The solution to the "palesitinian problem"

reply to post by bigyin

Where in your opinion is the capital of Palestine ?

Right now? Rammalah, no?

Meh, whatever, if they want to make Jerusalem their capital, let them make it their capital...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Millions? Where did that number come from?

I've mentioned it several times in other posts, but apparently not in this one- The numbers in all the books and studies, both recent and old, range from 50,000 to 400,000, if I remember correctly, so you might think this is a racist fairy tale, while you're being sold an opposing fairy tale.

So instead of going into into fairy tales I think what's more important is that it was *believed* to have been uninhabited, whether it was that, or not, and that's what's made it a good choice.

Like any sensible people, they moved where there were good resources; where there were already people.

Weren't most of the Jewish lands stretched on the shoreline, which is the most infertile land?

I'm going to need some source for that claim too...

Besides, they didn't just move there, they purchased lands, makes sense that they'd be sold the #ty ones, and not the ones that make profit, no?

The claim that it was "a land without a people" is just a frankly racist fairy tale

I agree, but while the fairy tale talks about the early 20th century, I'm talking about the early and mid 19th century which effected the perception of what Palestine is.. Mark Twain's book demonstrates that very well.

Make sure it is not you who is being told a fairy tale.. Millions living in Palestine in the 19th century? A bit far fetched.

Originally posted by dontreally
I would recommend you read 'from time immemorial'. Theres much information that is completely irrefutable in that book that blows the lid off of todays common perception.

Although I may read the book as a piece of propaganda, I would never reference it as a source of accurate information. Do you never challenge your own perception?

I have a book about Operation Entebbe by William Stevenson, called '90 Minutes at Entebbe'. I bought the book not because I was interested in the operation and wanted a detailed account, I bought it because it is a piece of propaganda developed and published by British Secret Intelligence Services. Just like the hijacking and the rescue itself.

I am currently reading about Defoe and Swift, both employed as propagandists in their time. It is a great tradition within the secret services to identify those with a gift for the power of persausion and adapt that power to their own agenda where possible.

Propaganda is useful only in that it tells you where not to look and offers clarity by omission.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


As long as you apply the same criticism towards anything you read, otherwise propaganda is just a name for something you disagree with.

Now a days there's hardly anything that can't be classified as propaganda, the trick is to take bits of info from all sources and put the puzzle pieces together yourself.

As one who is simply reading this thread, it's interesting to note that even here, there are sides arguing over what real estate the sides should or should not occupy. How they should and should not behave, believe, accept, change. What part of history is the individual willing to believe. Which side to take. Assigning blame, while we all know it takes two.

People have difficulty making sense of it on a thread, and we aren't even living it as they are, and we ask that they solve problems, and renounce centuries of hatred. Neither side will ever acquiesce? The Hatfields and McCoys are taking their toll globally. How much more disruption will the globe tolerate?

Maybe in a Century or so hate, death and revenge will grow tiresome and Peace and quiet will look good.

It's a mess, isn't it.

reply to post by Habex70


This is the classic presumption that all of this just happened overnight..

People don't seem to understand that this was a gradual process, influenced by many people, nations, events both local and foreign, etc.

The lands occupied in 67' were meant to be given back, just like Sinai was, only the Arab League refused to negotiate the return of these lands. It was only then that Jewish leaders first thought they can somehow keep it..

Israel was the one that initially accepted resolution 242 which called for withdrawal of Israeli forces in return for peace, but the PLO and later the Arab nations didn't, so it was never enacted.

Is it that simple? Hardly, but I can assure you that every detail concerning this conflict must be put into context, time, place, and leading events.

How easy it is for propagandists on both sides to present facts as though this conflict was started yesterday, using what we don't know to make us believe we know all there is to know.
How easy it is for them to "clearly demonstrate" how one side is completely at fault, while the other is as innocent as a kitten.

Of course Israel needs to withdraw! Hasn't it withdrawn from Gaza? Won't it withdraw from the West Bank eventually?

But can it really be expected of it to instantly evacuate and find home for 500,000 people? About a 1/10 of the entire population of Israel?

Is it really "evil" for wanting to negotiate that? To be able to offer something in return for keeping a part of those settlements?

Not all is black and white, mostly it's just politics.

Originally posted by Eliad
As long as you apply the same criticism towards anything you read, otherwise propaganda is just a name for something you disagree with.

I agree with a great deal of propaganda, I may not take sides on the whole, but that doesn't mean that there isn't truth spoken from both sides. The problem is that that truth is often selective.

An obvious agenda, like the one put forward by the book that the OP recommends, is generally clear by the publisher, then by the reviewers, if not, as in this case, by the author themselves. Not all publications are so blatantly partisan though.

Originally posted by Eliad
Now a days there's hardly anything that can't be classified as propaganda, the trick is to take bits of info from all sources and put the puzzle pieces together yourself.

Absolutely.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I get that.

Again, please do not assume before reading it, since already you seem very prejudiced against the Jews, or at the very least, sensitive to the Arab cause.

The book is a fantastic book. This isnt my first reading of the subject. This book is crammed with facts, citations from british documents, transcripts, etc.

How can this be a case of clarity by omission? Is it a fact that before 1947, the Arabs committed numerous atrocitiers against Jewish civilians in Safed, Hebron, Jerusalem and other cities in Palestine? Does this not suggest that the aggressor WAS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN the Muslims, who themselves are disposed towards wanton violence. Some of the details of these attacks are utterly digusting. Rapes - muslim men, raping. You think this is unusual? MY MOM came from church today retelling a story taht an Iraqi woman from Iraq - a christian, has happened to her. When she was 16 she made the mistake of admitting to be a christian (she had been hiding that fact). A few days later she was raped by muslims. Apparently, raping the kuffar is a commandment for a muslim, because it happens WAY TOO OFTEN for this to be some abnormal event. It seems to be a legitimate theological belief in the more radical sects of Islam.

And yet you treat them in the same way, by the same standard - you equate victim to the oppressor, and make the oppressor the victim, or at the very least, put them on an equal footing, when the facts demand justice.

So save me your scholarly advice and read the book if you truly care. Do not assume its propaganda. Do not tell me that the increase in the palestinian Arab pop;ulation between 1917 and 1943 from 92,000 to 460,000 was due to natural increase, as the british tenuously claimed. If that were truly so, - which it wasnt, a similar natural increase should have occurred in Lebanon, Trans Jordan, the Hedjaz, Syria or Egypt. They increased at around 50%, whereas this was a 400% increase. 8 times greater.

The facts are clear and the verdict is out; although the politicized game we call world opinion chooses to ignore it. Israel = bad guy, Palestine are the victims. The UN, the liberal left and Muslims are all siding together on this (despite the irony of the left supporting another Muslim state in he middle east. the PLO regards the prospective Palestinian state as ANOTHER ISLAMIC state. That title will precede its name) and all those who peddle facts and history are ignored or called propagandists.

A Syrian official for instance is on record (although understated in british reports, as 1-2000) in 1933 i believe as stating in a matter of a few months "30,000 Hurani settled in western palestine(the jewish settled areas, where Jewish investment was creating jobs and a labor force which was MEANT for Jewish immigration. The British facilitated this injstice, which again even the hope simpson report of 1931 regarded as 'an injustice to the Jews"!!).

Please read the book. Even if you think it is for propaganda. Only a liar or someone so emotionally opposed to Israel ca ndismiss the info in this book.

its not new either. It was written in the early 80s.

Originally posted by Eliad
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Millions? Where did that number come from?

411,000 in 1860, 738,000 in 1914, 689,000 in 1918 (WW1 followed by famineand locust plague; they actually beat the locusts with dynamite). By 1940, the population was 1,086,000 according to the British.

I've mentioned it several times in other posts, but apparently not in this one- The numbers in all the books and studies, both recent and old, range from 50,000 to 400,000, if I remember correctly, so you might think this is a racist fairy tale, while you're being sold an opposing fairy tale.

I find it amusing that you ask for dsources while providing none of your own. So, here's a bibliography for my information:
Abu-Lughod, Janet L. "Demographic Characteristics of the Palestinian Population: Relevance for Planning Palestine Open University." Annex 1 of Palestine Open University Feasibility Study, Part II. Paris: UNESCO, 1980.
----."The Demographic Transformation of Palestine. "In Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, ed., The Transformation of Palestine: Essays on the Origin and Development of the Arab Israeli Conflict, Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, 1971.
Bachi, Roberto. The Population of Israel. Jerusalem: Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University, 1974.
Benvenisti, Meron. The West Bank Data Project. New York and London: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984, and later reports of the project.
Brand, Laurie A. Palestinians in the Arab World' Institution Building and the Search for State. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Courbage, Youssef, "Reshuffling the Demographic Cards in IsraeI/PaIestine." Journal of Palestine Studies 28, no. 4 (1999): 21-39.
Ennab, Wael R. Population and Demographic Developments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip unti11990. New York: United Nations Conference on 1rade and Development, United Nations, 1994.
Friedlander, D., Z. Eisenbach, and C. Goldscheider.
"Modernization Patterns and Fertility Change: The Arab Population of Israel and the Israel-Administered Territories." Population Studies (London) 33, no.2 (July 1979): 239-254.
Gabriel, Stuart A., and Eitan F. Sabatello. "Palestinian Migration from the West Bank and Gaza: Economic and Demographic Analysis." Economic Development and Cultural Change 34, no.2 (January, 1986): 245-262.
Hagopian, Edward, and A.B. Zahlan. "Palestine's Arab Population: The Demography of the Palestinians." Journal of Palestine Studies 3, no.4, (1974): 33-73.
Hill, Allan G. "The Palestinian Population of the Middle East." Population and Development Review 9, no.2 (June, 1983): 293-316.
Khalidi, Walid, ed. All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992.
Kossaifi, George. "Demographic Characteristics of the Arab Palestinian People." In Khalil Nakhleh and Elia Zureik, eds. The Sociology of the Palestinians. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980.
McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Palestine Liberation Organization, Economic Department, Central Bureau of Statistics. Palestinian Statistical Abstract. Number 5, Damascus, 1983 and earlier years.
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Population, Housing, and Establishment Census, 1997. Ramallah: Palestinian Authority, 1998.
Palestinian Projections for 16 Countries/ Areas of the World, 1990 to 2010. Washington, D.C.: Center for International Research, Bureau of the Census, 1991.
Peretz, Don. Israel and the Palestine Arabs. Washington, D.C.: Middle East Institute, 1958.
----.Palestinians, Refugees, and the Middle East Peace Process, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993.
Projections of Population in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Area up to 2002: Based on the Population in 1982.
Jerusalem: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 1987.
Roof, Michael K., and Kevin G. Kinsella. Palestinian Arab Population, 1950 to 1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1985.
Roy, Sara. The Gaza Strip: A Demographic, Economic, Social and Legal Survey. The West Bank Data Base Project. Boulder, Colo.: West view Press, 1996.
Schmelz, U. 0., G. Nathan, and J. Kenvin. Multiplicity Study of Births and Deaths in Judea-Samaria and Gaza Strip-North Sinai. Jerusalem: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 1977.
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. "Palestine Refugees and Other Displaced Persons." Mimeograph. New York: UNRWA, 1979.
Zureik, Elia, Palestinian Refugees and the Peace Process. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1996.

Now your turn.

So instead of going into into fairy tales I think what's more important is that it was *believed* to have been uninhabited, whether it was that, or not, and that's what's made it a good choice.

That's really the stupidest argument I've ever seen made on ATS, Eliad. "The actual reality of hte matter doesn't matter, it's what people wanted to believe that counted!"

The place was populated. It was obviously populated. The Zionists of the time acknowledged this fact. The British acknowledged it. Nobody ever believed it was uninhabited, except for stupid Americans in hte latter part of the 20th century who have been spoon-fed lies from the lopsided coverage of the situation in this country.

Weren't most of the Jewish lands stretched on the shoreline, which is the most infertile land?

I'm going to need some source for that claim too...

Under the 1947 partition plan, the Jewish state was given domain over the northern coastal strip, which counter to your claim is prime farming land - which is why it was already full of orange groves, wheat fields, and other assorted agricultural enterprises. The Jewish part of the division was also given control over the entire Sea of Galilee and the headwaters of the Jordan River, which is the major source of fresh water in the region. Later on in the plan, the Zionists also successfully lobbied for control of the Negev, for control over the Red Sea ports and the potential of oil in the desert.

The Arab partition got Gaza and the Western portion of the Negev, which are both about as useful as tits on a boar. Some parts of the central Arab portion were pretty nice for olives and barley, while the northern Arab allotment was pretty nice - and was also the first portion conquered and expunged by the Israelis.

Look up ANYTHING regarding the partition plan, Eliad.

Besides, they didn't just move there, they purchased lands, makes sense that they'd be sold the #ty ones, and not the ones that make profit, no?

Not in the least; They were sold land initially, but none of them were idiotic enough to want to buy worthless land. Give them some credit.

Swear to god, you Zionist sorts are some of the most antisemitic people I ever talk to, with your assumption that Jews are all naive helpless idiots living in a state of perpetual victimhood.

I agree, but while the fairy tale talks about the early 20th century, I'm talking about the early and mid 19th century which effected the perception of what Palestine is.. Mark Twain's book demonstrates that very well.

Mark Twain was a satirist, Eliad. he set out on a cruise to the "Holy Land" with the express intent to, you know, satirize it. He set out to prove that the place didn't live up to the starry-eyed wonder and angelic choirs that his fellow Americans saw it as from their Church studies.

Though, Mark Twain's account of the place may have accounted for why so few American Jews emigrated.

Make sure it is not you who is being told a fairy tale.. Millions living in Palestine in the 19th century? A bit far fetched.

I was referring to the period prior to ethnic cleansing, not the 19th century. However, given that you're trying to push a claim of fifty thousand...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

411,000 in 1860, 738,000 in 1914

411,000. So.. Not millions?
400,000 is a lot of people on the individual scale, but from a larger perspective it means the land was populated at about the same density as the Solomon islands..
At any rate I tend to agree with that number.

I find it amusing that you ask for dsources while providing none of your own. So, here's a bibliography for my information:

I find it amusing that you just copied a bibliography from a page in Wikipedia (and put a lot of effort into it, it seems), or some other web article, instead of simply providing me with the page itself so I could read it.

50,000 comes from an essay I read of some guy claiming he translated a latin book from the 17th century. Needless to say his claims were easily refuted. 400,000 comes from Roberto Bechi, Joan Peters, and many other historians.

You were talking about millions, I just tried showing you that the numbers vary from historian to historian, and that "millions" is probably an exaggeration.

My sources are pretty much the same as yours- Wikipedia, forums, etc. I'm not obsessed with the subject, so I'd rather be reading War and Peace then waste my time reading a whole bunch of "This is why Palestine was empty/full" books...

That's really the stupidest argument I've ever seen made on ATS, Eliad. "The actual reality of hte matter doesn't matter, it's what people wanted to believe that counted!"

Well, we might just have to agree to disagree on this one. It's real easy to judge history 150 years later, knowing what we know today, with the world being what it is today, all defined and bordered, but were we to live in the same era as them, we might have seen things differently.

After a visit to Palestine in 1891, Ahad Ha'am wrote:
From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, an uncultivated desert, and that anyone wishing to buy land there can come and buy all he wants. But in truth it is not so.

The place was populated. It was obviously populated. The Zionists of the time acknowledged this fact. The British acknowledged it.

They knew it was populated, but they all believed it was sparsely populated.. We're talking about the early to mid 19th century.. A time where there was a total of about 300,000 people in Palestine, Arabs and Jews.

This might have been a misconception, and it might have been true, we'll never know, but what's important is that whoever decided Israel was a good choice didn't think the native population would be a problem.

This was true, by the way, during the first waves of immigration Jews and Arabs coexisted peacefully and the Jews had a lot of respect for their Arab counterparts.

which counter to your claim is prime farming land

You sure about that? I've only heard the opposite..
en.wikipedia.org...
According to this-

Cultivation was based mainly in the northern coastal plains, the hills of the interior, and the upper Jordan Valley

And also-

They purchased land which was mostly semi-arid, although much had been rendered untillable by deforestation, soil erosion and neglect.[2] They set about clearing rocky fields, constructing terraces, draining swampland, reforesting, counteracting soil erosion, and washing salty land.

Which means they did buy the #ty lands, at least to some extent...

Look up ANYTHING regarding the partition plan, Eliad.

But we weren't talking about the partition plan, we were talking about where the Jews moved in to settle, you keep changing subjects. You want to debate the partition plan? All I've read is that the Arabs opposed because the Jews got 55% of the land while they were 30% of the population, and that the opposite of all you said is the truth- The Jews got all the #ty lands, including the Negev and southern shoreline, and the Arabs got all the fertile lands of the Galilee and Judea...

What are your sources? The info on Wiki on agriculture in Israel clearly shows you're wrong.

Who's feeding you all this information?

They were sold land initially, but none of them were idiotic enough to want to buy worthless land. Give them some credit.

Weren't idiots, they just didn't have much choice, it was either that or not settling..

Getting bored of you trying to make me seem like some kind of an idiot..

with your assumption that Jews are all naive helpless idiots living in a state of perpetual victimhood.

Yup, that's exactly what I said.

Though, Mark Twain's account of the place may have accounted for why so few American Jews emigrated.

The book might even be completely fictional, doesn't matter, it affected the general opinion of what Palestine was at the time..

I was referring to the period prior to ethnic cleansing, not the 19th century.

Yes, it seems to be a pattern of yours, whenever you're having a hard time winning an argument you just change the subject to something you believe you can win.

At any rate I was clearly referring to the 19th century, so you must have misread my post.

However, given that you're trying to push a claim of fifty thousand...

Once again your reading comprehension skills fail you (no offence).


So in conclusion-

- We agree that there were ~400,000 people in Palestine, just not on the significance of this number.
- You seem to want to judge history based on your opinions and what we know today rather than their opinions and what they knew then.
- You seem to think Palestine being populated means it was densely populated.
- You claim the Jews got the prime farming lands although I've yet to find anything to supports that claim.
- You insist on discussing the early, mid 20th century in a debate that is centered on the 19th century.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

411,000 in 1860, 738,000 in 1914, 689,000 in 1918 (WW1 followed by famineand locust plague; they actually beat the locusts with dynamite). By 1940, the population was 1,086,000 according to the British.

Way to distort the numbers.

That was the population of PALESTINE, not the Jewish settled areas of the northern coastal strip. The area that constituted A Jewish state. That area had an arab population of 92,600 in 1917.

In anycase, when 800,000 Jews were expelled and had their property confiscated by Arab governments between 1948 and 1951, the Arab population living in Palestine should have been exchanged with them. The Israelis taking in Jews, and the Arabs take in Arabs. Thats what the Turks and greek did and thats what Pakistanis and Indians did.

The fact that this wasnt done puts the blame eternally on the Arabs for the Israeli arabs current 'disadvantage' whatever that means. Israeli Arabs live better in Israel and have more freedoms and a higher standard of living than in any other Arab country in the world.

Originally posted by dontreally
Again, please do not assume before reading it, since already you seem very prejudiced against the Jews, or at the very least, sensitive to the Arab cause.

I may be inclined towards having very little sympathy for the state of Israel, that is no reflection of how I feel about those who practice the Jewish faith. I have met a fair number of British Jews, a few of other nationalities, and have found them to be very much like everyone else, but then I would, wouldn't I? They are. I have never, to my knowledge met an Israeli, but I doubt that as an individual I would feel any animosity towards them. I have no personal quarrel with anyone of any faith. In principle. Arabs are slightly more complicated, I don't get on so well with them, I don't like being appraised, it gets my back up, so I find them challenging, culturally, shall we say. Again though, I have not met a Palestinian Arab, so I wouldn't like to judge all Arabs on the ones that I have met (mostly Libyan's and Tunisian's), besides that is just the men, and a people should not be judged only by those who are allowed to travel freely.

The reason I may appear to have greater sympathy with the 'Arab cause' is largely to do with 'freedom', of movement, of access to information and education in general. The Arab peoples are in a state of maintained ignorance exacerbated by the fact that many women do not have equal rights or a voice. They are also resource poor. The Israeli people have no such excuse.

Originally posted by Eliad
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

411,000 in 1860, 738,000 in 1914

411,000. So.. Not millions?
400,000 is a lot of people on the individual scale, but from a larger perspective it means the land was populated at about the same density as the Solomon islands..
At any rate I tend to agree with that number.

Well, as I pointed out, we were referring to different time periods. You're talking about the 1860's (why? God only knows, Jewish immigration was practically nonexistent at that time) while I was talking about the 1940's which as I'm sure you'll agree, was a whole different kettle of fish. And for some reason you're shaving off eleven thousand people...

How big, exactly, do you think the territory in question is, Eliad? 'Cause every source I'm finding gives me the rough number of 10,000 square miles. That means that in 1860, there were 40 people per square mile. That's more people per square mile than modern Norway, Canada, and Saudi Arabia, and is about on par with hte density of New Zealand and Finland.

"Practically uninhabited," indeed. I wanna see someone claiming these stats give them an inherent right ot take over a chunk of Finland - Russia already tried once. Never again

I find it amusing that you just copied a bibliography from a page in Wikipedia (and put a lot of effort into it, it seems), or some other web article, instead of simply providing me with the page itself so I could read it.

50,000 comes from an essay I read of some guy claiming he translated a latin book from the 17th century. Needless to say his claims were easily refuted. 400,000 comes from Roberto Bechi, Joan Peters, and many other historians.

Joan Peters. "From Time Immemorial" Joan Peters? That Joan Peters? I just want to make sure, because maybe there's a Joan Peters out there who's work wasn't absolutely panned by everyone except Joseph Farah. If this is the Joan Peters you mean, though, then there's a saying where I come from; "Boy, you done been had."

Roberto Bachi by the way, was a statistician, not a historian, and his contribution to the discussion was a 1944 forecast of the population demographics of the area based on data from 1942-43. His work, though probably much more scholarly and accurate than Peters' (my butt could write more scholarly stuff than Peters) his numbers pretty much became utterly irrelevant at the end of WW2, and the breakout of war three years after that.

So what we come down to, then, is you sourcing "some guy who claimed something once" about a manuscript from the 1600's, an ideologue who admittedly knows not the first thing about the conflict and admits to using nothing but English-language documents in her research (No Arabic, Turkish, or even Hebrew work is cited in "From Time Immemorial") and a demographer who's work became irrelevant the year after he published it.

All this to defend the claim that 40 people per square mile in a place that doesn't have many square miles to spare constitutes "practically uninhabited."

You were talking about millions, I just tried showing you that the numbers vary from historian to historian, and that "millions" is probably an exaggeration.

And the one thing all the historians agree on is that "practically uninhabited" is pretty damned inaccurate.

My sources are pretty much the same as yours- Wikipedia, forums, etc. I'm not obsessed with the subject, so I'd rather be reading War and Peace then waste my time reading a whole bunch of "This is why Palestine was empty/full" books...

And yet, here you are, arguing from admitted ignorance about how the territory was "practically uninhabited" - and in a time period when the question is moot, no less.

Now, maybe you're not "obsessed," as you try to deride my interest and learning as being. But you could at least try to be informed. You can pick up lots of books that contain all sorts of information about the territory and the conflict in question - and a good many of them will be much more informative than Joan Peters!

After you're done with your Tolstoy, pick up Sari Nussibeh's biography, "Once Upon a nation." It's a good bit of "starter" material, especially for someone who's been inundated and indoctrinated as much as you have. Avoid Carters' "Palestine; Peace, not Apartheid" - it's about as useful as a coloring book.

Well, we might just have to agree to disagree on this one. It's real easy to judge history 150 years later, knowing what we know today, with the world being what it is today, all defined and bordered, but were we to live in the same era as them, we might have seen things differently.

After a visit to Palestine in 1891, Ahad Ha'am wrote:
From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, an uncultivated desert, and that anyone wishing to buy land there can come and buy all he wants. But in truth it is not so.

Yep, we night have found slavery to be okay. Also okay? Walling Ukrainian Jews up in their homes then torching the place. Who are we to judge about the beliefs of the past?

If you're going to emigrate somewhere, it's our job to learn about it. And as I've pointed out, Jewish immigration to the place was extremely minimal during the period you're speaking of; most of it actually came from the other direction, Ottoman Jews looking for work in the ports

If you want a book that covers the subject of pre-1930's immigration to Palestine rather well, check out "Power, Faith, and Fantasy; America in the Middle East 1776 - Present" by Michael Oren. The book is also pretty informative about pretty much everything else a title like that suggests it would be.

They knew it was populated, but they all believed it was sparsely populated.. We're talking about the early to mid 19th century.. A time where there was a total of about 300,000 people in Palestine, Arabs and Jews. This might have been a misconception, and it might have been true, we'll never know,

What happened to the other 111,000? Why does this figure keep getting smaller, Eliad?

And I refer you to the quote from Mr. Ha'am you just posted.

but what's important is that whoever decided Israel was a good choice didn't think the native population would be a problem.

Obviously they were wrong. Your response to this factual inconsistency seems to be "oops, oh well!" even though it's the major cause of lots of dead people and regional instability. I suspect that had it gone the other way, you would be slightly less cavalier about the whole affair.

This was true, by the way, during the first waves of immigration Jews and Arabs coexisted peacefully and the Jews had a lot of respect for their Arab counterparts.

That's because the initial settlers actually did something that was a first for European settlers of any stripe; they acclimated to the local culture, became Ottoman citizens, and basically melted into the fabric of society. It was only later, when new waves demanded that the place be wrested by force from the Arabushim cockroaches and turned into a Jewish empire between the Nile and Euphrates, that problems started.

which counter to your claim is prime farming land

You sure about that? I've only heard the opposite..
en.wikipedia.org...
According to this-

Cultivation was based mainly in the northern coastal plains, the hills of the interior, and the upper Jordan Valley

Yep, quite sure. (Emphases mine)

And also-

They purchased land which was mostly semi-arid, although much had been rendered untillable by deforestation, soil erosion and neglect.[2] They set about clearing rocky fields, constructing terraces, draining swampland, reforesting, counteracting soil erosion, and washing salty land.

Which means they did buy the #ty lands, at least to some extent...

Check the source; to do this on wikipedia, click the little number next to the statement (in this case, [2]). This particular excerpt apparently comes from the Israeli Embassy in the UK, though the page itself appears to be defunct.

Quick quiz; does the Israeli government have any stake in the claim that "modern agriculture developed in the late nineteenth century, when Jews began settling in the land"?

Answer: Of course it does.

I'm not one of those people who just off-handedly knocks Wikipedia as a reference source, but really, try to apply some intellectual rigor here.

But we weren't talking about the partition plan, we were talking about where the Jews moved in to settle, you keep changing subjects.

And you keep subtracting Palestinians from the 1860 population, and your sources include the Israeli embassy and an admittedly uninformed ideologue, all while trying to claim that this place was "practically uninhabited."

Now, if you can't see the relation between the partition plan and where the Jewish people settled, then that's your problem, and I blame whatever schmuck taught you the basics of logic. But with the way you're going at this, Eliad, you really don't want to start sniveling about how I'm being at all duplicitous.

You want to debate the partition plan? All I've read is that the Arabs opposed because the Jews got 55% of the land while they were 30% of the population,

That's a very small fragment of the overall picture, but at least you're not completely wrong. Keep up and you might someday become partially correct!

and that the opposite of all you said is the truth- The Jews got all the #ty lands, including the Negev and southern shoreline, and the Arabs got all the fertile lands of the Galilee and Judea...

You are aware that the Zionist Congress asked for the Negev to be included in the Jewish part of the partition, aren't you? Granted, that's crap land from a farming perspective; but there was also the (mistaken) belief that it would have oil, the (correct) assumption that it was rich in mineral wealth, and of course - the Red Sea.

The Arabs got Galilee...? The Jews got the southern coast? That's Gaza, what the hell kind of map are you looking at?

What are your sources? The info on Wiki on agriculture in Israel clearly shows you're wrong.

Who's feeding you all this information?

Not Joan Peters or the Israeli Embassy in London, that's who. Would you like another list of sources, Eliad? You didn't seem to care much for the last one I gave you, so I'm not too inclined to point you to the goddamned United Nations for an actual map of the partition plan

Weren't idiots, they just didn't have much choice, it was either that or not settling..

Getting bored of you trying to make me seem like some kind of an idiot..

Getting bored of pointing out hte obvious, tell you the truth.

Yup, that's exactly what I said.

Yup, it is. Oh, those poor downtrodden Jews, could only get the worst land from those mean oppressive Arabs. But lo, our plucky little menorah-lighting heroes managed to "make the deserts bloom!" I know it's so 'cause the Israeli embassy in London tells me so!

The book might even be completely fictional, doesn't matter, it affected the general opinion of what Palestine was at the time..

Yeah, some place you didn't want to live. Read it, it'll help your argument if you want to cite it.

Yes, it seems to be a pattern of yours, whenever you're having a hard time winning an argument you just change the subject to something you believe you can win.

At any rate I was clearly referring to the 19th century, so you must have misread my post.

...A hard time? given that I've blown everything you said out of the water, even in the context you're using, I'd hardly call it a "hard time"

Thing is, I've seen the "Land without a people" claim from too many quarters too many times to let it slide. And doesn't matter if you're talking about 1947, 1847, or 47 BCE, the place was never "practically uninhabited." Making such a claim just makes you a liar.

Once again your reading comprehension skills fail you (no offence).

You actually offered no disclaimer on that number.

So in conclusion-

- We agree that there were ~400,000 people in Palestine, just not on the significance of this number.

In 1860; Jewish immigration to Palestine was a non-factor until after World War One, due to the Balfour Agreement. And if you're as bad at history as you seem to be at map-reading, World War One was ever-so-slightly after 1860.

- You seem to want to judge history based on your opinions and what we know today rather than their opinions and what they knew then.

While you seem to be ignoring the plain fact that there was no shortage of information available to contradict the belief that Palestine was "empty" - even though you quote one such source!

- You seem to think Palestine being populated means it was densely populated.

40 people per square mile might not be Los Angeles, but when you only have ten thousand square miles to go around, that ends up being pretty dense in a preindustrial agricultural landscape.

- You claim the Jews got the prime farming lands although I've yet to find anything to supports that claim.

In regards to the Partition plan, yes. My understanding is that when Jewish immigrants in the time frame you're talking about bought land, ir was primarily urban; remember, most of these immigrants were European, and Europe at the time had lots of laws about the kind of work Jews could do; as a result most of the immigrants were better with a pen than a hoe, and invested themselves accordingly. Christian attempts to create communal farm areas for Jews in Palestine largely failed, because it was miserable work to dig muck in Galilee, compared to being an Ottoman clerk in Jerusalem.

- You insist on discussing the early, mid 20th century in a debate that is centered on the 19th century.

While you refuse to realize that the mid-19th century is largely irrelevant to any contemporary situation; What we have today is largely a result of the 1920's and forward. Even if we restrict ourselves to the 1800's, I'm clearly more than capable of informing you, while your argument seems to rely on deducting more and more Palestinians from the numbers you "accept." You're also the one dragging a 20th century myth back by a century to argue a position about a situation situated in the last 20 years.

So in conclusion, maybe you should leave this subject to those of us who have invested time and study into the subject, rather than pretending occasionally looking at Ynet makes you informed.

reply to post by dontreally


Put it this way. If I break into your home and steal your TV, is it my fault that your TV is gone, or is it your neighbor's fault that they didn't get you a new one to replace it? Of course the responsibility falls upon the thief, doesn't it? I would be the one the cops should pick up, I'm the one who should pay the fines and do the time. Blaming your neighbor would just make you look dumb, right? And if I blamed your neighbor, well, that would be utter ridiculousness, right?

Israel created these refugees. It's Israel's fault, and Israel has the responsibility. Palestinian refugees aren't Oman's responsibility nor are they Kuwait or Morocco's - they're Israel's. Trying to shift the blame elsewhere is insipid and childish.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

You're talking about the 1860's

Try and keep up, will you?

and is about on par with hte density of New Zealand

Are you telling me you consider New Zealand or Finland to be densely populated?

Perhaps you don't understand what population density means.. It doesn't mean you'll find 40 people every sq mile, it means you'll find a small village of a few hundred people every 50 miles or so as most of the population is concentrated in big cities and villages...
This is a population density map of New Zealand for example- upload.wikimedia.org...

I realize New Zealand could be an extreme case, but it should give you a general idea of what I mean..

As I said, 400,000 might seem like a lot on the individual level, but on the whole it probably wasn't enough to say the land was densely or even moderately populated.

At any rate I agree that it was inhabited, as I've said a few times before, and we agree on the numbers, I just don't think the people at the time realized just how populated it was until they actually settled there..

"Practically uninhabited,"

I *was* going to go back to the post that started it all and quote myself saying that "it *seemed* nearly uninhabited", thinking it would make you look pretty stupid, when I realized I, instead, wrote "it *was*"...
And now I'm looking pretty stupid.

Why would you cling to this quote is beyond me, as I've already said I agree with your numbers.. Run out of arguments?

That Joan Peters?

Not a source of mine, but rather a source to that number (400,000).

That Joan Peters' numbers are the exact same numbers you gave, so what does that say about your sources, and what does that say about Joan Peters' research?

though probably much more scholarly and accurate than Peters'

They both came up with the same number as you...

his numbers pretty much became utterly irrelevant at the end of WW2, and the breakout of war three years after that.

I thought he based his research on ottoman surveys.. Didn't he?

At any rate, have you read his work? Have you read actual ottoman documents? What are your sources, and where do they come up with their numbers? (and what's the big deal if they're not much different than Bachi's and Peters')

So what we come down to, then, is you sourcing

Sourcing?! Hardly! Just demonstrating how easy it is for any idiot with a diploma or without one to make whatever he wants out of history (kind of like what you're doing, only people actually buy what they're selling)... The source is, and always have been the internet, these are just two names that I know that have claimed that number, is all...

I don't think you're getting me... I don't trust these people, I don't believe they all just bring all the facts forward, they all seem to have an agenda, so I just try to be skeptic and aware to the whole thing, is all.

Do you trust your source? Why? Is it the original Turkish Survey? Have you read it? Or do you just gulp up whatever fits your agenda?

And the one thing all the historians agree on is that "practically uninhabited" is pretty damned inaccurate.

Avoid weasel words, concentrate on facts, and we'll all enjoy a more healthy and productive debate-
Who are "all the historians"? Show me what they say about the population density in Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th century.. I'd be happy to learn I'm wrong. And, no, the numbers alone are not enough for either of us to judge how densely populated Palestine was.

arguing from admitted ignorance

I don't claim to be all knowing, as opposed to so many other posters on these boards, in fact I think perhaps some humility might do you good, you've been wrong before, you'll be wrong again.

as you try to deride my interest and learning as being

Seeing as how we share the same interest, and, allow me to make an educated guess, you probably draw most of your knowledge from the internet as the rest of us do, and if I may, one more guess, you probably haven't fully read more than 2-3 books on the history of Palestine, I'd say that "derision" is either not aimed at you, or it's aimed at the both of us....

could at least try to be informed

Yes, like claiming there were millions of Arabs in Palestine? That kind of informed?

more informative than Joan Peters!

Oh grow up, you think your sources are beyond criticism? Haven't read her book, heck, I haven't even heard of the women until recently, but I doubt there's nothing to be learned from it. The amount of information you have is meaningless if it all originates from one side of the story.

pick up Sari Nussibeh's biography, "Once Upon a nation."

Once upon a country.
Have you even read the book?

Yep, we night have found slavery to be okay. Also okay? Walling Ukrainian Jews up in their homes then torching the place. Who are we to judge about the beliefs of the past?

Nicely deflected. I'm saying these people didn't know what they were getting into, as they thought the land was mostly empty, and you're saying they did it because they were racists...

Oh, by the way, the shoes you wear, where were those made, and by who? How about those toys you had as a child? What about anything you have that comes from China? You don't happen to own an iphone by any chance, right?

Give me a break... 100 years from now people like you would be asking how *you* didn't just avoid buying phones and shoes and toys to refrain from supporting child workers and slaves in China... Isn't it your job to know where they came from and who made them?

Easy to judge 100 years later, don't you think?

Jewish immigration to the place was extremely minimal during the period you're speaking of

I feel like I'm talking to the wall here..

What happened to the other 111,000? Why does this figure keep getting smaller, Eliad?

*Early* to mid. Let me explain to you how it works- People migrate in and out of a land, thus in time the numbers increase or decrease, and while in 1860 it was 411 (according to McCarthy), in 1800 it was 275 (according to DellaPergola and Bachi), and in 1950 it was 350 (according to Scholch).
But it's nice to have options, isn't it..
Do you really trust any of these guys just from having read their books? Don't be blinded by narrative..

Your response to this factual inconsistency seems to be "oops, oh well!"

Took us a long way, but you've finally got it..

No, I'm not saying "oops, oh well", I'm saying things changed gradually.. Things started to change around 1917-1920... Due to the second Aliyah (and the attitude they brought), the end of the Ottoman empire, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Zionist defiance of the Arabs, the awakening of a nationality as the colonial nations began to carve up borders, etc..

Basically? Politics started to creep in, and the two people- The Jews and the Arabs, were literally, in my opinion, sicked on each other.

Some people left, some people waited and hoped things would blow over (much like the people in Europe did), some people just didn't have anywhere else to go.

So, no, not "oops, oh well" (what a shallow perception of my opinion), but rather that the mistake only became apparent when it was too late.

You sure about that? I've only heard the opposite..

Cultivation was based mainly in the northern coastal plains, the hills of the interior, and the upper Jordan Valley

- Northern coastal plains is the Western Galilee (just follow the link):

Western Galilee, also known the "Northern Coastal Plain", stretches from north of Haifa up to Rosh HaNikra on the Israel-Lebanon border.

Which was almost completely given to the Arabs (looks like about 80%..)
- Upper Jordan Valley: You're probably right about that one though..

Here's a thought though, why don't we both stop making assumptions like idiots, you come back when you have any information supporting your view, I'll come back when I have any that supports mine. As I've said, I've only heard otherwise, but that doesn't mean I completely trust all the bull# they sold us at school, show me differently, and I'm with you on this..

I'm not one of those people who just off-handedly knocks Wikipedia as a reference source, but really, try to apply some intellectual rigor here.

Will you quit your whining already? The link is dead, how do you even know what it said in the first place, or what were its sources?
Or do you just deem anything that doesn't fit your world view as bull#?
Should have checked the link though, true.

all while trying to claim that this place was "practically uninhabited."

This reading comprehension thing seems to be a real issue.. I've already said I also think it was 400,000.
Seriously though, do I really need to spell everything out for you?

That's a very small fragment of the overall picture,

Are you kidding? Suddenly the Arabs didn't care about the amount of lands they get? You're literally talking out of your ass right now..

You are aware that the Zionist Congress asked for the Negev to be included in the Jewish part of the partition, aren't you?

Wasn't aware of that, good to know.

The Arabs got Galilee...? The Jews got the southern coast? That's Gaza, what the hell kind of map are you looking at?

Did I mention you've got to work on your reading comprehension?

Not Joan Peters or the Israeli Embassy in London, that's who.

What is this, grade school? Just answer the question, stop deflecting..

What are your sources on the agriculture of Israel?
Why won't you just admit you were talking out of your ass? I at least had the decency to admit I've only ever heard different, and quoted wikipedia, you have nothing, yet you claim to have everything..

Show a bit of maturity..

Would you like another list of sources, Eliad?

No, just give me the webpage you copied it out of... :LOL:

Do you even know how to quote a source? Seriously, is it that hard? Just post the piece of information, and mention where you got it from, is that really beyond your abilities?

Getting bored of pointing out hte obvious, tell you the truth.

The obvious being.. Your opinion?
Getting bored of this immature attitude..

Yup, it is. Oh, those poor downtrodden Jews, could only get the worst land from those mean oppressive Arabs. But lo, our plucky little menorah-lighting heroes managed to "make the deserts bloom!" I know it's so 'cause the Israeli embassy in London tells me so!

Oh, grow up, will you? Oppressive? Downtrodden? How 'bout I demonstrate to you how you quote a source..
Echad Ha'am (A nickname, by the way, not a name) wrote:

From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, [...] But in truth it is not so. In the entire land, it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled; only sandy fields or stony hills, suitable at best for planting trees or vines and, even that, after considerable work and expense in clearing and preparing them--only these remain unworked, [...] And thus it is not possible to find good land for sale every day.[...] the owners of large properties as well, do not easily part with good land that has no drawbacks. [...]

www.accessmylibrary.com...

See? Easy. Question is do you believe this guy, or not. This was written in 1690, way before any of this was an issue.
He's basically saying that all the #ty land were up for sale, and that's all I was trying to say. Again, your reply lacks maturity, and reflects poorly on you.

Yeah, some place you didn't want to live. Read it, it'll help your argument if you want to cite it.

No, a desolate mostly uninhabited desert. I've read it, have you?

...A hard time? given that I've blown everything you said out of the water

Wow... Yes, you're right, your comparison to New Zealand was brilliant, your claims to "millions" in Palestine was simply mind boggling, and the fact that you've managed to read a list of books which, if I didn't know any better I'd think was copied out of some website, is simply uncanny.

Amazing is what it is.

And doesn't matter if you're talking about 1947, 1847, or 47 BCE, the place was never "practically uninhabited." Making such a claim just makes you a liar.

Yes, and "millions" make you a genius.

You actually offered no disclaimer on that number.

I wrote:

so you might think this is a racist fairy tale, while you're being sold an opposing fairy tale

Do I really need to draw the lines for you? Is it my fault that you'd rather assume you know what I meant to say than actually try to *understand* what I wrote you..?
And I was actually referring to your ridiculous claim of "millions" by showing you how numbers can vary...

In 1860; Jewish immigration to Palestine was a non-factor until after World War One, due to the Balfour Agreement.

Wow.. Still missing the point, are we?
Of course it wasn't a factor, that's the whole point! Massive Jewish immigration only came about *after* Palestine was chosen as their destination, and it was chosen as the destination only *because* it was perceived to be empty due to the state it was in the mid 19th century... Or maybe you believe the Jews could magically count all the Arabs in Palestine whenever they wished...

Are you forgetting that the idea of Zionism started shaping up at about that time? Or do your mysterious sources tell you otherwise?

How can you even claim to be informed? Honestly..

And if you're as bad at history as you seem to be at map-reading, World War One was ever-so-slightly after 1860.

You keep amazing me with your knowledge of history-
en.wikipedia.org...

The Second Aliyah was an important and highly influential aliyah that took place between 1904 and 1914, during which approximately 40,000 Jews immigrated into Ottoman Palestine

And with your map reading skills-

The Arabs got Galilee...?

While you seem to be ignoring the plain fact that there was no shortage of information available to contradict the belief that Palestine was "empty" - even though you quote one such source!

Of course there was a shortage of information! You said yourself the Joan Peters based her research only on British information, if that tells us anything it tells us that the British believed it was empty.
I mean, come on! As a history buff you must know what the general opinion of Palestine was, and it wasn't that it was full of people, there's even a quote in Peters' book of the British consul saying how it's empty (pg. 162), the woman might be a bad historian (according to you), but I doubt she'd lie about that.
For every Echad Ha'am, you have someone else who claims it's empty. If someone comes back from the Sahara desert and tells you it's a lush forest, would you just believe them?
It wasn't as simple as that.
Besides I've posted the complete quote of Echad Ha'am, he talks about it being hard to find good land, not that it's over populated.

You say people were informed? Alright, please, quote a source, quote someone, an ottoman official, anyone, that says Palestine was too crowded.

40 people per square mile might not be Los Angeles, but when you only have ten thousand square miles to go around, that ends up being pretty dense in a preindustrial agricultural landscape.

Okay, alright, that's reasonable, question is whether or not the agricultural areas were spread all over the place, or were concentrated in specific areas.. If they were then it could easily seem like the place is desolate if you were traveling in all the wrong places.. And it would definitely mean there was room for more settlers.
If you have any reliable information, or a density map of the time, we could end this argument, otherwise consider both options to be valid.
Again, from density maps of similarly dense nations, it doesn't seem very crowded to me.

In regards to the Partition plan, yes. My understanding is that when Jewish immigrants in the time frame you're talking about bought land, ir was primarily urban

Right, so no more of that silly debate on who got the best lands? Where's the info coming from, by the way. Wouldn't hurt to quote your sources, you know.

While you refuse to realize that the mid-19th century is largely irrelevant to any contemporary situation;

What situation?!
You are completely, and absurdly off topic, and have been since the beginning of this conversation.
I'm talking about what lead the Jews to choose Palestine to be their home, and you're talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole.. I wasn't just kidding about your reading comprehension skills..

Let's do this the other way around- Why do you think Palestine was chosen as the home for the Jewish people by the Zionists, and where else would you suggest they should've gone?

What we have today is largely a result of the 1920's and forward.

Of course it is! But this isn't a discussion on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..

I'm clearly more than capable of informing you

Clearly. So far I've been informed of the millions of Arabs that resided in Palestine, of the huge amounts of fertile lands the Jews managed to buy from the Arabs, the incredible density of the population of New Zealand, I've learned that the second immigration wave never existed, and that the general perception of the demography Palestine in the mid 19th century couldn't have had any effect on Zionism.

Clearly.

to argue a position about a situation situated in the last 20 years.

My god, man, you're like a pitbull.. We're not discussing the current conflict, let it go, for #'s sake!

How did you even get to the current conflict? None of us mentioned it throughout this whole sad, long and miserable ordeal...

So in conclusion, maybe you should leave this subject to those of us who have invested time and study into the subject, rather than pretending occasionally looking at Ynet makes you informed.

Tell me, what piece of valuable information have you revealed here? You were wrong about the agriculture thing, you're way off topic, your idea of debate is avoiding questions and tossing immature insults in every other quote, you refuse to quote any of your sources (and, again, no, copying a bibliography from some website you read does not count, and yes, it's obvious that you did), and on top of it all you have been wrong on several occasions (which is acceptable, if only you didn't claim to be all knowing)..

If you are even mildly informed, you have yet to show it.

And if we're going to continue this debate I suggest we add a level of maturity and respect to our decorum, I don't like the direction this is going.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Israel took in 800,000 exiled Jews from Arab lands, who had their property apprehended by the government.

likewise, the similarly sized Palestinian Arab population should have been embraced by the Arab countries...As was done between India and Pakistan and Turkey and Greece.

Hence, the blame is put on them.

To add to the outrage, these arabs would have been compensated. Meanwhile, those 800,000 Jews expelled from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, recieved NOTHING. Not a thing. Where was the sympathy for these refugees? How come most people know not a thing about it?

And btw, your analogy was horrendously irrelevant and you know it. Forget using analogies and acknowledge that:

A) Jews were expelled from Arab lands amounting to 800,000 by the late 60s. The majority of them left between 1948-51 when persecution in those countries made it too dangerous for Jews to stay. Thus these government forced Jews to leave, and when they left, they foreited all rights to their properties, holdings, businesses etc. Many well off Sephardic Jews had to start over again when they left their ancestoral home in the Arab diaspora (some of which had a history in those lands that preddate Islam. For instance, Medina, the muslim holy city was originally a Jewish Town in the diaspora)

b) These refugees should have been exchanged, as was established between the hindus/Sikhs and muslims in India and Pakistan (an exchange lauded in the press, and completely reasonable) and the muslim turks and orthodox Greeks in Greece and Turkey. These exchanges made sense. If, lets say, the Indians agreed to accept Pakistani born Hindus and Sikhs, yet Pakistan refused to take in the oppressed muslims in India, wouldnt that be deemed unfair and unreasonable? so how come the arab league gets off red handed, without even a mention of this event in the discussion of the palestine/israeli issue? so they get to create refugees and expect Israel to take in these Jews, yet cant reciprocrate this gesture? Even though the transJordan was originally eastern palestine, and therefore its purpose was to serve as the national home for Palestinian arabs?

The injustices are enormous, and theyre almost all against the Jews.

Whats obvious here is that you havent read Joan Peters book, and if you have, you will still calumniate it because: You are CLEARLY and undoubtedly an antisemite. This has been made abundantly clear with your rhetoric. Youre one of those buddhists who believes himself to be 'beyond good and evil', and thus you play games with the truth for your sick demented political purposes. Thats clear, to any educated person atleast.

Which is why you ignore my points and make use of analgoies that dont make sense to begin with, and have no coherent relation to the points ive made.

reply to post by dontreally

Most of these jews weren't "expelled". They left. Some of the countries they left may have had laws or pre-conceived notions) in place that discriminated towards jews (much like Israel has against non-jews), or in some cases there were riots by the public (probably motivated by a misplaced(?) public perception that the local jews were collaborating or connected with Israelis), but that doesn't mean they were expelled.

Also, just as an aside, the Indian-Pakistani population exchanges were hardly "completely reasonable" and "lauded by the press". They involved hundreds of thousands killed on both sides. And the thing is, the population exchanges were voluntary. Nobody was FORCED to move, which is why you still find Sikh and Hindu communities in Pakistan, and Muslim communities in India.

The logic doesn't hold at all. If there are some persecuted minority in your country (for example) that flees and comes to my country (for example), where there is a persecuted minority similar to the people of your country, does that make it obligatory on you to take in this persecuted minority? Of course not, especially if that minority stayed there because they want to stay there, and consider it their home. It's always nice to help out people, but it's not an obligation. And the examples you gave (of Greece-Turkey and India-Pakistan) are good indicators. Those population transfers put a tremendous burden on the respective countries, which, in many cases they were not able to handle properly.
Why should any country be forced to take on that burden? Israel is a different matter. It WANTS that. It WANTS to have an unrealistic ethno-religious majority in the area in some confused bid for legitimacy, and with all the aid pouring in from foreign interferers, they can handle it. So they have stuff like their right of return, their strange citizenship laws, their inviting propaganda machine, etc.

I personally consider the creation of Israel, as it occurred, to be a colossal mistake, and an unfair imposition on the native populations of that area. Unfortunately, we're over half a century on now, and the formerly foreign imposition is now part of the landscape of the middle east, and cannot be ignored or wished away. This doesn't mean, however, that the problem should be further exacerbated with such racially motivated ideas as "population transfer", especially with an unwilling population.

reply to post by babloyi

in place that discriminated towards jews (much like Israel has against non-jews),

Give me an example of this discrimination towards non Jews in Israel. Its universally acknowledged that arabs in Israel have MORE freedom and a higher standard of living, in Israel, than Arabs living in the Arab world.

But for the sake of comparison. Lets say the Arabs lack of equal representation in the JEWISH state. Is this a problem? No, not at all. The arabs are just as 'bigotted' if not MORE SO. For instance, Jews arent even allowed to step foot in Jordan or Saudi arabia. The UAE, Qatar and Kuwait have similar laws. Is this not racist and hateful? But where oh where is the international outcry?

When Jews left Arab lands they left brutually oppresive conditions that forced them out. If someone plans to make my life so unbearable that i i kill myself...am I RESPONSIBLE? Or is the oppressor, the villain who hatced a plot to force my hand, the real one who is to blame? Secondly, these Jews lost everything they had in those lands. The policy of Meir Kahane for instance was to remove the Arabs, peacably, and offer them fair compensation. A # LOAD more than what the sephardim of the arab world got from their governments.

or in some cases there were riots by the public (probably motivated by a misplaced(?)

Are you serious? do you think a Jew in an ARAB country, which has historically persecuted Jews, especially since the 18th century with a renewedc vigor, is really interested in spying for Israel? That is a PRETEXT used by arrogant, and evil effendis and clerics to afflict tand humiliate the Jews.

Nobody was FORCED to move, which is why you still find Sikh and Hindu communities in Pakistan, and Muslim communities in India.

Again, that isnt the point. When the hindus left they were warmly accepted by India. Likewise in the case of pakistan and Indias muslims. Neither country sought to prevent the transition of populations. In the case of the Arabs however, they are literally holding the palestinian arabs hostage in Israel for political purpsoes. This has been acknowledged by many high level officials in the Arab world. Musa Alami for instance said after the 1948 war that the palestinian arabs were in need of a great "myth", to consolidate the people as a nation. What they lacked was the national spirit which back than didnt exist. The media and propaganda has been the means of creating this 'myth' of the palestinian people, or in other words, a great lie, telling of their supposed 'culture', which is no different from that in other parts of the Arab world. They speak the same language, share the same religion, as the rest of the Arabs. The Jews, conversely, have a very deep and HISTORICAL spiritual connection to the land of Israel. Hebrew epitaphs bear witness to this heritage. The thousands of graves, the many historically salient Jewish holy sites: Cave of Macpelah, Tomb of Rachel, Tomb of Joseph, Tomb of Samuel (all of which have been arrogated by the arrogant muslims. Imagine the Jews walked into mecca and built a Shtetl on the qaaba,. I imagine they would be pissed off, and rightfully so) the Temple mount, the 4 holy cities(spoken of in the ancient Talmud, written 400 CE) of Tiberias, Safed, Hebron and Jerusalem.

Spare me the weak argument in favor of the arabs. Its nothing but world opinion that you have. The facts and the truth is on the side of the Jews. The gnostics(that is, those who make light of truth and employ evil to effect their ends) on both sides - the liberals in the west and the Muslims can go on in their evil course imagining success. Truth will prevail. Not the truth YOU WANT TO IMPOSE. But the simple truth, and reality which G-d alone has ordained, not man.

The logic doesn't hold at all. If there are some persecuted minority in your country (for example) that flees and comes to my country (for example), where there is a persecuted minority similar to the people of your country, does that make it obligatory on you to take in this persecuted minority? Of course not, especially if that minority stayed there because they want to stay there, and consider it their home. It's always nice to help out people, but it's not an obligation. And the examples you gave (of Greece-Turkey and India-Pakistan) are good indicators. Those population transfers put a tremendous burden on the respective countries, which, in many cases they were not able to handle properly.

I think its morally negligible to tolerate the perseuction of a minority. I also think its ridiculous for another country to interfere with another nations soveriegnty rather than help the persecuted minority in that said country. This is what the Arab world has done to the palestinians. Instead of helping them, they have sacrificed them. They are the sacrifical goat in their goal to obliterate the Jews and "throw them in the sea".

Is it not more than coincidence that Muslim apocrypha talks about an end time battle with the Jews? Is it also not more than coincidence that Judaism does aswell (and indeed, their Midrash which discusses this predates Islam by 500 years. So i wonder who stole what from whom).

Jordan and Syria has more than enough room to accomodate the palestinians. As does Saudi Arabia. Whats also pretty amazing, and seldom known, that even those "palestinians" who left Israel and went to Syria, or Jordan, or Kuwait or UAE werent even granted the dignity of citizenship. They are interminably imprisoned in their status as palestinian refugees. They wont even be allowed the right of citizenship in these countries they live in and contribute to. That is pure undiluted evidence for this Arab strategy of sacrificing the palestinian for political support against Israel.

It WANTS to have an unrealistic ethno-religious majority in the area in some confused bid for legitimacy,

Im sorry. What is suadi arabia? Or Iran? Arabs can live in Israel. just like a jew can live in Iran. But a Jew who wants to change the Islamic IDENTITY of Iran is regarded as seditious, and rightfully so. How come the Jews cant have their own state, with their own Jewish identity? Muslims have 22 such countries.

And no, theres no confusion about its legitimacy. There is no people with a more legitimate claim to any piece of land than the Jews to Israel.

Unfortunately, we're over half a century on now, and the formerly foreign imposition is now part of the landscape of the middle east, and cannot be ignored or wished away. This doesn't mean, however, that the problem should be further exacerbated with such racially motivated ideas as "population transfer", especially with an unwilling population.

Why not? They would be fairly compensdated and some Arabs nations could be recruited to provide homes for these palestinians. Space is not an issue, as 4 million people living in the Gaza srip and West bank can be relocated to a very small corner of any part of the Arab world. Of course, they will be provided for, which is much more than what those exiled Jews were given from the Muslims.

And second of all, and i cant stress this more.. The supposed 'spiritual' connection of the palestinian Arabs to Israel is SUPERFICIAL compared to the millenium (2000 years) yearning of the Jewish soul for Israel. It is weak in comparisn, and it a travesty people even tolerate this. Its like comparing a barren woman who has yearned hr whole life to have a child, yet wasnt able to, to finally have a child at the end of her fecundity. That child will mean MUCH more to her because she has struggled so long, and been deprived of the one thing that all other woman have - a child. Once she gives birth her joy and satisfaction will be greater than a woman who has 3 kids and then has her forth. Although she undoubtedly loves her child, it is not the same category as the first woman, who has yearned for so long, and built such a desire for this one thing.

Palestinians appreciate Israel the way a canadian like myself appreciates Canada. I love it and i think its a beautiful place, but my love is probably no where near the same as a spiritually awakened native, whose people have always dwelt on these lands. Her love for Canada is greater - and i acknowledge that - because it is her native land. For me to contend with a native that this land means more to me than it does to her is self absorbed and conceited and completely insenstive to the fact that my ancestors - just 2 generations back are from Portugal. I look nothing like the natives of this land. I would probably feel more at home in western europe, or in North Africa, but not in Canada, although i do love the land.

The Palestinians should get up and acknowledge this FACT. I know a few reasonable Arabs who acknowledge that. Israel is the land of the Jews - the people of the book, and a reasonable G-d fearing person will accord them that.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Israel took in 800,000 exiled Jews from Arab lands, who had their property apprehended by the government.

For the sake of brevity, I'll just accept the statement as given; My response is, good for Israel. They had no responsibility to do this, but they did anyway.

likewise, the similarly sized Palestinian Arab population should have been embraced by the Arab countries...As was done between India and Pakistan and Turkey and Greece.

Hence, the blame is put on them.

Again, that's a childish view of it. You're basically stating what you wish had happened, then claiming that your desire creates actual responsibility for someone to deliver. It doesn't. it didn't work when your mom wouldn't give you candy just because you wanted it, and it doesn't work here, either.

It's a question of legal responsibility, dontreally. As I pointed out above, Israel had no legal responsibility to say, the exiled Jews of Iraq; Iraq did. And if you were to tell me that Iraq owes those men and women, or even their descendants, compensation or even repatriation if they desired, I would agree. That would be the legal responsibility of Iraq. or Syria, or Jordan, or wherever.

By the same token, the Palestinian refugees are the responsibility of the nation that created them; Israel. it would be nice if some other state were to open its doors to them, as Israel did to the exiled jews that came nocking... but there is no legal responsibility for them to do so.

Could we argue that there is a moral responsibility involved? Sure, but it quickly becomes fuzzy. Would it be more moral to absorb the refugees, or to give them haven while seeking justice for them? Wouldn't all the states involved have had a moral responsibility to not create any refugees in the first place? Would it not then be moral for those states to offer full compensation and repatriation to those that were made refugees?

As I'm sure you're aware, "legality" and "morality" don't line up often; the division between the two is part of what keeps this whole mess going. One sides argues legality, the other counters with morality, it goes nowhere.

To add to the outrage, these arabs would have been compensated. Meanwhile, those 800,000 Jews expelled from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, recieved NOTHING. Not a thing. Where was the sympathy for these refugees? How come most people know not a thing about it?

Who is "most people" in your narrative here, dontreally? I'm certainly not part of such a group; granted, I put time and effort into study of the situation, so maybe I'm an exception. However, it seems that, in the US at least, the mantra of Arab inequities against Jews is universally heard and understood, while the opposite is usually ignored. Maybe it doesn't get mentioned on the news often, but that could just be for the same reason that the news does not often comment on the wetness of water.

'Course, I'm just guessing; I've never stopped people on the street to ask what they know about the exile of Jews from Syria, so maybe they really are clueless. But in all fairness, I kind of doubt that the words "Dir Yassin" would ring too many bells for most people, either.

And btw, your analogy was horrendously irrelevant and you know it.

It absolutely was not. It's an illustration of who bears responsibility for an act; the person who does the act, or another person who does not commit the act. Obviously, it's the former. Legally and morally, it's the former. The point is thus that Israel has a responsibility for and an obligation to the refugees of 1948 and 1967; that's not my opinion, that's international law, that Israel has signed onto and is currently refusing to follow.

Forget using analogies and acknowledge that:

A) Jews were expelled from Arab lands amounting to 800,000 by the late 60s. The majority of them left between 1948-51 when persecution in those countries made it too dangerous for Jews to stay. Thus these government forced Jews to leave, and when they left, they foreited all rights to their properties, holdings, businesses etc. Many well off Sephardic Jews had to start over again when they left their ancestoral home in the Arab diaspora (some of which had a history in those lands that preddate Islam. For instance, Medina, the muslim holy city was originally a Jewish Town in the diaspora)

While I'm not certain how many were expelled versus how many moved voluntarily, I can easily admit that many Jews were forcibly expelled from at least Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. You're not exactly asking me to break some taboo here, that's just plain fact. And like I said, if those exiles wanted to make a claim against their country of origin, I would support their legal and moral rights to do so.

I would also support them if they made the same claims against Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Russia, Serbia, Norway, or the United Kingdom, who are certainly no innocents in regards to displaced and exiled Jews.

And yes, I know lots about the period where Islam spread through the middle east. While you're right about Medina having once been Jewish, you're missing the overall meaning of this; the Medinans were not driven off. They were not killed. They willingly accepted Mohammed's vision and provided him the money and manpower to go back and retake mecca. An honest study of this time period will show that there weren't really any massacres or huge exiles of people from the Jewish Arab cities and kingdoms; they got swept up in the movement of empire and went along with it. All the way to Jerusalem, where Omar's conquest of the city from the Byzantine empire was meat with joy from Palestinian Jews; the first thing he did was nullify the Byzantine decree that barred Jews from the city. The second thing he did was personally lead an effort to clean the Temple Mount; the Byzantines had been using it as a garbage dump. This brings us back to a point I've made to you before; the modern Palestinians are the descendants of the Israelites.

Oh, by the way? The Sephardi are the descendants of Jews exiled from Iberia during the Reconquista, who were taken in by the Islamic Moorish and Turkish kingdoms. The group who's history you're butchering are the Mizrahi. Liturgically the same, but since we're talking about geography and history and not religious outlooks...

b) These refugees should have been exchanged, as was established between the hindus/Sikhs and muslims in India and Pakistan (an exchange lauded in the press, and completely reasonable) and the muslim turks and orthodox Greeks in Greece and Turkey. These exchanges made sense. If, lets say, the Indians agreed to accept Pakistani born Hindus and Sikhs, yet Pakistan refused to take in the oppressed muslims in India, wouldnt that be deemed unfair and unreasonable? so how come the arab league gets off red handed, without even a mention of this event in the discussion of the palestine/israeli issue? so they get to create refugees and expect Israel to take in these Jews, yet cant reciprocrate this gesture?

There are some similarities between Israel / Palestine and India / Pakistan; this isn't one of them. I'll come back to this in a second.

The transferal of populations between India and the two regions that would become Pakistan was not a situation of refugees, nor even one of oppression; unless of course, you're talking about oppression from the British Raj. See, this population transfer was mandated by the colonial government. And since that same government was the one supplying the news to the rest of the West, of course it was lauded. The majority of Indians detested the notion that unless they moved, they would be forced to move at gunpoint. As you'll notice, you had two columns of angry and suddenly homeless people passing side by side. The result was very unpleasant, and was actually stoked by the British.

This is where we can find the similarity between the two regions. In both cases, the British operated a mandate and said "this territory belongs to you guys, while this territory belongs to those other people. Good luck, I'm out of here." The results in both cases were predictable; Both India and Palestine were divided, with every intention of creating bloodshed and failed states. The British did the same thing in the opposite manner in Africa; they created a unified Sudan, even though the Arab north and African south considered themselves wholly separate nations; The UK even threatened armed intervention if the North tried to join Egypt instead. The British also created Kenya out of several competing tribes, resulting in more than a few civil wars. Each colonial power had their own distinct way of giving their former holdings the middle finger; France and Belgium massacred hundreds of thousands of people, Portugal cemented sewers, the United Kingdom created time bombs, and the Soviet union left economic ruin in all its breakaway states.

Again; Arab nations have no legal responsibilities to the Refugees created by Israel. if anything Israel should be grateful that Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and so many other Arab nations are even giving harbor to these refugees; else they'd all be in Israel / Palestine, whether Israel liked it or not.

Even though the transJordan was originally eastern palestine, and therefore its purpose was to serve as the national home for Palestinian arabs?

Wow. Someone's been lying to you hard. No. You've got it backwards. The region that is today Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Jordan, was once "Transjordan" There was never any "East Palestine." Jordan was carved off as a sort of consolation prize for Abdullah of the Hashemites, after his brother Faisal got Mesopotamia. That left the Palestinian Mandate - modern Israel / Palestine. That area was then supposed to be divided into a Jewish state and an Arab state, in a manner that could only make sense to a bunch of twits in New York with no stake in the matter.


(Doesn't that just scream "recipe for success"?)

That was the plan. Jordan did not become involved until Abdullah (illegally, it must be noted; recognized only by Israel and the UK) annexed the West bank in 1948

The injustices are enormous, and they're almost all against the Jews.

I'm sure you think so. But then you also think that if you want something, other people have a respnsibility to give it to you. So what you think doesn't amount to much in this case.

Whats obvious here is that you havent read Joan Peters book, and if you have, you will still calumniate it because: You are CLEARLY and undoubtedly an antisemite.

You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. What you seem to be trying to say, is that I do not accept your warped and inaccurate views of history. Or Joan Peters' for that matter. In which case, I'm going to agree with you; no, I don't accept such silly tripe as fact. "Transjordan was East Palestine," are you kidding me?

This has been made abundantly clear with your rhetoric. Youre one of those buddhists who believes himself to be 'beyond good and evil',

Well, no, it's just that I have a much better understanding of ethics than you do, dontreally. I'm certainly not beyond good or evil. It's just that I don't subscribe to your belief that one ethno-religious group is always and eternally good, while another ethno-religious group is always and eternally evil.

By the by, I'm no Buddhist. I'm "officially" atheist, but I practice shamanic Tengriism. "it's complicated" would be an understatement, but as a goyim who pretends to be Jewish, I'm sure you can relate.

and thus you play games with the truth for your sick demented political purposes.

Ahem.

"Even though the transJordan was originally eastern palestine, and therefore its purpose was to serve as the national home for Palestinian arabs"

Mah Atah O'mer?

Thats clear, to any educated person atleast.

Then I have to wonder how you can possibly imagine you've "caught on."

Which is why you ignore my points and make use of analgoies that dont make sense to begin with, and have no coherent relation to the points ive made.

edit on 3-3-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

An analogy that demonstrates who has responsibility for performing an act, has no bearing on a discussion about who's responsible for performing an act? The idea that a thief is responsible for his theft doesn't make sense?

Again, Mah Atah O'mer?

Originally posted by Eliad

Only so much time in the world, so... Here's just a little experiment with regards to the 1860 population density.

If we exclude the Negev from our considerations - and considering that with 1860 technology, the place was practically unlivable, I don't think this is unreasonable - the population density (pop 411,000 / 5,367 sq mi) jumps up to (rounding the decimal) 77 people per square mile; Right up there with modern Congo, Estonia, and Mozambique, and only a few points lower than the United States.

If we jump up to 1918, we get (pop 689 ,000 / 5367 sq mi) 128 people per square mile; modern Denmark, Malawi, or Thailand.

Now, I realize this is a bit of finaggling, but let's be serious; Jewish immigrants at this time weren't going to be giving serious consideration to the Negev, just as American settlers avoided the Mojave until the 20th century, and just like the piet noirs never settled the Algerian Sahara. The Arabs, too, avoided that chunk of turf, with the exception of the Bedouin going across it on their yearly migrations (and no, I have no clue what their numbers would be). So as far as functionally livable territory goes, we've got at most 5,367 square miles to chew over.