ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Individuals have rights.
Governments have authority.

"I has rights, you have rights, even animals... has rights."

[Kidlicious]

Is that you Lord Shiva? I'm starting to see a similarity.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I would hardly call decendents from someone who lived 1300 years ago heirs to inherit his land when there has been someone living there during that time.

Israel has 'enjoyed' plenty of population changes during the 1300 years, and i am not familiar with any serious lasting permanent settlement in it.

Most of the land was underdeveloped, arid or swamp like.

There was an influx of people during the crusades, but I doubt there was serious continuity.


As far as I know, most people living in the galillee were nomadic tribes that moved between "israel" and "syria". this was true for south Israel as well.

The coasts as far as I know were mostly uninhabited.

What was inhabited was mostly the Judean / Samaria area, now known as "west bank" - due to the nature of local arab culture to set up small villages in mountaineous areas.

So I would hardly expect a persistant presense of any kind, arab or jewish in all but a few areas (judea, parts of gallillee and the valey north of Tiberius).

[Heresson]

We've been going through it again. It's a lame excuse for the "a land without a nation for a nation without a land" demise. There IS a continuity. Arabs from wherever they live are mostly descendants from the population that used to live there before. Sure, there was a big emmigration due to persian and arabic conquest, as syrian popes, syrian liturgy in Italy, or abandoned cities in central Syria show. But these were the most populated byzantine provinces.
Again I remind You the point which I've mentioned earlier: if population was indeed so mixed through the time, why are christian denominations where they were 1500 years ago? Why Palestine still is greek orthodox when it comes to Christians, while Syria remains the homeland for syrian orthodox? Why syrian orthodox and nestorians until recently were in Iraq where they used to be ages ago

No, there was no big influx during the crusades, except for a few coastal cities who were slaughtered as soon as mamluks got them anyway. Actually, Jerusalem wanted the influx, but peasants didn't pour in, despite its wishes. Of course, there were slavic, turkish slaves, beber,. kurdish soldiers, Circassians, Armenians, even Mongols etc settling or being settled in Greater Syria, but not in some giant masses, and anyway it's not as if any land or any nation kept its blood the same as it was 1000s years ago. I find it strange for a Jew to demand a racial purity of a population to be able to inherit a land anyway. And anyway, are Jews the same Jews that emmigrated from Palestine? Wasn't there any gentile or Khazar blood mixed in?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
why are christian denominations where they were 1500 years ago? Why Palestine still is greek orthodox when it comes to Christians, while Syria remains the homeland for syrian orthodox? Why syrian orthodox and nestorians until recently were in Iraq where they used to be ages ago

perhaps for the same reason Calvinist New Yorkers in the late 18th c continued to be Presbyterians, and New Englanders Congregationalists, despite the migration of New Englanders to New York. The congregationalists decided to join Presby churches rather than found their own. Is is possible that a Syrian O moving to Lod would join a Greek O church?

Leaving aside the possibility that mobility was higher among Sunni muslims.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
I find it strange for a Jew to demand a racial purity of a population to be able to inherit a land anyway. And anyway, are Jews the same Jews that emmigrated from Palestine? Wasn't there any gentile or Khazar blood mixed in?

Indeed if everyone were willing to just say that both peoples have inherited the land, the Jews from their origin there, and the Pals from their rights of adverse possesion, and both have claims, and the land should be partitioned on that basis, thered be no issue.

However some, like Kid above, would deny any Jewish claim to the land, despite the history, despite the historic attachment to the land, on the ground of continuous occupation, and THAT brings in the question of what that continouse occupation was.

There is also the question of Arab migration to the land SUBSEQUENT to the increase in jewish migration in the 19th century.

[SlowwHand]

Why isn't this a poll? Is it too late, or just the time?

[Barnabas]

Jews I think are more similar to syrians to the lebanese (in looks), palestinians look more like egyptians or like arabs (from arabia)

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. After WW Two it was a british problem because Britain only held Palestine due to the League Mandate, and the mandate specified the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. France and Italy, in 1946, expected the problem to be solved IN Palestine because that was what the League had agreed on way back in 1919. There would have been no reason to suggest a French or Italian colony. France could well have responded that if UK had no interest in fulfilling the mandate then UK should have let France have the mandate in 1919.

Did the inhabitants of Palestine have ANY say in their own fate back in 1919?

This is the attitude I find most vexing, most obnoxious, most troubling. If one believes in the principle of national self-determination, then what right at all did a bunch of Brits have to decide the fate of the Arabs and Jews living in Palestine?

And if national self-determination is not paramount, if some other international customs take precedent, how can one then argue against say the Palestinians being afforded the rights they were promised as human beings, of being able to determine their own lot?

3. in 1946 most Zionists were amenable to a partition, which would have meant the Palestinians would have had their own state for their millions, and the Jews their state for their millions.

Except that back in 1946 the population in Palestine was still overwhelmingly Arab. So who were the Zionists to be making decisions about the fate of lands inhabitted by non-Jews?

4. I rather suspect that in 1946, after a war that took tens of millions of lives, and in which 5-6 million Jewish civilians had been murdered, there was perhaps a greater tolerance for "problems".

So the Arabs in palestine were to bear the European's shame? nice.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


for the same reason I reject Israeli soveriegnty over Hebron, Nablus, and Gaza. These are two different nations, each entitled to their own state. That includes the right to control their own immigration policy, and to maintain their national distinctiveness.

These things are not analogous. The right of return is a right granted to INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS. The same international community that partitioned Palestine, whose authority your clearly accept since you use their decision to justify your position, also stated that it is the right of all human beings to be able to return home after a war. A state can control "immigration policy", but it does not have the right to drive people from their property and force them to flee and then deny them the ability to come home. That is not "immigration policy", that is a war crime.

Last time I looked there is nothing enshrining "national distinctiveness". I personally fall squarely on the notion of the paramount importance of INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, and these rights. NO "national distinctiveness" is worthy of keeping it its maintenance is built upon gross violations of the rights of individuals.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
These things are not analogous. The right of return is a right granted to INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS. The same international community that partitioned Palestine, whose authority your clearly accept since you use their decision to justify your position, also stated that it is the right of all human beings to be able to return home after a war. A state can control "immigration policy", but it does not have the right to drive people from their property and force them to flee and then deny them the ability to come home. That is not "immigration policy", that is a war crime.

Except "that same international community" created the partition as a best solution to the problem.

Next.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
[Q] Originally posted by GePap


Except "that same international community" created the partition as a best solution to the problem.

Next.

Have a clue before you speak..wait, Oh, its you Straybow...

Partition does not equal ethnic cleansing. The UN said the Jews could form their own state in one part of the land, the Palestinians on the other. That decision gave NEITHER side the right to force individuals of the other group from their lands or their homes if that land came to be in the "other sides" state. Doing that would violate the INDIVIDUALS human rights, though I know the concept of human rights, such as property rights, are a mystery to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

The basic issue of course was that in 1948 the population of the mandate was 67% Arab and 33% Jewish. So any way you cut it, it was simple to make an "Arab" state in which the vast majority were Arabs, but impossible to make a "Jewish" state without a massive Arab minority.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Patroklos
There is also no other example of any other people getting their ancesteral homland back after being gone for 2000+ years.

That's because they weren't very attached to the land and were content to create a new homeland by kicking out whoever was there before they arrived.

There is a difference.

1. Basques -still live there.
2. Catalonians - still live there.
3. Kurds - still live there.
4. Scots - you guessed it, still live there.

You forgot:
5. Jews -still live there

And you forgot:
1. Bascques were forced out of certain areas centuries ago and want them back.
2. Catalonians, too.
3. Kurds also.
4. Scots are happy as long as there is enough alcohol. We should make them resettle in a new homeland, displacing the current inhabitants, just to show everybody how stupid these "arguments" against the Jewish state in Israel are.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
The basic issue of course was that in 1948 the population of the mandate was 67% Arab and 33% Jewish. So any way you cut it, it was simple to make an "Arab" state in which the vast majority were Arabs, but impossible to make a "Jewish" state without a massive Arab minority.

The Jews were content to accept a large Arab minority. That Arab minority within the Jewish partition were not willing to accept the deal and immediately began militating against the Jews.

Please try to keep up with historic events you wish to comment upon.

[Spiffor]

So the Arabs in palestine were to bear the European's shame? nice.

Colonial times.

The proposal for Uganda was the same.