Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

popo · 06-13-2003, 02:56 PM

Arguing about history s a moot point. We will get nowhere. Neither of us were there but we've both obviously read enough on the subject and have come to different conclusions. We're both big enough to realize that what you read will generally form your conclusions for you.

I've been through enough of these debates to know that this will go on forever here so I hope we can agree to disagree and try and wrap things up. I'll only respond to the points where there's misunderstanding.

Originally posted by debaser
Well, I'm sure the people whos homes were taken and lives ruined feel much better now that you have cleared up that there wasn't a country there to start with...

I'm pretty sure I answered this in my last response.

True, but did not the 6th Zionist conference decide that Argentina would be a perfectly acceptable substitute for Palestine? Also, even if this was the only place they could go (which it wasn't), does that make the Palestinian situation any more tenable?

Now I'm seeing where you're coming from. I'd never heard of an Argentina plan so I did a search for it and could only find it mentioned on sites that were vehemently pro-Palestinian. I wonder why. All of the sites had the same wrong Congress # (they all mention the 4th Congress) and wrong date (they all say 1904) so they all seamingly come from the same misinformation.

There is controversy from the 6th Congress (1903), however. At the time, Great Britain was not willing to go ahead with the plan for a Jewish homeland in Israel so Herzl tried to win their favor by agreeing to a temporary home in what is now Uganda/Kenya so that Jews could have a place to flee persecution. The Zionist Congress first approved then turned down this proposal because there were already many Jews living in what is now Palestine and because of the historical link.

No, Israel was created as a result of the Balfour Declaration, which was a direct result of the Zionist movement. As I stated before, Jews were not settleing the land, they were living in cities when they arrived. I fail to see how the number of people in the area in 1800 has anything to do with the figures I posted above, other than attempt to obfuscate the fact that the Palestinians got screwed.

Jews were not moving to Arab cities, they were creating their own. Tel Aviv (Israel's largest city) was settled in 1906. Jerusalem had more Jews than Arabs since the 1840's.

Haifa has been the one city where both Jews and Arabs have lived integrated and in peace.

And pray tell, what does it say about me?

That you don't know how to share. I realize that it's tough to understand today how there can be land without a country but that's what it was back then. In a area of almost 10 million now, there was fewer than 300k then. There was more than enough room for Jews and Arabs to be happy side by side which was Herzl's stated dream.

Of course it doesn't. We are talking about Israel. TransJordan was already more than 95% arab, so I fail to see why it is even an issue. The 55% figure also didn't include Vietnam, Canada, or Zimbabwe.

Because Transjordan was and is made up of the same Palestinians who were part of the British Mandate. They got Jordan and they got 45% of the land west of the river. The border was even drawn up so that Arabs made up the majority within Palestine and Jews made up the majority within Israel.

Nope. Palestinians are the fastest growing population segment in Israel. They will outnumber Jews by the year 2020.

Again. I know the study that you're referring to but it INCLUDES the Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza. The study is faulty because it's silly to include them as part of Israel's population. It will never happen.

Now, say whatever you want about me but I'm not going to keep going tit for tat in discussing history.

Fact is, Israel is there. The Palestinians are there. Fuck the people on both sides who claim that Jews don't belong there and that Palestinians don't deserve a state.

06-13-2003, 02:56 PM	#44 (permalink)
popo Psycho	Arguing about history s a moot point. We will get nowhere. Neither of us were there but we've both obviously read enough on the subject and have come to different conclusions. We're both big enough to realize that what you read will generally form your conclusions for you. I've been through enough of these debates to know that this will go on forever here so I hope we can agree to disagree and try and wrap things up. I'll only respond to the points where there's misunderstanding. Originally posted by debaser Well, I'm sure the people whos homes were taken and lives ruined feel much better now that you have cleared up that there wasn't a country there to start with... I'm pretty sure I answered this in my last response. True, but did not the 6th Zionist conference decide that Argentina would be a perfectly acceptable substitute for Palestine? Also, even if this was the only place they could go (which it wasn't), does that make the Palestinian situation any more tenable? Now I'm seeing where you're coming from. I'd never heard of an Argentina plan so I did a search for it and could only find it mentioned on sites that were vehemently pro-Palestinian. I wonder why. All of the sites had the same wrong Congress # (they all mention the 4th Congress) and wrong date (they all say 1904) so they all seamingly come from the same misinformation. There is controversy from the 6th Congress (1903), however. At the time, Great Britain was not willing to go ahead with the plan for a Jewish homeland in Israel so Herzl tried to win their favor by agreeing to a temporary home in what is now Uganda/Kenya so that Jews could have a place to flee persecution. The Zionist Congress first approved then turned down this proposal because there were already many Jews living in what is now Palestine and because of the historical link. No, Israel was created as a result of the Balfour Declaration, which was a direct result of the Zionist movement. As I stated before, Jews were not settleing the land, they were living in cities when they arrived. I fail to see how the number of people in the area in 1800 has anything to do with the figures I posted above, other than attempt to obfuscate the fact that the Palestinians got screwed. Jews were not moving to Arab cities, they were creating their own. Tel Aviv (Israel's largest city) was settled in 1906. Jerusalem had more Jews than Arabs since the 1840's. Haifa has been the one city where both Jews and Arabs have lived integrated and in peace. And pray tell, what does it say about me? That you don't know how to share. I realize that it's tough to understand today how there can be land without a country but that's what it was back then. In a area of almost 10 million now, there was fewer than 300k then. There was more than enough room for Jews and Arabs to be happy side by side which was Herzl's stated dream. Of course it doesn't. We are talking about Israel. TransJordan was already more than 95% arab, so I fail to see why it is even an issue. The 55% figure also didn't include Vietnam, Canada, or Zimbabwe. Because Transjordan was and is made up of the same Palestinians who were part of the British Mandate. They got Jordan and they got 45% of the land west of the river. The border was even drawn up so that Arabs made up the majority within Palestine and Jews made up the majority within Israel. Nope. Palestinians are the fastest growing population segment in Israel. They will outnumber Jews by the year 2020. Again. I know the study that you're referring to but it INCLUDES the Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza. The study is faulty because it's silly to include them as part of Israel's population. It will never happen. Now, say whatever you want about me but I'm not going to keep going tit for tat in discussing history. Fact is, Israel is there. The Palestinians are there. Fuck the people on both sides who claim that Jews don't belong there and that Palestinians don't deserve a state.