The beseiged Ghetto Gaza set to get worse

I imagine if the US was divided among the Iraqis, all the residents would immediately pack up and move away to make room for the newcomers. For a peaceful solution to the Iraq problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Facts not in evedence, one of the fact about the Palestinian Mandate is the fact that most of the so called Palestinians, are nothing more than Arabs that the British allowed to emigrate into the areas west of the Jordan reserved for Israel.

With all of the above facts established, the question still "Why did the British act this way?" The English have in the main been friendly to Jews, were the authors of the Balfour Declaration, and even admitted many Jewish refugees during the war years to England itself. So why did they become so ruthlessly hardnosed over the issue of immigration to Palestine in the face of the obvious appalling need?

Now for a thought? What about Jordan? it is Palestine isn't it? It was part of the Palestinian Mandate, was it not, so does that not make them Palestinians? and being Palestinians and Part of Palestine they recieved 80% of the land.

Plus;

Much of the area of Palestine was sovereign owned land under the Ottoman Empire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed with Buffalo: I think you forget that of the Mandate - which was contiguous of Jordan and Palestine and Israel, 80% was separated immediately as Jordan. Of the 20% remaining, more than half (I believe) was divided into Palestine. Of the remaining percentage given to Israel, wasn't something like 60% total desert? Not to mention the proportion that was desert to begin with, before it was turned into useful land. No, the Israelis seem to have worked their fair share on it. Much of the impetus for the bitching back then almost seems to be envy, in a way. I wonder how that works with the societal psyche of Israel as described by Khalil al-Sakakini?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its Israel that is occupying Palestine, lest you forget. The illegal settlers are all Israelis, the illegal settlements all on Palestinian land.

 

In case you have also forgotten, it is Israel that is illegally occupying Palestine. Its the occupation I am talking about. The occupation of Palestine and the imprisonment of its inhabitants behind apartheid walls, under cruel, oppressive and inhuman conditions.

 

Palestine and Jordan were coterminous, lest you forget, and not considered nations prior to 1948.

The settlements are from post-1948 only; prior to then, the Israelis bought their land prior to then but were, in the end, attacked for it anyway. Lest you forget.

 

Not all the land and not all the Israelis. And the ones who are occupying now have no excuse for continuing the occupation, except their own brutality.

Also not to forget that Israel was assigned status and made up of only 5% of original natives.

And once again:

Its Israel that is occupying Palestine NOW, lest you forget. The illegal settlers are all Israelis, the illegal settlements all on Palestinian land.

 

Hmm. I'd be interested to see a link on this.

This is a separate issue.

And, in the final decision on the Mandate area, got about 10% of the land - now this may be too much based on the populations of the time; I don't know. I will investigate.

And once again: I disagree with further land appropriation by settlers. The West Bank should be left alone. That being said, I have not the slightest doubt it will be used for staging terrorist attacks and random rocketing. The solution does not immediately present itself.

 

You just woke up after a hundred years? The state of Israel was assigned by the UN, not paid for by Israelis.

And in the final decision (not the original one by the British, but the final one by the UN) got more than 50% of the land. You're confusing the British mandate with the UN mandate.

Interesting choice of words. Which settlers? Do you too hope that as the Palestinians got used to the green line, they should get used to the wall and the further encroachments already in place in the West Bank. Not that I'm surprised. You would be happy with 4 million people living on 2% of the land while 5 million occupy 98%. No doubt you wish it was less than 2% so they could suffer a little bit more for what you think their ancestors did.

You leave a bad taste in my mouth,. I don't think there is any point to further discussions with you.

 

We were both discussing the period prior to 1948, not at point of Partition. Prior to 1948 all my sources indicate the Israelis paid for their land. Maybe you just woke up? :shrug:

Not at all. I'm referring to the British Mandate. As in, this map:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As you can see, 80% of it became Jordan. 20% was Palestine and Israel. Israel resulted in about 50% of the 20% remaining.

It's odd. Your struggle to attempt to label me continues anon; no, I do not think they should get used to any further encroachments. Moreover, I think the West Bank should be reverted to Palestinian control. You seem to be trying to sniff around for ammunition to use against me.

Strangely, I would be surprised at that attitude in myself. Maybe you know me better than I do, of course.

Ahem. Again, no. But I do blame the Palestinian religious leadership in the early 20th century, and over a thousand years of religious oppression, for part of the present problem. I also blame the Israelis in their part for continuing to expand settlements in the West Bank. I am unable to see how I can possibly make this point clearer to you.

Meaning: you have realized that you have been dragged to a point with no wiggle room. Very well. You are excused. For my part, I think there is indeed little point in further discussions with you: like the little shepherd boy, you are too ready to cry wolf if it suits your immediate purpose.

 

And Israel was given official status in 1948 by the UN, so what happened prior to 1948 has no official status where the current occupation and oppression is concerned (all refugees did not buy the land btw, as the British had restricted land purchases after 1920). I also find it interesting that you think the British had a right to decide to (1) give away that part of Palestine and (2) make it exclusive to Jews, all against the local inhabitants.

Colonial hangover no doubt.

And I see that you do believe they should get used to the green line and the wall as you circumvented that issue. No surprises there.

 

None of these states existed before 1945, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, and remember under U.N. 181 there would have been a Palestinian State right along side Israel, so were do any of these State have status as established to dictate the establishment of any other State in the Mandates, they are all constructs of U.N. initiative.

 

Ah, but said UN Mandate was drawn based on where the Jews were already living; i.e., the tracts of land they'd purchased. Even Hamas propaganda admits that the Jews bought up the land. It slams the Arabs who sold it (who were mostly absentee landlords, not actual Palestinian residents), but it doesn't dispute the basic, well-documented facts. So again we find you adhering to more extreme positions than actual extremists.

Yeah, and they also restricted immigration around that same time, to little effect. That was the whole thing about the British Mandate: they didn't exercise much actual control.

 

I thought you were giving up?

My point was that the Israelis were being attacked well prior to Partition, which they were. Your original thrust was that to compare to the Palestinian experience that all of all of the US being taken away by Iraqi immigrants, which is not an objective comparison.

Are you saying that some held land illegally? Restricted land purchases doesn't mean no land purchases were allowed. I think you rather object to any land purchases at all. If some got land illegally, was that then not a legal matter - as some opine, say, terrorism should be - but rather party to war, as occurred?

Well, I think that the administration was just that: an administration. In fact, without the British administration, those nasty Jewish people would have bought up - as you point out - even more land, and immigrated faster.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's some straw in your hair. I think it fell out of that man you created.

Anyway, despite your "guilt by association" thrust - I do agree with the Green Line generally, but not with the wall where it appropriates land. I think you should be able to follow my point. Would you now like to debate the morals of the Green Line, since I have maneuvered you there? Or will you be sticking to your position of "If I ignore Geoff, maybe he'll go away"?

 

Yeah which is why I am discussing the Israeli occupation of Palestine as defined by the status of statehood given to Israel.

 

Yup and hence I am not disputing the UN mandate, but the occupation of land by Israel, and since the land was bought illegally (ie after restrictions were set up by the then ruling authority), they are irrelevant. Plus, the UN mandate nor the British mandate did not ask for an exclusively Jewsih Israel nor did they advocate the occupation or oppression of the existing inhabitants as occured according to declassified documents of the Haganah, detailing the massacre and displacement of the Palestinians in anticipation of the UN mandate and immediately after, which indicates, as nothing else, that the land then occupied was not bought or paid for.

References: Ilan Pappe, Ben Morris, Norman Finkelstein.

 

As I said, bad taste and no point.

However, at least you admitted to the Green line, which is a surprise.

And no I would not like to debate the morals of the Green line, I am pretty sure what your excuses are for that. I would however, like to ask if you have, as yet, read of the massacre and displacement at the time of the mandate and what you think of that.

And if you actually read this link I provided earlier, since you did not comment on that either.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060417/beinin

 

Dear me: again, I am evil. Why would you not like to debate the morals of the Green line? In fact, there's little morality or immorality to war; less still would have ensued had the Israelis lost. I am sorry for the lot of the Palestinians in 1967, of course: but if the 1948 boundaries themselves cannot be adhered to then what is left, politically, to do? If one is bound to be invaded again and again?

Massacre and displacement? Perhaps so: but you ought to recall that massacre in the region is hardly one-sided. If massacre by the other party is being advanced by you as a reason to refuse land claims, then naturally the Jewish community in Palestine ought not to have been divested of their own territory in the first place. Nor, moreover, should the legal purchases of land by immigrating Jews be refused by you since they, too, were subjected to massacre and pogrom right up until 1948 when, curiously, the massacres stopped. A coincidence, perhaps. At any rate, I disapprove of them all. But let that not dissuade you from your ejihad; ignore the left hand as you batter with the right.

And since we are offering personal characterizations at this point, then let me paint you this picture: a little girl, cemented in her convictions and hardened by a quiet or subconscious recognition of the reactivity of her social system, takes up keyboard and wages supremacism in the face of reason. Those not agreeing with her - or, worse still, contradicting her - must, by virtue of her rightness and her innate sense of self-justice, be monsters; vile and oppressive. They may not come to their own conclusions. They - and history - must acknowledge the rightness and supremacy of her beliefs, so that they can then be protected under them; a protection that naturally invites abuse, ignored to preserve the tranquility of her private mental reserve, and a subtle consideration that the other side should be content enough with the sound of their own hushed breathing.

 

Still does not change the fact of the present occupation that (if you read the link I supplied) has been initiated and sustained brutally by Israel.

Doesn't seem likely you will read the link though, or the books. No prob, fantasy literature is a viable and well paying alternative. I suggest a parallel occupation (pardon the pun)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article693911.ece

 

Ah, those evil Jews, fighting back after being so well tolerated and treated that millenium. Why, even Saladin loved them so well that he instituted a parade through their ghetto - I mean, neighbourhood. And they even brought their own weapons!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots

No thanks - current career is actually working out pretty well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!