Israeli-Palestinian conflict (37 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
Sorry but you guys are missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not denying in any way that there was some sort of Palestinian identity as well as some form of self governing institutions well before Jews were settled there, I'm was simply stating that the premise that there was a Palestinian state, let alone one with "borders" before Israel is just false, that's what Zach wrote. Jews didn't invade with an army or declared war on any country because there wasn't one there even if you want to argue that its by definition only (to which I dont agree but thats another debate)
Both people, Palestinians and Jews, Found themselves in a lose-lose situation, each already baring scares and national traumas caused by greater powers and decades of persecution. You put two nations like that on such a small piece of land, with a British piece of paper as a compass and it's almost always ends like this.
Both people, Palestinians and Jews, Found themselves in a lose-lose situation, each already baring scares and national traumas caused by greater powers and decades of persecution. You put two nations like that on such a small piece of land, with a British piece of paper as a compass and it's almost always ends like this.
Except one people have lived there for millenia and the other for the majority are European citizens, I understand the cognitive dissonance this issue can cause for people born in Israel, I also understand the fait accompli nature of this, but what threw Jews did was land theft and ethnic cleansing. Had that happened a 100 years prior no would Bay an eye,but it had to happen in a century where this kinda shit is not tolerated anymore. Conclusion, Jews have 0 moral ground, it's all like I said good old fait accompli politics and the world along work Palestinians justc need to live with it imo
- - - Updated - - -
By what right would you live in Madagascar
- - - Updated - - -
By what right would you live in Madagascar
There was a Palestinian state under British Administration. I mean, we can argue opinions or we can look at the sources we have available
"The position of the Palestine Government between the two antagonistic communities is unenviable. There are two rival bodies -- the Arab Higher Committee allied with the Supreme Moslem Council on the one hand, and the Jewish Agency allied with the Va'ad Leumi on the other -- who make a stronger appeal to the natural loyalty of the Arab and the Jews than does the Government of Palestine. The sincere attempts of the Government to treat the two races impartially have not improved the relations between them. Nor has the policy of conciliating Arab opposition been successful. The events of last year proved that conciliation is useless."
- Peel Commission Report, Chapter V, 1936
The British mandate was to provide stability in the transitional period from Ottoman rule to self-governance in Palestine.
- - - Updated - - -
Furthermore
"The Arab Higher Committee was to a large extent responsible for maintaining and protecting the strike last year. The Mufti of Jerusalem as President must bear his due share of responsibility. It is unfortunate that since 1929 no action has been practicable to regulate the question of elections for the Supreme Moslem Council and the position of its President. The functions which the Mufti has collected in his person and his use of them have led to the development of an Arab imperium in imperio. He may be described as the head of a third parallel government. "
Your point that there hasn't been a Palestine is arbitrary, the only thing holding Palestine back from being an official state was British feet dragging. Everything else was in place.
"The position of the Palestine Government between the two antagonistic communities is unenviable. There are two rival bodies -- the Arab Higher Committee allied with the Supreme Moslem Council on the one hand, and the Jewish Agency allied with the Va'ad Leumi on the other -- who make a stronger appeal to the natural loyalty of the Arab and the Jews than does the Government of Palestine. The sincere attempts of the Government to treat the two races impartially have not improved the relations between them. Nor has the policy of conciliating Arab opposition been successful. The events of last year proved that conciliation is useless."
- Peel Commission Report, Chapter V, 1936
The British mandate was to provide stability in the transitional period from Ottoman rule to self-governance in Palestine.
- - - Updated - - -
Furthermore
"The Arab Higher Committee was to a large extent responsible for maintaining and protecting the strike last year. The Mufti of Jerusalem as President must bear his due share of responsibility. It is unfortunate that since 1929 no action has been practicable to regulate the question of elections for the Supreme Moslem Council and the position of its President. The functions which the Mufti has collected in his person and his use of them have led to the development of an Arab imperium in imperio. He may be described as the head of a third parallel government. "
Your point that there hasn't been a Palestine is arbitrary, the only thing holding Palestine back from being an official state was British feet dragging. Everything else was in place.
I agree with most of that Deneb.
But you see cognitive dissonance is something we all share in some way, especially in our time and age, you asking "by what right you'd live in Madagascar?", or arguing who was there first is just that.
Besides the last thing I'm doing here is trying to claim any moral ground on anyone,moral is a man made fiction, and a relatively new one in it's current form. It's all just an unfortunate mirror of human nature and a tiny cut of it's bad history and if the western world didn't suffer from a post traumatic stress disorder then no one would've bated an eye even today.
I'm just trying to give an already problematic discussion another side/ more historical context to the story,as far as I know and in part personally as an Israeli, while countering some argument being made here, those that are overly simplistic or factual false in my mind.
I'm not trying to convince anyone we are the good guys here
com'on man.
But it didn't. And self governance is a far cry from a proper state
Also they could've had their first ever proper state instead of turning into a British puppet by 48' had they accepted the deal offered by the British, a deal which was relatively fair as much as anything of that sort could ever be.
Instead they were being used as a pawn.
But you see cognitive dissonance is something we all share in some way, especially in our time and age, you asking "by what right you'd live in Madagascar?", or arguing who was there first is just that.
Besides the last thing I'm doing here is trying to claim any moral ground on anyone,moral is a man made fiction, and a relatively new one in it's current form. It's all just an unfortunate mirror of human nature and a tiny cut of it's bad history and if the western world didn't suffer from a post traumatic stress disorder then no one would've bated an eye even today.
I'm just trying to give an already problematic discussion another side/ more historical context to the story,as far as I know and in part personally as an Israeli, while countering some argument being made here, those that are overly simplistic or factual false in my mind.
I'm not trying to convince anyone we are the good guys here
com'on man. But it didn't. And self governance is a far cry from a proper state
Also they could've had their first ever proper state instead of turning into a British puppet by 48' had they accepted the deal offered by the British, a deal which was relatively fair as much as anything of that sort could ever be.
Instead they were being used as a pawn.
It's true, I can think of a few more but it's indeed a big part of it. It also means recognition of international borders which therefor didn't exist so Zach's point was wrong and thats all I said regarding that.
I was referring to the UN partition plan of 47'. To this day it's much more then the Palestinians can hope to achieve in the current situation, I guess it's water under the bridge now. Unfortunately IMO that was the point of no return for us both
I was referring to the UN partition plan of 47'. To this day it's much more then the Palestinians can hope to achieve in the current situation, I guess it's water under the bridge now. Unfortunately IMO that was the point of no return for us both
Oh, that wasnt a british plan - which is why I was confused as to what plan you were getting at.
In hindsight the UNSCOP partition plan and the AHC's reluctance to accept or even discuss a two state solution was a great mistake. Then again, when you read Ben Gurions diaries it is obvious that the Jewish Agency accepted the plan to gather international support for the zionist project, embryo Israel never had the intention of abiding to the provisions in the plan as a fait accompli policy was in place since the arab revolts in the previous decade.
I do agree on the UNSCOP plan tho, diplomatic self destruction on the Palestinian behalf. Regardless of how well the jews exploited it.
In hindsight the UNSCOP partition plan and the AHC's reluctance to accept or even discuss a two state solution was a great mistake. Then again, when you read Ben Gurions diaries it is obvious that the Jewish Agency accepted the plan to gather international support for the zionist project, embryo Israel never had the intention of abiding to the provisions in the plan as a fait accompli policy was in place since the arab revolts in the previous decade.
I do agree on the UNSCOP plan tho, diplomatic self destruction on the Palestinian behalf. Regardless of how well the jews exploited it.
But it's still a game of pretend.
Could've been Ben-Gurion end game but it's possible success would have been very questionable imo since they would have had proper borders at least, regardless it would have definitely ended better then how things did. Also the jews back then still didn't want the vast majority of densely populated arab lands as it would have been a suicide by demographics and before the civil war forced explosion wasn't really on the table.
Our country is great at exploiting things (guilt included) that's for sure, an ability born out of necessity. We did exploit that situation and unfortunately the cost we are paying to this day is much greater then what we have gained from it imo.
But it's still a game of pretend.
Could've been Ben-Gurion end game but it's possible success would have been very questionable imo since they would have had proper borders at least, regardless it would have definitely ended better then how things did. Also the jews back then still didn't want the vast majority of densely populated arab lands as it would have been a suicide by demographics and before the civil war forced explosion wasn't really on the table.
Our country is great at exploiting things (guilt included) that's for sure, an ability born out of necessity. We did exploit that situation and unfortunately the cost we are paying to this day is much greater then what we have gained from it imo.
And what cost is Israel paying? I fail to see it.
If you fail to see the cost of 60 years of bloody conflicts on a country and it's people, regardless of who is "winning", then I don't know what to say. I think you can.
We are still playing the "what if" game then. You base part of your argument again on something someone supposedly thought at a certain point in his past regarding a possible future. Recorded history and events that actually happened are much easier to discuss and learn from.
To the point, the part about Jaffa isn't correct or at least not in that context. Expulsion of the muslim population only started in 48' after the failure to sign the UN petition and the civil war has already started and so did the riots. Considering past revolts in Jaffa and the proximity to Tel-aviv I would argue that it was a cause and effect scenario rather than a independent, premeditated ethnic cleansing . british presence is irrelevant.
Regarding the purchase of weapons I see what you are implying but why? sound like the beginning of Turk conspiracy theory. I think it's very understandable at least why the jewish state felt the need to arm itself before the british leave and the country is left to it's own devices in an unstable and unwelcoming region. It would be irresponsible to do anything else.
We are still playing the "what if" game then. You base part of your argument again on something someone supposedly thought at a certain point in his past regarding a possible future. Recorded history and events that actually happened are much easier to discuss and learn from.
To the point, the part about Jaffa isn't correct or at least not in that context. Expulsion of the muslim population only started in 48' after the failure to sign the UN petition and the civil war has already started and so did the riots. Considering past revolts in Jaffa and the proximity to Tel-aviv I would argue that it was a cause and effect scenario rather than a independent, premeditated ethnic cleansing . british presence is irrelevant.
Regarding the purchase of weapons I see what you are implying but why? sound like the beginning of Turk conspiracy theory. I think it's very understandable at least why the jewish state felt the need to arm itself before the british leave and the country is left to it's own devices in an unstable and unwelcoming region. It would be irresponsible to do anything else.
It's not speculation, it's a quotation from Ben Gurion.
The 1948 war is necessarily devided into the civil war and conventional war when the arab legion joined in. Jaffa was ethnically cleansed before the conventional war started. And British cables and DBG's diary make a pretty clear picture of this being premeditated.
The 1948 war is necessarily devided into the civil war and conventional war when the arab legion joined in. Jaffa was ethnically cleansed before the conventional war started. And British cables and DBG's diary make a pretty clear picture of this being premeditated.
Of course I'm not saying it's those quotes are speculation but that it's all speculations regarding what might have happened while you have no way of really knowing, Ben Gurion could have been hit by a bus, change his mind or lose the next elections among a million of other things. It's easy to fall into the trap of making assumptions that fit your narrative.
By premeditated I obviously meant whether the Jaffa expulsion would have occurred regardless of those circumstances I've mentioned before, I wasn't saying that they just winged it without having some sort of plan, that would be irrational. Again you have no way of knowing if that "plan" was going to be carried out if lets say the palestinians would have accepted the partition deal, you can only assume that and I'm free to disagree with it. Also it doesn't really matter if it was in the civil war or the conventional war stage, it's semantics, war is war and the circumstances are what matters.
By premeditated I obviously meant whether the Jaffa expulsion would have occurred regardless of those circumstances I've mentioned before, I wasn't saying that they just winged it without having some sort of plan, that would be irrational. Again you have no way of knowing if that "plan" was going to be carried out if lets say the palestinians would have accepted the partition deal, you can only assume that and I'm free to disagree with it. Also it doesn't really matter if it was in the civil war or the conventional war stage, it's semantics, war is war and the circumstances are what matters.
