Creation of Israel.
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: The Minefield
Forum Discription: Controversial topics. Only mods can start new topics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20507
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 08:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Creation of Israel.
Posted By: pekau
Subject: Creation of Israel.
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:19
|
I was just wondering... the establishment of Israel in Middle East clearly did not work out. What if you, as the representive of the victorious Allies, had the power to decide where Israel will be established? Where would you create and and why?
And according to your decision, how would it change the world we live in today? Towards better? Towards worse?
Just a note: This has nothing to do with antisemtism or any other negative attitude towards current Israel. It's just another typical "What if" question.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Replies:
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:23
|
a very complicated re-drawing of borders i would think!
Jerusalem should probably become an independent city-state ------------- 
|
Posted By: Frederick Roger
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:45
|
After WWII there was a semi-secret talk between the Portuguese and British governments envisaging the creation of a new state of Israel in Angola. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 18:38
| The main problem was not the placement but rather the creation. Had "Israel" been placed in Europe, Africa, South America or Asia the world would still be experiencing issues with that state. The creation was symptomatic of Western European Imperialsim. The victorious powers in each of the world wars did not take into account the effects of placing rival ethnic groups together in one state: ie Hutus and Bantus (Rawanda). In a way this answers the question but for the most part this response merely dodges the issue inorder to say that the establishment of "Israel" in a different region/place would do nothing but move the conflict from the Middle East to some other location. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 22:52
| In all honesty, given current events and the pretty obvious reasons why so many Arabs were angry at the creation of Israel, i'd probably opt for it not to be created at all. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 23:34
Unbelievable!
I would give them passports to whichever country they wish to go to, though countries may set a limit so as to not find themselves swamped and overcome as per Palestine. ------------- |
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 02:33
|
They should've been returned to their countries in Europe, and compensated for the damages done to them. I think giving them part of Angola would've been just as unfair as giving them palestine. |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 07:22
There cannot be such a what if...Zionism movement which had the most influential role in the taking of the establishment grant from Britain with Balfour Declaration, was always seeking, like every other Jewish who had worked towards an independent Israeli state, to establish a state on their very historical holy area.. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 09:37
|
Maybe the Greeks should get back all of Alexanders empires because they ruled once? Claiming an area becasue your people ruled it 2500 years ago is inane.
------------- |
Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 16:18
|
isn't israel where Judea used to be? if so, that is the right place is it not? ------------- It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 17:36
In ancient times, modern-day Israel Was split between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah(Judea?)
Is that what you're refering to?
|
Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 19:41
|
Why did they form Israel? Was it compensation after WW2? Who gave the Jewish people land? Was Palestine informed about this, or did they have a say in it? Sorry, but as you can tell i'm uninformed about this topic and it's pretty interesting. ------------- "The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 21:18
Hey, man. We're all uninformed in lots of things. It's quite fine
 Perhaps someone has a better answer than this, and if so please correct me.
Before WW2, in..1923 I believe? The Balfourt Document created by England stated that European Jews could now move to Palestine (which was a british territory) and as far as I know, the palestinians were not given the right to accept it or not. They had to suck up any inconvenience that was going to happen. I don't know exactly the reason for the document or the exact circumstances/suffering of the Arabs.
The White Papers before WW2 however stated that no more than 10,000 jews could enter Palestine a year or something. This was to appease the Arabs who were, obviously, just a little freaking out over the entire ordeal.
Consequently, after WW2 there was some real push to revive and officialize the creation of a Jewish homeland. And seeing as what happened to them, could you blame them? But Zionism was alive even before all of this, I think.
The problem with the entire thing was that the West did not so much as ask for the Arab's opinion and treated them as if they were worthless. I think we're feeling those repercussions nowadays.
Hope this helps. Honestly, i'm pretty interested in this question of yours myself because I think it might be essential in understanding the radical arabs of today and their reasons for doing what they do.
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 11:17
Yes, in fact it is not sane...
Ben Gurion's quotes also admit this fact :
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population"
“ http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/if-i-were-an-arab-leader-i-would-never-sign-an/347288.html - If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that? ”
"Whomever approaches to Zionism in a moral way, is not a Zionist" ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 05:54
|
Australia once offered the Jewish people the right to set up a national homeland in the Kimberly region of Western Australia. The offer was refused.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 11:13
| What would have happened if the Arab nations had agreed and worked towards making the whole idea work ? |
Posted By: ChickenShoes
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 11:37
oh wow, i did not not know there was an ancient israel. I always thought it was just the modern day name of a jewish state, thanks!  ------------- It is not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 13:47
|
..Hello everyone..
….I will freely confess that my knowledge on this subject is found wanting, however, when I have given the matter some consideration, my personal sentiment often reflects a heightened level of sympathy for the post-WWII Jewish plight, but also a strong pro-Palestinian angle in the idea that the land does really belong to the Arabic peoples…having done some albeit brief background reading on the topic, it appears from what I have read that this attitude was similarly maintained by the then British government…. ..Some of this has been pointed out earlier, but, in 1917, the Balfour Declaration ‘promised’ to facilitate the “establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people”, however, it was also noted that this should not, in principle, “prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities”. Although this does beg the question, how on earth would this have not ‘prejudiced’ the existing communities, which is in effect, I believe similar to the question Pekau originally asked…nevertheless, the Zionists saw this as a promise to establish a Jewish ‘state’, and the Arabs viewed the declaration as a British betrayal of their own rights….however, due mainly to the rise of the Third Reich, a steady influx of Jewish refugees from Europe entered Palestine, which provoked Arab aggression and was suppressed by the British authorities….the point has been made that by the time WWII had started, the British felt they could not elevate their sympathy towards the Jews above that of Arab friendship and the security of the Middle East…. ..Derfasciti has already mentioned the British White Papers and it was this document produced in 1939 that restricted the right for Jews to purchase land and more importantly perhaps, ‘promised eventual independence to Palestine under Arab majority rule’. It appears then that a free-Jewish ‘state’ was not exactly forthcoming, but increasing political pressure ensured that Britain gradually relaxed its grip on the situation. Most of this pressure was coming from the United States where in 1942; Jewish authorities adopted what became known as the ‘Biltmore Programme’. This policy placed the matter of Jewish immigration in Palestine into Jewish hands, alongside the establishment of a Jewish State once a Jewish majority had been created. No regard was paid to the rights of the existing Arab majority. From this, it could be argued that the ‘Palestinian’ problem was taken from British governmental hands…. ..The plight of the Jews in WWII and increasing political and public support on both sides of the Atlantic meant Jewish energies in creating a nation state were growing in momentum. Despite frequent and often racist calls for Jews to be settled and Arabs to be moved out, it seems that the British governments policy was to reach an ‘honourable compromise’ and maintain British influence in the middle east. Unfortunately, the United Nations idea of partitioning the Jews and Arabs understandably found no support from either side and was resisted by the British Government. The problem of creating a ‘honourable compromise’ had now emerged into a difficulty that could not be reconciled between Jews and Arabs, which rather brings us back to modern day circumstances. Despite the ensuing conflict between the Arabs and Jews being blamed upon ‘imperialistic misrule,’ it has been suggested that the aftermath was a result of an “inappropriate sense of fair play on the part of a decolonising government.”….. …Arguably, it could be said that simply no matter what the British government did, the Jews were intent on establishing their homeland and the Arabs were equally resilient in resisting the idea…but then again, whose to say what would have happened in the region if British interests had not been involved in the first place… ..Given all the insurmountable problems, the will of both Arab and Jew resistance, the creation of a Jewish state practically anywhere else would have probably resulted in the same chaos experienced today…. ..all quotes and references taken from Alan Sked and Chris Cook. Post War Britain, A Political History, 1945-1992 Fourth Edition, Chapter 2 The Labour Government 1945-50 (London, 1979) ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 15:55
That's not really why the Arabs were freaking out. Partially that's the way they saw it, but what really stuck in their craw was that, a year before the Balfour Declaration, there was the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence - which essentially promised the Arabs sovereign rule if they helped Britain out by uprising against the Ottomans, which they did. They were really ticked later because the Sykes-Picot Agreement - a secret treaty between France, Russia, and Britain - was published by the Soviets. Britain had never intended sovereignty for the Arabs at all, but had all the while been planning to divide up the Middle East between itself, France, and Russia. After Russia had its revolution, Britain and France cut it out of the deal - so they published the secret treaty. So, essentially, the Arabs volunteered themselves as cannon fodder for the British in WW1 - and then learned they'd been cheated and the British had been planning to cheat them all along. Israel, I guess, was just the final straw. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 21:40
|
Like everybody else I have thought about this situation. The newspapers are full of it (literally). Like many I lean toward the Arab side in principle, but find their suicidal tactics to make their point as totally unacceptable. One thing is being confused with another and another and that makes a breeding ground for fanatics and hoodlums who get off on killing others. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 16:06
|
Well it's not as if anyone is paying attention to the Arabs words of reason. Edgewaters post about the betrayal of Britain is perfect example of that. ------------- "The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini |
Posted By: PanzerOberst
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 16:24
|
I read somewhere (will get the title later) that the creation of the state of israel was agreed on before WW1 by a group of influential jewish people who met in London if I'm not mistaken. I wonder what would the US govt. say if the native Indians of N. America was to make the same demands as the zionist, ie. it's their god given land. ------------- "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows" - Heinz W. Guderian |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 17:55
|
Well there was a jewish state in Russia before 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birobidzhan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birobidzhan ------------- |
Posted By: PanzerOberst
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2007 at 18:02
Wow, i didn't know that. Thanks for the info erkut. No wonder I've read that there were jews fleeing hitlers germany residing in shanghai. But if this oblast was already there, why would they go to china instead? Or did they create this oblast after ww2? ------------- "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows" - Heinz W. Guderian |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 13:11
|
Before WWII. Actually i wrote this before in this forum but i couldnt find it now. Here that page could help you http://eao.ru/eng/?p=361 - http://eao.ru/eng/?p=361 ------------- |
Posted By: PanzerOberst
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 17:23
|
Many thanks erkut, for your kind assist. It surely makes an interesting read. ------------- "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows" - Heinz W. Guderian |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2007 at 21:10
|
Well done. You put a lot of research into that paper, erkut. Do you have a connection? ------------- elenos |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 16:44
What kind of connection ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 22:35
|
A family connection to that particular area perhaps?
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 19:45
Rumour has it that its not a particulary desirable place to live. Besides, city folk like cities, why would they move to a rural wilderness when they can move to another city? -------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 08:22
No i dont ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 09:12
|
Then I congratulate you on your fine research that was done in spirit of gathering knowledge about other cultures. Well done.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 09:43
Well what can i say? I just love history  ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 12:23
| I would have put Israel in Malta. Hardly anyone else lives there and it would not have displaced any Arabs or enraged any Arab governments. The world, especially the mideast would have been a more peaceful place. |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 12:27
Well, after the Maltese entry into The EU in 2004, the Arabs of North Africa have been trying a lot to get in there..So basically you would create another state to experience perennial state of conflict between Jews and Arabs ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 10:17
No I don't think there would have been any territorial conflict because Malta cannot conquer any adjoining lands since it has none. And who would try and invade Malta? The Sicilian mafia's secret navy? Algeria? Plus Jews were and still are largely a diaspora mainly spread across the US and EU and international trade and commerce is one of their favorite occupations. Malta would have been an ideal location for their merchant and banking community to headquarter or at least plant a few hubs in. In fact, since most of them are probably atheists I think they would have been a little happier in Malta than Palestine/Israel over the last 60 years. Needless to say the lebanese and palestinians would probably have enjoyed better lives too. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:14
|
Oh yeah, that's a brilliant idea! Currently, Malta has a population density of 1282/km2. which is huge. How could one realistically expect to fit in potentially another 14 million jews on an island of 300km2, is beyond me... Also, how do you think the maltese would have felt about this? ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 12:29
Actually there are only about 5 million Jews in Israel ... 14 million sounds more like the global total. Still, Malta sounds quite unreasonable! The Uganda Proposal wasn't so bad. It's underdeveloped, but so was the Levant - and the Levant is arid and resourceless, Uganda has some of the best-watered land on the planet and it was only very sparsely inhabited. Even today it is a curiousity because it contains some of the world's most fertile land, yet it is almost entirely undeveloped. |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 13:57
Precisely agreed.
I strongly believe that if the creation of Israel had taken place in Uganda, today Uganda would have been the most developed state in the whole continent. ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: nomadII
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 17:44
| I dont understand why they need a state, i mean most jews have nationality in some country or another, it was only due to the persucution that they suffered in these times. They no longer suffer any form of persecution, so they have no need for a homeland. I would give uganda to another group of persecuted religious people instead. |
Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 17:52
|
True, i agree to that. It's not like they are a 'nationality' or anything, it is just a religion. ------------- "The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 18:16
|
Er, it's a little more complicated than "just a religion" aslander. They Jews see themselves as "chosen by God", and as such are the "Divine Nation" Only they or their descendants can share the new world when God destroys this old one. "The bones of the just will rise from their grave to build a new world". They see themselves as the race of God and not merely a religion. One wit of long ago said, It's odd that God should choose the Jews. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 16:35
|
They are as much a nationality as anyone else. They are an ethnic group; the fiction of race doesn't come into it.
Are the English a nationality? I would think most people would say "yes", but the English are a great mixture of different groups. What about Americans? Or even the Irish or Scots, who are also mixed peoples (chiefly Gaelic and Norse)? Ethnogenesis has little to do with biology. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 23:07
|
I agree edgewaters. Nobody is "born" a Jew, a Muslim or Christian. Whatever the religion should be up to the individual to choose of their own free will, but all over the world this is not being held to. What can you suggest doing about it? A modern person is allowed and even encouraged to be proud of who they are and what their heritage is, but there can be a dark side. Force and trickery is being used to keep the children in line so far as religion. They are not and probably never will be taught any other point of view.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 10:44
I couldn't disagree more, elenos. In the matter of being born a Jew there is more to that than just being born into a religion. You are also being born into an ethnic group that happens to hold certain religious beliefs. For instance let's say I was alive during Hitler's reign in Germany and I was born a Jew (that is born of a Jewish mother and father) however I was not practicing the faith (both of which happen to be true) I would still be sent to a death camp merely because I had Jewish blood in me. With this example we can see that Jewishness transcends religion. Therefore one can be born Jewish. |
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 17:40
|
Jews have a right of self determination just as British, Americans, Turks, Greeks, Irish and everyone else does.
Denying Jews the right to self determination is one of the definitions of antisemitism used by the EU.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 04:20
A product of Russian anti-semitism of course. Sending people to Siberia is a age old Russian punishment.
What about all the Maltese? Thats just as bad as Palestine. Basically, the need of a Jewish state is only there because the Jews of Europe were completely fed up with the persecution they suffered there and wanted to leave. The Europeans were more than happy to see the back of them and decided to 'dump' them somewhere in a colony. Whether the Jews of Europe were dumped in Palestine, Angola, or the Kimberly is equally inhumane. You're still treating the local inhabitants as if they are non-existant, and the Jewish as if they are not welcome in Europe (which was true). Having said that we know what happened when they went to palestine, Angola wouldn't be much different I think, if they went to the Kimberly however, the Kimberly Aboriginies would probably wouldn't exist anymore*. The only just solution seems to be that the refugees from Europe are accepted by numerous countries from the rest of the world. Just like refugees are today. Hell, you could take all 5 million Israelis and settle them in the subcontinent and no-one would even notice - which I will point out is best for all sides - it allows the Jewish refugees to have a good life, and no-one looses their land.
You have to have a country before you can go for self-determination. Do you accept the Gypsies right to self-determination? Its a meaningless question, they need a country first, analgous to the Jews. *But in the 1940s the English were still trying to commit genocide so they wouldn't have worried about that. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 07:51
I assume, from the context, you're referring to the treatment of aborigines in Australia?
Hardly fair to attribute that to the 'English', rather than the Autralians, who, though they were still at that time mainly British, included rather a lot of Welsh, Scots and Irish.
And the Australian subset of British were already self-governing anyway. ------------- |
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 11:42
|
'You have to have a country before you can go for self-determination. Do you accept the Gypsies right to self-determination? Its a meaningless question, they need a country first, analgous to the Jews.'
Do you thus think Pakistan should be ruled from India?
The Pakistanis didn't have a country until 1947, about the same time as Israel became a country and for similar reasons.
There was a large Jewish community in what is now Israel as there was a large Muslim community in what is now Pakistan. The borders were set along ethnic lines in both Israel and Pakistan. The right of both Jews and Pakistanis to a state was recognised.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 20:57
Pakistan has nothing to do with the situation. Your saying that the scotts demanding self-determination is the same as all the Gypsies of Europe migrating to England and then demanding self-determination on English soil (at the expense of the English inhabitants who wouldn't be allowed to live there anymore). All I am saying is self-determination for a stateless people is meaningless. For that matter, the two state solution is practically meaningless too, as modern palestinians are also stateless.
Yes your right of course. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 23:29
Yes I agree that they are as much a nationality or ethnicity as anyone else. But I'm a little divided on self-determination, at least, historically. I've always imagined that self-determination requires a region with a majority of the ethnicity in question. Immigrating to a region over the protests of the inhabitants is colonization, and not in keeping with the spirit of self-determination. However, this is academic. There are now large swaths of Israel with Jewish majorities, and a generation that has been born on Jewish soil and has no home in any other state. |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 23:49
I didn't know Malta was that overcrowded I just picked an Island near Europe where I thought they would fit in best. It could be Cyprus, Corsica, Sicily or one of the greek islands. Israel itself is just a sliver of land and they mainly survive there due to contributions from rich zionists as well as from trade with Europe mainly via sea lanes. Not like Israel itself has any extensive natural resources. Having an island instead of a land smack in the middle of Arabia they wouldn't have any land conflicts with anyone else and thus have no problems nor create any. |
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 01:45
|
The parts of what is now Israel that were given to the Jews in the 1948 plan did have Jewish majorities. The Arabs did not accept the peace plan and chose war which they lost - the result was today's Israel. Israel is as legimate state as any and its population is now overwhelmingly Jewsish (c75%).
Another partial paralel is Kosovo, originally it had a predominately Serb population but over time the Serbs left and the Albanians took their place so now it is overwhelmingly Albanian and thus is now practically an independant Albanian dominated state.
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:01
Yeap i agree with Patch, when GB had left the Israel/Palastine both communuty had right to creat their own states.
But as Pekau said ''This has nothing to do with antisemtism or any other negative attitude towards current Israel. It's just another typical "What if" question''. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:42
Yeah, but only because they migrated there to achieve those minorities. That's not self-determination, that's colonization, any way you want to cut it. The only thing I can accept about it is that it's all in the past. Since then, so many Jews have been born on that soil without having any choice in the matter that at this point you've got to say that if those people didn't have a state they'd deserve one. The history behind its foundation is a little checkered, but ... that's water under the bridge, really. |
Posted By: Serge L
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 18:43
|
What do you think of the proposal (it's not mine, I think it was froma some Saudi King) to cut away a piece of Germany and give it to the Jews? Certainly, that could have been the morally best, since Germans were the major culprit of the Jew situation. I guess Germans would have accepted that and still would accept (did you ever been in Germany? they still bear a noticeable sense of fault for WWII and the rest) Besides many German people were forcefully relocated to cede land to Stalin (and Poland was literally shifted towards West!), and nobody in Germany is even remotely thinking to complain about that, so I could expect there would be no revolt in an Israel state in the middle of Europe. What part of Germany? that could be more problematic. I would lean towards some part of East Germany, since that would have be closest to the original residences of most of them. However that would have probably meant to end inside Soviet influence, so better somewhere else. Maybe a strip at the border with France? or a "pillow" state between East and West Germany? this latter could have been useful during the cold war, but a problem at the time of German re-unification. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 18:56
Actually there were proposals that were entirely amenable to the Jews in the post-war period that suggested Western Canada as a potential location. It was sparsely populated, had great resources, and it was a good spot to do trade from. But Canada objected vociferously. Which was entirely unfortunate in hindsight - it would have been so simple, so easy. There was a similar Jewish-led intiative to establish a state in Australia, by purchasing land in the Kimberley region (called the Kimberley Plan). The Australians, too, objected, stating that they would not accept "alien settlement", despite the fact that the landowners, the Durack family, strongly supported the idea. But newspapers of the period are rife with scaremongering about Jews "swarming" into the cities "even if they have to burrow under wire netting." I can only imagine that there would be even more vociferous objection from anywhere in western Germany. Eastern Germany - well they'd taken so many lumps that they weren't going to put up a fight about another, but, that would put the new state in the Soviet bloc, which would probably be unacceptable to Jews of the West, especially after the war and their recent brush with European totalitarianism. And actually, there was a Jewish state in Russia already; the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, which still exists today. However there aren't many Jews there; they were forced to flee during Stalin's persecutions, which saw the Jewish leadership disappeared and heritage objects held in the oblast's libraries burned in an effort to stamp out Judaism. |
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 21:29
|
A- Israel is the oldest nation on planet earth ( language,traditition,religion).
where Hebrews/Jews live non stop for the past 4000 years.
B- Israel was created by the Jews (amovment called Zionism) for self determination since the 19th cen. and not "given" nor created by the British after WW2.
C-prior to WW2 Israel was organised as autonomous future state by the Jews. with organisations,institutions facilities ,and cities were already built like Tel Aviv etc.
D- the Palestinians never formed an ethnic national entity nor astate.
E- the Arab states are artificial creation of the west ,by giving lands to local "kings and Sheiks" for oil and support. "states" with no historical ethnical basic. Jordan Syria Lebanon Iraq the Gulf etc.
|
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 12:27
|
The fact that the current arab nations are as artificial in their boundaries as anywhere else in the Middle East appears to be conveniently forgotten.
They were all part of the Ottoman Empire
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 12:39
|
Ho hum - blacklisted topic moved to the minefield ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 16:05
or in the rest of the world, even including quite a few islands.
------------- |
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 00:33
|
First i would like to remind words of pekau;
''Just a note: This has nothing to do with antisemtism or any other negative attitude towards current Israel. It's just another typical "What if" question.''
(And also i think the place of israel is really good now.)
Now; maybe allied powers would create their own İsraels, USSR İsrael in Birobidzhan, and the Western one would be some where in Germany...
------------- |
Posted By: Serge L
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2008 at 22:27
Oh, since this topic has been "resurrected" i can reply to edgewater 
Canada and Australia would have been better (or less bad) than Palestine just because their lands are less densely populated, so you would have needed to evict less people to make space for Jews. However, every people would object what present time Palestinians do: "Jews could have been persecuted and deserve a state of their own and compensations, yet this was not our fault, so why should we be penalized in the process?" This is the core of the problem. The only place where this rationale does not apply is Germany, because Hitlerian Germany was the main, if not the only (Mussolini and other satellites of Nazi Germany had no real issues with Jews, when they cooperated in the persecution they did it just to please Hitler and his maniacal hate) culprit of what happened to their Juden. So it would be fair and consistent with war laws that the loser had to suffer territorial loss to compensate for war crimes. The Jewish state could have been originally created as a buffer between West and East Germany, "protected by troops of the four main winning powers", and eventually become a neutral buffer state between the blocks during cold war -- similar to Switzerland or Finland. Eventually, after the end of cold war, it could have Joined the EU. I would bet this solution would have worked a lot better than our world one. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 07-May-2008 at 20:13
We should remember that many tragic incidents occured throughout history because nations tried to avoid international responsibility. The instability and conflict in the Balkans, for instance, was a major contribution to the beginning of WWI... where nation as far as India and Canada were dragged in with hundreds and thousands of human loss...
Defeat in war does not justify the violation of moral obligation of humanity. We do live in civilized world of 21st century, no? The whole point here is to end or resolve the conflict, not to decide that winner gets everything in war. Wouldn't that encourage other nations to focus on their war effort... and create more conflicts that we tried to resolve? Isn't that like going back to sqaure one?
Whoa, let's not forget that this kind of partition aroused Germans to support Hitler after WWI. When international organization carelessly divide up the land like they did to Weimar Republic and Yugoslavia, we merely delay the inevitable conflict. And it just so happens that delayed conflicts tend to get much worse...  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 07:59
|
Let us not forget that it was, quite honestly, the fault of the Jewish population of Judea that they lost the territory in the first place. While the Jews certainly did suffer, that does not entitle them to any land. The Jewish population were, in fact, not really a Jewish population. They were citizens of Germany, Poland, France, Russia. They all had a country to return to. Dividing nations along religious/cultural grounds is something Western nations would typically describe as racist and totalitarian.
------------- |
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 08:09
And the sky is purple.... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 08:40
|
I say give it to Lebanon, where the descendants of the Canaanites reside. ------------- |
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 20:04
face it , ignorant one.
|
Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 20:40
The Zionist movement was neither a religious nor nationalistic movement. It was an artificial movement, in that most of the movement was dedicated to figuring out where their 'homeland' was going to be. Once they decided on Palestine in the early 20th century, their main task was figuring out how to convince world Jewry to move to the land. If Zionism was a national movement, they would have already had a 'homeland' and all they would have to do was gain independence, like any other normal country. This was not the case, since Zionism was not a national movement.
Israel was not solely 'created by the Jews'. The proto-Israeli state was established when the British gave the Zionists certain authority in the British Mandate in Palestine, and removed the cap on Jewish immigration. Israel, from its moment of conception, was in bed with European imperialism, unlike every other national movement which was opposed to imperialism. Another example of how Zionism is not a national or religious movement.
Yes, because the British allowed them to.
Useless rhetoric, only advocated by those who support the artificial state of Israel in their attempt to make it look more "natural" than the native Palestinian state.
No other country was conceived more by the west than any other, except maybe Kosovo. Politically, financially and diplomatically made possible by western nations and with western capital. Even the Zionists themselves coming to Palestine considered themselves Europeans and not Semites. Its clearly written in Zionist literature. ------------- Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance Õ”Õ«Õ¹ Õ¥Õ¶Ö„ Õ¢Õ¡ÕµÖ Õ€Õ¡Õµ Õ¥Õ¶Ö„Ö‰ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 05:56
|
"Self Determination", if not a recent invention, has been promoted in recent times as a high goal for the good of all man-kind. In reality it is a racist, bigoted and xenophobic concept that encourages false divisions, ideological conflict and persecution. The "Jewish People" do not need a homeland. I can guarantee that if someone announced today that Europe would now be for "white people only" there would be a huge international out-cry. Just because a religious or ethnic group exists does NOT mean that it requires self-governance. People like to argue that the Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history. This is a fallacy. Examples that are brought up include the following: Egypt; Alexandria; Rome; Russia and, of course, the Holocaust. It is indeed true, if you believe religious texts, that the ancient Israelites were enslaved by Egypt. They would hardly have been the only ones though. Slaves were routinely traded in Africa for millenia, often sourced from the same villages or communities over and over again. When considering Roman administered Judea and later Alexandria you could only ever argue that they brought it upon themselves. In the case of Rome they were indeed suffering some minor religious persecution under the Empire, but their violent rebellion invited the Romans to act as they did. Many of the Judeans could only have been described, in the modern vernacular, as terrorists. Similarly in Alexandria the Jewish instigated massive gang-violence and ethnic conflict that damaged the city severely. In modern times the persecution is much less justified. Persecution and death at the hands of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were inexcusable. In this case it was probably the self-imposed cultural isolation (and elitism) as well as the relative wealth of many Jewish communities that made them easier targets. While The Holocaust was truly terrible, the Jewish deaths actually comprised a relatively small amount when compared to the number of Slavic deaths during the war. Besides all of this, it comes down to the injustice inflicted upon the Palestinians. The Palestinians, pre-existing nation or not, helped win World War 2 and end the Holocaust with the promise they would be allowed to govern themselves afterward. They even opened their doors to a number of Jewish immigrants. The Jewish communities literally flooded the country though, ignoring the limits in place and brutally betraying the generosity of the Palestinian people. They then resorted to terrorism and violence in order to take control of the country based on the fact that they lived there almost 2 millennia ago, and upon a religious and culturally elitist opinion that they held some right over the land. The international community SHOULD have stopped it there. Regrettably they were still feeling guilty for not intervening in the holocaust sooner and because none of them would willingly open their doors to such a number of immigrants, persecuted or not, they let the Palestinian people suffer. Such is "self-determination". ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 14:35
It certainly wasn't created by the British. Britain did not even vote for the UN Resolution that created it.
The countries that voted for the setting up of the two states were Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Which, perhaps notably, included the entire Soviet block (Cuba abstained but of course wasn't Communist at the time).
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen voted against.
Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia abstained. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2009 at 14:52
Nobody needs a homeland. Nobody needs a home. However, you need a reason to deny him one.
No it isn't. It's a slight exaggeration that's all. It wouod only be a fallacy if they had never been persecuted at all.
'Throughout history' the Jews have been frequently persecuted. That 'throughout' doesn't mean at every single moment. Throughout England there are public houses: that's not a fallacy, even though lots of buildings are not public houses.
Buy a dictionary. And given your signature, look up 'straw man' while you're about it.
Figures? References? Sources?
No they didn't, not that it's particularly relevant.
References? Sources? The British were trying to get them (and the Jews) to accept a single, self-governing state as a discharge of their mandate. Nobody would accept that, so the UN took back the mandate and split the country between the two.
You're somewhat forgetting the Arab terrorism that bedevilled the country before WW2 (and threatened during it). And, specifically, the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948, not the other way around. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 00:59
This has got to be one of the best posts I have yet seen in this thread. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 03:01
|
^ I concur with CXI on that.
Good analogy and summary. This indeed is the root of the problem, not to mention that these same people involved ended up living and having their children and grandchildren born in tents, and shelled out refugee camps. That is 60 years of living in a sub-standard sub-nomadic lifestyle that would not give much hope of resolve to anyone. The problem is that Israel plays the victim card a bit too often, it is not the sole ambasador nor protector of Jewish peoples - nor are the Jewish people to be viewed by the example that Israel sets out for itself. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 03:13
|
One small correction - Gcle was indeed right one one small thing. It was in WW1 that the Palestinian people were most assistance in the Allied war effort. It was late at night, and my mind was not as sharp as it could be. I shall elaborate on sources later as I must currently see Praetor and Knights off at the airport. Thankyou es_bih and constantine on your kind words. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 05:41
|
Hello to you all I think gcle got his history mixed up some how so here are a few reminders.
First, Palestine was a mandate, not a colony. However, Britain treated it as HM colony and rather than direct administration it outsourced the management of the mandate to the Jewish agency. Most of the civil service people were member of that organization or were ardent zionists so were the commissioners. The Brits confiscated huge swathes of the best agricultural lands, now called the Plains of Sharon and Esdraelon, from the Palestinians and gave them for free to Jewish colonists coming from europe who had the money to buy them but instead were given these lands for free.
The second point about Terror. Obviously you haven't heard about the Haganah, Irgun, Stern and of course good old Wingate. All these were terrorist organization and this isn't me, this is the British government calling them that (have you forgotten the famous wanted terrorist poster of Shamir in Madrid in 92?). Since 1920 until 1946 their hands is soacked in the blood of at least 2000 Palestinians (killed more Palestinians than all the "terrorist Palestinians" ever killed from jews).They began terror first by killing Palestinians who refused to sell their lands to them, which instigated the 1920 riots by the way, and then a huge number of bombing that lead to the 36 rebellion. Do you know why they rebelled in 36? Because the British authorities turned the left cheek while many within the British like Wingate lead death squads against Palestinians for no other reason other than they were so (the toll above doesn't include the death squads). The mandate government was totally complacent with zionist terror and did utterly nothing. The problem is that zionist terror came to bite them where it heart and still didn't do anything (King David Hotel masterminded by none other than the men of peace, Rabin and Begin). Is it a wonder that Arabs in Palestine were sympathetic to the Nazis?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 11:24
Apart from the bit about Palestine being a mandate (which I said myself), the rest is unfounded propaganda.
That's silly. Of course I have. I was reading the newspapers at the time, al Jassas, and the newspapers were full of them. They're one reason the UK government (and people on the whole) were so anti-Jewish at the time. I remember the King David Hotel being blown up, I remember Ben Hecht saying that every time he heard a british soldier had been killed, a rose bloomed in his heart.
Of course I'm aware of Jewish terrorism, as much as I'm aware of Arab terrorism, and IRA terrorism. That remark of yours would be insulting if it wasn't so childish.
I have no sympathy for anyone involved in the Palestine conflict, except the children.
I merely pointed out that they were. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 14:30
|
Hello Graham
First of all, do you know Herbert Samuel? he was the a member of the Jewish agency and the longest serving comissioner in Palestine. It was he who began the large scale land confiscation and prevented Palestinians who were stationed outside Palestine from returning. This isn't propaganda it is the truth and it is well documented and if you want I wil provide you with the names of books and their refrences from the foreign office released documents that prove that.
My second point is the British did turn the left cheek and actively helped zionists in the lead up to the end of the mandate. Zionists were accumilating mass weapons and even building air fields under the very nose of the British while they disarmed Palestinians and this is too well documented even though the zionist organizations were terrorising the British.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2009 at 16:24
|
Did you ever see or read 'Exodus'? (The film and novel, not the Biblical book.)
The Palestinians say the British favoured the Jews; the Jews say they favoured the Palestinians. And of course it is true there were Zionist Jews in Britain (like Samuel) and there were antisemites in Britain (like Bevin). That diesn't mean Britain was either pro or anti Jewish or Palestinian. (The army was against Samuel, even when he was in office, as Allenby among others made plain.)
Samuel was High Commissioner for Palestine from 1922 to 1925. He was not a member of the Jewish Agency. The mandating authority offered to set up two different agencies, a Jewish and an Arab Agency, through which each communty could run its own affairs. The Jews accepted, and the Jewish Agency was set up. The Arabs refused to set up their own agency. It was not the fault of the British nor the Jews for that matter that the Arabs refused the same privileges.
Samuel's appointment is sometimes given as from 1920, which is when he was nominated to the post. However he did not take office until the mandate was established in 1922. He left in 1925. In any case Sir Harold MacMichael (1938-44) and Sir Arthur Wauchope (1932-37) both served longer as High Commissioner.
There were ten commissioners other than Samuel, and none of them, as far as I know, Jewish. MacMichael in fact left office after an assassination attempt on him by Jewish terrorists.
Given that you're wrong on those counts, I'd like to know where you get the 'large-scale land confiscation' from? And for that matter the prevention of Palestinians from returning home?
Your second paragraph about actively helping the zionists 'up to the end of the mandate' is simply ridiculous. Again, see or read 'Exodus'. If Britain was helping the Zionists, why did it not vote for the creation of an Israeli state? ------------- |
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 15-Jan-2009 at 22:42
|
the Jewish miltias erected the first place to protect the Jews from the Palestinian terror, later used contra terror .and help to bring the refugees runing for their life from Europe,against the British will.
list of atrocities pre 1948 war
    |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 06:10
This is like immigrants fleeing a war comming to Britain, then forming an armed millitia, fighting the natives and using their force to bring in more immigrants then later claiming that originally a few millenia ago they ruled this land and therefore the Brittish should find somewhere else to live. Then when the Brittish complain tell them, there are so many English speaking countries to go live in but the Brittish are so greedy and want to steal this small island from the immigrants. Doesn't it sound a little strange or wrong? ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 07:11
------------- |
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 07:15
this is not the case here as you describe it , everything got twisted around in the posts here.
the natives are the Jews living there continously for 4000 years, speaking the original Hebrew and practice the original religion and traditions.
the new elements are the Palestinians , with their new and Jewish based religion.
not to mention the pseudojudaism religion aka Christianiy .
already in 1920 some 30% of the pop. within the 1948 borders were Jews many lived there for centuries.
already in 1945 more than 50 % of the pop. within the 1948 borders were Jews.
again and again a proposal of two states solution came up, sharing the land.
and was rejected with violance by the Arab side.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 07:29
|
That is what you describe as historical bullshit. The Palestinians live in Palestine, always have. There were, are, and have been for the last 3000 years many Jewish Palestinians. Once Judaism was the most popular religion amongst Palestinians, but this changed and most converted. The Palos are just as Palestinian as they have always been. Many Jews outside Palestine have some Palestinian ancestors. The people who have the most remote Palestinian ancestors, or none at all, once decided that they would invade Palestine and subsequently did so. Inventing pseudo-historical theories to make it more justifiable. Hebrew for example died out as a spoken language and was only recently revived.
If the Pope and a whole group of Catholics rocked up and said they wanted half of Israel would you give it up? Now you have Israel and the only way to keep it is to create a just peace will you create it? The ironic thing is that the future of Israel lies with the Palestinians. ------------- |
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 07:51
some of them probably have Jewish ancestory, most not, as immigration of Arab existed all the time from around the ME .
and yes even the european jews by DNA studies has Canaanites genes. and what about the local ancient Jewish communities? the ME Jewish communities?
Hebrew is used nonstop by the Jews for the past 3500 years (wether written or spoken),
the archeaological finds are in Hebrew and Jewish , and not Arabic/Islamic. so this is not the case as in America/Australia of European colonialism.
the land is called Israel for the past 3500 years ,"Palestine" is a newer term. how can you call the 3000 years natives "palestinians" ,this is Inventing pseudo-historical theories and only recently.
individuals can't claim for the right of self determination, even after living there for centuries.
by this logic most of the planet should be Jewish state.
|
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 08:02
what is this example used here ?
do Chiristianity counts some 30% or 50 % of the pop. in Israel?
who live there first Jews or Christians?
on what other civilization Catholic is based , from the first place?
and yes various Christian churches has autonomy over their holy sites in Israel.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 08:12
|
Hello to you all
The last time Jews lived in Palestine in large numbers was by the time of the Arab conquest. At that time jews in Palestine were divided into two large groups, the Samaritans were by far the largest and ordinary jews who lived mainly in Jerusalem and the big cities. The countryside was almost empty of jews. Only Arabs and Aramaics lived there in addition to some greeks. After they were massacred by the Byzantines for their alliance with the Persians they fled all over the Byzantine empire or went to Iraq. Jerusalem was empty of jews when Arabs took the city. However they returned after and settled mainly in Ramla and Lud but they were always in the minority. By the time of the crusades most of the Samaritans have become muslims, there is no record of Arab settlement in what is now called "Judean hills" area until the 16th century when Christian bedouins settled in the Area around Ramallah. Jews simply disappeared except for tiny minorities here and there that were wiped out by the crusaders. Since then all the Mameluke and Ottoman records show that there were simply no Jews, except for pilgrims, until the 1880s when jewish migration began. These people, almost all of them were Russians, were taken by the Turks for pure humanitarian reasons. The overwhelming majority of Iraeli jews today can't go further than three or four generations on this land while the opposite can be said about the Palestinians some of whom are known to have been on this land for at least two mellenia, most of the Negev bedouins are from this catagory, or even beyond, Samaritans and Chritians.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 08:24
yes and also the past
without Zionism , a "Palestinian entity" would never apeared.
that land after WW1 would be part of Jordan and Egypt.
|
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 08:29
rubbish
 my family is 400 years old Jewish from Jaffa.
ancient Jewish communities pre 19th cen. existed also in Gaza, Jerusalem, Hebron Zefat Tiberious etc...
]
 |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 11:40
|
Hebrewtext even if you can prove continuous presence, so what? The Palestinians are the indigenous group with the historical and present majority. The last Palistinian I talked to had just a long family history, you see Arabs remember the geanology like no other, he went back further than i could with my own in Greece, because they keep/remember their own records. Greeks have had a presence for as long in many other parts, should we now cliam Calabria? Sledge hammer our way back to Napoli? ..and no they are not just 'a bunch of arabs' shipped in a later date. They are the product of the same proccess that happened all over the Levant and mainly to christian Aramiac speakers. A language and cultural shift coming in from a pwerful tide that replaced the East Romans. The orthodox pockets, whats left of them, are the immedaite layer that is older...not hebrew. Isreal can ship in as many of their religoius compatriots from africa, india or ex USSR but dont cliam for one second these guys are more native than your arab speaking neighbours. What the world is witnessing, is Cain and Abel. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 11:55
 who was biggest land owner in the holy land, your fabled Jewish majority or the Greek Orthodox Church? What land is your Knesset on? This was stolen by force by invaders with no respect to the balance that had once existed, the Ottomans for instance never meddled/stole in such a way. Just like the Latin invaders of the past, it will all end in tears. -------------
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 14:48
A Palenstinians Arab, or just culturally Arab? You brought up the Levant, and I thought they were Levantian people like Lebanese, Syrian, and even ancient Israelis. Another word for Levantian people I thought was just Eastern Mediterranian. So wouldn't they basicly be the ancients that never left, just had a huge cultural change due to hundreds of years of cultural dominance?
Another question I have. At one point there were three Jewish Teachings. A Egyptian one, a Palestinian one, and a Babylonian one. Today the prominent one that is taught is the Babylonian one. The Palestinian verson may have still been practiced before Modern Israel was created. So, if any land was to be taken away, wouldn't it make more sense to take is from Iraq seeing as, religiously speaking, that is their branch's homeland?
Not saying any land should have been stolen, but if thats true, it doesn't really make sense to me that they'd take land from people, some of which may be the actual sect that has history there from the Palestinian side. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 15:00
You should really read some of Al Jassas' posts, they have been rather informative for people who don't know what and how the population shifted. There were some that were welcomed as immigrants, then through special favor and some unusually dishonest and at times aggressive tactics the population grew. I.E. kicking off people from their own lands - not letting them back after the War - etc... That is not a proper demographic shift. That is called ethnic cleansing.
4000 Years? Really, most studies put it at around 1000-750BC... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 15:05
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 15:49
|
It would help a great deal if the Palestinians stopped calling themselves Arabs, since their historical claims depend very largely on their not being Arabs (and they probably for the most part aren't).
I agree with what SearchandDestroy said on that point.
Someone else asked what the British would do if some other people came into their land as immigrants and demanded tp take the whole place over. Historically, we know the answer: the British ended up clinging on to the western periphery and the 'immigrants' took the rest, including renaming the country, until they got taken over by a different group of 'immigrants'.
That's history for you. In then end the claim of some modern people to have been the 'original' inhabitants is simply not sustainable. Even the Jewish scriptures say the Jews weren't the first inhabitants: in the meantime the country has been overrun by all sorts of other people, but there's probably still a lot of genetic inheritance from the original Canaanites, whoever they were, on both sides.
Arguing on those sorts of grounds is essentially hogwash.
Just as hogwash in fact as going by susceptible world public opinion which sixty years ago was overwhelmingly in the Israeli side, and is now switched to the 'Palestinian' one, essentially because the underdog always gets the best press. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 01:22
What i think also strengthens the Arab identity is the cultural following of blood heritage via Patriarchal lines that makes the process all the more complete. Such traditions are very strong (think OT) you hear, my father and his father, etc. Thats how that Palestinian was talking. They gain that descendant-identity link through Patriarchal lineage which makes it all seamless Arabic. All it may take is one Arab guy (as in Darfur where the 'Arab' tribes are local blacks with a similar family pedigree of one paterilineal arab founder).
However the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan - - Pre Babylonian traits, their alphabet for instance. I brought them up with Mr HebrewText, got no answer, a while ago. There very existence muddles up the Jewish claims. What is a true Jew if you have two distinct living types that claim they follow the true Mosaic law? Unfortunately they are almost a gone now -------------
|
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 10:17
the Samaritans counts today some 600 individuals , they live in Israel fully integrated into the Israeli society ,and by hige rates of marriage to other Jews in Israel ,are vanishing nowdays.
|
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 11:52
|
I admire how hard Zionist are working in rewriting history, this "Israel" creation has very little to do with " its our homeland, we used to live here for 5000 years and the most funny one " we have the right to exist", they think God gave this land to the jews, yea jews not neccessary Hebrews, so if a Million chinese converted to judaisim truely then they have the Right to exisit as citizens of Israel. and then some zionist will come up explaining how these chinese are actully sons of a jewish familly immigrated to china long long time ago and they are jews . lol so the manipulated statics and made up history (cutting some parts and pasting new ones)are just a zionist strategy to get what they want regardless of the way to get it.
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 12:30
rubbish
bow down infront of the oldest preserved civilization on planet earth and the most influantial on the basics of other ones.
|
Posted By: Hebrewtext
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2009 at 12:47
all the pre Hebrew and aside Israel Canaanites nations disapeared till the time of Rome.
nevertheless some of them absorbed into the Israelites by mariage conections.
(as the Jebusite ,Philistines ,Edomites ,Moabites,even the Pheonicians ).
a continuty of the newly invented nation and history so called "Palestinians" to ancient
Israel time is imposible and ridicolous.
|