****Note*****
Anything I have to say on this subject comes from researching sources I consider valid eg- UN Records, British records, etc. I do my best not to post anything derived exclusively from an Arab funded site. (Only to prevent getting into source debate) This means its history as I have interpreted it. I wasn’t there all I have to rely is the sources I have come to accept. Therefore when I make I statement it's not meant to come across as though I’m educating anyone or telling them "how things are". I also invite directions to sources that may prove what I have learned to be inaccurate. That is not meant as a challenge; but as a desire for information.
****************
Quote:
Originally posted by hannukah harry
last time i checked, "palestinians" didn't exsist pre-1960, so that would be pretty hard to have happened. jews and arabs lived peacefully together for a rather long time, but that started to erode in the 1910's or '20's.
|
Since you mention the 1920's I'll start there: the maps I've seen from various sources; including many Bibles, that date back to then have the word Palestine titling the area. A census in 1922 had a total population of 757,182, of whom 78% were Moslems, 11% were Jews and 9•6% Christians (of which contain some Arab) What exactly would you call these indigenous populants?
As I understand it the major cultural erosion didn’t explode until post WWII when the Zionist movement began disregarding agreed immigration caps. The British brokered arrangement had the concurrence of a majority of the Arab population until these caps were being exceeded. Many even sold land to the newly arrived immigrants.
Quote:
this is why i've never understood how people can claim that it is an illegal occupation. i can not think of any other time in history when the winner of a war has had to give up territory taken in combat. doesn't matter who started it, if there's war, winner gets what it can take. but for soem reason with isreal, that's just not okay, even though it never took territory in an offensive war, it always managed to take land by beating back its attackers.
i just don't get it.
|
I similarly understand how you feel; I can’t understand how they can’t see it. The very influence and international body that recognized Israel's statehood also recognized lands going to the INDIGINOUS population.
I can think of one time in history where the winner of a war gave up territory taken in combat: Excluding Las Vegas and Tahoe who do you think is running the casinos in the US? While their reservations are only a small fraction; it’s at least something.
But if you’re looking at this in terms of the person with the bigger guns is the one that’s right- I fully agree; that’s the reality. I don't think it’s very noble or just- but conquest rarely is. Are the Palestinians expected to take what’s happening with a smiles on their faces "thank you sir may I have another"? This really isn’t about extremists like Arafat that think things are going to go back to the way they were in the early 1900's. It's about getting the Jewish settlements that are in the West Bank and Gaza strip out.
I'm looking at what the project goal here is. From watching events unfold, looking at the current numbers (population numbers Palestinians / Jewish settlers) with one side having the protection of the IDF, and looking at what appears to me as clearly being the inevitable; I can only see the situation as a slow, calculated, politically correct form of ethnic cleansing.
I understand that ethnic cleansing is a strong phrase. Can you explain how it isn’t such?