What do you think the WB or Gaza are
Better then the Negev. As for the Jewels yes Israel got some of them but a number of the Jewels were so because they had made them in to Jewels either before the partition or after.
That's just not true......it was the Arabs who had founded and developed the ports of Haifa and Jaffa. The rest.....the mts, the water, the coastline they were all there. Have the Israelis enhanced those "jewels"......of course. But I can assure you there were very few "jewels" in the Palestinian portion.
The British screwing of the Arabs started with the Balfour Declaration in 1914 and continued through the century. It was typical of British behavior all throughout the ME.
More specifically a lot of the North and close to half the coastline went to the Palestinians.
And what of the Palestinians who had lived there for over 2 millennium?
The Palestinians were Arabs, I don't think the Arabs had lived there for over 2000 years. The Phoenicians, Jebusites, Amorites, Canaanites ect. where not Arabs and not the same people as the Palestinians. The Jews did live there 2000 years ago, but later they where mostly forced out by invading foreign powers. You might make your case better if you said "for over a millennia".
Yes, you are right. I was in a hurry that day and screwed up my math. The Jews left in 70 AD during the Great Diaspora and Palestine was converted to Islam by 750 AD.
1900 is 47 years before Israel became a country.
And 70 AD was when they left.
Which is totally irrelevant to the specific point. Israelis had been in Israel/Palestine in large numbers for a couple of generations by the time of the partition (and in small numbers for longer than that).
And what about the Palestinians........their numbers were much larger than the Zionists even in 1948?
What does 70AD have to do with anything? I wasn't arguing that Israel had a right to the land because their descendants had it in biblical times. 70 AD, 700AD, or 7000BC, it doesn't matter, its not relevant to anything I said.>
The Jews left in 70 AD. The Palestinians had the land from 70 AD going forward. Who has more right to the land.......the long term resident or the interloper? Possession is 9/10s of the law.
And so because the Texans did it, the Israelis had the right to do the same and to keep dangling Palestinian independence on a stick for over 50 years?
I'm not so much saying it is ok as I am saying it doesn't make sense to try and reverse it. People who have lived on and fought for the land for generations aren't going to give a huge chunk of it up unless they are defeated by a more powerful enemy. The West Bank (or at least most of it) and Gaza might be given up for peace, there mostly occupied by Palestinians anyway and are more of a headache for Israel then they are worth but a return to the 1947 plan borders is a total non-starter.
But Sharon doesn't want to give up even the WB and Gaza. New settlements are being started today even after Israel said they would not start anymore. Its a joke.
You don't have a point. The amount of land owned was negligible to the point where its not worth mentioning.
My point is simple. Your statement was false.
Are we arguing semantics, or the substantive issues? If its semantics, find a thread concerned with the English language.
Why do you think they expelled so many Palestinians?
Most of the Palestinians that left where not expelled.
Yes, they were expelled.
They left to avoid getting caught up in the war, or because they thought they might get expelled, or because they didn't want to live under an Israeli government. There was no expulsion of hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians.
They had no choice.....it was leave or give up the notion of having their own state.
Why do you think the Arab nations don't attack her? We've turned Israel into a regional superpower.....one where its gone to her head and she goes along the beach kicking sand in everyone's faces.
The Arabs are attacking even if no nation-state is. Also even a regional super power would have a tough time defending such a narrow bit of territory.
Why do you not answer the question but instead attempt to divert to another issue?
Sharon is the single biggest threat to peace in the region and he is our creation.
Sharon, or even most of the Israelis that are more radical then him, wouldn't try to conquer another country or commit genocide against the enemies people. Sharon isn't exactly a saint, far from it, but he is also far from being the biggest threat to the peace in the area.
Most of the cards are in his hands and he refuses to deal. You do the math.
Why we continue to support her unilaterally is beyond me. We will pay dearly for that stupidity.
One good reason is that Israel is the only real democracy in the area (depending on exactly how you define the area) and they have the best human rights record in the ME (and that is even including their actions in the current conflict with the Palestinians). They are the country most like us, and most likely to agree with us in the ME. And if they ever become noticeably weaker then the Arabs they face the possibility of annihilation. The Arabs do not face such a risk at the hands of Israel.
None of the above justify spending $3 billion per year IMO.
ted |
