Why should they be given another one to destroy and hold up to ransom to the world
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Let's suppose that today, Israel signed an agreement to give the Palestinians every condition they've demanded over the years. Would they accept the agreement or would they commence lobbing rockets? Would the Arab League allow them to accept? Would Hamas?
If you are going to use DNA (and those studies are by no means definitive in that many Palestinians share the same markers) - then you need to send everyone - Jews and Palestinians - to Africa. After all, that is their genetic homeland. hmmm...maybe that will solve the problem
As far as "vast majority" - that too has been debunked as population records show some Arab migration (just as there was Jewish migration) but are not accurate enough to support the claim of "vast majority".
The DNA testing done shows that 50% of the DNA of every living thing is identical, it also shows that all primates share a common 80%-85% DNA. That is what most pro Palestinians point when they make their claims of inter breeding between Jews and muslims. It is onlyy when you look at the 15% left that you see the genetic markers that single out individual races, areas, cities, towns and villages.
Now you are being very silly as you know that was in the depths of pre history.
You forget the forced migration from muslim lands put the European jews in the minority, the demographics of the arab muslims show that they could not have increased their population by such a large amount without there being immigration in very large numbers. They did not have the medical advances to better an infant survival rate of 10%
- Thread starter
- #418
WHERE should Israel "give them a state & hold them accountable" where they cannot continue to suuport Hamas to annihilate Israel?
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
As the record shows in Mandatory reports to the LoN and the UN later. Nearly all the immigration was Jewish. The Christians and Muslims are the natives. Read note 5. below from the official report of the Mandatory.:
Attachments
aris2chat
Gold Member
- Feb 17, 2012
- 18,678
- 4,689
- 280
Natural disaster, war or modern progress, populations have and continue to be displaced and land taken.
Palestinians had a 10 yr period to return and claim land before it was considered abandoned.
In Lebanon, palestinians were not allowed by the PLO to return to Israel except to carry out attacks and some special circumstances such as medical or educational wavers. To apply and manage to arrange the journey was a long process.
Arafat had fake deeds printed in Beirut and old keys handed out to make claims on land in Israel. Pictures would be taken of people holding up these keys as proof of ownership of a home or land. Keys that had no locks.
There were exceptions here and there, but the majority were brainwashed or convinced themselves that land was their own even if it was not. These stories and lies were handed down through generations and taken as fact. It was part of the war. Most (of course not all) cases where claims were brought before courts in Israel on land claims the courts were in palestinian favor. Land that could not be returned were compensated with money or other land. Yes some were forced out by Israelis but this was not a standard policy. Usually it had to do with a strategic location or that the village had been complicit in the fighting or killing of jews. Israel before the main exodus and even during the war continued to ask palestinians to stay and work together to build a state.
Half left to avoid or escape war, or out of fear due to arab radio broadcasts that they would be raped or massacred. False reports were put out. Israel did not always jump to refute these reports, and in some cases too advantage of the claims, but it was far from the general policy or intent of Israel against the palestinians.
Half the population stayed and enjoyed more rights and privileges that most of the rest of the arab world.
Palestinian refugees were for the most part pawns, used by the arab states and their own leaders. Their plight could have been ended in many ways, but they were kept as the "perpetual victims of Israel " both to feed hostility among the population and as propaganda tools in the world press. That hostility spilled over in some cases to attack the host countries and justify massacres by the PLO. Bloody savagery that had been part of the taught narrative became the practice of those palestinians on fellow arabs and even in tribal blood feuds and political or sectarian wars within the camps against each other.
Nothing about the palestinian/Israeli situation is clear cut and there is blame enough to be shared by all, but the palestinians as a people are not the victims that some would have everyone believe. Much of their suffering is of their own making not wholly the fault of Israelis or jews.
The hate has been carefully crafted, spread and nurtured instead of practical solution that might have benefited all involved with a more realistic and fact based approach.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
Illegal immigrant was discovered to have been voting for more than a decade in Philadelphia- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Antifa-Inspired Group Convicted of Terrorism Against ICE
- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 6
