Who doesn't want a Palestinian state? Palestinian leaders, that's who - Page 3

Yelof · 06-20-2002, 08:20 AM

1947 plan may seem fair in todays terms but in terms of 1947 it was not. 55% of the land given to 30% of it's inhabitants, many of whom were recent immigrants.

The following link although from a clearly biased site, does present a good overview of why the 1947 RECOMMENDATIONS were rejected.

http://www.iap.org/partition.htm

Undertoad · 06-20-2002, 09:34 AM

The source obviously ignores the context of the time:

- The land the Brits historically owned and was considered Palestine included a MUCH larger chunk of what is now Jordan than what is now Israel. In 1923 they restricted Jewish immigration to west of the Jordan river, allotting 75% of that area specifically to Palestinian Arabs. (Why don't the Palestinians have a beef with Jordan? Duh.)

- The Jewish people suddenly had a rather compelling reason to start moving there in bigger numbers; unfortunately, their numbers had sorta, um, dwindled in the decade previous.

- The raw amount of land was not really all that important at the time. The land changed hands repeatedly at the whims of the politics of the time. In 1947 most of the land was worthless. In 1948 the surrounding nations decided it suddenly had massive value since a ton of people they hated lived on it. Today it has much more value since it was developed by a major free economy.

elSicomoro · 06-20-2002, 03:37 PM

Here's a copy of UN General Resolution 181, along with a UN partition map. Although Israel got the larger of the two parts, one site claims that 75% of Israel's land was desert. I wonder if the UN was thinking ahead of the possibility of mass migrations in giving the Israelis more land.

Yelof · 06-20-2002, 06:43 PM

More on 1948

http://www.cactus48.com/partition.htm

www.cactus48.com as a whole is quite interesting

as is this site

http://www.stanford.edu/~bgiddens/index.htm

tw · 06-20-2002, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
Am i the only one that remembers Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire? Or for that matter the fundamentals of the theory of the subculture of poverty? Bloody hell people baisc sociology defeats that statement.

Indeed. Jaguar asks the right question. The answer puts Sharon, Intafada 2, and Arafat in proper perspective:

Quote:

from The Economist of 15 Jun 2002
The Palestinian perpetrators are young, nurtured on the hopes of the Oslo peace process but now consumed by an enormous sense of betrayal. Their actions are buttressed by a radicalised national culture that increasingly views all violence against the occupying power as heroic and legitimate. Militant factions are gaining in public esteem, at the expense of the Palestinian Authority and its security forces.

This shift in power precedes the April invasions. Back in December, Mr Arafat persuaded the factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to agree to a ceasefire. For three weeks, armed attacks in the occupied territories were reduced to a trickle, and suicide bombing inside Israel was stopped altogether. But Israel continued its armed incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank and Gaza. More than 20 Palestinians were killed during this period, including a Palestinian militant who was assassinated in Tulkarm. The relative quiet came to an end when Hamas guerrillas killed four Israeli soldiers, in revenge for the death of three teenagers in Gaza, and Israel responded by destroying 66 refugee houses in Rafah.

From then on, the factions began to see a ceasefire as about as germane to their cause as Mr Bush's “vision” of a Palestinian state. And the suicide bombers started to be dispatched not only by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but also by Mr Arafat's own Fatah movement and its new, radical offshoot, the al-Aqsa Brigades.

Can Mr Arafat once again tame his vengeful young? He might be able to do so, but on three conditions. Elections that reflect the new power that has emerged on the street, tangible relief from the Israeli sieges and incursions, and a political process that takes steps toward ending Israel's 35-year military occupation.

Ariel Sharon understands this. Therefore Sharon must encourage anything that can justify more sieges and incursions. It is why Sharon accelerated the confiscation of Arab lands. He acclerates the establishment of new West Bank and Gaza settlements - to make a peaceful settlement impossible. He loves how those suicide bombers and Israel's extremist responses make it easier for him to destroy Oslo and settle the occupied territories. Everything Sharon does, including the murder of Palestinian teenagers, including direct lying into George Jr's face, all has only one objective: to confiscate, to steal the occupied territories and inhabit it with Likud settlers.

Today another right wing extremist Israeli actually slipped and told what they really want. He said, "The West Bank belongs to the Jews". Wait. Did he mean Israelis? No. Israel is one of the worlds most racist nations. Even non-Jewish Israelis have few rights. Non-Israelis have the right to have any land confiscated. That is morality according to Religious Right Extremists Jews.

Undertoad · 06-20-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Today another right wing extremist Israeli actually slipped and told what they really want. He said, "The West Bank belongs to the Jews". Wait. Did he mean Israelis? No. Israel is one of the worlds most racist nations. Even non-Jewish Israelis have few rights. Non-Israelis have the right to have any land confiscated. That is morality according to Religious Right Extremists Jews.

It must really irritate you to learn that there are Arabs freely elected to the government of Israel.

I wonder, how many Jews in elected positions in any Arabic country? Oh that's right, the very concept that you say is the RRE concern with controlling people, is the central philosophy in every single country surrounding Israel.

I wonder, would the Palestinian people have <i>more</i> rights if they had a state -- or <i>fewer</i>? Is that relevant at all?

jaguar · 06-20-2002, 08:42 PM

Or is your question anything more than a diversion tactic?

I mean christ, another day, another bomber, now they plan to move the IDF permanatly into the West Bank, does anyone here honestly think this is actually going to solve it? Ludiks utterly stupid policies are so backward its not funny, thier myopic beligerant chest-punding bullshit is only killing their own people, fact. History and sociological theory prove it. If someone randomly rounded up my dad and my older brothers for doing absolutely nothign and incacerated them for weeks while applying interrogation techniques i'd start throwing stones too, if they killed members of my family and destroyed my house calously while looking for terrorists i'd be damn temped to take up arms, hell, i know i would and anyone who can honestly tell me they'd take it all clamly i'd be inclined to beleive should take a long hard look at themsleves and their quality of living.

Undertoad · 06-20-2002, 08:55 PM

That's some very impressive bluster.

And tell me, when you take up these arms, would you kill....

...a little five year old, taking the bus with her grandma?

Her name was Gal Aizenman. Two days ago.

jaguar · 06-20-2002, 09:03 PM

and i assume FOX told you the bomber was specifically targeting her. Nice emotional plea, try factual arguement.

Undertoad · 06-20-2002, 11:05 PM

It's all about moral equivalency, dood. It's the whole point.

The settlers who were killed yesterday included three children. Targetted? You bet: with rifles, shot at close range.

Would THEY be your target? Would you run into the house, see three children in one room, run to that room, target their faces and pull the trigger?

Well, now you have to. Because you're trying to understand the Palestinian reaction by empathizing with them. If you don't go all the way, you haven't understood it at all, have you?

So this is important: what kind of injustice, inflicted on you, would make you pull the trigger on those kids?

jaguar · 06-21-2002, 12:34 AM

You're misinterpreting.
a: What if it had been your kid who had been killed by the IDF? Any plea to metion can be twisted both ways, forget it.

I agree, the attacks were/are barbaric, they are atroctious, they are a symptom of a very sick society, there is no question about that but the question is WHY and the answer is simple. You push people had enough and this is what happens, rationality goes out the door, extremism rules and this is what has happened as the result of half a centuary of UltraZionist persecution. UNtil the popel there are given a reasonable, safe furutre with human dignity and safty nothing will change, more on both sides will continue to die.

Yelof · 06-21-2002, 04:49 AM

As a bit of an aside I found this interview with a Israeli participant in the Jenin incident.

Seems that half Jenin was demolished by a drunk Israeli football fan in a D-9 bulldozer who wanted to make a stadium in the middle of the camp!?!

Undertoad · 06-21-2002, 07:44 AM

You keep on failing to answer the question.

I'll be optimistic about you and guess that it's because you can't answer the question without conceding the point. Of course there's a massive difference between killing children by point-blank rifle and by accident in military incursions.

Now because you seem to be concerned with the historical inevitability of it all, can you point to another case where this particular brand of terrorism was used by an occupied people? By anyone whose rights would be denied?

No. There's a subtext to the kid throwing the rock at the tank that I didn't understand before, and that is that the kid won't be there unless he knows for sure that he's not gonna get a mortar through the chest for his efforts.

The cultural disconnect, I think, is that the Palestinians see mercy and/or lack of ruthlessness as a weakness.

Do you?

Griff · 06-21-2002, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad

Of course there's a massive difference between killing children by point-blank rifle and by accident in military incursions.

Hmmm... maybe we should ask the dead kids? There is a difference between intentionally shooting kids and kids being killed "accidentally"when you only meant to bulldoze their home and kill their parents, but its not massive. State sanctioned or not violence is the problem not the solution.

Nic Name · 06-21-2002, 08:51 AM

David Grossman writes this insightful piece:

Quote:

Six months ago the journal Nature published a study about a dangerous mechanism in the human visual system. The study sought to explain why the brain sometimes refuses to see what the eyes convey to it. The scientists, from Israel's Weizmann Institute, suggested that the explanation for this phenomenon is that the brain is flooded with a multitude of interpretations of every reality it faces and that it must, in the end, decide in favour of one of them and act accordingly. The fascinating part of this explanation is the hypothesis that, from the moment the brain decides in favour of a given interpretation of the images it is receiving, all stimuli that support any other interpretation simply "disappear". The brain, as it were, refuses to relate to them.

In the impossible relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, both sides have for years suffered from almost complete blindness to reality's complexity. Each is certain that the other side is ceaselessly deceiving it; that the other side does not want peace at all; that any compromise move by the other side is camouflage for an intrigue designed to bring the other side's victory and the elimination of its own existence.

There's no need for scientific research to understand how easy it is to paint reality this way.

06-20-2002, 08:20 AM	#31
Yelof neither here nor there Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 179	1947 plan may seem fair in todays terms but in terms of 1947 it was not. 55% of the land given to 30% of it's inhabitants, many of whom were recent immigrants. The following link although from a clearly biased site, does present a good overview of why the 1947 RECOMMENDATIONS were rejected. http://www.iap.org/partition.htm Last edited by Yelof; 06-20-2002 at 09:01 AM.

06-20-2002, 08:42 PM	#37
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Or is your question anything more than a diversion tactic? I mean christ, another day, another bomber, now they plan to move the IDF permanatly into the West Bank, does anyone here honestly think this is actually going to solve it? Ludiks utterly stupid policies are so backward its not funny, thier myopic beligerant chest-punding bullshit is only killing their own people, fact. History and sociological theory prove it. If someone randomly rounded up my dad and my older brothers for doing absolutely nothign and incacerated them for weeks while applying interrogation techniques i'd start throwing stones too, if they killed members of my family and destroyed my house calously while looking for terrorists i'd be damn temped to take up arms, hell, i know i would and anyone who can honestly tell me they'd take it all clamly i'd be inclined to beleive should take a long hard look at themsleves and their quality of living. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-20-2002, 09:03 PM	#39
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	and i assume FOX told you the bomber was specifically targeting her. Nice emotional plea, try factual arguement. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-21-2002, 12:34 AM	#41
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	You're misinterpreting. a: What if it had been your kid who had been killed by the IDF? Any plea to metion can be twisted both ways, forget it. I agree, the attacks were/are barbaric, they are atroctious, they are a symptom of a very sick society, there is no question about that but the question is WHY and the answer is simple. You push people had enough and this is what happens, rationality goes out the door, extremism rules and this is what has happened as the result of half a centuary of UltraZionist persecution. UNtil the popel there are given a reasonable, safe furutre with human dignity and safty nothing will change, more on both sides will continue to die. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

06-20-2002, 09:34 AM	#32
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The source obviously ignores the context of the time: - The land the Brits historically owned and was considered Palestine included a MUCH larger chunk of what is now Jordan than what is now Israel. In 1923 they restricted Jewish immigration to west of the Jordan river, allotting 75% of that area specifically to Palestinian Arabs. (Why don't the Palestinians have a beef with Jordan? Duh.) - The Jewish people suddenly had a rather compelling reason to start moving there in bigger numbers; unfortunately, their numbers had sorta, um, dwindled in the decade previous. - The raw amount of land was not really all that important at the time. The land changed hands repeatedly at the whims of the politics of the time. In 1947 most of the land was worthless. In 1948 the surrounding nations decided it suddenly had massive value since a ton of people they hated lived on it. Today it has much more value since it was developed by a major free economy.

06-20-2002, 03:37 PM	#33
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Here's a copy of UN General Resolution 181, along with a UN partition map. Although Israel got the larger of the two parts, one site claims that 75% of Israel's land was desert. I wonder if the UN was thinking ahead of the possibility of mass migrations in giving the Israelis more land.

06-20-2002, 06:43 PM	#34
Yelof neither here nor there Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 179	More on 1948 http://www.cactus48.com/partition.htm www.cactus48.com as a whole is quite interesting as is this site http://www.stanford.edu/~bgiddens/index.htm

06-20-2002, 08:55 PM	#38
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	That's some very impressive bluster. And tell me, when you take up these arms, would you kill.... ...a little five year old, taking the bus with her grandma? Her name was Gal Aizenman. Two days ago.

06-20-2002, 11:05 PM	#40
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's all about moral equivalency, dood. It's the whole point. The settlers who were killed yesterday included three children. Targetted? You bet: with rifles, shot at close range. Would THEY be your target? Would you run into the house, see three children in one room, run to that room, target their faces and pull the trigger? Well, now you have to. Because you're trying to understand the Palestinian reaction by empathizing with them. If you don't go all the way, you haven't understood it at all, have you? So this is important: what kind of injustice, inflicted on you, would make you pull the trigger on those kids?

06-21-2002, 04:49 AM	#42
Yelof neither here nor there Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 179	As a bit of an aside I found this interview with a Israeli participant in the Jenin incident. Seems that half Jenin was demolished by a drunk Israeli football fan in a D-9 bulldozer who wanted to make a stadium in the middle of the camp!?!

06-21-2002, 07:44 AM	#43
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	You keep on failing to answer the question. I'll be optimistic about you and guess that it's because you can't answer the question without conceding the point. Of course there's a massive difference between killing children by point-blank rifle and by accident in military incursions. Now because you seem to be concerned with the historical inevitability of it all, can you point to another case where this particular brand of terrorism was used by an occupied people? By anyone whose rights would be denied? No. There's a subtext to the kid throwing the rock at the tank that I didn't understand before, and that is that the kid won't be there unless he knows for sure that he's not gonna get a mortar through the chest for his efforts. The cultural disconnect, I think, is that the Palestinians see mercy and/or lack of ruthlessness as a weakness. Do you?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)