After scores of suicide bombings and daily terrorist attacks against its civilians that have killed more than 850 people and wounded thousands more since September 2000, Israel’s unity government decided to construct a security fence near the northern part of the pre-1967 “Green Line” between Israel and the West Bank to prevent Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating into Israeli population centers. The project has had the overwhelming support of the Israeli public which sees the barrier as vital to their security.
There is actually nothing new about the construction of a security fence. Many other nations have fences to protect their borders (the United States is building one now to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants). Israel has similar barriers along its borders with Lebanon >, Syria and Jordan </In fact, a fence already surrounds the Gaza Strip and not a single suicide bomber has managed to get across the Gaza barrier into Israel. Ironically, after condemning Israel's barrier, the UN announced plans to build its own fence to improve security around its New York headquarters.
Israel is Forced to Act
The Palestinians committed themselves in the Oslo accords and in the road map to dismantle terrorist networks and confiscate illegal weapons. After more than 10 years of negotiations, and a mounting toll of Israeli civilian casualties, however, it became clear to the Israeli people that the Palestinian Authority (PA) made a strategic choice to use terror to achieve its aims and that something had to be done to protect the civilian population.
“It obliges us to establish a barrier wall which is the only thing that can minimize the infiltration of these male and female suicide bombers,” said Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who has emphasized that “the fence is not political, [and] is not a border.”
Some Israelis oppose the fence either because they fear it will constitute a recognition of the 1949 armistice line as a final border. Jews living in the West Bank, beyond the planned route of the fence, in particular, argue that they are now being left relatively unprotected and worry that they might be forced to relocate behind the fence if it does become a political border in the future.
Making Terrorism More Difficult
Before the construction of the fence, and in many places where it has not yet been completed, a terrorist need only walk across an invisible line to cross from the West Bank into Israel. No barriers of any kind exist, so it is easy to see how a barrier, no matter how imperfect, won't at least make the terrorists' job more difficult. Approximately 75 percent ofthe suicide bombers who attacked targets inside Israel came from across the border where the first phase of the fence was built.
During the 34 months from the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, Samaria-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the 11 months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003.
Since construction of the fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively, after erection of the fence.
Israel has its reason for the wall, build it, but not on the Palestinian land and try to make it go along the 67 Borders so peace can be more easy to achieve.
The annexation wall is a good idea in theory. It provides the security needed for the Israeli public.
In the short term.
In the long term, this is a disaster. If there will ever be a Palestinian state, this wall will have to be knocked down. Israel are postponing that date by at least another year than it should be. They are taking more land, and ruining Arab livelyhoods and homes.
If Israel were really interested in security and peace...
They would stop building settlements.
They would stop building the wall.
They would stop responded to suicide bombs with such force.
Not really.
The wall will prevent terror attacks and allow both sides to sit peacefully at the table of negotiations, skipping the part of "first you stop the terrorist organizations and then we'll evacuate settlements" or "first stop militant assasinations and then we'll have a chance to achieve an agreement with Hamas" and so on.
And then rebuilding the wall here and there may come as an option. Or maybe a wall would be taken down after things are settled down between the sides.
Besides, in most places it's just a fence.
The places where they built a wall on the Palestinian lands is mostly due to the inability to move on different heights and angles, on mountains and rocks, so it's built a few meters closer. Also, the fence consists of 2 roads and 2 fences so it's a few meters wide.
Do you really think that Israel is so greedy it would take a few pathetic meters of land and build a fence on the farms and olive groves of the Palestinians to annoy them?! Puhleaaaase!
Not really.
The wall will prevent terror attacks and allow both sides to sit peacefully at the table of negotiations, skipping the part of "first you stop the terrorist organizations and then we'll evacuate settlements" or "first stop militant assasinations and then we'll have a chance to achieve an agreement with Hamas" and so on.
I disagree. By building this wall, it will be harder for the Palestinians to agree a peace deal. It has caused much more bitterness, and I think it's only a matter of time before the terrorists simply devise a new way of hurting Israel bad. For example, perhaps they'll be an increase of killing Israeli soldiers or something like that that will make Israel annoyed.
quote:
Do you really think that Israel is so greedy it would take a few pathetic meters of land and build a fence on the farms and olive groves of the Palestinians to annoy them?! Puhleaaaase!
Well they've been doing that for many years now. Just look at the settlements - in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. And it's not to "annoy" the Palestinians it's just that Sharon wants as much land as possible for Jews to come and settle in Israel.
this vicious cycle has been going on and escalating for nearly a century. Whatever you have to say about the wall, it is a step towards ending the cycle.
If Israeli citizens feel safer, they will not favor the hardliner view as much.
this vicious cycle has been going on and escalating for nearly a century. Whatever you have to say about the wall, it is a step towards ending the cycle.
It's the complete opposite, Dekka. The wall will simply cause more bitter feelings of resentment and hate in the Palestinian side. Sharon knows this, but he is going ahead with it anyway because he wants as much land as can get.
If he was really interested in peace and security he would stop building the wall and demolish the settlements. He would pull his troops out of the occupied territories. He would give the Palestinians a state that they have for so long deserved. He would give the Palestinians the land stolen from them over 50 years ago.
quote:
If Israeli citizens feel safer, they will not favor the hardliner view as much.
But what about on the other side? The Palestinians will feel much worse now. Their hatred will only increase.
It's the complete opposite, Dekka. The wall will simply cause more bitter feelings of resentment and hate in the Palestinian side. Sharon knows this, but he is going ahead with it anyway because he wants as much land as can get.
If he was really interested in peace and security he would stop building the wall and demolish the settlements. He would pull his troops out of the occupied territories. He would give the Palestinians a state that they have for so long deserved. He would give the Palestinians the land stolen from them over 50 years ago.
Israel cannot give Palestinians a state, Palestinians must make one for themselves. If Israel completes the wall then pulls out of occupied terroritories there will be nothing standing in the way of Palestinians accomplishing this except for the extremists who undermine any attempt at cracking down on Palestinian terrorism.
But what about on the other side? The Palestinians will feel much worse now. Their hatred will only increase.
why should their hatred increase? Because they can't go blow s*** up in Israel anymore? I'm not saying the wall is 100% harmless but this is a WAR... building a wall is a perfectly reasonable and humane thing to do. It SAVES LIVES ON BOTH SIDES. The problem they have with the wall is 1) it incurs a little on Palestinian territory but more importantly 2) it's Israel building it, and they wish to criticize everything Israel does no matter what.
Israel cannot give Palestinians a state, Palestinians must make one for themselves. If Israel completes the wall then pulls out of occupied terroritories there will be nothing standing in the way of Palestinians accomplishing this except for the extremists who undermine any attempt at cracking down on Palestinian terrorism.
Palestinians must have a state that comprises of ALL of the occupied territories, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine. If this wall is built, it will protect the settlements and take more land, and thus the Palestinians will never agree on a state. Israel CAN give Palestinians a state, Dekka, because they are the OCCUPYING POWER. It is the Palestinians that are being OCCUPIED by the Israelis. The Israelis are obliged by the Geneva Conventions to treat the Palestinians better than they currently do now, the Palestinians have very little human rights, on a daily basis they have to go through humiliating checkpoints, their lives are under threat all the time. Unlike Israel, they do not have a good security force. They live in refugee camps, and have little food or water.
By building this wall, Israel are postponing the date of a Palestinian state by at least another few years.
quote:
why should their hatred increase? Because they can't go blow s*** up in Israel anymore? I'm not saying the wall is 100% harmless but this is a WAR... building a wall is a perfectly reasonable and humane thing to do. It SAVES LIVES ON BOTH SIDES. The problem they have with the wall is 1) it incurs a little on Palestinian territory but more importantly 2) it's Israel building it, and they wish to criticize everything Israel does no matter what.
Their hatred would increase because more land is taken away, and they are being put into a ghetto. Imagine it. Every day, when you get out of your house (well, if you're a Palestinian you couldn't really call it a house...) all you see is a massive overtowering wall. Depressing, huh?
Israel can't punish the whole of the Palestinian people because of actions the minority undertake..its injustice.
If they wanted to make peace, they would not be building this wall, they would be demolishing settlements instead.
Palestinians must have a state that comprises of ALL of the occupied territories, with East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine. If this wall is built, it will protect the settlements and take more land, and thus the Palestinians will never agree on a state. Israel CAN give Palestinians a state, Dekka, because they are the OCCUPYING POWER. It is the Palestinians that are being OCCUPIED by the Israelis. The Israelis are obliged by the Geneva Conventions to treat the Palestinians better than they currently do now, the Palestinians have very little human rights, on a daily basis they have to go through humiliating checkpoints, their lives are under threat all the time. Unlike Israel, they do not have a good security force. They live in refugee camps, and have little food or water.
By building this wall, Israel are postponing the date of a Palestinian state by at least another few years.
Their hatred would increase because more land is taken away, and they are being put into a ghetto. Imagine it. Every day, when you get out of your house (well, if you're a Palestinian you couldn't really call it a house...) all you see is a massive overtowering wall. Depressing, huh?
boo-friggidy-hoo call the Homerowner's Association. They are painting it the wrong color too. And no commercial vehicles allowed unless they are garaged!
Israel can't punish the whole of the Palestinian people because of actions the minority undertake..its injustice.
They aren't building the wall as punishment, they are building it to protect Israeli citizens.
If they wanted to make peace, they would not be building this wall, they would be demolishing settlements instead.
the wall will help them control the border: an important step in building a Palestinian State. If the wall is in place, Israel will no longer have to occupy Palestine. With greater security, Israeli military actions will be only defensive. With no more occupation, Palestinian anger should die down. With both sides thinking clearly for a change, perhaps a deal can be reached, with the wall dismantled and lands returned, and a Palestinian State established. First thing the Palestinian State should do is crack down on the criminals that caused Israel to occupy and build the wall in the first place.
antizionist2004 said this in post #3 : If Israel were really interested in security and peace...
They would stop building the wall.
They would stop responded to suicide bombs with such force.
He would give the Palestinians the land stolen from them over 50 years ago.
Speech making at it's finest.
Israel should stop building it's wall? I guess that way it makes it easier for Arab terrorists to kill Jews.
Stop responding with such force? Why not stop responding at all. Show the world that terrorism works.
Give back land stolen 50 years ago? No land was stolen. The Arab world attacked Israel and Israel had the nerve to defend themselves and beat back the Arabs all the way to the 67 borders. When you start a war and lose you don't get to take back that which you lost.
The wall causes more harm in my eyes especially if you build it on disuputed borders. By walling off disputed areas of land a peace settlement can't really be achieved because then you're just saying, "We made a wall, the rest of the land is yours."
That's not negotiation, thus you are not even treating the other person as equals. I think treating the next person as a equal is the first step towards peace and reconciliation. You can't call the leader of the country irrelevant because that will just sow more hatred. You have to work with others, even if you don't like them.
The wall was a result of Palestinian violence, not the cause of it. Sharon's election was the result of Palestinian violence, not the cause of it. Arafat turned to violence in 2000 and thus made himself someone who Israel could not work with.
You don't turn to violence because you don't like something. When you do you should expect to pay a very high price.
does anyone here truly think that Israel is building the wall primary as a land grab? Primarily to establish a de facto border?
(i'm not saying they are not grabbing more land... but it is not the primary reason for the wall)
they are building it SECURITY.. and it's WORKING
the fact that they are building it on disputed territory will hamper the peace process further down the road but the slight deviation from the '67 armistice line is not sufficient to condemn the wall. They are building it to protect their citizens and if a Palestinian person who lives near it thinks it looks ugly well that's just tough sh*t.
I'm not saying it's a land grab, but you should plan for the long term if you hope of ever achieving peace. The wall would work too if they also built it on the 1967 borders. But this wall carries a lot more political weight than just being about security alone. And that's why I think the wall is being condemned. That and I think it is just a bad idea.
antizionist2004 said this in post #3 :
"If Israel were really interested in security and peace...
They would stop building the wall.
They would stop responded to suicide bombs with such force.
He would give the Palestinians the land stolen from them over 50 years ago."
Speech making at it's finest.
Why do you misquote me, Idiot4Ever?
quote:
If Israel were really interested in security and peace...
They would stop building settlements.
They would stop building the wall.
They would stop responded to suicide bombs with such force.
And they would END THE OCCUPATION.
Dekka00...
I think that this wall is being built for security, but at the same time Israel is taking land and destroying Palestinian homes and businesses at the same time. It's security for the settlers, and I suppose for the Israeli population as well, but if Sharon was really interested in security he would stop violating international law, and stop settlements. For some reason, Sharon continues to take land, continues to violate UN international law, continues to build the wall. He thinks Israel are above the law.
Ok well what is the remedy for the violent cycle currently taking place in the region?
Let’s be real here. There is absolutely no chance of negotiations as long as the violence continues. Both sides blame the other and the hate runs deep. Do any of you honestly think this wall is deepening the hate? I personally think that the hatred has bottomed decades ago.
Fact is the violence need to end. If the violence end, the occupation ends, the incursions end. How do we hope to achieve that when it’s sorely obvious it will never be achieved through negotiations?
Walls have gone up all over the world, what Israel is doing is certainly no new concept. However all I see from those who support Palestinians are lists of responsibilities for Israelis and absolutely none for Palestinians.
Let’s not be pretentious here, it is war. That wall maybe an inconvenience for Palestinians however it’s mostly due to it’s effectiveness in nullifying Palestinian retaliation. Blaming the walls for creating ghettos is ridiculous, especially since they already live in them.
This wall is long overdue. Palestinians are trying to lay claim to Israel grabbing land but on the other hand it inhibits Israel from grabbing more land as well. It’s a case of the glass half full.
What I really want to know is this. Where are the true leaders of the Palestinians? All leaders they had until now has failed to bring relief but has overwhelmingly succeeded in adding to their daily misery while blaming it on Israel.
Those of you that think the wall should come down in my opinion are spewing nonsense. In a region where constant conflict has been the order of the day for close to a century, I find it hard pressed to believe dismantling of that wall would bring about peace. Especially since history has proven prior to its construction that if violence wasn’t achieved during the course of a day, it wasn’t due to lack of effort.
Thanks for the post oneofpeace, I understand what you are saying, however I disagree with parts of it.
quote:
However all I see from those who support Palestinians are lists of responsibilities for Israelis and absolutely none for Palestinians.
What you're saying there is very true. The Israelis must do a lot more, because they are the occupying power - a fact that is so often overlooked. They must return land, stop settlements, stop the wall, etc.. All the Palestinians have to do is effectively dismantle the terror groups. The problem is this is much harder to do. If Israel wanted to give back land and stop settlements, they could do it. They have to power to end this conflict. But the Palestinians risk a civil war if they comfront groups like Hamas. Furthermore, Arafat has not got the power he used to have and when he dies it's quite possible Hamas will actually take over Palestinian leadership which would be a disaster for the Palestinians and Israel. But I think the best way to dismantle the terror groups is for Israel to start making some proper concessions, because then the terrorist groups will feel more inclined to be peaceful.
quote:
This wall is long overdue. Palestinians are trying to lay claim to Israel grabbing land but on the other hand it inhibits Israel from grabbing more land as well. It’s a case of the glass half full.
That's a good point as well, but the point is that when both sides eventually agree a two-state solution the wall will have to come down anyway so that the Palestinians can have the land back that the settlements have taken. So this wall is just delaying the peace process by at least another year.
They were...but as I have just confirmed, I never said them. Like most things, they were either a figment of your imagination, or you just lied (more probable).
antizionist2004 said this in post #23 : They were...but as I have just confirmed, I never said them. Like most things, they were either a figment of your imagination, or you just lied (more probable).
Are you smoking Crack? You most certainly said them. Are you really going to sit there and lie to everyone? Please tell me you didn't write the sentences
They would stop building the wall.
They would stop responded to suicide bombs with such force.
He would give the Palestinians the land stolen from them over 50 years ago.
AZ04 I hear your point but somewhat miffed at what it is you believe Israel will accomplish by pulling out of Gaza & WB.
I understand these territories are in dispute; however it wasn’t these territories that caused the clashes we see today in that region. At least I see you propose a solution, one that is not so far fetched as some I’ve seen in these forums. I happen to agree with most of what you’ve said. We’re differing on the issue of the wall.
Ok, so if Palestinians aren’t capable of reigning in militancy what hopes does the peace process have? All we see now, (refugee camps, WB & Gaza, incursions, checkpoints, the wall) has come in response to rejection of Israel, something they now say they’re willing to except so in the end, where did the rejection get them?
Before the borders we now see in dispute there was war in 48, 56, 67, 70, & 73 not to mention the terrorism between these two people. This was before the wall, before any checkpoints, before incursions, before occupying the WB & Gaza (prior to 67), before targeting of militants, before what Palestinians are NOW saying is the cause of the conflict.
There has been much said in these forums about Israel and Arabs prior to 48. Arabs for years have been saying Jews were stealing their land as they say so today. While I understand their concerns I believe it turned into hysteria incited by radical Arab leaders of that time, much of it wasn’t based in fact but perception.
The British tried I believe 3 times to make a two-state solution and the UN tried once. Even though Jews didn’t except early offers from the British, they were willing to negotiate. Arabs refused any solution other than complete eviction of Jews from the land and compromise was never an option among them.
Today, they are still paying the price for what I believe were many bad decisions, some of which they’re still making today. It’s not that they don’t have some legitimacy in their gripes. It’s that they lay all blame on Israel and chooses actions that are detrimental to any kind of achievements of peace and relief for their people.
I blame both sides for the conflict in that region but I lay most of the burden of Palestinian conditions on themselves as they appear to lack the ability to do anything with any degree of success in their best interests.
I'd like to see people address the issue of the Palestinian demands of forcing Israel into accepting a right of 5 million Arabs to relocate inside Israel.
This issues has always been the real sticking point between Israel and Palestinians. There is no way Israel can or will ever accept this. The Palestinians will never give up on this.
Every other issue is a side issue. This is the real deal breaker.
I also would like to know why the numerous neighbouring Arab countries won't give them refuge. There is enough desert there for the palestinians to have.
Before Israel reclaimed their inherited land in 1948, Judea was a pig sty.
And now that Israel has turned the land into a desert blooming with flowers and a nation filled with beautiful cities, technological advances, etc...
everyone wants the land.
No, if Judea was given back to the Palestinians it would go back to being a desert wasteland.
AZ04 I hear your point but somewhat miffed at what it is you believe Israel will accomplish by pulling out of Gaza & WB.
Obviously they can't just pull out immediately. This would pose as a massive security threat to them.
The whole point of pulling out is so that a viable Palestinian state can be created, without Israel feeling threatened by its neighbour. First, Israel need to properly compensate the Palestinians that for so long have been rejected of basic human rights. They must stop building settlements. They need to sit down and properly talk with the Palestinian leaders (whoever that might be?). And they must sit down and talk with groups like Hamas.
What would they accomplish? Well, they'd be compensating a people abused for such a long time, and they'd finally feel secure as a nation.
quote:
Ok, so if Palestinians aren’t capable of reigning in militancy what hopes does the peace process have? All we see now, (refugee camps, WB & Gaza, incursions, checkpoints, the wall) has come in response to rejection of Israel, something they now say they’re willing to except so in the end, where did the rejection get them?
I think that the Palestinians did not establish a Palestinian state between 1948 to 1967 because at the time, they thought they would be able to get 45% of the land, like the UN partition agreed.
In 1948, they rejected it because they thought they should have 100%.
Between 1948-1967 they rejected it because they thought they should have at least 45%, perhaps even 100%.
Then Israel started the occupation, and over time, because of settlements and more land grabs, the Palestinians are coming to accept that they can't turn the clocks back 50 years. They had their chance, and they blew it, whatever their intention were. So now, they will accept 22% - West Bank , Gaza and East Jerusalem as the capital. The Palestinians have given up all hope, and they're so desperate now, to them all they see is IDF soldiers killing their children - they have so much hatred inside them for the Israelis - it will be very hard for Israel to make peace - but to do that, the wall is not the answer.
quote:
There has been much said in these forums about Israel and Arabs prior to 48. Arabs for years have been saying Jews were stealing their land as they say so today. While I understand their concerns I believe it turned into hysteria incited by radical Arab leaders of that time, much of it wasn’t based in fact but perception.
Ben-Gurion put it nicely.
"We have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
quote:
The British tried I believe 3 times to make a two-state solution and the UN tried once. Even though Jews didn’t except early offers from the British, they were willing to negotiate. Arabs refused any solution other than complete eviction of Jews from the land and compromise was never an option among them.
Again, I refer you back to the Ben-Gurion quote.
quote:
I blame both sides for the conflict in that region but I lay most of the burden of Palestinian conditions on themselves as they appear to lack the ability to do anything with any degree of success in their best interests.
This is where we differ. I put most of the blame on Israel because they are the side with the power, and the ability to end all of this if they really wanted to. They are the occupying power, the Palestinians have no real power, no real leader, and they live in refugee camps in dire condition.
Withstand your position on the Jews stealing land, I have yet to see anyone showing me this was indeed the case. Do you not agree that the land Jews purchased prior to the war of 1948 was purchased? How then was it that Jews came to “stealing” their land? Even Arabs who owned what land they did own, sold it to Jews and more than 10 times the going rate in some cases but sold it none the less.
Your honesty is noted here which is something more than I can say for some who doesn’t even acknowledge this.
“In 1948, they rejected it because they thought they should have 100%.”
So I ask you a question. Had Arabs been successful in 48, do you think they would give Israelis back any land whatsoever today? Especially if Israel decided to wage war against them?
Again the course was war in 67 and they lost. Now somehow I know you don’t believe Nasser “really” wanted to wage war but that position is inconsistent with facts of that era, not to mention Nasser’s public vow to annihilate Israel and driving UN peacekeepers out of the region. If he was bluffing then his bluff was called. You don’t pull out a gun without the intention of using it.
Let me show you a quote from Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary on Sept 16, 1947.
“The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.”
Last but certainly not least, putting the most burden on Israel is only to look at the result of Arab failures and blame Israel for them. Certainly when looking at that region one can see the oppression, however it came at a price bought and paid for by Arab blood.
This is the fruits of their efforts to reject any compromise and now they’re only willing to do so because they have no choice. I do not give them a gold star for making a rational choice that should have been made over 70 yrs ago.
After WW II The Palestinian leader Haj Amin el Husseini, told the British that the Jewish problem in Palestine should be solved in the same was as it had been "solved" by Hitler in Europe (by murdering the Jews). In 1967, on the eve of the 6-day war, Ahmed Shokhairy, then head of the PLO, spoke at UN, giving the Palestinian one-state solution. He explained that "if it will be our privilege to strike the first blow," the PLO would exile from Israel all Zionists who arrived after 1917 and create a "secular democratic state. This secular democratic state became the program of the Palestine Liberation Organization and of the Fateh which sought to "liberate" Palestine from the Zionists by armed struggle. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad prefer an Islamic state, in which Jews and other religious minorities can remain as dhimmis (second class citizens).
Withstand your position on the Jews stealing land, I have yet to see anyone showing me this was indeed the case. Do you not agree that the land Jews purchased prior to the war of 1948 was purchased? How then was it that Jews came to “stealing” their land? Even Arabs who owned what land they did own, sold it to Jews and more than 10 times the going rate in some cases but sold it none the less.
But the fact is, before 1948 the Jews only legally owned 7% of the land. The vast majority of land was owned by Muslim Arabs.
Think about it. If you were a leader of a country, would you give up 55% of your land to a minority group that only owned 7% of the land altogether? If not, why do you expect the same of the Palestinians??
quote:
Your honesty is noted here which is something more than I can say for some who doesn’t even acknowledge this.
“In 1948, they rejected it because they thought they should have 100%.”
So I ask you a question. Had Arabs been successful in 48, do you think they would give Israelis back any land whatsoever today? Especially if Israel decided to wage war against them?
If the Arabs had been successful in 1948, and the Jews were never given a state, I don't see why things would be any different now. In fact, if the Jews weren't successful then, they probably never would be. After all, there had just been the Holocaust, and the world were feeling pretty guilty, and sympathetic regarding the Jews.
quote:
Again the course was war in 67 and they lost. Now somehow I know you don’t believe Nasser “really” wanted to wage war but that position is inconsistent with facts of that era, not to mention Nasser’s public vow to annihilate Israel and driving UN peacekeepers out of the region. If he was bluffing then his bluff was called. You don’t pull out a gun without the intention of using it.
I'm not quite sure how much of a threat Egypt really were, based on the testimonies of many high ranking Israeli officials. I think there probably was a threat, but it was exaggerated - both sides were probably eager for war, the Arabs just wanted to fight Israel because they couldn't accept a Jewish state in "their" territory, and Israel wanted more land and to expand on their borders. Begin admitted that Nasser's concentrations in the Sinai wasn't sufficient enough to say Egypt were definitely going to attack Israel, and Rabin blatantly admitted he thought Nasser didn't have the balls to attack anyway.
quote:
Let me show you a quote from Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary on Sept 16, 1947.
“The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.”
I'm unclear on what you're trying to show me....is this one statement your "proof" all the Arabs wanted was war?
Let me show you a quote from Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary on Sept 16, 1947.
quote:
Last but certainly not least, putting the most burden on Israel is only to look at the result of Arab failures and blame Israel for them. Certainly when looking at that region one can see the oppression, however it came at a price bought and paid for by Arab blood.
I'm not blaming Israel for the Arab failures. I personally blame Islam for the Arab's failures. Before Mohammed came along, the Arabs were peaceful and there were no records of them ever trying to conquer other lands. Islam corrupted them, just as it continues to today. Most of the world's most oppressive regimes are Islamic - you think that's coincidence??
What I do blame Israel for is there not being a Palestinian state. Israel has the power to end this whole bloody conflict. They are the ones who are occupying. The Palestinians are the helpless ones being occupied. They are living in refugee camps. They have no control over their own lives - there are checkpoints everywhere. And settlements are continuously being built, so more and more Palestinian homes are being destroyed to make way for them.
quote:
This is the fruits of their efforts to reject any compromise and now they’re only willing to do so because they have no choice. I do not give them a gold star for making a rational choice that should have been made over 70 yrs ago.
I agree with all of that except for the last statement. I think 70 years ago, it would have been logical and rational to reject the partition as set out by the UN. Now, however they are faced with no choice BUT to accept a measly 22% of the land they once called their home.
AZ04 wrote
But the fact is, before 1948 the Jews only legally owned 7% of the land. The vast majority of land was owned by Muslim Arabs.
Ok, well if this were indeed the case AZ, why all the hysteria about Jews taking over the land if this were the case? I hardly find 7% reasonable grounds to declare Jews “stealing” their land. Especially since Arabs themselves sold the land to them.
quote:
But the fact is, before 1948 the Jews only legally owned 7% of the land. The vast majority of land was owned by Muslim Arabs.
Two things here. First, Jews purchased land throughout the region west of Jordan. When the UN partitioned the land in 48, they took into account this factor. In the actual partitioned land, the Israelis were the majority on their side and on the Arab side of the partition, Arabs were.
Also it is noteworthy to point out that much of the actual 55% was desert land (Negev desert) and Arabs actually got the better land in the deal. This is why Jews were not happy at the partition but reluctantly accepted the plan. Arabs, like prior times rejected any notion of this.
The land wasn’t officially a country and had no leader. You’re also forgetting that many Arabs migrated to that land after Jews made the land inhabitable and economically sound. Their migration numbers were much higher than Jewish immigrants during the time in question. At any rate on both sides of the Partition plan the land was largely uninhabited.
quote:
If the Arabs had been successful in 1948, and the Jews were never given a state, I don't see why things would be any different now. In fact, if the Jews weren't successful then, they probably never would be. After all, there had just been the Holocaust, and the world were feeling pretty guilty, and sympathetic regarding the Jews.
My point was this. Arabs tried many times to extinguish the Jews/Israelis in that region and has failed. Due to their efforts they lost some spoils. I asked if Jews had lost, Arabs wouldn’t be talking today with anyone about giving Israel back pre-borders from 48.
quote:
I'm not quite sure how much of a threat Egypt really were, based on the testimonies of many high ranking Israeli officials. I think there probably was a threat, but it was exaggerated - both sides were probably eager for war, the Arabs just wanted to fight Israel because they couldn't accept a Jewish state in "their" territory, and Israel wanted more land and to expand on their borders. Begin admitted that Nasser's concentrations in the Sinai wasn't sufficient enough to say Egypt were definitely going to attack Israel, and Rabin blatantly admitted he thought Nasser didn't have the balls to attack anyway.
And who exaggerated this threat? Surely the world believed Nasser. The UN tried to broker peace and Nasser flat out rejected this as he asked peacekeepers to leave. The world was expecting war because of Nasser’s words not because Israel wanted to “expand borders”.
Let’s look and see how the events led up to that war. First, Syria was shelling Israeli settlements from the Golan Heights and in April, 1967 Israel retaliated and shot down several Syrian MiGs. Then Syria invoked its war treaty with Egypt.
Nasser moved his troops along the borders of Israel and so did Syria. Nasser then made several public speeches that he was going to annihilate Israel and put UN peacekeepers out of the region without even taking it up with the UN. Let me post what the Egyptian radio station Voice of the Arabs said on May 18, 1967.
“As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.”
Subsequently on May 20, the Syrian Defense Minister said this
” Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation
Two days later Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. On May 27th Nasser said
“Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight”
“We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."
Nasser then later said
“ The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations”
Iraq’s President then made this statement.
” The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map”
There’s much more. My question to you AZ is how can you expect Israel in the face of all this and more to simply sit and wait for the day of doom to fall on them? Somehow you believe Israel made war to steal more land? Israel offered land for peace when all this rhetoric was being made by Arabs and was rebuffed.
Also, after the war Israel gave back Sinai and Golan Heights. If it was all about land grabbing, why did Israel return the land?
quote:
I'm unclear on what you're trying to show me....is this one statement your "proof" all the Arabs wanted was war?
What I am trying to say here is exactly that. They have been nothing but “unreasonable” since they decided Jews were “stealing their land”. And as you pointed out, only 7% of the land by 48 was owned by Jews/Israelis so how was this so? What I posted is the sentiment among Arabs period.
quote:
What I do blame Israel for is there not being a Palestinian state. Israel has the power to end this whole bloody conflict. They are the ones who are occupying. The Palestinians are the helpless ones being occupied. They are living in refugee camps. They have no control over their own lives - there are checkpoints everywhere. And settlements are continuously being built, so more and more Palestinian homes are being destroyed to make way for them.
No sir’ree this is not the case. As I have pointed out all spoils lost by Arabs were due to wars “they” initiated. All checkpoints, occupation, and walls are due to the continued violence against Israelis. This is something you largely overlook AZ. You don’t make war then complain of your losses. You don’t support and send suicide bombers into neighboring societies and expect nothing in return. Checkpoints are a creation of Palestinian efforts not Israel’s.
Palestinians had many times to create themselves a state and refused it. Now that they realize they cannot “annihilate” Israel they want to suddenly gain back their losses and make a two state solution.
Israel has not the power alone to end this conflict. Lifting of the checkpoints, and incursions will stop when the wall is completed and they are no longer needed. You keep picking on the bigger guy and when he blacks your eye you tell everyone how unfair the fight is because he’s bigger.
quote:
I agree with all of that except for the last statement. I think 70 years ago, it would have been logical and rational to reject the partition as set out by the UN. Now, however they are faced with no choice BUT to accept a measly 22% of the land they once called their home.
And had they decided to accept and not reject they would have more than 22% right? So is this not a direct result of their decisions?
And since more Arabs immigrated to that area than Jews did, I find it hard pressed to simply say that it was a land once called their home. And it’s exactly like you say it is. NOW they have no alternative but to accept it. That still isn’t compromise.
But I do have a question for the Arab world who all overwhelmingly tried to snuff out Jews/Israelis over the last century. Why do they not absorb the refugees into their societies since they are so concerned with their well being?
Ok, well if this were indeed the case AZ, why all the hysteria about Jews taking over the land if this were the case? I hardly find 7% reasonable grounds to declare Jews “stealing” their land. Especially since Arabs themselves sold the land to them.
I think you're missing the point.
Jews owned 7% of the land.
They were given 55% of the land.
Does that sound fair to you??
quote:
Two things here. First, Jews purchased land throughout the region west of Jordan. When the UN partitioned the land in 48, they took into account this factor. In the actual partitioned land, the Israelis were the majority on their side and on the Arab side of the partition, Arabs were.
Also it is noteworthy to point out that much of the actual 55% was desert land (Negev desert) and Arabs actually got the better land in the deal. This is why Jews were not happy at the partition but reluctantly accepted the plan. Arabs, like prior times rejected any notion of this.
The land wasn’t officially a country and had no leader. You’re also forgetting that many Arabs migrated to that land after Jews made the land inhabitable and economically sound. Their migration numbers were much higher than Jewish immigrants during the time in question. At any rate on both sides of the Partition plan the land was largely uninhabited.
So because the land had no leader, this takes away the rights of the very natives of the land?
Why do people always make this big fuss about there being no “country” called Palestine in the 19th century? There was also no Czech Republic, Latvia, Albania, Finland, Yugoslavia, or Poland in the 19th century, to mention just a few. The fact there was no Palestine does not take away the rights of the Arabs who lived in the region later called Palestine. Call it East Jordan if you prefer, or what ever you like, the area is still the same and the majority of the population was Arab up until 1947.
quote:
My point was this. Arabs tried many times to extinguish the Jews/Israelis in that region and has failed. Due to their efforts they lost some spoils. I asked if Jews had lost, Arabs wouldn’t be talking today with anyone about giving Israel back pre-borders from 48.
That's because it didn't belong to the Jews in the first place (unless you're talking about THOUSANDS of years ago).
quote:
And who exaggerated this threat? Surely the world believed Nasser. The UN tried to broker peace and Nasser flat out rejected this as he asked peacekeepers to leave. The world was expecting war because of Nasser’s words not because Israel wanted to “expand borders”.
I'm not denying Nasser didn't pose a threat. But sometimes, there are better ways to deal with threats than to launch a full military war on the enemy. For example, do you think it would be wise for America to attack every Arab country just because they "pose a threat?" What I want to determine is if this threat was real and serious enough to start a war. And based on the testimonies of many senior ranking Israel officials, it evidently was not. The fact was, Israel knew they had a lot to gain by starting this war (I hope this answers your other questions you've mentioned on the Six Day War).
quote:
What I am trying to say here is exactly that. They have been nothing but “unreasonable” since they decided Jews were “stealing their land”. And as you pointed out, only 7% of the land by 48 was owned by Jews/Israelis so how was this so? What I posted is the sentiment among Arabs period.
I'm not talking pre-1948, I'm talking about 1948 itself. Now to the Jews at the time, I'm sure they were glad the UN was giving them a state, but because they were so glad of finally something good happening to them, they committed a tragedy themselves (although not as bad as the one they just suffered) - and this time it was to the Arabs. As they say, the "abused make the best abusers" (eg. Mohammed).
quote:
No sir’ree this is not the case. As I have pointed out all spoils lost by Arabs were due to wars “they” initiated. All checkpoints, occupation, and walls are due to the continued violence against Israelis. This is something you largely overlook AZ. You don’t make war then complain of your losses. You don’t support and send suicide bombers into neighboring societies and expect nothing in return. Checkpoints are a creation of Palestinian efforts not Israel’s.
But WHY are the Arabs always violent against Israel? I believe their reasons are justified - their land was taken away from them.
quote:
Palestinians had many times to create themselves a state and refused it. Now that they realize they cannot “annihilate” Israel they want to suddenly gain back their losses and make a two state solution.
They had many times to create a state..yes..but they refused because they thought they could have it all (like they were entitled to at the time)...but now they realise Israel aint going nowhere with all that money and weaponry they receive free from America. So because of desperation, Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution.
quote:
Israel has not the power alone to end this conflict. Lifting of the checkpoints, and incursions will stop when the wall is completed and they are no longer needed. You keep picking on the bigger guy and when he blacks your eye you tell everyone how unfair the fight is because he’s bigger.
Yes that's right I pick on the bigger. Let me give you a fable to illustrate the point. Let's say there's a big bully that often beats this guy up with his big cricket bat. In response, the little guy plays very dirty and wacks this guy in the balls from behind. Who has the power to end it? I think the bigger guy does because he's the one with the power and the weapon.
quote:
And had they decided to accept and not reject they would have more than 22% right? So is this not a direct result of their decisions?
If someone took my land, I wouldn't "accept" it. I'd fight. What about you??
quote:
And since more Arabs immigrated to that area than Jews did, I find it hard pressed to simply say that it was a land once called their home. And it’s exactly like you say it is. NOW they have no alternative but to accept it. That still isn’t compromise.
It doesn't matter how many Arabs "immigrated" there. They were living there. Palestine was an Arab state. So YES, this was their home.
But I do have a question for the Arab world who all overwhelmingly tried to snuff out Jews/Israelis over the last century. Why do they not absorb the refugees into their societies since they are so concerned with their well being?
To that, here's an article from PalestineRemembered, hope this helps
"Why don't Arabs welcome their Palestinian Arab brothers?
To accept compulsory population transfer in principle would set a dangerous precedent for international relations, and many nations would use such an excuse to cleanse themselves from "unwanted minorities". In other words, if it is accepted in principle that one can transfer and dispossess the Palestinian people so that Jews can a have a "Jewish state," then
Why would it be unacceptable to "transfer" 10 million Mexican Americans to Mexico? or
To "transfer" a million Kosovan Albanians to Albania?, or
Even to "transfer" 6 million American Jews to the "Jewish state"?
Ironically, Serbia, under Milosevic's leadership in 1999, used a similar argument to cleanse itself from its "unwanted Albanian minority", (of course under the pretext that Kosovo was central to Serbia's ancient heritage and religious past).
Consequently, the act of compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) has been accepted internationally as a war crime, and on that basis both Serbia and Iraq were subjected to international condemnations, and U.N. resolutions were enforced by military action to stop and reverse these war crimes.
For the moment, let's assume that the above argument are nonsense to the average Israeli or Zionist. Let us analyze why the integration of Palestinian refugees into neighboring host countries is not viable for the following economic and political reasons:
Economic reasons
It should be emphasized that 75% of the new Jewish immigrants to Israel, after the 1948 war, operated looted Palestinians houses, farms, cars, truck, banks, and the infrastructure resource such as water networks, the power grids, railroads, airports, wells, the telegraph network, and the schools, roads, and ports.
In other words, Israel has had the looted Palestinian capital as collateral, German compensation money for war crimes committed during WW II, and over 120 billion dollars in American taxpayers' money to help settle the new Jewish immigrants. On the other hand, Palestinian refugees and their corresponding host countries had no such good fortune. If Palestinians are to be helped to settle someone else's country, they have to take somebody else's property, which is unfair and unjust to others. From an economical standpoint, the biggest economic boost the "Jewish State" had was the looted and stolen Palestinian properties.
For a second, let's assume that such repatriation is possible in the host countries, and calculate the cost of such repatriation. For example, let's assume that we need to provide a reasonable health care insurance (not government subsidized) for each Palestinian refugee in Jordan (which hosts close to 3 million Palestinian refugees), and let us also assume that such insurance costs a $100/month per refugee. So the total yearly cost of providing health care insurance to all refugees in Jordan is at least 3.6 billion dollars = $100 * 12 months * 3 million refugees. Note that we have not yet analyzed the costs of providing infrastructure services, i.e. roads, water networks, power grids, education, transportations, ports, airports, ...etc. While contemplating these staggering numbers, keep in mind that the annual budget for the Jordanian government is little over 6 billion dollars, compared to 53 billion dollar for Israel.
While the average Jordanian citizen has some kind of collateral (such as land, real state, ... etc. ) to support his or her future well being, the average Palestinian refugee has nothing but his or her tent as collateral, and even the tent belongs to the United Nations. Consequently, the net worth (in economic terms) of the average Palestinian is almost nil, which negatively impacts tax revenues in the host countries. In fact, the huge number of refugees stifled economic growth in these host countries for several decades-since many essential services had to be diverted to help the refugees.
Ironically, the absence of the Palestinian economic base has motivated the average Palestinian to invest in his or her intellectual capital. It's really amazing how many Palestinians live the lives of many Jews in the past. In general, Europeans used to restrict land purchases by their Jewish citizens, which in return motivated many Jews to invest in their intellectual capital.
For the moment assume that the above economic formula is nonsense to the average Israeli or Zionist, then let's ask the following questions:
If it's easy for the host Arab countries to integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic and social structure, then why after three decades of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has Israel been unable to improve the lives of the Palestinian refugees under its direct control?
If it's easy for the host countries to integrate the refugees (despite their limited resources), then surely it should be much easier for Israel to do so?
Paradoxically, many Palestinian refugees' economic situation has actually worsened under Israeli occupation, and if it were not for United Nations' food rations, many refugees would have starved by now! In fact, malnutrition among Palestinian Children in the occupied West Bank and the occupied Gaza Strip has increased by 1600% since September of 2000.
It's unfair to claim that many Arab countries did not integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic, social, and even political structures. Out of the 5.9 million Palestinian refugees, there are 3.5 million refugees who still live in refugee camps (usually known as "registered refugees"). So despite all of the above obstacles, some 2 million Palestinian refugees (almost half the number of the Israeli Jews) are already integrated into the host countries' economic, political, and social structures.
Political Reasons
For the above economic reasons, Palestinian refugees were obliged to compete for all available resources in the host countries and continue to do so. The average Palestinian (ironically, like many Jews in the West) knows that he or she has to work twice as hard as the local worker just to keep his or her job. On average, Palestinians (for economic and political reasons) are not welcomed in the host countries, and that generates anti-Palestinian feeling. For instance, take the discriminatory practices of the Lebanese government where Palestinians are excluded from 73 job types, such engineering, health care, financing, ... etc.
Although this behavior is deplorable, it is a natural reaction by any state to any external threat to its resources, and this is a common experience among Jews when they emigrate to the "Jewish state". It should be noted that it is still a tense situation between Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and African Israeli Jews, and the blood of the latter was not welcomed in Israeli blood banks for a very long time.
It should be noted that even if the Palestinian refugees are integrated into the host countries, that won't stop Palestinians from demanding their right to return to their homes in Israel. Palestinians are extremely proud of their national identity, and continuously assert their unique cultural and political differences at the earliest possible opportunity. This deep sense of nationalism is widely shared most Palestinians, especially among the affluent families, who are already integrated in Western and Arab societies, i.e. in the US, Europe, Canada, ... etc. Actually, many of them still marry from the same indigenous localities, and maintain their unique dresses, folklore, and accents.
The major obstacle that many Israelis and Zionists have in their dealings with Palestinians is that they think that 8.5 million Palestinians have no national rights, such as the right of self determination. Paradoxically, they believe that 4.5 million Jews in Israel have the right of self determination! From the start, the struggle between Zionism and the Palestinian people was a struggle between two distinct and conflicting nationalistic movements.
Most, if not all, host countries are hesitant to grant political rights (such as the right to vote) to non-citizens, especially if the "newcomers" could overnight change the political landscape. This political problem was the case in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria soon after the 1948 war. For example, Jordan's citizens became (overnight) a minority in their own country. To ask the average Jordanian to accept this situation on a permanent basis, without anything in return, is to create a "political time bomb". Unfortunately, this "political time bomb" has already exploded in Jordan and Lebanon, and its after shocks are still felt today.
There is no question of the fact that some political movements have benefited politically and economically from not integrating the Palestinian refugees. We agree that all host countries used (and will continue to use) the refugees as a tool to collect international aid and bribes. We also concur that suppressing Palestinians makes political and economic sense to some regional leaders. On the other hand, it's not fair to point the finger of blame at the host countries for not solving a problem that Israel has created. By blocking the Palestinian refugees' return to their homes, farms, and businesses, Israel has made this problem persist and fester for many generations, and it has to put up the lion's share of the effort needed to solve it."
"Why don't Arabs welcome their Palestinian Arab brothers?
To accept compulsory population transfer in principle would set a dangerous precedent for international relations, and many nations would use such an excuse to cleanse themselves from "unwanted minorities"
Are you saying Israel set a precedent when it settled Jews who were expelled from Arab countries? Could you imagine Israel telling Jews, "Sorry you must live in ghettos like the Nazis put your fellow Jews in just a few short years ago before exterminating them because we don't want to set a precedent." Nonsense. That is pure Arab propaganda. Israel absorbed the Jews who fled Arab countries and millions of refugees from Nazi and Soviet Europe in the same time. After brief periods of adjustment, the Jews fleeing life-threatening conditions in other lands became indistinguishable from other Israelis. Today tiny Israel, with relatively few resources, has no "refugee problem" while the wealthy Arab countries, with vast lands and oil riches, cannot find a way to help the Palestinian Arabs. The Arab world didn't resettle them and kept them in ghettos in order to use them as pawns. They could care less about the humanitarian needs of the refugees. They kept them in ghettos because they thought they could drive Israel into the sea. They though it was only a matter of time. They had no intention of acknowledging Israel as a state in the middle of the Arab world. Israel had to go. When the Jews were gone then the refugees would be let out of the ghettos. They would not settle the refugees for another reason. Just in case they couldn't drive Israel into the sea, they planned on calling for a right of return for all the refugees. When Israel offered to take back 100,000 refugees in 1949 before there was even any discussions about their statues, the Arab states refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel's existence. But what has happened to other refugees? The 20th century witnessed numerous large-scale and persistent refugee problems, all of which were eventually resolved through integration rather than repatriation. Thus according to Dr. Elfan Rees, Advisor on Refugees to the World Council of Churches:
No large scale refugee problem has ever been solved by repatriation, and there are certainly no grounds for believing that this particular problem [the Palestinian refugee problem] can be so solved... The facts we must face force us to the conclusion that for most of the world’s refugees the only solution is integration where they are. (Dr. Elfan Rees, Century of the Homeless Man, as quoted in Radley, p 611-612)
Examples of refugee problems settled via integration or resettlement include:
At the conclusion in 1923 of the Greek-Turkish War, harsh treatment of Greek communities in Turkey caused large numbers of these Turkish Greeks to flee their homes. Because of this, the peace treaty between the two sides provided for a mutual exchange of populations – about 2 million Greeks who had been Turkish citizens were relocated to Greece, while about 500,000 Turks who had been Greek citizens were relocated to Turkey. The immoveable property left behind was seized by the respective Governments and was used, in part, to resettle the incoming refugees. (Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement, The American Journal of International Law, April 1995, p 322)
The Potsdam Declaration imposed by the Allies following World War 2 provided for the transfer to Germany of approximately 15 million Germans, particularly from those parts of eastern Germany which after the war were allotted to Poland. Under the Declaration the German populations in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were relocated to Germany, these German refugees lost title to the property they left behind, and no arrangements were made to compensate them for their losses. (Benvenisti and Zamir, p 322)
Settlement of the conflict between Hindus and Muslims in British India via division of the region into India and Pakistan required relocation of millions of people. Once again, immoveable property left behind by these refugees was seized by the respective governments to help settle the incoming refugees.(Benvenisti and Zamir, p 323)
quote:
keep in mind that the annual budget for the Jordanian government is little over 6 billion dollars, compared to 53 billion dollar for Israel.
Keep in mind that the Arab world is wealthy in oil money and although Jordan is not, the Arab world is. Israel does not have oil either. Most of it's budget comes from development of the economic sector of their society. They do get US aid too (although very little until after the 6 day war). Why don't the wealthy Arab countries help out the refugees? Because the Arab world uses the refugees as pawns. To help out the refugees would mean they would loose their pawn in their proxy war. If the Arab world had settled the refugees when Jordan occupied the WB and Egypt occupied Gaza, they could not go to the UN and international community and blame Israel for the refugee problem.
quote:
If it's easy for the host Arab countries to integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic and social structure, then why after three decades of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has Israel been unable to improve the lives of the Palestinian refugees under its direct control?
That's not true. Israel did improve the lives of the Palestinians under their control. After they push out Jordan, Israel built roads, schools and hospitals in the territories. During the 90's, the lives of Palestinians greatly improved especially economically. And the Israeli Arab has had a higher living standard than fellow Arabs inside Arab countries.
Getting back to refugee problem, this from palestinefacts.org
In 1973, Khaled al-'Azm, who served as Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, published his memoirs in Beirut. He includes the following:
We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their lands, their homes, their work and their business, and we have caused them to be barren and unemployed though each one of them had been working and qualified in a trade from which he could make a living. In addition, we accustomed them to begging for hand-outs and to suffice with what little the UN organisation would allocate them.
Following the war, the Arab countries consistently refused to take steps necessary to improve the lives of the Palestinian refugees. In early 1950, the UN General Assembly established the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, with a budget of $54 million. UNRWA was charged with the task of employing the Palestinians on projects in the Arab states in which they resided. It was an explicit expectation of the program that within 18 months most of these refugees would be as self-supporting as their Arab neighbors, and relief handouts could be ended. However, when UNRWA officials initiated talks with the Arab governments, they encountered an uncompromising refusal to cooperate with any plan designed for economic integration.
Arab leaders argued that Paragraph Eleven of General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948 guaranteed the refugees the right to return to their homes, and that they could not participate in any scheme that might compromise such a right. In fact, the Arab states themselves had voted unanimously against the resolution, since it envisaged peace negotiations with Israel. The refugee issue accordingly served as a useful obstacle to future discussions and as an effective lien on the world's conscience. By the end of 1950, as a result, no more than 10,000 of the refugees were employed.
Throughout the 1950's, UNRWA put forward additional plans to resettle and rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees. Like the earlier plan, these too were rejected by the Arab countries, individually and through the Arab League. By 1959, UNRWA was obliged to report that its rehabilitation fund, created in 1950 to provide homes and jobs for Palestinian refugees outside the camps, had been boycotted by the Arabs. The fund had set a goal of $250 million, but after three years only $7 million had been spent, and a further $28 million lay unused in the fund. Thereafter, a small part of the money was used on agricultural development; the rest of the money was used to augment UNRWA's general reserves.
Some of the Palestinians were formulating their own solution by then. In 1952, UNRWA observed that a good number of the Arab refugees had recently found homes and livelihoods in neighboring countries, in Iraq and the Persian Gulf states. At least 280,000 refugees had established themselves in Jordan and, by their own efforts, had become an integral part of that country's economy. For others, however, the situation was different.
In January 1951, the "Committee of Palestine Refugees" in Lebanon wrote the Arab League political committee, observing that a return to their homes was less than imminent for most of the Palestinians. Until a political solution could be found they could hardly be left to rot in Arab countries without decent food, shelter or means of providing a livelihood. The letter suggested that the Arab states should at least provide those refugees willing to settle outside Palestine with the opportunity to do so. Yet the single affirmative response to this appeal was King Abdullah's decision to confer Jordanian citizenship on the 200,000-odd refugees of the West Bank. Of these, 100,000 found employment; the rest continued to live in camps on UNRWA's dole.
By contrast, the refugees in Gaza were confined as virtual prisoners within the Strip. With the exception of perhaps 20,000 who managed to secure jobs in Iraq and the Persian Gulf area by 1951, they were denied employment or citizenship in Egypt itself.
As a result of this situation, UNRWA relief aid became a fixture in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The "advantages" of refugee status were not unsubstantial. The refugees had access to health services. The incidence of sickness and death accordingly was lower among them than among the surrounding Arab populations. Some 45% of their children of school age received free education. While their rations were meager, they did not suffer from malnutrition. By the end of 1956, only 39% of registered refugees actually lived in UNRWA camps; yet nearly all of them drew UN rations. Israel, therefore, cannot be held solely responsible for the socio-economic problems of the Gaza refugees, which were created by deliberate Arab neglect before 1967.
In 1959, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold personally investigated the possibility of a comprehensive resettlement scheme in the Middle East. Such a scheme would, like the earlier recommendations of the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission, have been based on the general principle of resettling Arab refugees in Arab countries; as a result, it encountered Arab opposition and was dropped.
Since UNRWA's inception, Arab countries have made totally inadequate contributions to its funding. UNRWA's annual budget, and deficits, have been covered almost entirely by Western countries; Arab states have made only token contributions, amounting to about 5% of the total budget. As a major contributor to international relief funds and the United Nations, the United States has made up for a large share of Arab neglect of their own people.
Over the years, Arab governments have placed a higher priority on the destruction of Israel than on the welfare of the Palestinian refugees. They perceived it as their interest to keep the bitterness and anger of the Palestinian refugees alive. For decades, in fact, Arab leaders used the Palestinians' misfortune to promote their efforts to undermine Israel, linking a return of refugees to Israel's destruction. In an interview to the Cairo journal "Al-Masri" on 11 October 1949, Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah A-Din said:
In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or, to put it quite clearly -- the intention is the termination of Israel. This motif was repeated in later years, with President Nasser of Egypt saying, in a 1965 speech, that:
Our aim is to restore the national rights of the Palestinian people, namely to destroy Israel.
AZ04 wrote
I think you're missing the point.
Jews owned 7% of the land.
They were given 55% of the land.
Does that sound fair to you??
That is not the just of the story and I believe you know this. The land as I pointed out earlier was partitioned based on demographics and future expansion.
quote:
So because the land had no leader, this takes away the rights of the very natives of the land?
Why do people always make this big fuss about there being no “country” called Palestine in the 19th century?
I ask you again, what rights or land did Jews take from Palestinians? They purchased all the land they had, some of it from Arabs. No rights were ever taken from them. It was an intentional distortion of the truth by radical Islamic Leaders of those times. As you pointed out only 7% of the land was owned by Jews, so where were any rights taken away from them?
You were the one who said the leader of their country. I was just pointing out there was no leader of a country that didn’t exist, that’s all.
quote:
That's because it didn't belong to the Jews in the first place (unless you're talking about THOUSANDS of years ago).
And who did the land belong to, Arabs? So Arabs can sell their land at inflated prices to Jews, then claim the land don’t belong to them, give it back?
quote:
I'm not denying Nasser didn't pose a threat. But sometimes, there are better ways to deal with threats than to launch a full military war on the enemy. For example, do you think it would be wise for America to attack every Arab country just because they "pose a threat?" What I want to determine is if this threat was real and serious enough to start a war. And based on the testimonies of many senior ranking Israel officials, it evidently was not. The fact was, Israel knew they had a lot to gain by starting this war (I hope this answers your other questions you've mentioned on the Six Day War).
I’m sorry AZ but I have to tell you that this is a load of BS. Syria and Egypt massed between them 250,000 troops and over 2000 tanks along the borders of Israel. Almost daily they made public statements of annihilating Israel. They made it known that they will NOT negotiate anything and you say…
“But sometimes, there are better ways to deal with threats than to launch a full military war on the enemy.”
If they didn’t have the ability, then they shouldn’t have made the threats, put their military at Israel’s borders, and shut down the Straights. After all the prior hostilities in that area, I find it hard to fathom why you subscribe to such nonsense.
quote:
Now to the Jews at the time, I'm sure they were glad the UN was giving them a state, but because they were so glad of finally something good happening to them, they committed a tragedy themselves (although not as bad as the one they just suffered) - and this time it was to the Arabs. As they say, the "abused make the best abusers" (eg. Mohammed).
Something you are missing here AZ.
First, the land there was nothing until it was developed. Arab influx into the land was decreasing until Jews came in, bought land and cultivated it. No land was “ever” taken from them then. The mortality rates dropped as did disease and poverty and more Arabs than Jews migrated to the area because of it. There were jobs and growth there.
Now you talk about Arabs having their land stolen when they themselves migrated to the land. All the hype about stealing land was incited and lead to Arabs rejecting Israel but not Jordan who got most of the land period and refuse to accept the refugees into their societies. Arabs were offered a state and refused it several times. After their subsequent course of actions, they find themselves in this dilemma today period.
quote:
But WHY are the Arabs always violent against Israel? I believe their reasons are justified - their land was taken away from them.
Show me one time where Israelis or Jews came in and took Arab land prior to 47. After that show me one time Israelis or Jews took land from Arabs arbitrarily.
quote:
They had many times to create a state..yes..but they refused because they thought they could have it all (like they were entitled to at the time)...but now they realise Israel aint going nowhere with all that money and weaponry they receive free from America. So because of desperation, Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution.
The parts I used are mockable and were speech making.