it is nothing more than a pure historical document.
it's not an "historic" claim to the land at question. it's an "at present" claim to the land.
That doesn't make it pure.
That doesn't even make it accurate or truthful.
It just made it current (at the time) and historic in retrospect- and it should be viewed with a firm understanding of the regions history and the purpose for which it was written.
There was no Palestinian state or government at the time of that report.
I don't claim to have read that entire report, but it appeared to be implying as much and that's simply not true.
whether in future they bought or purchased land, israel was not created on all unoccupied land. the arabs had lived there for centuries, with very little jewish population left.
You seem to have a desire to dismiss all of the historic evidence that doesn't conveniently support your false construct based upon anti-zionist propaganda.
1. The Israelis didn't seize land or create their settlements through the seizure of land. They either already had settlements there, settled uninhabited areas, or purchased a significant amount.
2. Your point that there was "very little population left" betrays your point because it essential acknowledges that a population, though small, still remained.
3. The nomadic tribes that we call "Palestinians" now were mostly nomadic. The future Israelis did not displace them. And even after Israel was formed, they were not expelled, persecuted, ethnically cleansed, or denied opportunity.
taking away the religious historocity, just because a group of people have an ancient tie to a land, doesn't give them the right to just take it.
So, what you're arguing is that the people who settle, build, develop, and establish a thriving civilization and economy that improves the quality of life of all the people living with it's borders give the group of people right to a land?
none of these people had lived there, nor thier ancestors for many generations. they're europeans, not arabs.
Actually, there is no religious test needed to live in Israeli.
While a jewish state, it is an open society. As for the Jews who live there- they aren't necessarily "European." The vast majority of them are displaced and persecuted Jews fleeing Muslim regimes in the region or in Northern Africa.
And as I pointed out before, the standard of living and quality of life for Jews and non-jews alike, is higher in Israel than in any of it's neighbors.
it was forced expropriation for zionist ideals. i mean, if europe had a "jewish problem", why didn't they just section off a piece of europe?
Do you even understand the arguments your making, or are you just repeating things hoping something sticks? You start of speaking trying to speak of the regions history but then quickly devolve into lame, century old anti-zionist propaganda.
It implies that the creation of Israel and the decision for jews to move there was directed by the UN due to it's benevolent, Jewish friendly response. That's just not what happened. The increased re-population of what was to become Israel started BEFORE the 20th century. The Balfour Agreement was signed BEFORE World War 2. And, perhaps you didn't know this, but the U.N. is not a Jewish friendly organization.
that is a viewpoint. just like first nations have a claim to north america. and they still reside here, and aren't immigrating from another continent.
No, your analogy doesn't work.
It would be like if "first nations" decided NOW that the United States were occupying them.
I've argued that Israel has a historic tie to the land valid as anyone else, but that isn't the argument to defend their right to continued existence or right to defend their borders. They have been formally recognized as a state since the 1940s. They have been a nation for about a century. And they have built a successful and responsible country.
The borders int he Middle East are almost all arbitrary, designed by early 20th century colonialists after the wars. Israel, without interjecting religion, ancient history, or religious sensitivities and protection, is just another state the formed during that process, one with a stable population, a formal, government created with democratic principles, and a successful population.
Are people like you arguing that they should stop defending themselves?
That they should all just pack up their stuff and move?
That they should just abandon their government, allow themselves to devolved into a sharia/palestinian puppet government and then tolerate their genocide?
I don't know why I waste my time discussing this with you when you don't even consider what's being said. "Why not?" I just said why not, repeatedly.
The Israeli society is vastly different than any other society within that region. Muslims, as well as people of all faiths, have full rights in that country. And the standard of living for a muslim citizen in Israel is infinitely higher than the standard of living in any other Arab country in the region.
Do Jews have such freedom in Muslim states?
Do Jews have the ability to openly practice their religion outside of Israel as Muslims do in Isreal? No.
And is Israel calling for the genocide of the Muslim populations as the Muslims have called for Israel?
it's not from an anti jewish ideal, just from a view that what they are doing or how they are going about it is seen as wrong. they run palestine like a prison camp. the final hope is that the palestinians will migrate away.
A prison camp with their own government?
The reality is that the Israelis have attempted, despite the security risks involved, to create a two-state solution. They have been desperate to find an honest broker of peace. As they surrender land in an effort to buy peace, the Muslims use the territory to launch attacks on the Israeli population.
If Palestine is like a "prison camp" that due to the gross and negligent corruption and incompetence of the autonomous Palestinian authority, NOT Israel.
maybe recently, but an awful lot was given to them that was forcibly taken away from resident arabs over the past century.
Your history is simply wrong.
Recently, the Isrealis have surrendered land, not seized it.
Even after their defensive wars, Israel has given back the vast majority of the territory, keeping only areas of land they felt were necessery for their strategic security.
If Israel were a country interested in expanding it's power through military force, they would have taken over Egypt. Not only did they refrain from taking Cairo, they returned the territory they controlled in the name and pursuit of peace.
it's a little late for that now.
If it's too late for that now.
And ancient ties aren't important, the ONLY thing to consider is which countries have a stable, productive and FREE society and government.
If this issue were really about the Palestinians, we'd see greater scorn and hostility directed towards countries like Jordan, countries that seized most of the land designated for the Palestinians. We don't. The Palestinians are of no importance to the powers within the region, they are merely exploited pawns. They are considered expendable nomadic refuge by the powers of that region.
This isn't about historic ties to the land, ancient claims, or human rights- it's about hatred of the Jews and Muslim and old-European intolerance.
how things were before 1948 should have let them know it wasn't going to work. it is something that never should have happened.
I disagree with your conclusion, and I might even argue that the establishment of Israel would have taken place even with the sanction of the U.N.
But, I think the real question is, so what.
Whether you think it should or shouldn't have happened is irrelevant.
It did. It is.
Now, the question that remains is do these people, many from Europe, many displaced and persecuted jews who fled the neighboring Muslim countries in the Mid East and Africa, as well as Christians, Atheists, and other religions, have a right to defend their country. Do they have a right to protect their borders and a reasonable expectation to live in peace, provided they don't engage in militaristic actions to expand their territory?
We can have an academic discussion over whether or not something should or shouldn't have happened. But it's purely academic. Now that it's settled, sovereign, and established- does it have the right to defend itself when the ONLY argument against is a weak and, frankly, false claim, that nomads were displaced at the end of the 19th century.
