# Israel 2 questions



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

Let's examine this issue from another view. I have the following questions that I am interested in people's views.

1) Assuming the 99% (or something similar) of the west bank and all of gaza and the east of jerusalem is given to the palestinians. On a separate note, if they did give gaza back it would be to the Egyptians and the west bank back it and East Jerusalem it would be to the Jordanians and the palestinians would have to get it from them. How do you run a country in two distinct parts?

Is this even feasable for this to be a functioning coutry. It would in theory, recieve an additional mil or more refugees from surrounding areas. It has very little in the way of natural resources and its people have lived with war, unemployment, poverty etc for the last 50 plus years if not before the founding of the state of Israel. Could this dilemma be what stopped Arafat from agreeing with Clinton and Barak on this deal. Did he decide it is better to fight then admit the truth.

2) Next big one, this time for the Israel supporters. Several million or hundreds of thousand of arabs left Israel from 1948 on. Due to fear, war, anger etc... They had homes. They have keys to these homes and proof of ownership under the British rule of these homes. These homes are now condo's, other people's homes etc... Is all far in love and war. Should these people get their homes back. If so what precedent does this set. Should all Jews and other people whose property was teken by Hitler and Stalin and so forth get their dues? 

How do you have a country take property from the current owner and give it to the ancestors of the previous owner. What about Indians in N.A? 

I am interested in views on both questions.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Yellman said:


> Let's examine this issue from another view. I have the following questions that I am interested in people's views.
> 
> 1) Assuming the 99% (or something similar) of the west bank and all of gaza and the east of jerusalem is given to the palestinians. On a separate note, if they did give gaza back it would be to the Egyptians and the west bank back it and East Jerusalem it would be to the Jordanians and the palestinians would have to get it from them. How do you run a country in two distinct parts?
> 
> ...


1) Alaska and Hawaii seem to be doing fine. As far as natural resources the land is no different than the land that Israel is on and they seem to be doing fine. They need to stop throwing their lot in with terrorists and begin to demand honest government instead of the thugs and demagogues that have lorded over them for 50 years.

2) Yes. All is fair in love and war. And by the way they left in 1948 because they thought the Arabs would get the better of Israel and they were wrong. The Palestinian's have always gambled and lost. The answer has always been right in front of them but they have always opted for misery.

Many Jews have sued for the return of property and belongings. As for lost land that's a little tougher. In war there are winners and losers. The losers have to be content with whatever the victors thing is just. Just hope the victors are decent otherwise we end up with the Treaty of Versailles. Most people just move on and find new lives.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

1) I don't have support for any group in particular. Yes, Israel does appear to have the least ties to radical groups and appears to pose the least threat to the rest of the world. Can Isreal now be split in two and given to Palestine and Egypt? I'm thinking no.

2) No, you can't go back and remove people who are there now to try and give land back to people who were displaced. It is tragic when a government takes advantage of those that were there first and kicks them out. That said, kicking the current people out doesn't right the wrong.

Far from being an expert on the Middle East, I am still waiting to hear that one rational and workable solution to the issues there. Because their differences are rooted in their religion, I don't see how peace and co-existence can be achieved.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Yellman said:


> Let's examine this issue from another view. I have the following questions that I am interested in people's views.
> 
> 1) Assuming the 99% (or something similar) of the west bank and all of gaza and the east of jerusalem is given to the palestinians. On a separate note, if they did give gaza back it would be to the Egyptians and the west bank back it and East Jerusalem it would be to the Jordanians and the palestinians would have to get it from them. How do you run a country in two distinct parts?


I intend to avoid most discussions on Israel/Palestine, but these two questions seem as innocuous as they are going to get. As to the first, leaving aside the "giving it back" bit, the mere geographical separation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would not create an insurmountable obstacle to the efficient functioning of an independent Palestinian state - if the requisite politicial will exists. Several hundred miles of Western Canada separate Alaska from the Lower Forty-Eight, and several thousand miles of the Pacific Ocean separate Hawaii from North America. Yet, neither of these formidable barriers has caused insuperable administrative problems. The population density in Gaza would remain a problem; perhaps it might be alleviated by relocation of many of its current inhabitants to the West Bank.



> 2) Next big one, this time for the Israel supporters. Several million or hundreds of thousand of arabs left Israel from 1948 on. Due to fear, war, anger etc... They had homes. They have keys to these homes and proof of ownership under the British rule of these homes. These homes are now condo's, other people's homes etc... Is all far in love and war. Should these people get their homes back. If so what precedent does this set. Should all Jews and other people whose property was teken by Hitler and Stalin and so forth get their dues?


UN resolution 194 calls for the right to return or compensation, at the option of the refugees. At this late date, compensation would perhaps be the only feasible solution.



> How do you have a country take property from the current owner and give it to the ancestors of the previous owner. What about Indians in N.A?


I think in this context you mean "descendants," not ancestors. Wasn't this the very problem faced by the Zionists?

I see that someone else has already mentioned Alaska and Hawaii. It does leap to mind. On the other hand, Pakistan and East Pakistan didn't fare too well


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

*Palestinians*

There are a lot of Palestinians (even some sitting in thier government) who do not want to define the boundaries of "Palestine", because they want to destroy Israel and take all the land. They adamently support the idea that Palestinians are a people, and a people can demand all the land that Israel sits on, something that a nation-state can't do. They won't be satisfied with some land here and some land over there.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Before I answer.... is there anyone who believes that the Arab countries around the region could not have easily absorbed the Palestinians? 

...or does it seem to anyone else that those who dislike Israel would prefer to see the Palestinian people in squalor so as to ensure the ongoing rift with Israel.

Maybe I am simple minded - to me it seems as if Israel would like very much to be left the hell alone and live within their borders in peace.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Before I answer.... is there anyone who believes that the Arab countries around the region could not have easily absorbed the Palestinians?
> 
> ...or does it seem to anyone else that those who dislike Israel would prefer to see the Palestinian people in squalor so as to ensure the ongoing rift with Israel.
> 
> Maybe I am simple minded - to me it seems as if Israel would like very much to be left the hell alone and live within their borders in peace.


This fallacy of the Islamic or Arab brotherhood is complete BS. For years they have supported, financially and morally, the worst possible outcome for the Palestinians. The truth is with the "Israeli question" resolved they will lose the one scapegoat for the misery their citizens live in.


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Before I answer.... is there anyone who believes that the Arab countries around the region could not have easily absorbed the Palestinians?
> 
> Is this the "send the blacks back to africa" route?
> 
> ...


That sounds too simplistic.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Yellman said:


> That sounds too simplistic.


How so? Does anything of the rhetoric regarding Israel sound rational to you. Its not simplistic. Hitler did it in 1938. Just because something is simplistic doesn't mean its not true. One should not look for complex answers and reasons for irrationality. Sometimes things are simple and sometimes even simple things can have deadly results.


----------



## JohnnyDeeper (Jul 22, 2006)

Let's examine the facts. The Jews were living in that land for thousands of years, before the Romans and crusades forced them out. The palestinians were basically squatters for the last few hundred years.



Yellman said:


> Let's examine this issue from another view. I have the following questions that I am interested in people's views.
> 
> 1) Assuming the 99% (or something similar) of the west bank and all of gaza and the east of jerusalem is given to the palestinians. On a separate note, if they did give gaza back it would be to the Egyptians and the west bank back it and East Jerusalem it would be to the Jordanians and the palestinians would have to get it from them. How do you run a country in two distinct parts?
> 
> ...


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

JohnnyDeeper said:


> Let's examine the facts. The Jews were living in that land for thousands of years, before the Romans and crusades forced them out. The palestinians were basically squatters for the last few hundred years.


Well they were nomads, that I can find proof for. But using that same theory, I now have to leave my house for neanderthals.


----------



## JohnnyDeeper (Jul 22, 2006)

Actually, the Indians would love to take back the land your ancestors stole from them.



Yellman said:


> Well they were nomads, that I can find proof for. But using that same theory, I now have to leave my house for neanderthals.


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

JohnnyDeeper said:


> Actually, the Indians would love to take back the land your ancestors stole from them.


neanderthals were before indians, and of course **** erectus before them and so on .


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Religion, Peace and Co-existence...*



Trenditional said:


> Can Isreal now be split in two and given to Palestine and Egypt?
> 
> Because *their differences are rooted in their religion*, I don't see how peace and co-existence can be achieved.


Religion? What religion? :icon_study::icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> 1)
> 
> 2) Yes. All is fair in love and war. *And by the way they left in 1948 because they thought the Arabs would get the better of Israel and they were wrong.* The Palestinian's have always gambled and lost. The answer has always been right in front of them but they have always opted for misery.
> 
> Many Jews have sued for the return of property and belongings. As for lost land that's a little tougher. In war there are winners and losers. The losers have to be content with whatever the victors thing is just. Just hope the victors are decent otherwise we end up with the Treaty of Versailles. Most people just move on and find new lives.


Many, if not most, left because their lands were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli armed forces in 1948. Most were robbed of all of their possessions at gunpoint as they left, some by simple banditry, some by deliberate Israeli policy, to force the Jordanians, for example, to spend money ion the refugees rather than on arms. Once enough Palestinians had been massacred or forced out at gunpoint, the rest left "voluntarily" in order to avoid the same fate. That is clearly not the same as you're suggesting above.
It is partly because of the Versailles style "diktats" of the Israelis that the Palestinians have the attitude that they do. It is also because of the way that Israelis treat Palestinians within Israel, who still have their property seized by the Israeli government, and handed over to new settlers, usually from E.Europe, the US or S.Africa. How can an accomodation be reached, even with the best will possible from the Palestinians, if they are treated with such contempt by the Israeli government, even if they are officially citizens of Israel.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

JohnnyDeeper said:


> Let's examine the facts. The Jews were living in that land for thousands of years, before the Romans and crusades forced them out. The palestinians were basically squatters for the last few hundred years.


The Hebrews were living in that land, once they'd seized it from the Canaanites. Or at least that's what it says in the Bible, that unbiased historical document. However, the Canaanites never "disappeared". They remained, under Hebrew control. They are the ancestors of the Palestinians. During the "Babylonian captivity", the Palestinians remained. When the Romans expelled the Jews, the Diaspora, the Palestinians remained. When the Arabs conquered the Holy Land from the Byzantines, the Palestinians remained. Some were Christians at this stage, they either stayed Christian or embraced Islam. When the Turks conquered Palestine they took over as a ruling class; the Palestinians remained. The Crusades washed over Palestine, the Palestinians remained, and they were still there when the Ottomans conquered it, and were there when Palestine was mandated to Britain by the League of Nations. It's their land. 
Most modern Israelis are descended from the Khazars, a central Asian people of turkic ethnicity, who adopted Judaism in the early middle ages. Their main enemies were the Muslim Turks, and the Christian Byzantines and the Rus of what is now Russia. They settled in Eastern Europe when their Empire was destroyed, and became the basis of Eastern European Jewry. Even the clothes and hairstyle of Hasidic Jews is based on central asian forms.
These are the facts.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Yellman said:


> Well they were nomads, that I can find proof for. But using that same theory, I now have to leave my house for neanderthals.


There were some nomadic Bedou in Palestine, as across Arabia, but most were settled farmers. Indeed, the oldest city in the world, Jericho, is, and was, a Palestinian city.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chuck Franke said:


> Before I answer.... is there anyone who believes that the Arab countries around the region could not have easily absorbed the Palestinians?
> 
> ...or does it seem to anyone else that those who dislike Israel would prefer to see the Palestinian people in squalor so as to ensure the ongoing rift with Israel.
> 
> Maybe I am simple minded - to me it seems as if Israel would like very much to be left the hell alone and live within their borders in peace.


Obviously a Zionist dupe!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> There were some nomadic Bedou in Palestine, as across Arabia, but most were settled farmers. Indeed, the oldest city in the world, Jericho, is, and was, a Palestinian city.


I always thought Damascus was the oldest city in the world?


----------



## gr8w8er (Jul 14, 2010)

Chouan said:


> ... Or at least that's what it says in the Bible, that unbiased historical document. ...


While it is a historical document - and one that can be remarkably buttressed by third party documents, which I will not go into here - it also represents the Holy Scriptures. I take your off-hand comments as an affront.

You may chose to be god-less, or have other beliefs. So be it. But if, at the end of the day, you are looking for a lack of bias in our world you will be searching forever. It does not exist. Winners get to write history books and what is written will always have a point of view. After all ... was it the War Between the States, or the Civil War? Why are a people called "black"?

Property belongs to those that own it *today*. The American Indians got a raw deal. So did Palistinians. And the Irish/Scots. And for that matter, the Jews got their own raw deal in Russia and later Germany. So what's your point?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I always thought Damascus was the oldest city in the world?


Just found this. The jury's still out apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_time_of_continuous_habitation


----------



## gr8w8er (Jul 14, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Just found this. The jury's still out apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_time_of_continuous_habitation


If a city has been unoccupied for "hundreds of years" such as Jericho, doesn't that make the argument that it has been "is, and was" a Palistinean city at the least misleading?

Can you abandon a place for centuries and still claim ownership?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

gr8w8er said:


> Can you abandon a place for centuries and still claim ownership?


Especially after it's been made more valuable by those filthy squatters??

Of course!!


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

i agree that there are some in the ME who would rather use the israeli palestinian issue as a propaganda tool, than to see a real solution. in fact palestinians are looked down upon personally by many in the ME - it's why they are never fully integrated into the society of the countries that they find themselves in (for instance jordan). 

with that being said, the "deal" that was supposedly on the table in 2000 was no deal at all. netanyahu himself admitted it was a farce. if you look at some of the details w/ respect to what israel demanded of the future palestinian state, no self respecting "nation" would have acceded to them. are you really a nation if your neighbor has free reign of your airspace, roads/infrastructure, can limit your ability to defend yourself/field an army, occupies all strategic choke points etc etc ?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

a4audi08 said:


> ... no self respecting "nation" would have acceded to them. are you really a nation if your neighbor has free reign of your airspace, roads/infrastructure, can limit your ability to defend yourself/field an army, occupies all strategic choke points etc etc ?


Makes one wonder why they can't settle into the provance of another State with limited self rule like Kurds and other cultural minorities do.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

gr8w8er said:


> While it is a historical document - and one that can be remarkably buttressed by third party documents, which I will not go into here - it also represents the Holy Scriptures. I take your off-hand comments as an affront.
> 
> You may chose to be god-less, or have other beliefs. So be it. But if, at the end of the day, you are looking for a lack of bias in our world you will be searching forever. It does not exist. Winners get to write history books and what is written will always have a point of view. After all ... was it the War Between the States, or the Civil War? Why are a people called "black"?
> 
> Property belongs to those that own it *today*. The American Indians got a raw deal. So did Palistinians. And the Irish/Scots. And for that matter, the Jews got their own raw deal in Russia and later Germany. So what's your point?


It is emphatically not an "Historical Document" in the sense that it can be used as evidence for historical events. It does, however, contain some History, a set of grossly biased narratives, some are shared with the Koran, of course, that justify the Hebrews/Jews as God's chosen people. There are indeed some referencing possible with other narratives, such as Bar Kochba's revolt against the Seleucids. Exodus, however, is pretty much absent from other narratives. The Bible has also been repeatedly updated and changed to fit in with prevailing agenda, which rather limits its value. The New Testament is a construct of the Council of Nicaea in the 3rd or 4th Century, which decided which Gospels should go in and which Gospels should not. Those that went in were all written at least 50 years after the death of Jesus!
I accept that some peoples have had raw deals. It doesn't however, mean that the people giving the raw deal are now to be classed as "right", because the atrocities, etc were done by the previous generation, or the generation before that. If that was the case, we could be arguing that Hitler's seizure of Jewish property in Germany could have been no more than a shrewd move to boost Germany's economy and gain popularity for the Nazis.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Interesting similarity between Hitler and Isrealis*



Chouan said:


> *Many, if not most, left because their lands were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli armed forces in 1948.* Most were robbed of all of their possessions at gunpoint as they left, some by simple banditry, some by deliberate Israeli policy, to force the Jordanians, for example, to spend money ion the refugees rather than on arms.* Once enough Palestinians had been massacred or forced out at gunpoint,* the rest left "voluntarily" in order to avoid the same fate. That is clearly not the same as you're suggesting above.
> 
> It is partly because of the Versailles style "diktats" of the Israelis that the Palestinians have the attitude that they do. It is also because of the way that Israelis treat Palestinians within Israel, who still have their property seized by the Israeli government, and handed over to new settlers, usually from E.Europe, the US or S.Africa.
> 
> *How can an accomodation be reached, even with the best will possible from the Palestinians, if they are treated with such contempt by the Israeli government, even if they are officially citizens of Israel*.


Very interesting... and *who invented the atomic bomb* that were dropped in Hiroshima? I wonder...


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

lovemeparis said:


> Very interesting... and *who invented the atomic bomb* that were dropped in Hiroshima? I wonder...


Just a tiny point here on the atomic bomb. Both the German and Japanese governments were working on their on atomic bomb programs. They were each close and had they collaborated might have achieved the bomb first. It was only late in the war that the Germans gave or attempted to give some heavy water to the Japanese for their program. Given such human acts as the Bataan Death March and the death camps, I have little doubt that if they had the bomb they would have used it. As an American, I have as much guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I have over a bug I recently killed.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*"Arab Land"*

In November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[16] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,[17] and in consequence occupied territories, including the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but efforts by elements within both parties to diplomatically solve the problem have so far only met with limited success and some of Israel's international borders remain in dispute.

It seems to me that if the Arabs had accepted the original deal, Israel would be this tiny novelty country and any Palestine folks that lost property could have been generously paid off. The Arabs elected not to accept the deal and started wars which they lost and subsequently lost more real estate. Too bad.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Getting back your land/country*



beherethen said:


> It seems to me that if the Arabs had accepted the original deal, Israel would be this tiny novelty country and any Palestine folks that lost property could have been generously paid off. The Arabs elected not to accept the deal and started wars which they lost and subsequently lost more real estate. Too bad.


So, the Palestinians and Arabs just need to keep on fighting until they can get their lost land back. Who knows, someday they might succeed!:icon_cheers:


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

lovemeparis said:


> So, the Palestinians and Arabs just need to keep on fighting until they can get their lost land back. Who knows, someday they might succeed!:icon_cheers:


If I go to Vegas and put my chips on red and black comes up-guess what-I lose my chips. If they didn't want to lose land, they shouldn't have started wars or if engaging in war, they should have been better at it. This is not complex.:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

beherethen said:


> Given such human acts as the Bataan Death March and the death camps, *I have little doubt that if they had the bomb they would have used it. *


But they did not have the "atomic bomb" yet... just speculation.



beherethen said:


> As an American, I have as much guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I have over *a bug I recently killed*.


Thank you, you'd proved my point... That human lives are just "a bug" to some people!!!


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

lovemeparis said:


> Thank you, you'd proved my point... That human lives are just "a bug" to some people!!!


Yes and those people were known as the Axis Powers during WW2.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

beherethen said:


> Yes and those people were known as the Axis Powers during WW2.


To me, no matter how you kill, if you killed in mass... you are not different, Axis Powers or American during WW2!:devil::devil::devil:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

lovemeparis said:


> To me, no matter how you kill, if you killed in mass... you are not different, Axis Powers or American during WW2!:devil::devil::devil:


That's how France got rolled by Germany twice in thirty years.

You're welcome.


----------

