Is it any wonder why Palestinians are upset with Israel?

[ProudMNDemocrat]

[img][img]

Prior to 1947, there was no official country called Israel. The UN was a crossroads as to where to place European Jews who survived much of WWII in parts of Eastern Europe where Russia took over after the war such as Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, etc. The area selected was Palestine.

The events of today needs to go back to the 74 years. The continued expansion by Israel into Palestinian territories need re-examining. Perhaps this map might help.

[hack89]

1. The 1949-1967 map is mislabled

That large green area should be labeled Jordan. Let's remember who ruled that area for 18 years without ever considering the establishment of a Palestinian state.

That second map could have been reality except the neighboring Arab countries started a war of annihilation that they lost, resulting in the third map.

[guillaumeb]

3. If one accepts your argument,

the land should be returned to Jordan. And under International Law, land seized in war cannot be settled by the one who seized it.

[hack89]

5. Jordan renounced their formal annexation of the West Bank in 1988

Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on 24 April 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949.

Unlike any other Arab country to which they fled after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Palestinian refugees in the West Bank (and on the East Bank) were given Jordanian citizenship on the same basis as existing residents.[23] Jordan's annexation was widely regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Elihu Lauterpacht described it as a move that "entirely lacked legal justification."[24] The annexation formed part of Jordan's "Greater Syria Plan" expansionist policy,[25] and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordan's expulsion from the Arab League.

Jordanian disengagement from the West Bank (in Arabic: قرار فك الارتباط , in which Jordan surrendered the claim to sovereignty over the West Bank, took place on 31 July 1988.[50] On 31 July 1988, Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank (with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem), and recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank

[guillaumeb]

8. Address my second point.

And for the record, I do not accept your initial argument.

The Israeli Government is illegally occupying land, and illegally settling their own citizens on this land. And Netanyahu stated that there will never be a Palestinian State, which is one time he actually spoke the truth.

[hack89]

16. I concede that point. The Fourth Geneva Convention is pretty clear.

I don't support Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

And there most likely will not be a Palestinian state for a very long time - certainly not one that involves Hamas.

[guillaumeb]

40. Which means that this problem will continue.

I do not have a solution, other than either two states, or one.

[hack89]

45. I don't see a happy ending to all of this

As the situation continues all the moderate voices on either side have been squeezed out. Nothing will change until sometime catastrophic happens either globally or locally.

[Roc2020]

47. yes. WW111. Not kidding

Nothing locally will be catastrophic enough. There has to be world intervening event to get to a solution. Talk won't cut it.

[joshcryer]

81. Hamas loves to reset the clock every 10-15 years.

Stockpile quassam rockets, reset the clock, no leadership, status quo remains. Israel builds a new settlement. Border walls are tightened. Communities are squeezed out.

[LiberalArkie]

52. Whose land it is.. I saw a program years ago about a Palestian farmer who olive groves had been

in his families name for over 5,000 years. The Army bulldozed the olive groves for make new Israeli settlements.

That settled it for me as to whose land it is. most Jews left around 66BC and the jews left are what are called Palestinians.

[joshcryer]

83. Not really true, Jews and Christians inhabited those lands until...

...the Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem. Around 614. Many who left were heavily taxed and oppressed. Then the Crusades happened after back and forth for awhile. Then the Ottoman empire conquered the lands from the Sasanians for another 300 years. Then the British conquered it after that.

The lands were in limbo after the British conquered the lands and of course the British chopped it all up.

One thing is for sure these three groups love fighting over those lands, and the people who have control over it treat the others like crap.

[Decoy of Fenris]

24. Could you tell me where to find the International Law you're mentioning?

I just spent about a half hour trying to find it myself, but there's... a lot of international laws. Even narrowing it down to "International laws regarding Israel/Palestine" didn't help any, so I'm kind of coming up blank. Could use a bit of guidance in this regard.

[guillaumeb]

106. A great question.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or that they are in breach of international declarations.[a][c][d][e] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Israeli settlements.[f][g]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.

Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power.
It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/faq/occupation-faq-051010.htm#:~:text=It%20is%20unlawful%20under%20the%20Fourth%20Geneva%20Convention,a%20form%20of%20population%20transfer%20into%20occupied%20territory.

I hope that this helps.

[Decoy of Fenris]

117. It's a great help, thank you.

I'm smart enough to admit that I'm not nearly smart enough to understand all the workings of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and for the most part have stayed quiet/neutral until I feel I have at least some grasp on the material. Thank you again, and I now have quite a bit more reading to do.

[guillaumeb]

123. I agree with the idea that neither of us have an answer.

My opinion is that UN intervention, with peacekeeping troops, is part of the answer.

[joshcryer]

84. Jordan wasn't Jordan it was the Ottoman empire.

The British conquered the Ottoman empire and created Jordan out of it. Before the lines were drawn as to what constituted a state Israel was being formed. The people of the lands that became Jordan invaded the place of lands that were to become Israel. And Annexed the area for around 38 years (West Bank).

Had there been no annexation we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Palestinian's would be Palestinian-Isreali's and likely have the same rights as Jewish-Israeli's. But Jordan and the rest of the Arab world wanted to make sure that the people who were originally there when the British lines were formed had second class rights on the planet. Jordanians (who were responsible for the annexation) didn't even give Palestinian's the right for home ownership, which the Isreali's are exploiting to this day.

[guillaumeb]

2. And notice how disconnected all the "Palestinian" areas are.

This is apartheid. It is ethnic division, which is the result of apartheid.

It started in 1917, with the Balfour Declaration.

And these disconnected territories are controlled by Israel.

[hack89]

7. Before the Intifata the Palestinians routinely traveled and worked in Israel

but the bombings started so the walls went up.

[guillaumeb]

9. They were treated as second class citizens.

Sometimes they were working on land that they had previously owned.

[hack89]

17. Bad things happen in wars.

the key is to not compound your misery by starting a campaign of terror against civilians. There are certain things like full right of return that the Palestinians will never get. So they need to make the next best choice if they want peace and their own state.

[wnylib]

38. The next best choice would be a

Palestinian state. But Israel will never allow that and never had any intention of allowing it. Israel wants all of the land that was known as Israel over 2000 years ago.

The modern era of Jewish settlement in Palestine began before WWII as the Zionist movement. Understandably, they wanted a land of their own. They had remainned an ethnic group throughout the centuries of exile after Roman domination. They had been persecuted and never fully accepted wherever they settled.

During WWII, Jews in Palestine smuggled Jews out of Europe to escape the Nazi genocide. After the war, they smuggled in survivors while Britain refused them entry.

Just as Jews wanted a land of their own, Palestinians wanted to retain their own homeland and not give it up for the development of a new nation. That is understandable, too. So they resisted the establishment of Israel and were bitter over the loss of their homes. They fought back.

Regarding terrorism, Palestinian Jews used terrorism against Britain to force them to give in to demands for an Israeli state. Palestinians used terrorism to strike back at Palestinian Jews and then later at the state of Israel. They were encouraged to do this by Arabic nations in the region, who cosidered the entire region a remnant of the Muslim Empire.

In effect, Israel and Palestine are fighting the same war as they did 3000 years ago when the land was called Canaan.

I remember learning the Biblical stories of the Jewish conquest of Canaan in Sunday School, before I could read well enough to even notice newspapers. Then one day when I was about 8 I saw a headline about battles between Israel and surrounding lands. I was genuinely confused. It seemed that the Bible stories had come to life. I told my parents, "I thought that happened a long time ago, in ancient times."

I can understand Israel's self defense in the 1967 war. Almost everything since then has been provoked by Israel's determination to have all of the land for themselves in order to recreate the boundaries of ancient Israel. If you agree with Israel's goal on that, should we also give the Midwest back to the Lakotas and NY back to the Iroquois, etc.?

[tritsofme]

86. This narrative ignores decades of recalcitrance and rejectionism by Palestinian leadership

President Clinton, for instance, had an offer on the table that would have secured a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem. The offer was rejected, and they instead responded with the violence and terror of the Second Intifada, and have rejected multiple offers for statehood along the way. When they are ready for peace, they will have to sue for it.

[wnylib]

93. I remember Clinton's work on that peace

arrangement and the Intifads. I also remember that, in that promising time period, when it was so important to maintain good relations, Ariel Sharon decided to visit the Temple Mount, despite repeated warnings that it would be a provocative act that would disrupt the delicate balance of the peace since both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims claim the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa mosque as sacred.

It was a deliberately provocative act that destroyed all that had been accomplished in the peace negotiations. It indicated that Israeli leaders had no intention of ever cooperating in a two state solution. The Temple Mount/Al Aqsa site was already a bone of contention in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Control and/or access to it was still to be settled, so Sharon's act was symbolically an arbitrary claiming statement of ownership. Sharon knew full well in advance that his action would set off an angry reaction that would blow up the peace process. He was, in effect, flipping a bird at it.

I am NOT justifying the violence and bloodshed on both sides that followed. But I am calling Israel's sincerity about peace as phony as the Palestinians perceived it to be.

The settlement of Palestinian territory after the 1967 war has been a provocative act ever since it started. It is also an indication to Palestinians that Israel intends to claim ALL of the land that it wants. So Israel is not blameless in its troubles with Palestinians. Yet Israel continually refuses to accept any responsibility for preventing the two state solution from becoming reality.

[tritsofme]

103. Oh yes, the mere presence of Jews at their holiest site was an enormous provocation.

Didn’t those damn Jews know that the area was marked as Judenfrei?

There was never any threat to the Waqf or their role, only propaganda, lies, and incitement by Palestinian “leaders”.

[wnylib]

107. Nonsense hyperbole to claim

that the Palestinian reaction to Sharon was based on a notion that Jews had no right to be at their holiest site. It is also a sacred site for Palestinians. The Palestinian objection was not about the presence of Jews at the site. It was about Sharon indicating by his presence, at the very time when discussions about mutual access to the site were being negotiated, that Israel claimed sole dominance over it. If Sharon truly wanted to support peace, why didn't he show up there with a Palestinian leader, or, if they refused, then with another Muslim in the region as a show of unity and intent toward sharing of access?

And what about the continued settlement of the occupied territory, which you have not responded to?

The leaders on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are firmly entrenched in a commitment to oppose the presence of each other. Both sides are willing to clutch onto that commitment at the expense of the lives and safety of their own people.

There is no military solution to this problem that would not involve the genocide of one or the other side. It requires a political solution, and that requires sincere efforts to negotiate in good faith without provocations.

I have heard a sugestion that the US could make its support of Israel contingent on concrete Israeli steps toward a two state solution. Sounds like a good place to start.

[Mosby]

118. Sharon never claimed the Temple Mount as only for Jews.

You just made that up.

I agree that only a political solution is possible, but the Palestinian leadership want Israel and Palestine, and have refused to negotiate in good faith, according to President Clinton and his chief negotiator, Dennis Ross.

[AZProgressive]

89. There are studies on the Gaza Strip

Or one study that I remember reading is the inevitable result of having an open air prison like the Gaza Strip is terrorism.

It is sort of abusive. Houthis are probably a better example of what I mean. Saudi Arabia's ideology of their government is very oppressive of religious minorities such as the Houthis but Saudi Arabia has the backing of powerful Western countries but if Houthis defend themselves they are terrorists and face blockades & sanctions. The message that sends is take it.

Israel is a similar situation but not quite that extreme. Also there is more of a free press there which is why we know more about Israel/Palestine than Saudi Arabia.

[joshcryer]

79. They are still treated as second class citizens.

If you have any Palestinian heritage you're either forced into refugee camps or Gaza or the West Bank. Despite that the vast majority of Jordan's entire population is Palestinian.

[guillaumeb]

104. True. eom

[Mosby]

120. What about the refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan?

Why are they even operating? Why, after 70 years, haven't they been given citizenship? Isn't that how the other UN refugee organization works?

[joshcryer]

129. Because the Arab League says that they're not allowed it.

The Arab League explicitly mandates Palestinian Right Of Return. This policy has been in place since 1967. Any Palestinian first generation or any descendant of a Palestinian simply is not allowed to request citizenship in anywhere in the Arab world. They justify it under UN Resolution 194 which states that refugees should be allowed to return to their homeland. Only problem with that is if you were never born there why the hell would you want to go there? It's just cruelty.

30-40k Palestinians in Gaza leave every year, illegally, and try to implant somewhere else, often in western states, seeking asylum. The Saudi's actually blocked Gazan's from traveling to Mecca for a few years tho because so many of them were leaving and not going back.

It's just ridiculous... those refugee camps should not exist and their status as "refugees" is nonsense. They're human beings, if you're born in a refugee camp in Jordan you are a Jordanian.

[2naSalit]

21. Divide and conquer.

[guillaumeb]

41. Agreed. eom

[SCantiGOP]

51. Relabel the white areas "South Africa"

and the green areas as “black homelands.”
This will give a different, but I think an honest, analogy of what we have in this area.

[guillaumeb]

57. Exactly. eom

[Bettie]

128. Yes it will

but people don't like to think about it that way.

[Budi]

4. Considering that Palestine govt has some of the worst human rights laws,

I have no sympathy at this time.

When they still are referring to Israel as a "Settler Colony", that says that the UN settled Jews are still not accepted as a people deserving of a place to belong.

When both these issues are resolved in the name of recognizing human rights, then Palestine & Israel can talk peace.

Palestine's attrocious laws on human rights of their own people, Has Got To Be Brought To The Table 1st.

[guillaumeb]

12. Diversion, and whataboutism. eom

[Budi]

25. No its not.

Diversion & whataboutism also applies when ignoring the stifling horrid Human Rights treatment of the people of Palestine.

Placing the focus on the horrid result of war on the Palestinian people (and Israelis too) , while ignoring how Palestine violates Human Rights of its own people every day in its own country, is a big dose of diversion & whataboutism as well.

I disagree with sweeping aside the Palestinian atrocious human rights violations within their own country, while crying 'Bad Israel'.

I have no sympathy for the Palestinian govt for how they disregard their own women, children, lgbtq, free press etc.
And to invite HAMAS into the pic is just an added problem.

Fix their own human rights matters & show us how they value the women children etc of their own country 1st.

[AZProgressive]

90. I saw a 6 year old girl crawl from under the rubble of an Israeli air strike

The kids in either country are not the problem and in fact most of the people are not the problem since these problems started long before residents of either country were born.

Your line of argument is similar to what right wing populists in Europe use to justify their Islamaphobia and anti-immigrant policies. It is also why right wing populists in Europe are smarter than Trump who prefers to smear everybody including women & LGBT.

I wonder which country elected Trump?

[LymphocyteLover]

97. Yeah, there is massive anti-Palestinian racism in Israel, stoked on by the likes of Netanyahu

I'm just wondering how many Palestinians have to die for the world to care enough to do something about it?

[LymphocyteLover]

96. so that justifies Israel killing Palestinian civilians in huge and in ordinate numbers... got it

[Budi]

109. I refuse to support a govt who suppressed it's own people, and allows a terrorist group,

..funded by IRAN, to hide behind Palestian people as human shields, lobs missles, & infiltrates Israel.

Why is a oppressive govt like Palestine using a terrorist jihadi org like Iranian funded HAMAS?

The back story here isn't as simple as is made out to be.

Once again, as is often seen, an oppressive gov't allows a terrorist jihadi dictatorial gov't funded org to hold onto it's oppressive gov't.

Then yells fowl when innocents On Both Sides are killed.
Palestine govt is as much to blame as Israel govt for the thoughtless loss of life.

Palestine doesn't even regard its own people as equal to each other.
Their human rights in their own country is an atrocity.

It isn't about Just One headline blaring topic.

If those supporting Palestinians really want to take up an international case, then speak for Palestinians against the human rights violations by their oppresive govt.
And get HAMAS out of their country.

I have yet to hear One Congress person even address this Human Rights atrocity by the Palestinian govt.

No a word.

[LymphocyteLover]

113. We hear about Hamas all the time and plenty of Republicans complain about them

the fact they are pretty hapless compared to the Israeli military who regularly slaughters 20 times more Palestinians than Hamas kills Israelis.

Why Palestinians support Hamas is complicated but in fact I'm sure Israel loves having the bogey man of Hamas to use for why they can oppress Palestinians and take more and more land from them.

[Budi]

114. Israel loves HAMAS??? You so sure of that are you?

"I'm sure Israel loves having the bogey man of Hamas"

Cripe sake. Israel isn't the one using HAMAS. Palestine is.

Some are seriously defending a terrorist jihadi org like HAMAS working with Palestine, just take out the evil boogeymam Israel??!!!
Gdammit.

Read how Palestine treats its own people. Women, children, LGBTQ, journalists..etc.
They have lowered the value of these citizens in their country so why would they be so torn when HAMAS use them as shields, then blames Israel when shit goes down.

Freeing these oppressed groups of Palestinians from their own govt would be a more worthy cause to take up.

Then kick HAMAS out. Defund & sanction who's funding the jihadi terrorist group, HAMAS

There's a deeper more urgent call weighing behind the headlines of 'Israel is being mean'.
Wtf ever 🙄

[LymphocyteLover]

130. Got it--

Palestinians are clearly just terrible people, no wonder they have the evil evil Hamas as their leadership. Clearly they completely deserve getting routinely bombed and slaughtered by Israel and for Gazans to be locked in a giant concentration camp from 10 years and their buildings blown up and for their houses and lands to be stolen from them year by year.

Yes, it all makes perfect sense now.

[malaise]

6. It's always about land

and never about the religions they spew

[guillaumeb]

10. Land, and power.

The US, a prime colonialist power, protects Israel.

[malaise]

13. Europe as well

not just the US

[guillaumeb]

15. Guilt over their inaction in 1937 and forward? eom

[Martin Eden]

18. Lebensraum

They won't admit or call it that, but the long term strategy for a Greater Israel boils down to that.

[tritsofme]

75. Judenfrei

That’s one side’s long term and public strategy, if they don’t call it that, it’s only because they don’t speak German.

[Martin Eden]

77. Touche'

Nazis on both sides.

[sarisataka]

11. To be fair

Prior to 1947, there was no official country called Palestine either.

Oversimplification of a complex issue does justice to neither side

[guillaumeb]

14. This is a legacy of colonialism.

And there were Palestinians living on that land when the UN decided to create a state.

[sarisataka]

20. True, however we would have to go back

a VERY long time for when that land was not a colony or otherwise ruled by the local inhabitants.

Things might have been different if the surrounding countries had given the plan for Israel a chance. Or it might be worse. That is water under the bridge.

The two questions now are-

Does Israel have a right to exist?

Are Palestinians entitled to live under their own governance or as equal citizens under a government they are allowed to participate in fully?

[Budi]

26. K & R

It goes back further in time than some are willing to consider.

[mitch96]

33. "It goes back further in time then some are willing to consider." agree.. Who owned what, when?

Who's calendar do you use to say who owned what? 200 years ago? 500 years ago? Thousands of years ago???
If my people live in an area for 500 years and you come in and say my people owned it 1000 years ago, now get off... what do you do?
m

[Budi]

34. Jfc. 🙄

[guillaumeb]

43. Excellent points.

And your ending sentence summarizes it perfectly.

[dianaredwing]

31. Nearly the entire world structure

is a result of colonialism. Obviously, we cannot go back to before colonialism. The US has no intention of giving back any of its land or territories (never admitted to colonialism, but the effects are the same) and neither will any other country. It's the 'new world order' and no one is going 'home' again so it is best to settle in the home you've got, which is what individual Palestinians and Israelis have been trying to do. Therefore, regardless of what the Palestinian government does or the Israeli government does, there are people suffering on both sides. Ignoring that does not make either the good guy.

[Mosby]

36. There were jews living there also, going back 3500 years

[guillaumeb]

44. And?

Accepting that argument, everyone who came to the US after 1500 must return to their country or origin.

[Crunchy Frog]

68. There were Homo erectus living there nearly 2,000,000 years ago.

It's never belonged exclusively to any group of people.

[Mosby]

69. Then why do we respect indigenous rights at all?

The Dine (Navaho) have lived in NE AZ for 800 years, before that it was Anasazi land. Some of the land they settled on is Hopi land. So why do we respect their indigenous rights?

[joshcryer]

82. Sykes-Picot Agreement

Colonials chopped up the entire region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Let's be real, the "big three" religions have various claims to those lands for thousands of years. It will always, always, be a hot spot for violence. It is the nature of those lands.

[mikeysnot]

22. Bull

I have a map from the thirties… it clearly states Palestine…

Even in Raiders of the Lost Arch movie, Indiana flies to wait for it.

Palestine.

[sarisataka]

28. Well if Indiana Jones went to Palestine

In Raiders of the Lost Arch, it must have been a country.

Remind me, who was the President of Palestine in 1938?

[mikeysnot]

78. Sooooo a nation needs a president?

Who was the president of Israel in 1938?


Huh… huh…


Sometimes you need to go back to the source of the problem to find it…

[multigraincracker]

35. We could toss out religion and go back

1,000 years and go by DNA. That’d be fun and fair.

[Mosby]

37. Yeah, and here's the flag

[Progressive Lawyer]

48. "To be fair", there was no official country called "Native America" either...

..so displacing Native Americans was fine also.

[sarisataka]

50. I'm sorry,

Did my mouth look like it had too much room so you feel the need to put some words in it?

[Progressive Lawyer]

62. Forgiveness denied.

[uponit7771]

58. +1,

[Bettie]

59. +1

[IsItJustMe]

74. Excellent point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. My thoughts

Both sides have compelling narratives. I still hold out hope for a two state solution. I was actually debating a Trumpkin who said there is no such thing as a Palestinian because there was never a nation called Palestine. My retort is how about calling people what they call themselves

[global1]

19. If You Can - Get Your Hands On The December 1938 Issue Of National Geographic Magazine.....

It features an article called 'Change Comes To Bible Lands' with 40 illustrations. This is Volume LXXIV Number Six.

It also has one of NG's signature fold-up maps included entitled "Bible Lands and the Cradle of Western Civilization".

This clearly shows that what we call Israel now was Palestine.

It's very enlightening reading.

[2naSalit]

23. +1

[hack89]

27. It was the British that revived the Palestinian name

when they established their Mandate. The story of how the Mandate got its name is pretty complex:

The name given to the Mandate's territory was "Palestine", in accordance with local Palestinian Arab and Ottoman usage[4][5][6][7] as well as European traditions. The Mandate charter stipulated that Mandatory Palestine would have three official languages, namely English, Arabic and Hebrew.

In 1926, the British authorities formally decided to use the traditional Arabic and Hebrew equivalents to the English name, i.e. filasţīn فلسطين and pālēśtīnā פּלשׂתינה respectively. The Jewish leadership proposed that the proper Hebrew name should be ʾĒrēts Yiśrāʾel (ארץ ישׂראל=Land of Israel). The final compromise was to add the initials of the Hebrew proposed name, Alef-Yud, within parenthesis (א״י , whenever the Mandate's name was mentioned in Hebrew in official documents. The Arab leadership saw this compromise as a violation of the mandate terms. Some Arab politicians suggested "Southern Syria" (سوريا الجنوبية as the Arabic name instead. The British authorities rejected this proposal; according to the Minutes of the Ninth Session of the League of Nations' Permanent Mandates Commission:

Colonel Symes explained that the country was described as "Palestine" by Europeans and as "Falestin" by the Arabs. The Hebrew name for the country was the designation "Land of Israel", and the Government, to meet Jewish wishes, had agreed that the word "Palestine" in Hebrew characters should be followed in all official documents by the initials which stood for that designation. As a set-off to this, certain of the Arab politicians suggested that the country should be called "Southern Syria" in order to emphasise its close relation with another Arab State.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

Choosing that name was not recognition of an existing Palestinian state.

[Budi]

29. K & R Thank You!

Over simplifying anything in that part of the world is not possible & nor is it acceptable, and such a glossing over to make a point of view really misses the history of how they got there.

Appreciate your post.

[joshcryer]

88. The British really fucked it up.

And because the Zionists were buying up hundreds of square km of land to establish residency there they just said, fuck it, let's hand this over to the Zionists and let them have a state, because we can't figure this shit out. That Wikipedia page is really instructive btw, it shows just how out of touch the British were.

[IronLionZion]

30. Or go further back and it was British, and Ottoman empire

I wish there was a solution for the people who live there, but no one seems to be offering up solutions in good faith. Claims to any of the land all depends on how far back in time people want to go.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. "Claims to any of the land all depends on how far back in time people want to go."

Why don't we start from the premise that both sides of the disputes have their own narratives while diametrically opposed contain some truth?

I wish we could revive the peace process. Northern Ireland is a model though as tough as that problem was to solves this problem seems even more intractable.

[IronLionZion]

111. People have migrated a hell of a lot, which complicates things

tons of people who lived there around Israel's independence time have moved to Jordan and Egypt. Tons of Jewish people from around the world have migrated to Israel over the years.

[Mr.Bill]

32. These people will be at war with each other

long after your great, great grandchildren are dead.

[SunSeeker]

39. Netanyahu expelled Palestinians from their homes to make way for Jewish settlers.

And then he acts outraged that Palestinians are fighting back. Now he wants "peace," i.e. no consequences, for the violence he perpetrated (expelling people from their homes IS violence). This latestest round of fighting was started by Netanyahu.

Those maps show an obvious strategy. Israel is extinguishing the Palestinians. And it's working. Palestinians have no power, and neighboring Arab states don't want to help the Palestinians, so it sure looks like the Palestinians' days are numbered.

That's why there will never be a two state solution. There will soon be no Palestinians for whom to create a state. Israel will be the only state.

[2naSalit]

63. Ethnic cleansing, do you mean?

It was clear, decades ago, what Bibi and his ilk were up to, and anywhere else it would be called ethnic cleansing... A slow rolling genocide.

[SunSeeker]

67. Yep. nt

[Mosby]

42. The maps are propaganda

There are serious issues with every section.

https://aijac.org.au/fresh-air/disappearing-palestine-the-maps-that-lie/

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-mendacious-maps-of-palestinian-loss/

The Iranians have their own, special version:

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/444783/The-examination-of-the-map-that-Trump-released-for-Palestine

[Volaris]

46. The only solution is that the Palestinians are going to need their own sovereign state.

Additionally I would propose the wider Arab World needs a kind of EU or federal system...a multi-state governing body that sets general rules of governance. Let SA keep their king, but with the understanding that that king is subject to the authority of the rest of the Arab states.

[SunSeeker]

54. That's the only humane solution. But it won't happen.

Israel is well on its way to erasing the Palestinian territories. Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians will continue and there will only be one state, Israel. Might makes right. Just like how Russia will keep Crimea after taking it from Ukraine.

[Volaris]

56. I know it wont happen. But it's still the correct thing to call for.

[Soxderrube]

49. This seems familiar

Sort of like the early colonists did to the native people, now its Israelis doing it to the Palestinians , with the help of the US cause they know how to do it.

[The Jungle 1]

53. It was one stupid idea to put Israel in the middle of Muslim countries.

Why not just give them a chunk of Australia. It is all desert also.
We should all understand the on going fight is over control of limited WATER supply. Which will be the new oil.

[2naSalit]

65. +1

[SheltieLover]

66. +1,000,000!!!

[SCantiGOP]

71. There were actual discussions in the 40s

Of establishing an area in the western US for an Israeli State, but they had already firmly committed to establishing their state in their ancestral lands from thousands of years earlier.

[tritsofme]

76. Jews were the largest group in Jerusalem by the 1870s

It’s not as though they suddenly showed up in their historic homeland for the first time in the late 1940s.

[joshcryer]

80. Zionism demanded it.

They were buying up hundreds of square km of land before WWI and WWII. The Jewish people have a history of being ousted from those lands, but the land demarcation lines are in the Bible and Torah.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. Why not have given them Las Vegas or Palm Springs?

That was desert too.





And the former was largely unpopulated in 1948.

They wanted to go back to their ancestral homeland. Genetic testing confirms most Jews originated from the M.E., not Australia.

[JI7]

91. It wasn't just put there . It was already a place where Jews and Arabs had been living

and moving in and out of.

[Tarc]

100. Stunned by the tone-deafness of such a statement

[The Jungle 1]

108. I am sorry you feel that way.

I am tired of tone set by Israel when taking land and bulldozing ancient olive groves and building settlements on disputed land.
I am disgusted that many people living in Israel are not allowed to vote. 14 million people are under the government control of Israel only 8,972,000 are citizens of Israel and allowed to vote. The rest are controlled and I assume pay taxes but cannot vote. None of the 1,961,000 people living in Gaza can vote. That is not democracy. Only Jews are allowed to hold political protest in the West Bank. That is not democracy.
None of these facts even touches on the water crisis in Israel.
Can you say South Africa!
This will not work and will produce endless death and war. Yes there are human rights issues on both sides. But Israel has bigger better guns. What does history tell us about that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. There are no elections in the West Bank because Mahmoud Abbas called them off

There are no elections in the West Bank because Mahmoud Abbas called them off, presumably to avoid defeat. There are elections in Gaza. Hamas won. The Palestinians pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority, not Israel.



My two cents:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215446734

[Mosby]

116. The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel

21% of Israeli citizens are not Jews, and all citizens have the same rights. Non Jews in Israel serve in the congress (Knesset), military, and judicial system including Supreme Court justices. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.

The security and administrative arrangements in the West Bank and Gaza are detailed in the Oslo Accords, which was agreed to and signed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

The Palestinians do not pay Israeli income tax, in fact, Israel collects tax on goods produced in the WB, which are transferred periodically to the Palestinian Authority.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. 17% of physicians and 14% of nurses in Israel are Arab.

Here's an article that to inject some light into what is a dark thread:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/an-arab-doctor-and-an-ultra-orthodox-jew-find-common-ground-in-a-covid-ward/2020/04/25/d3ef284c-7f39-11ea-84c2-0792d8591911_story.html

[Beastly Boy]

55. You forgot to cite the source of your map.

There may be more, but this is one of them:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2000-unexplained-2/

The article that follows demolishes your assumptions and provides a bit of history to go with the maps. It doesn't make your post look good at all:

The image above is a depiction of Israeli expansionism that has been featured in several articles by University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan administration official, included it in an article in Foreign Policy Journal, and it has also appeared in The Atlantic and the websites of numerous of organizations including Justice and Peace in Palestine and Israel and the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations. Another article, at Salem-News.com considers it a picture “worth a thousand words.” It has been widely distributed and considered factually correct by public intellectuals and laymen alike.

Despite the Daily Dish’s contention that this sequence of maps “isn’t propaganda; it’s fact”, a map-by-map analysis found that these “four stages” were inconsistent with historical fact. In reality, the maps have been disingenuously labeled and deceptively arranged to paint an exaggerated picture of Israeli land expropriations.

More specifically, the first map, labeled “1946”, is actually a map of what the League of Nations in the 1920s predicted Palestine would be like in 1946. Since historical maps are generally more accurate when they portray past events rather than future events, I would recommend a UN map from 1950 that depicts the Jewish/Arab breakdown of land ownership in Palestine of 1945.

The UN map from 1945 shows a vastly different reality—it introduces a new category of land, “Public and Other.” While 47.06 percent of land in Palestine in 1945 belonged to Arabs and 5.15 percent belonged to Jews, the largest category of land was “Public and Other” at 47.8 percent. This is a rather large minor detail to leave out.

The second map seems irrelevant in this context. Why is the UN partition plan, which was accepted by the Zionist leadership but was never implemented because it was rejected by their Palestinian counterparts, part of this sequence? A plan that was never realized cannot be considered an historically accurate depiction of reality because it never historically was.

The third map erroneously attributes sovereignty to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It would be hard for any serious student of history to claim that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were sovereign Palestinian lands from 1949 to 1967. Seeing as Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 and held onto it until 1967, it’s clear that this land was not Palestinian. Likewise, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military control for the large majority of that period.

The fourth map is an accurate representation of Israeli and Palestinian sovereignty so far as I can tell, but its context has been completely warped by the inaccurate depictions that precede it. It follows that the first three maps were intentionally arranged and distorted in a manner that would emphasize Israeli expropriation of Palestinian lands. With so many glaring inaccuracies, it is hard to believe that scholars, public intellectuals, and organizations would actually disseminate this image.

[The Magistrate]

64. Thank You For Hunting That Up, Sir

I have long been under the impression the first in that series (and it has been in circulation a dog's age) showed land title on the date given.

I appreciate learning something.

[WiseElder]

60. IS THERE A HAMAS EQUIVALENT TO THAT?

1. Every day on Israeli TV there are intense discussions about whether Israel is doing enough to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

2. Every day on Israeli TV there are conversations about the fundamental importance of coexistence, and of strengthening ties between Jews and Arabs so that we can live together with dignity.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

3. Every day on Israeli TV there are voices questioning whether the IDF is conducting this campaign appropriately.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

4. Every day on Israeli TV there is endless criticism of the government and of the Israeli leadership.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

5. Every day on Israeli TV there is reflection on how Israel could do better in its dealings with the Palestinians.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

6. Every day on Israeli TV there is patent concern for the plight of the Palestinians, and a search for solutions to try to improve their situation.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

7. Every day on Israeli TV proposals are offered as to how Israel might be able to assist in the rehabilitation of Gaza after the rockets stop.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

8. Every day on Israeli TV there is denouncement of Jewish extremism and racism.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

9. Every day on Israeli TV there are Jews and Arabs of diverse backgrounds - articulate women and men sitting together - fiercely debating the future of the region, and expressing themselves freely and without fear.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

10. Every day on Israeli TV there is a palpable yearning to build on the peace treaties that Israel already has with four Arab countries, so that peace can be achieved with all of Israel’s neighbors.
Is There a Hamas Equivalent to That?

[maxsolomon]

70. Your point is? The OP says PALESTINIANS, not Hamas.

Hamas is not all Palestinians.

They don't represent all Palestinian territories.

Sizeable portions of the Palestinian population in Gaza don't want them representing them.

You don't make Peace with your friends; you make it with your enemies.

[SCantiGOP]

72. You are exactly right

The post you responded to was supposed to be clever propaganda but it missed its mark.

[The Magistrate]

61. One Small Point, Ma'am

It is obvious from those maps that had the United Nations partition in 1947 been accepted, the people of Palestine would be in a far better situation than today.

Neighboring states, Transjordan and Egypt in particular, in consort with the political leadership of Arab Palestine, chose to take a chance on war, a war which was to extinguish any Jewish polity, and expel at best Jews who had immigrated in the previous decades. Wars have consequences, and as Gen. Eisenhower once observed, 'When you appeal to the court of force, the one thing you must not do is lose.'

The initial map, by the way, is quite misleading. It shows only land title*, and says nothing about either total population, or for that matter, political control, which at that time was exercised by England, under League of Nations auspices. It is contrived to suggest there was a political entity of Arab Palestine, which was suddenly afflicted by a rash of Jews, that just spread and spread and spread. That sort of thing is tiresome, and suggests an argument being made in bad faith.

There is no room for doubt the people of Arab Palestine have been treated poorly, nor is there any room for doubt the right wing governments of Israel during this century have made their situation worse, deliberately. There is also no room for doubt that a good portion of the woes afflicting Arab Palestinians stem directly from very poor choices made by their political and religious leadership, going back a hundred years or more.

At this point, political leadership in both polities has adopted the 'one land from the river to the sea' slogan, tacitly or otherwise, and the only question remaining is which of the peoples will not be a part of it. That is a question traditionally decided by weaponry, though there are other ways to bend an opponent to one's will.

Not every problem has a solution.


* I have just learned that point is in error, that it actually shows a projection of 'what the League of Nations in the 1920s predicted Palestine would be like in 1946'.

See post 55 above

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215443219#post55

[48656c6c6f20]

73. I can't think of any government

In the region deserves to have sovereignty. They're all just a Florida without being shaped like an old penis and balls. Who the fuck needs the headache?

[AZProgressive]

92. If there are problems in the region it is because of European Countries & the US

Monarchs like the House of Saud were backed by the British from the beginning the US allied with them during WW2 and every President since because of OIL. In fact most there in the region had a favorable impression of the US prior to that because they didn't meddle there like the British and other European countries.

[tonedevil]

94. Frequently overlooked. /nt

[Mosby]

125. The British gave away Palestine to the Hashemites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

[AZProgressive]

126. I was mainly referring to Saudi Arabia

British and that sect in Saudi Arabia go back to 18th century.

All I will say is many Americans have short memories compared to the people that live that in that region.

[LymphocyteLover]

98. I'm just wondering how many Palestinians have to die for the world to care enough to do something

about their situation?

[hack89]

110. A lot more people died in Syria in a shorter time frame and the world did nothing

Last edited Wed May 19, 2021, 09:33 PM - Edit history (1)

you are overestimating the world's capacity for compassion. If they can ignore a series of wars in Africa that have killed millions, then ignoring the Palestinians should be expected.

[LymphocyteLover]

112. true... I guess it's just that this has been going on so long...

[AZProgressive]

127. I criticize Assad a lot

I am given a hard time by progressives for calling Assad a human rights violator but I would feel like a hypocrite if I didn't call him a human rights violator.

BTW Syria is a proxy war so the whole world is already there.

[Marrah_Goodman]

99. Native Americans were considered much the same as Palestinians are now

Shoved into reservations and demonized if they fought back against a far heavier armed invader. We were wrong then, Israel is wrong now.

[Tarc]

101. The events of today are what they are, there are no do-overs or mulligans

Part of the problem is the infiltration by Hamas into the situation. They do not deserve a seat at the table.

[PCIntern]

121. Yeah well...

By this logic I need to return my home to the Delaware Native Americans but more to the point:

Israelis face Annihilation, not conquering. The Yom Kippur War proved that. That’s when “never again” became “absolutely never again”.

[AngryOldDem]

124. Goes back farther than that.

A large share of the blame for the mess that is the Mideast, including Israel, lies with the Balfour Agreement, which dates back to WWI.

[oasis]

131. The Palestinian/Isreali map is a real eye opener. nt