What really gets me about the Israel / Palestine thing

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

TheIronRuler:

Dijkstra:

TheIronRuler:

.
"I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people." - I don't know, if I stop someone from running at me at full speed with an axe to get by and get some food and I shoot him, I shouldn't feel too guilty about not letting him kill me.

Israeli mentality right there. See the word civilians? This is why people need to treat the Israelis like the pariahs they should be.

"I'm sure plenty of others see it that way."- No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

"So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves."-

You're welcome. Just saying, all your crap about how your own defense is priority one over any innocents proves you don't deserve to be defended.

.
I am offended by what you've said. You generalize a whole country's people and tell me I deserve to die. I am not comfortable with talking with you any longer. I have put you on my ignore list. You will not provoke me any longer.

I just told you that you should be treated as you would treat others. It's nice to see you were in fact wishing death upon civilians. Or are you talking about the part where I essentially said your life doesn't deserve to be defended at the cost of others? What a great mentality if you took issue with that. You're saying that your life is more important if that's what it is.

Dijkstra:

TheIronRuler:

Dijkstra:

This is the kind of attitude the rest of the world needs towards Israeli deaths until Israelis learn to stop being so self centered.

.
I beg your pardon? What was that post about? Suddenly I represent all of the people of my nation?

Why not? I see you justifying a lot of what your nation does in regards to harming other civilians as for the good of your people. I'm sure plenty of others see it that way. So I think you guys deserve to see what it's like yourselves.

You right! I mean, the rest of the world ignoring the murder of Jews will totally make Israel feel more open minded to their own actions and it won't come off as people going back to their "older views" of Jews at all! Yeah, that's it! Make Israel feel isolated from the rest of the world! Just look at North Korea and how isolating them[1] totally made them stop perusing nuclear/missile technology! I'm being sarcastic in case it wasn't obvious.

Dijkstra:

I just told you that you should be treated as you would treat others. It's nice to see you were in fact wishing death upon civilians. Or are you talking about the part where I essentially said your life doesn't deserve to be defended at the cost of others? What a great mentality if you took issue with that. You're saying that your life is more important if that's what it is.

Why shouldn't a person hold their own life in higher regard than that of a stranger? Self preservation is a natural instinct that all animals have, and humans are no exception.

[1] with the exception of mainland China

Something to consider is that the main reason Hamas and other similar regimes rise to power in Palestine is because of the radical theocratic government in Israel and the main reason for the Radical right wing government in Israel is the Theocratic Regime in Palestine. Both parties are run by fundamentalists and both party's mutually benefit from the conflict in the form of support gained by people who think they need the protection of an aggressive right-wing government. The Israeli conservative government doesn't want peace because they know that they will always win an election if there is a war, it's why the most recent conflict was started before their election. Hamas is the same way only they don't have any ability to do damage on the same level as the Israelis; they get more sympathy because their people are the ones who are dieing and they are the ones suffering the injustices. When people talk about how Israel suffer next to Palestine they talk about how uncomfortable and scared they are. When people talk about how Palestine suffers next to Israel they talk about death tolls in the hundreds and forced poverty.

This article explains why there can never be a lasting peace.

Quotes, from Hamas spokesperson:
"It will not be long before we see all the Palestinian prisoners released from prison. We promise you that. The way we freed some of the prisoners in the past is the way we will use to free the remaining prisoners." (Reference to the kidnap and illegal confinement of Gilad Shalit)

"Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land," he said.
"We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take."

That fundamentally sums up the attitude of Hamas. As long as they are in power, there can never be peace. They are islamist terrorists who murder and brutalize Israeli and Palestinian citizens alike. They don't want peace, they want death of all Jews, period. This is the same as Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad and all the other Islamiist terrorist groups in the region who seek the destruction of Israel.

When given the chance to make peace 3 decades ago, Israel took it with both hands. They made peace with both Egypt and Jordan in a land-for-peace deal. They tried the same with Syria, offering to give back the Golan Heights but Syria refused. It'll be interesting, if saddening, to see what happens with the Egypt peace treaty. Now that Egypt is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Mursi, the new President is passing laws to essentially make himself a dictator, I can't imagine how long it will last.

Notsomuch:
Something to consider is that the main reason Hamas and other similar regimes rise to power in Palestine is because of the radical theocratic government in Israel and the main reason for the Radical right wing government in Israel is the Theocratic Regime in Palestine. Both parties are run by fundamentalists and both party's mutually benefit from the conflict in the form of support gained by people who think they need the protection of an aggressive right-wing government. The Israeli conservative government doesn't want peace because they know that they will always win an election if there is a war, it's why the most recent conflict was started before their election. Hamas is the same way only they don't have any ability to do damage on the same level as the Israelis; they get more sympathy because their people are the ones who are dieing and they are the ones suffering the injustices. When people talk about how Israel suffer next to Palestine they talk about how uncomfortable and scared they are. When people talk about how Palestine suffers next to Israel they talk about death tolls in the hundreds and forced poverty.

.
"...because of the radical theocratic government in Israel..." - What are you talking about?

"...Both parties are run by fundamentalists and both party's mutually benefit from the conflict in the form of support gained by people who think they need the protection of an aggressive right-wing government..." - Again, what? Fatah is a socialist party. i.e. the PLO is run as a welfare state, not too different from Israel.

"...The Israeli conservative government doesn't want peace because they know that they will always win an election if there is a war, it's why the most recent conflict was started before their election..." - No, that's wrong. You're being told untrue things.

"...Hamas is the same way only they don't have any ability to do damage on the same level as the Israelis; they get more sympathy because their people are the ones who are dieing and they are the ones suffering the injustices..." - Well, they do get more sympathy the higher the body count rises. Hamas shouldn't get any sympathy, the Palestinian people should.

"When people talk about how Israel suffer next to Palestine they talk about how uncomfortable and scared they are. When people talk about how Palestine suffers next to Israel they talk about death tolls in the hundreds and forced poverty." - Now, do you want me to link you to Cases where you're wrong? Because I can do that. Rocket fire is a relatively new thing, the second intifada had stuff that was much more... head-on.

Dijkstra:
You're welcome. Just saying, all your crap about how your own defense is priority one over any innocents proves you don't deserve to be defended.

Might want to hold your horses Greta Duisenberg, because that means then that you must want our country destroyed as well.

Because guess what happens when the Taliban comes? The Afghan militias become the cannon fodder, and any civilians they use as human shields or pressgang into fighting, tough shit, bullets for everyone unless they decide to run away. You don't risk your own people over something like that, it's unacceptable. Or rather than bullets, airstrikes, because exchanging fire is considered too much of a risk if alternatives are available, even if it means some compounds are going to get leveled.

The policies are clearly us > them.

And you want that. Because if there's news of someone killed on mission, you're not happy. And that's why those policies set the rules of engagement.

ratzofftoya:
Actually, I started off insulting your country's actions. That's not a recent development. Your country's actions are those of a callous neighborhood bully.

Yeah, I mean, every normal person like to be blown up, have missiles shot at them, and bring his children to a school that has two armed soldiers standing guard out front because otherwise it's a matter of time before some deranged Palestinian walks in and murders the kids.

Everybody likes that. Why the Israelis don't like that happening to them must really mystify you.

Dijkstra:
I just told you that you should be treated as you would treat others. It's nice to see you were in fact wishing death upon civilians. Or are you talking about the part where I essentially said your life doesn't deserve to be defended at the cost of others? What a great mentality if you took issue with that. You're saying that your life is more important if that's what it is.

He never said that, or even implied that. I really wonder what you're hoping to achieve with such transparant falsehoods and twisting of words.

Anoni Mus:
Then shouldn't gays, gipsies, socialists and communists get their own states too? Jews weren't the only victims of nazism.

Gypsies pretty much have de facto an own state in some eastern European regions. And would've gotten much further if they gave up being vagabonds for a bit and worked together to achieve something.

Heck, if they came together and tore Hungary or Romania apart in a bloody civil war they'd probably be supported in that because of both the overblown victim complex they cry about, and the real injustices caused by the resentment that grew over their behaviour as vagabonds (think of groups like Jobbik and such).

BiscuitTrouser:
If homosexuals DID demand such a state for themselves and wish to possess one why wouldnt they be entitled to one also? Is it simply due to their lack of interest or shared heritage?

Being homosexual is not the type of identity that lends itself to statebuilding. Much like there's been no 'own country for hetereosexuals', or no 'independant state of cat owners'.

Plus of course that all countries at the time were homophobic, and not just the nazi regime. Homosexuality was a crime in Britain for instance. Famous is how they denied the merits of their codecracking genius and computer pioneer Turing. He was arrested and convicted for being homosexual in 1952. Appeals to get him posthumously pardoned (he killed himself in 1954 after most likely undergoing torture during the 'treatment' of his homosexuality, which he was sentenced to by the court) still haven't been granted.

Heck, Britain itself was quite anti-semitic at the time. The UK worked heavily against the Jewish inhabitants of Trans-Jordan, and favoured the Arabs in all things even if they were the agressors.

BiscuitTrouser:

TheIronRuler:

Homosexuality was a crime and remained such in many countries in Europe, the USA, (most of the allies). In fact, those gays held in prison by Nazi Germany often ended up in another prison for being gay. Homosexuality at the time was illegal in many places. It was perceived as immoral and unnatural. Furthermore, Homosexuals did not want for a nation, they wanted to be equal to other men and to be recognized as being normal the way they are.

Im sorry to delve into this subject again but illuminate me. Im honestly interested. Can you answer a few questions for me?

If homosexuals DID demand such a state for themselves and wish to possess one why wouldnt they be entitled to one also? Is it simply due to their lack of interest or shared heritage?

Another key question for me is WHY do Jewish people want their own state. You said "They wanted to be equal to other men and recognised as normal" which is a lovely sentiment. Why dont those of jewish descent seek the exact same recognition? After all be you atheist, jewish, native american or homosexual youre going to be a small minority in most countries and likely the country of your birth (not ancestry) but this doesnt necessitate a separate state. Integration and acceptance into a community seem perfectly fine things to strive for rather than a bit of land where we can be the majority. "Home is where the hearth is" and such? Surely the lack of a "Land to call home" isnt such a pressing issue that a new nation is simply the only answer. Finding a home in other cultures via integration is very possible and very rewarding.

Its not that i take issue with Isreal as a state at all, live and let live and such. Its just this conflict seems totally pointless looking at it from either side. I mean honestly a "Land to call home" is nice and all but how many childrens lives is it worth for any or either side. Call me soft and weak but if even a single man has to die to take a random bit of land to be mine when i can happily live and share "someone elses" (not really, its as much mine as it is anyone elses) land and retain my heritage its not worth it. I just cant justify the price of a single life to do something that to me doesnt seem totally necessary for a happy well integrated life. How much blood must soak the sands before we agree they just arnt worth the effort. Id have thought after such trauma the Jewish people would desire peace and tranquility over more violence and war. I can see motivation for sure, just not enough motivation to make any of these deaths even partially worth while or for a worthy goal. I dont understand why either side would continue to fight.

(Disclaimer: I know MANY jewish people integrate with other cultures and do not wish to live in isreal, i am only talking of those who do)

.
"If homosexuals DID demand such a state for themselves and wish to possess one why wouldnt they be entitled to one also? Is it simply due to their lack of interest or shared heritage?" - Back at the time, no way in hell (I explained why). Nowadays? I think not. Homosexuality is sexual inclination. To be blunt, it's not too far off from pedophilia. The difference between the two is that now we don't throw homosexuals in Jail or stone them to death. Homosexuals do not have enough common traits to bind them all besides their sexuality, which is not a recognizable aspect of a nation.

"Another key question for me is WHY do Jewish people want their own state. You said "They wanted to be equal to other men and recognised as normal" which is a lovely sentiment. Why dont those of jewish descent seek the exact same recognition? After all be you atheist, jewish, native american or homosexual youre going to be a small minority in most countries and likely the country of your birth (not ancestry) but this doesnt necessitate a separate state. " - The difference of the matter being is that Judaism and being a Jew is often a closed club, with membership a hard thing to acquire. In order to keep the group intact, marrying away from said group (and not bringing your spouse to the group) is very much frowned upon. With that said, having a country brings down the ever increasing factor of Jewish assimilation into the societies they live in. In the past, there had been many who integrated into the society that accepted them somewhat. Those people were the first to go when the lists were compiled at the early days of marking Jews in Nazi Germany. The idea that they were fully German and did not follow Judaism didn't trouble the nazi regime much as it compiled its lists based on blood relations (now an outdated theory of human biology, race and ancestry). In this case, assimilation backfired. Many who hold Zionist believes think that the Jewish state is in place to preserve the culture and religion of its people. As it is a grouping ground for all of the Jewish diaspora, the fear of losing one's identity will be lost.

"Integration and acceptance into a community seem perfectly fine things to strive for rather than a bit of land where we can be the majority. "Home is where the hearth is" and such? Surely the lack of a "Land to call home" isnt such a pressing issue that a new nation is simply the only answer. Finding a home in other cultures via integration is very possible and very rewarding." - This is a problem when there is a German country for the German people, a French country for the French people, and Russian country for the Russian people. The way these countries treat minorities and whether or not they try to integrate them or leave them alone depends on the needs of the country, the views of the people, its traditions and law. Not all countries encourage assimilation, while some countries force minorities to assimilate. For example, the French language is the only allowed language to be used in schools in France. This leads to children not being very fluent with their native tongues (if they are a minority) and if traditions are not kept, they could integrate into the local population rather easily in a few generations. With that said, France doesn't respect minority rights at all. It's the way the country works and views its people, that's all. It's not a universal way for every country to follow. Integration and acceptance into a community seems perfectly fine things for you, but others will disagree. Shariah law can also be perfectly fine for some, but I won't deny them their religious courts if they so please. Others might disagree with that. So be it, it's their country.

"Its not that i take issue with Isreal as a state at all, live and let live and such. Its just this conflict seems totally pointless looking at it from either side. I mean honestly a "Land to call home" is nice and all but how many childrens lives is it worth for any or either side. Call me soft and weak but if even a single man has to die to take a random bit of land to be mine when i can happily live and share "someone elses" (not really, its as much mine as it is anyone elses) land and retain my heritage its not worth it. " - I would advise you to try and read through the history of the region and the conflict. The locals were uncomfortable with the immigrants coming in, settling in land they bought and working the land. The conflict was to rid Palestine of Zionist presence and return it to its former self (the previous status-quo). When this attack failed, Israel formed. Had the two movements learned to coexist, it could have ended rather peacefully. Read through the UN proposition for the two state solution in mandatory Palestine in '47 and see what I mean. No land was meant to be stolen or taken from Arabs, at the time about a fourth of the Jewish country would have been Muslims.

"How much blood must soak the sands before we agree they just arnt worth the effort. Id have thought after such trauma the Jewish people would desire peace and tranquility over more violence and war. I can see motivation for sure, just not enough motivation to make any of these deaths even partially worth while or for a worthy goal. I dont understand why either side would continue to fight." - At the moment I believe that Israel would like to disengage and normalize relationship with its neighbors, but on her own terms. Since this mess cannot be resolved, this undesired status-quo is kept as it is until further notice. I'm not happy about that, but I won't vote to lose East Jerusalem.

"(Disclaimer: I know MANY jewish people integrate with other cultures and do not wish to live in isreal, i am only talking of those who do)" - Did they keep their heritage and culture even after integrating into your culture?

Oh boy, another thread on the Isreal-Palestinian conflict.

Going by the population numbers given on page 5 of Sergio DellaPergola paper 'Demography in Israel/Palestine: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications', the Muslim population in Palestine was 7 times as large as the Jewish population in 1922, 4,3 times as large in 1931 and 1,9 times as large in 1947. And the Muslim population doubled in this time span, so it wasn't just the Palestinians having less children that caused this demographic change.

It doesn't take a genius to see how massive Jewish immigration to a small country with no real institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation between the populations (thank you Ottoman Empire/British Empire, great work there) would lead to the unbridled clusterfuck that is the Israel-Palestine conflict. With the exception of the Arab dictatorships and terrorist groups that have basically given Israel all the excuses in the world to continue expanding their territory in the name of security, the whole thing is fairly reminiscent of another conflict that also included massive immigration, clashing cultures and religions, no existing institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation, escalating cycle of violence caused by never-ending retaliation, conflicts over land and resources, and also happened to drag on for quite a while.

Pain Is Inevitable:
Oh boy, another thread on the Isreal-Palestinian conflict.

Going by the population numbers given on page 5 of Sergio DellaPergola paper 'Demography in Israel/Palestine: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications', the Muslim population in Palestine was 7 times as large as the Jewish population in 1922, 4,3 times as large in 1931 and 1,9 times as large in 1947. And the Muslim population doubled in this time span, so it wasn't just the Palestinians having less children that caused this demographic change.

It doesn't take a genius to see how massive Jewish immigration to a small country with no real institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation between the populations (thank you Ottoman Empire/British Empire, great work there) would lead to the unbridled clusterfuck that is the Israel-Palestine conflict. With the exception of the Arab dictatorships and terrorist groups that have basically given Israel all the excuses in the world to continue expanding their territory in the name of security, the whole thing is fairly reminiscent of another conflict that also included massive immigration, clashing cultures and religions, no existing institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation, escalating cycle of violence caused by never-ending retaliation, conflicts over land and resources, and also happened to drag on for quite a while.

.
You're right, there are some similarities between the two. A few decisive things do stop this comparison, especially the neighboring Arab nations.

EDIT: Plus another issue - how did the Jews who immigrated to Palestine acquire the land they settled in?

TheIronRuler:

Pain Is Inevitable:
Oh boy, another thread on the Isreal-Palestinian conflict.

Going by the population numbers given on page 5 of Sergio DellaPergola paper 'Demography in Israel/Palestine: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications', the Muslim population in Palestine was 7 times as large as the Jewish population in 1922, 4,3 times as large in 1931 and 1,9 times as large in 1947. And the Muslim population doubled in this time span, so it wasn't just the Palestinians having less children that caused this demographic change.

It doesn't take a genius to see how massive Jewish immigration to a small country with no real institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation between the populations (thank you Ottoman Empire/British Empire, great work there) would lead to the unbridled clusterfuck that is the Israel-Palestine conflict. With the exception of the Arab dictatorships and terrorist groups that have basically given Israel all the excuses in the world to continue expanding their territory in the name of security, the whole thing is fairly reminiscent of another conflict that also included massive immigration, clashing cultures and religions, no existing institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation, escalating cycle of violence caused by never-ending retaliation, conflicts over land and resources, and also happened to drag on for quite a while.

.
You're right, there are some similarities between the two. A few decisive things do stop this comparison, especially the neighboring Arab nations.

I agree, they do complicate the picture quite a bit. Though, even if they hadn't gotten involved (for, what in my eyes were largely egotistical reasons connected to increasing their own territory/power, but I digress), it seems to me that the violence and conflict would still be there, perhaps only with less intensity and involving more irregular attacks by the numerous paramilitary groups on both sides.

Though perhaps voices for peace and cooperation could have triumphed if not for the 1947 war and everything that came after it
(ha ha ha, oh I can't even say that with a straight face, as if humans have ever been able to resolve existential conflicts where land, resources and maybe even their very existence is on the line...)

Pain Is Inevitable:

TheIronRuler:

Pain Is Inevitable:
Oh boy, another thread on the Isreal-Palestinian conflict.

Going by the population numbers given on page 5 of Sergio DellaPergola paper 'Demography in Israel/Palestine: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications', the Muslim population in Palestine was 7 times as large as the Jewish population in 1922, 4,3 times as large in 1931 and 1,9 times as large in 1947. And the Muslim population doubled in this time span, so it wasn't just the Palestinians having less children that caused this demographic change.

It doesn't take a genius to see how massive Jewish immigration to a small country with no real institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation between the populations (thank you Ottoman Empire/British Empire, great work there) would lead to the unbridled clusterfuck that is the Israel-Palestine conflict. With the exception of the Arab dictatorships and terrorist groups that have basically given Israel all the excuses in the world to continue expanding their territory in the name of security, the whole thing is fairly reminiscent of another conflict that also included massive immigration, clashing cultures and religions, no existing institutions to foster rule of law and cooperation, escalating cycle of violence caused by never-ending retaliation, conflicts over land and resources, and also happened to drag on for quite a while.

.
You're right, there are some similarities between the two. A few decisive things do stop this comparison, especially the neighboring Arab nations.

I agree, they do complicate the picture quite a bit. Though, even if they hadn't gotten involved (for, what in my eyes were largely egotistical reasons connected to increasing their own territory/power, but I digress), it seems to me that the violence and conflict would still be there, perhaps only with less intensity and involving more irregular attacks by the numerous paramilitary groups on both sides.

Though perhaps voices for peace and cooperation could have triumphed if not for the 1947 war and everything that came after it
(ha ha ha, oh I can't even say that with a straight face, as if humans have ever been able to resolve existential conflicts where land, resources and maybe even their very existence is on the line...)

.
I do believe that tensions rose because of the shoddy transition and bookkeeping The Ottomans did. When Jews settled in Palestine they bought the land they went to - and more often than not, the people selling the land didn't actually lived there. These people just owned the land, and sometimes even received rent. However the people living on these lands for generations thought that the land was theirs, while the Jews who bought it from their land-lords claimed it to be theirs. So yes, it caused a lot of tension. There were locals who sold their own piece of land for money (if you ever wanted to get the hell out of the region or maybe open a shop in the city), but a bit more than half of that was bought from the landlords.

Now.. why did this occur? The Ottomans often gifted or sold land in their territories to rich Arab families who lived in their territories. Who is there to make sure that there were tenants, or that they paid their rent? The distance made all of the difference. Furthermore, in order to try and go around the reforms the ottomans did in the 18th century (Tanzimat reforms) where conscription was mandatory for the citizens of the empire depending on the number of registered people in each district (The Ottomans also had a massive population census), a lot tried to keep themselves off the books to avoid conscription(would involve not registering their land ownership). So... yes. Then they go around and blame the Jews.

TheIronRuler:

Pain Is Inevitable:

TheIronRuler:

.
You're right, there are some similarities between the two. A few decisive things do stop this comparison, especially the neighboring Arab nations.

I agree, they do complicate the picture quite a bit. Though, even if they hadn't gotten involved (for, what in my eyes were largely egotistical reasons connected to increasing their own territory/power, but I digress), it seems to me that the violence and conflict would still be there, perhaps only with less intensity and involving more irregular attacks by the numerous paramilitary groups on both sides.

Though perhaps voices for peace and cooperation could have triumphed if not for the 1947 war and everything that came after it
(ha ha ha, oh I can't even say that with a straight face, as if humans have ever been able to resolve existential conflicts where land, resources and maybe even their very existence is on the line...)

.
I do believe that tensions rose because of the shoddy transition and bookkeeping The Ottomans did. When Jews settled in Palestine they bought the land they went to - and more often than not, the people selling the land didn't actually lived there. These people just owned the land, and sometimes even received rent. However the people living on these lands for generations thought that the land was theirs, while the Jews who bought it from their land-lords claimed it to be theirs. So yes, it caused a lot of tension. There were locals who sold their own piece of land for money (if you ever wanted to get the hell out of the region or maybe open a shop in the city), but a bit more than half of that was bought from the landlords.

Now.. why did this occur? The Ottomans often gifted or sold land in their territories to rich Arab families who lived in their territories. Who is there to make sure that there were tenants, or that they paid their rent? The distance made all of the difference. Furthermore, in order to try and go around the reforms the ottomans did in the 18th century (Tanzimat reforms) where conscription was mandatory for the citizens of the empire depending on the number of registered people in each district (The Ottomans also had a massive population census), a lot tried to keep themselves off the books to avoid conscription(would involve not registering their land ownership). So... yes. Then they go around and blame the Jews.

Under Ottoman law Jew's could not own land, if they payed dhimmī they could lease land, but not state, or farm land.
Most of the the big land purchases were done after 1917 under British control, and the purchases before that were simply not accepted by the British as ownership, many of them were bought land from people who could not actually sell the land proper to Jews or Christians under the Caliphate so the Brits used that to take control over most of the land under the mandate, they did that to Arabs just as well, the smallest bureaucratic inconsistency would be used to dismiss the deeds, after the 2nd Arab revolt the Brits reallocated most of the land seized from the JNF to Arab farmers.

Verbatim:

TheIronRuler:

Pain Is Inevitable:

I agree, they do complicate the picture quite a bit. Though, even if they hadn't gotten involved (for, what in my eyes were largely egotistical reasons connected to increasing their own territory/power, but I digress), it seems to me that the violence and conflict would still be there, perhaps only with less intensity and involving more irregular attacks by the numerous paramilitary groups on both sides.

Though perhaps voices for peace and cooperation could have triumphed if not for the 1947 war and everything that came after it
(ha ha ha, oh I can't even say that with a straight face, as if humans have ever been able to resolve existential conflicts where land, resources and maybe even their very existence is on the line...)

.
I do believe that tensions rose because of the shoddy transition and bookkeeping The Ottomans did. When Jews settled in Palestine they bought the land they went to - and more often than not, the people selling the land didn't actually lived there. These people just owned the land, and sometimes even received rent. However the people living on these lands for generations thought that the land was theirs, while the Jews who bought it from their land-lords claimed it to be theirs. So yes, it caused a lot of tension. There were locals who sold their own piece of land for money (if you ever wanted to get the hell out of the region or maybe open a shop in the city), but a bit more than half of that was bought from the landlords.

Now.. why did this occur? The Ottomans often gifted or sold land in their territories to rich Arab families who lived in their territories. Who is there to make sure that there were tenants, or that they paid their rent? The distance made all of the difference. Furthermore, in order to try and go around the reforms the ottomans did in the 18th century (Tanzimat reforms) where conscription was mandatory for the citizens of the empire depending on the number of registered people in each district (The Ottomans also had a massive population census), a lot tried to keep themselves off the books to avoid conscription(would involve not registering their land ownership). So... yes. Then they go around and blame the Jews.

Under Ottoman law Jew's could not own land, if they payed dhimmī they could lease land, but not state, or farm land.
Most of the the big land purchases were done after 1917 under British control, and the purchases before that were simply not accepted by the British as ownership, many of them were bought land from people who could not actually sell the land proper to Jews or Christians under the Caliphate so the Brits used that to take control over most of the land under the mandate, they did that to Arabs just as well, the smallest bureaucratic inconsistency would be used to dismiss the deeds, after the 2nd Arab revolt the Brits reallocated most of the land seized from the JNF to Arab farmers.

.
Between the 1880s and 1917 Jews could and did buy land in Palestine while it was under Ottoman rule. I can understand the British for reallocating land to Arab farmers as a result of the Jewish immigration a big chunk of them lost their lands and thus their source of income. Then again the Jews also exploited British law during the mandate of Palestine. 11 points in the Negev in '46 which basically secured the desert (and the Red Sea access) to a future Jewish state.

TheIronRuler:

"...because of the radical theocratic government in Israel..." - What are you talking about?

"...Both parties are run by fundamentalists and both party's mutually benefit from the conflict in the form of support gained by people who think they need the protection of an aggressive right-wing government..." - Again, what? Fatah is a socialist party. i.e. the PLO is run as a welfare state, not too different from Israel.

"...The Israeli conservative government doesn't want peace because they know that they will always win an election if there is a war, it's why the most recent conflict was started before their election..." - No, that's wrong. You're being told untrue things.

"...Hamas is the same way only they don't have any ability to do damage on the same level as the Israelis; they get more sympathy because their people are the ones who are dieing and they are the ones suffering the injustices..." - Well, they do get more sympathy the higher the body count rises. Hamas shouldn't get any sympathy, the Palestinian people should.

Likud is the right wing party, they have religious, nationalistic tendencies. I'm not speaking of fiscal conservatism in either case. It's not wrong, the most recent conflict started just after the American election because they didn't want to cause any problems for the president who has been the friendliest to them in decades; It started before their own election because they knew they would be re-elected if it did.

Now, do you want me to link you to Cases where you're wrong? Because I can do that. Rocket fire is a relatively new thing, the second intifada had stuff that was much more... head-on.

Yeah? That's a pretty silly thing to ask, just do that to begin with and of course it had stuff that was more head on, it was an uprising but we're talking about the current situation. Currently Israel controls the Palestinian infrastructure and withholds tax income to lay on political pressure, they withhold any aid from outside sources and occupy and settle Palestinian territory while denying any right to fight back legally. Palestine gets sympathy because Israel seems like a provocateur and that isn't wrong, it's just the objective truth about what it looks like.

TheIronRuler:

Verbatim:

TheIronRuler:

.
I do believe that tensions rose because of the shoddy transition and bookkeeping The Ottomans did. When Jews settled in Palestine they bought the land they went to - and more often than not, the people selling the land didn't actually lived there. These people just owned the land, and sometimes even received rent. However the people living on these lands for generations thought that the land was theirs, while the Jews who bought it from their land-lords claimed it to be theirs. So yes, it caused a lot of tension. There were locals who sold their own piece of land for money (if you ever wanted to get the hell out of the region or maybe open a shop in the city), but a bit more than half of that was bought from the landlords.

Now.. why did this occur? The Ottomans often gifted or sold land in their territories to rich Arab families who lived in their territories. Who is there to make sure that there were tenants, or that they paid their rent? The distance made all of the difference. Furthermore, in order to try and go around the reforms the ottomans did in the 18th century (Tanzimat reforms) where conscription was mandatory for the citizens of the empire depending on the number of registered people in each district (The Ottomans also had a massive population census), a lot tried to keep themselves off the books to avoid conscription(would involve not registering their land ownership). So... yes. Then they go around and blame the Jews.

Under Ottoman law Jew's could not own land, if they payed dhimmī they could lease land, but not state, or farm land.
Most of the the big land purchases were done after 1917 under British control, and the purchases before that were simply not accepted by the British as ownership, many of them were bought land from people who could not actually sell the land proper to Jews or Christians under the Caliphate so the Brits used that to take control over most of the land under the mandate, they did that to Arabs just as well, the smallest bureaucratic inconsistency would be used to dismiss the deeds, after the 2nd Arab revolt the Brits reallocated most of the land seized from the JNF to Arab farmers.

.
Between the 1880s and 1917 Jews could and did buy land in Palestine while it was under Ottoman rule. I can understand the British for reallocating land to Arab farmers as a result of the Jewish immigration a big chunk of them lost their lands and thus their source of income. Then again the Jews also exploited British law during the mandate of Palestine. 11 points in the Negev in '46 which basically secured the desert (and the Red Sea access) to a future Jewish state.

Again Jews could not "own" land under Ottoman laws, read the Ottoman land code of 1858, there's a quite good amount of books about that law, sadly most of the information on the internet is still scarce but this is a good overview of the situation - http://www.beki.org/landlaw.html.
The amount of land that Jews could actually own was scarce, much less than the 17% or so that the JNF ended up buying, most of the land that the JNF got for development was in the latter categories(read the article) and hence was still owned by the state.
During the mandatory rule, the Brits used those facts to disown both Jews and Arabs of their ownerships, and eventually returned most of the land to the Fellahs and the religious council after the revolts.

About the exploitation of "British" law, i assume you mean about "Homa and Migdal"(lt. Wall and Lookout Tower) settlements, that was not a British law, it was an exploitation of an older Ottoman law.
In General how both the Brits and the Ottomans handed land laws was centric to some of the legal issues surrounding the whole conflict.

But in general it still does not matter, Arabs who oppose the state of Israel oppose it with any borders and their "associates" could not care less who owned the land, and land ownership technically has little to do with statehood, i can buy half of north Dakota it does not mean i can make my own state, let alone country.
This whole thread was quite a disturbing one, considering the amount of really harsh underlying racism by allot of people here.

Talking about integration and such none sense like Jews had issues integrating in society before, they should check how many Jewish politician, authors, scientists, poets and virtually every other cornerstone of society Germany had before the 1930's, not to mention the rest of Europe.
And the sad part is that they treat the Palestinians, with almost as much underlying hostility and racism in those same statements, especially when using borderline straw man arguments that are nothing short of a double edged sword.
Virtually every thing said in this thread can be reversed to deny a Palestinian state, heck i can deny virtually any state and people of their national aspirations. Not to mention that every time some one mentions Native Americans or any other similar group of people and says well it was X years ago they are literally putting a deadline to the right of self determination of any group of people.

We pretty much have to treat Hamas like a 7 year old who is spoiled, due to countries that hate it that hate the U.s or due to the fact that oh so unbiased media never reports what Hamas does, if it does not involve Israel. Well Hamas fired RPGs into Israel does not said that Hamas destroyed a peace treaty is an example of what I mean. The average person in the world, and even in the United States does not know outside of what the main stream media tells.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked