Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

[arildno]

Many millions of Arabs didn't sell their land at all it was simply taken from them. In fact that's the root of a lot of the trouble. They still want to return to their homes but Israel will not let them.

That's probably true, but be sure that apologists like Yonoz can wave a lot of nice and legal looking documents in your face to "prove" that land was sold, rather than taken.
It was these legalistic shenanigans I addressed, since Yonoz constantly returns to them.

 

[Art]

That's probably true, but be sure that apologists like Yonoz can wave a lot of nice and legal looking documents in your face to "prove" that land was sold, rather than taken.
It was these legalistic shenanigans I addressed, since Yonoz constantly returns to them.

I don't believe they even claim to have acquired the land legally. Their basic argument is "tough, you're not getting your homes back and we're not compensating you".

Right of return: Palestinian dream
By Heather Sharp
BBC News Online

US President George W Bush's comments on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan included tough words on one of the thorniest issues in the Middle East conflict - Palestinian refugees.

The fate of the estimated four million Palestinians living in refugee communities scattered around the Middle East is highly controversial.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were displaced from their homes during the Israeli-Arab wars in 1948 and 1967.

They and their descendents live, many crammed into overcrowded enclaves, mainly in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

The Palestinians have long asserted that the refugees have a moral and legal right to return to what was once Palestine - including land which is now Israel.

Some of the refugees still retain old deeds and keys to homes now occupied by Israelis.

UNGA resolution 194 - Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3629923.stm

 

[The Smoking Man]

I view Judaism as more than just a religion. I explained this in another thread when asked how does one become Jewish. Persecutors of Jews never really disinguished between religious and secular ones.

So, I can become a secular jew?

I can go to Israel and own land and not have to get circumcised, attend synagogue or read the Torah?

Now you're just getting patently absurd.

 

[edward]

So, I can become a secular jew?

I can go to Israel and own land and not have to get circumcised, attend synagogue or read the Torah?

Now you're just getting patently absurd.

I am really curious TSM, do you have someone who sits around and looks all of this stuff up for you

 

[Art]

So, I can become a secular jew?

I can go to Israel and own land and not have to get circumcised, attend synagogue or read the Torah?

Now you're just getting patently absurd.

So according to Yonoz all the 4 million displaced Palestinians need to do is declare themselves secular Jews and they can return to their homes?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sorry, my mistake. Your're right - the article is self-contradictory on that point. It argues both at the same time.

I guess I'll just leave it up to you - you appear to accept the contradictions. I do not.

LOL ...

No, what they state is the premise that you present ... That Jews are said to have gravitated to Usury because they could not own land ... and then debunked it stating that this is clearly a false observation since it started long before these prohibitions and also happened in nations NOT forbidding the Jews from owning land.

In fact, you will find that the development of laws forbidding the ownership of lands BY jews developed out of the Christian practice of securing loans by offering their land as security on the debt.

Since there was so many defaults on debt, Jews were becoming large land owners prompting the lawmakers and despots of these countries to forgive their own debts by simply declaring the ownership of land by Jews illegal.

In other words, it was the persecution of the Jewish Usurers that led to the ban on land ownership and not that the banning of land ownership led to the Jews becoming Usurers.

Yes, after that point, they had little choice in the countries that took this option but it still does not explain why the Jews favoured 'urbanization' in countries NOT prohibiting Jewish land ownership.

What you will find is that your argument is the one created by a people who were condemned by a general feeling at the time that both Christianity and Judaism believed Usury unsavoury.

They argued that 'we were forced into usury by the prohibition'.

The reality is that 'the prohibition came about as a result of their practice of usury'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am really curious TSM, do you have someone who sits around and looks all of this stuff up for you

Nah ...

Just common sense and a good command of search engines.

 

[Burnsys]

Nah ...

Just common sense and a good command of search engines.

Thanks god you are in Google censored china!

 

[Lisa!]

My grandparents, and many others - I wasn't born until some time later :)
I fail to see how that can be interpreted as "asking the Palestinians" for anything besides living peacefully beside them. There are constant allegations of land being stolen and the settlers being hostile, but truth is the settlements prior to the formation of the State of Israel were established on land legally bought. They were peaceful idealists who often employed Arabs as labourers and guards until the hostilities forced them to form defensive organisations. It's natural, however regretable, that after 30 years of hostilities some of these organisations expelled individuals with ideas that were too extreme, but as a whole the Jewish settlement in Palestine was peaceful.

I don't know what to say. Your story is damn confusing. I've not read others replies because I think it even makes me more confused. So I try to ask you to clarify it step by step.
First step: Let think you really bought those lands! It's still damn confusing for me. Suppose some of Arabs(or even some of Americans) go to the US and buy some lands and then they decide to have an independent state from US governmemnt and govern independently, now what do you think other Americans would do?

 

[Smurf]

To add to that, it being legal by British and American standards doesn't mean **** if you're not in britain or america.

 

[Lisa!]

To add to that, it being legal by British and American standards doesn't mean **** if you're not in britain or america.

Who are you talking to? Yonoz or me?

 

[Curious6]

It seems quite interesting to me that posters of this thread have a tough, well-knit opinion on this contentious issue while being blatantly misinformed. The last pages of this thread clearly show a number of misconceptions, and a considerable degree of confusion and deception.

To start with, it is important to define the word 'Judaism' and 'Jew' which apparently many of you here don't understand. Judaism is the world's oldest religion, and is the name of the religion practised by Jews worldwide. However, a Jew is not necessiraly an adherent to Judaism. A Jew is a member of an ethnicity or people, dispersed from the land of Israel close to 2,000 years ago and descended from the native people of the land at that time. The observance of ritual practices is not an element that defines whether a person is a Jew (in terms of ethnicity or not). However, the term Jew can also mean a person who is not descended from the ancient people living in the land but has willingly chosen to adopt Judaism as a religion. This means he (or she) is a Jew by the religious definition of the term, and not the ethnic one. However, since Judaism is not a religion with a missionary spirit, there are far less converts than in other major religions such as Christianity and Islam, and therefore an adherent to the Jewish religion is in the vast majority of cases also an ethnic Jew as opposed to a convert.

Now that this definition, which is admittedly confusing at first sight has been clarified, I would like to (quickly) adress some other points.

Art, the Palestinian refugee problem is much more intricate than you purport it to be. There are a number of factors that served as a catalyst to the fleeing of the Arabs to surrounding countries. Many Arabs (let's call them Arabs because at the time [1947-48] the term 'Palestinian' was not yet clearly defined) fled in advance of the 1948 war, seeking to evade the forthcoming conflict and return once it was over. Many left at the behest of Arab leaders in other countries. They were also lured into false promises that the war would be quickly over and that they would be able to return to the land triumphantly and to capture the possessions of the defeated. A study (carried out by an Arab organisation) said that over 70% of Arab refugees at the time fled without ever having seen an Israeli soldier. Thus, the fairy-tale of widespread forced expulsion falls to water. This all occurred whilst Jewish leaders were asking Arabs not to flee, and promised equal rights and job opportunity employments. Other Arabs, no doubt, were expelled, as a natural consequence of any war, and also due to the fear of violence, but this by no means changes the reality of the issue: that many fled at will due to calls by Arab leaders outside of the territories.

Secondly, we must remember that at the same time approximately the same number of Jews fled Arab countries all over North Africa and the Middle East due to mounting hostility and open strife. These Jews mainly fled to Israel where they were quickly absorbed into the population. This clearly was not the case with the Arab refugees, which, after more than 55 years after the war still have not been granted rights by their neighbouring Arab (brother?) countries. Any person with an open mind and a critical spirit could start to envision that it is maybe just a well-calculated political stratagem for other Arab governments to keep these refugees in camps and not grant them their liberties.

Anyways, I will comment on more issues later, but I thought I had to clarify some of these issues.

 

[arildno]

Judaism is the world's oldest religion

That's false.
Many animistic religions are in all probability far older than judaism.

 

[Curious6]

That's false.
Many animistic religions are in all probability far older than judaism.

True, I was qualifying it in terms of the world's major extant monotheistic religions.

 

[arildno]

Art, the Palestinian refugee problem is much more intricate than you purport it to be. There are a number of factors that served as a catalyst to the fleeing of the Arabs to surrounding countries. Many Arabs (let's call them Arabs because at the time [1947-48] the term 'Palestinian' was not yet clearly defined) fled in advance of the 1948 war, seeking to evade the forthcoming conflict and return once it was over. Many left at the behest of Arab leaders in other countries. They were also lured into false promises that the war would be quickly over and that they would be able to return to the land triumphantly and to capture the possessions of the defeated. A study (carried out by an Arab organisation) said that over 70% of Arab refugees at the time fled without ever having seen an Israeli soldier. Thus, the fairy-tale of widespread forced expulsion falls to water.

No it doesn't.
The conflict was already present way before 1948, Arabs fled because of this, and because they knew that the Western powers (particularly great Britain) would support the Jews, rather than them.

This all occurred whilst Jewish leaders were asking Arabs not to flee, and promised equal rights and job opportunity employments.

Typical power talk. It doesn't mean a thing.
The Jews hadn't the right to promise anything to people already living there, with a far greater claim on the land than the Jews.
Remember:
The Jews had NO REASONABLE CLAIM WHATSOEVER on the lands of ancient Israel.
Period.

 

[klusener]

True, I was qualifying it in terms of the world's major extant monotheistic religions.

If you qualify it in terms of abrahamic religions, then I will agree. But I strongly disagree with your post in its present form, because Hinduism is monotheistic (I know this goes against common perceptions in the West) and it is considered to be older than Judaism.

 

[Curious6]

No it doesn't.
The conflict was already present way before 1948..

True, but did I talk about the conflict in such general terms? No, I was referring strictly to the Palestinian refugee problem, and was listing the causes why many fled.

Arabs fled because of this, and because they knew that the Western powers (particularly great Britain) would support the Jews, rather than them.

Both assertions are false. The conflict started approximately in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, so why would Arabs wait 50 years (to 1948) to flee? Also, a major Western power, Great Britain, had shown considerable animosity towards Jewish immigration in the area, and has imposed heavy restraints, while conveniently overlooking Arab immigration.

Remember:
The Jews had NO REASONABLE CLAIM WHATSOEVER on the lands of ancient Israel.
Period.

Why? At least if you make such an affirmation (and in capitals!) at least make sure to support your statement with reasons. The Jews are the descendants of the native inhabitants for the land during millennia, only to be exiled by the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD, so there is a definite claim to the land. Secondly, not all Jews had left the area after those dates, and before the arrival of the first Jewish immigrants there was already a sizeable Jewish minority in the area. Thirdly, immigration was done on lands that were purchased by absentee landholders during the rule of the Ottoman empire and subsequently during the British mandate. Is it now wrong or immoral for people to live on the lands they have purchased?

Please, consider this information carefully.

 

[Lisa!]

Both assertions are false. The conflict started approximately in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, so why would Arabs wait 50 years (to 1948) to flee? Also, a major Western power, Great Britain, had shown considerable animosity towards Jewish immigration in the area, and has imposed heavy restraints, while conveniently overlooking Arab immigration.

I'm not sure if this link would be relavent to this discussion.

 

[Curious6]

Yes, the above link is relevant, and interesting.

 

[Lisa!]

Why do you think it's interesting?

 

[Curious6]

Because the Balfour Declaration (1917) is of historical interest to the development of the conflict.

 

[Art]

True, but did I talk about the conflict in such general terms? No, I was referring strictly to the Palestinian refugee problem, and was listing the causes why many fled.

Strangely you missed the main cause which was they were being massacred by jews.

Both assertions are false. The conflict started approximately in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, so why would Arabs wait 50 years (to 1948) to flee? Also, a major Western power, Great Britain, had shown considerable animosity towards Jewish immigration in the area, and has imposed heavy restraints, while conveniently overlooking Arab immigration.

The Arabs were very friendly and obliging when the first jews arrived. Unfortunately the Arabs weren't aware that the jews hadn't come to live with them they had come to dispossess them and claim their land for themselves.

Why? At least if you make such an affirmation (and in capitals!) at least make sure to support your statement with reasons. The Jews are the descendants of the native inhabitants for the land during millennia, only to be exiled by the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD, so there is a definite claim to the land. Secondly, not all Jews had left the area after those dates, and before the arrival of the first Jewish immigrants there was already a sizeable Jewish minority in the area. Thirdly, immigration was done on lands that were purchased by absentee landholders during the rule of the Ottoman empire and subsequently during the British mandate. Is it now wrong or immoral for people to live on the lands they have purchased?

Please, consider this information carefully.

Complete and utter nonsense the jews came from Egypt and displaced the people of Canaan by force. The main city Canaan had a population of 260,000 people at the time, a huge city by contempory standards. The Canaanites occupied the land of Canaan for at least 1000 years before the birth of David and Solomon so if anybody has an historical claim to the land it is them.
The immigration you speak of during the British mandate was illegal and it was because of Britain's attempt to enforce the immigration quota that the jews formed terrorist groups to attack the British and the Arabs. One of the main leaders of this terrorism was Menachem Begin who later became prime minister of Israel.
The jews did not buy the vast majority of the land they now occupy. They took it without paying a single cent in compensation to the Arabs they took it from and so yes it is wrong and immoral for them to live there!

The right-wing government of Israel gets away with literally murder and if anybody criticises them their instant retort is "what about the holocaust" I for one am sick of hearing this tired old excuse being dragged out time after time as some kind of warped justification for their disgraceful treatment of the Palestinians.

 

[Smurf]

Also, the Jews have no more claim on their land from 2000 years ago than the British do to the US, or Canada, or Half of Africa, or Hong Kong, or even (haha) Israel. If you think you deserve Palestinian land because of that then you must agree China deserves Taiwan, Germany deserves Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and Spain and Portugal deserve all of Latin America.

 

[EnumaElish]

Also, the Jews have no more claim on their land from 2000 years ago than the British do to the US, or Canada, or Half of Africa, or Hong Kong, or even (haha) Israel. If you think you deserve Palestinian land because of that then you must agree China deserves Taiwan, Germany deserves Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and Spain and Portugal deserve all of Latin America.

A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Why? At least if you make such an affirmation (and in capitals!) at least make sure to support your statement with reasons. The Jews are the descendants of the native inhabitants for the land during millennia, only to be exiled by the Romans in 70 AD and 135 AD, so there is a definite claim to the land. Secondly, not all Jews had left the area after those dates, and before the arrival of the first Jewish immigrants there was already a sizeable Jewish minority in the area. Thirdly, immigration was done on lands that were purchased by absentee landholders during the rule of the Ottoman empire and subsequently during the British mandate. Is it now wrong or immoral for people to live on the lands they have purchased?

Please, consider this information carefully.

LOL ...

So the Native Americans share genetic material with SE Asians.

This is a claim to land in China?

"Please, consider this information carefully."

I am from the North East of England. My mother has blonde hair and I have brown hair and hazel eyes.

Chances are, there are some Viking raiders in my ancestry. Can I claim some 'Viking land'?

How about the people from Iceland and Greenland?

We are all theoretically decended from the 'cradle of life' in Africa.

Can we all claim land there.

THEN, after we all claim out land, can we declar ourselves a new nation?

I suggest that you grow up.

 

[Smurf]

A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.

You could claim the same for Spain and Portugal, after all, the pope declared everything in Latin America (and elsewhere) belonged to them.

 

[Curious6]

Strangely you missed the main cause which was they were being massacred by jews. .

False. The only major-scale massacre that occurred pre-1948 was the Deir Yassin massacre that you rightfully mentioned. However, even if this does not justify the violence, I urge you to take a look at the context this occurred in. The attack was certainly not an unprovoked action of torture and horror as many would like to believe, but it was the retaliatory action after constant Arab attacks. Anyways, even before armed Jewish forces entered the city they warned via loudspeakers that women and children should leave the city, which clearly proves the attack's objective was the men who carried out the preceding attacks. Anyways, if you are genuinely interested, please take a look at the following page:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php

The Arabs were very friendly and obliging when the first jews arrived. Unfortunately the Arabs weren't aware that the jews hadn't come to live with them they had come to dispossess them and claim their land for themselves.

Yes, they were indeed very obliging. This is why they started the violence and were the perpetrators of numerous riots, such as those of 1920-21.

Complete and utter nonsense the jews came from Egypt and displaced the people of Canaan by force. The main city Canaan had a population of 260,000 people at the time, a huge city by contempory standards. The Canaanites occupied the land of Canaan for at least 1000 years before the birth of David and Solomon so if anybody has an historical claim to the land it is them.

This is interesting. The Jews did not come from Egypt, they were not native from there. Rather, they were enslaved, and were forced to work there. They then migrated to Canaan and established themselves there. Anyways, the figure you mention is unverifiable by history and I have read accounts that it is a grossly overstated figure. Anyways, the majority of Canaanites were absorbed into the Hebrew population as they intermarried for centuries, effectively causing the gradual disappearance of their culture.

 

[Smurf]

A difference is that some Jews believe in a biblical "promised land." Can't claim the same for the British over the Americas.

Besides, weren't the Palestinians also the children of Abraham.. and thus also promised his land?

edit: Besides 2, it's still illegal as of UN resolution 242.

 

[Curious6]

Also, the Jews have no more claim on their land from 2000 years ago than the British do to the US, or Canada, or Half of Africa, or Hong Kong, or even (haha) Israel. If you think you deserve Palestinian land because of that then you must agree China deserves Taiwan, Germany deserves Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and Spain and Portugal deserve all of Latin America.

Nothing to do with it. If you are trying to claim that the British inhabitants are the natives of the US, Canada or half of Africa or Hong Kong it is not even worth discussing. However, since Jews are natives of the land the claim is a rightful and just one. Your argument falls to water.

 

[Curious6]

Besides, weren't the Palestinians also the children of Abraham.. and thus also promised his land?

edit: Besides 2, it's still illegal as of UN resolution 242.

There is no mention of the term 'Palestinian' in the Bible, nor any of its derivatives. Secondy, please do not state a UN Security Council resolution which has been rejected by Arabs themselves. What is illegal? The settlements of the territories? Please, take a closer look at it and then come back.

 

[Curious6]

LOL ...

So the Native Americans share genetic material with SE Asians.

This is a claim to land in China?

"Please, consider this information carefully."

I am from the North East of England. My mother has blonde hair and I have brown hair and hazel eyes.

Chances are, there are some Viking raiders in my ancestry. Can I claim some 'Viking land'?

How about the people from Iceland and Greenland?

We are all theoretically decended from the 'cradle of life' in Africa.

Can we all claim land there.

THEN, after we all claim out land, can we declar ourselves a new nation?

I suggest that you grow up.

If you have no background knowledge in genetics, or the human journey out of Africa to populate the world, then please refrain from expressing these absurdities. Modern homo sapiens are descended from various waves that left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and slowly filled the world. The natives of each country are mainly the descendants of the people that first reached the land, with minor contributions from later additions. I know this topic fairly well, if you would like to have any further information I can explain it to you.

 

[Smurf]

Nothing to do with it. If you are trying to claim that the British inhabitants are the natives of the US, Canada or half of Africa or Hong Kong it is not even worth discussing. However, since Jews are natives of the land the claim is a rightful and just one. Your argument falls to water.

That's stupid. You can trace back the bloodlines from the French to the huns which were from Central Asia. Does France have a claim on Central Asia?

 

[Curious6]

That is untrue. French are largely descended from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that reached Europe close to 40,000 years ago with a subsequent addition during the Neolithic from the Middle East due to the spread of agriculture. Any addition from the Huns is likely to be very minor and therefore insiginificant.

 

[Smurf]

There is no mention of the term 'Palestinian' in the Bible, nor any of its derivatives.

No? Abraham never fathered a child by a slave? Huh.. my mistake.

Secondy, please do not state a UN Security Council resolution which has been rejected by Arabs themselves. What is illegal? The settlements of the territories? Please, take a closer look at it and then come back.

What is illegal? It is illegal for Israel to be in violation of these aspects of the resolution:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area

Secondly, if Israel thinks they own land just because some Jews built homes there they are sadly mistaken.

 

[Smurf]

That is untrue. French are largely descended from the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers that reached Europe close to 40,000 years ago with a subsequent addition during the Neolithic from the Middle East due to the spread of agriculture. Any addition from the Huns is likely to be very minor and therefore insiginificant.

Paleolithic is a period of time, not a race. It's more commonly know as the stone age, have you heard of it?

Edit: well, actually the Paleolithic period is the second period of the stone age. Stone Age is more broad than that.