Why do we still have Palestinian refugees?

Post Reply New Topic

So the map you present correctly titles palestine as a british protectorate. This does have historical and political significance but in real terms it does not change what actually happened, both maps demonstrate with reasonable accuracy the level to which the Palestinians were dislocated to make way for the masses of dislocated Jews wanting to get the heck out of Europe after the war, Zionism with its ridiculous belief in a promised land proved an all to easy solution for both the UN and countries that did not want another Jewish problem, without a care that the solution meant the dis-inheritance of a large portion of the land they took. The Israeli's then proceeded to take ever more land in response to the natural retaliation of the Palestinians and the attempt by Arab nations to take control. The end result of this being the Palestinians are now literally walled in to two tiny areas, one of which is landlocked and the land bridge between the two has been severed.

Considering the fact that the Greek toponym Palaistínē first occurs in the work of the fifth century BCE (~500 to ~400 B.C.) Greek historian Herodotus, where he used the term to generally denote the coastal land from Phoenicia down to Egypt, it is fair to say that even the Israelis can be considered Palestinians, especially those whose ancestry can be traced back to the Jewish diasporas of the first and second centuries C.E. -- Herodotus makes no distinction between the Jews and other inhabitants of Palestine.

So what's all the fuss and bother about? An internecine conflict between Jewish and Non-Jewish Palestinians -- a civil war that is no one else's business, yet which draws interest from ignorant armchair critics who would never even consider getting physically involved.

The Palestinians were not dislocated "to make way for the masses of dislocated Jews wanting to get the heck of of Europe after the war".

The Palestinians were dislocated due to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which was started by the Palestinians and several surrounding Arab states.

The British Mandate for Palestine (including current Israel, Palestinian territories and the Kingdom of Jordan) had a size of 120,000 square kilometres. Current Israel is a little more than one sixth of this. Jordan, on the other hand, took almost 75 percent of it.

So, why are you pointing fingers at Israel for taking Palestinian land? Jordan took way-way-way-way-way more "Palestinian" land, and the highest estimates suggest that Jordan killed more Palestinians in the single 1970 Black September event than the *total* number of casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 1948 to today.

If you were genuinely concerned about the Palestinian people, you would be pointing fingers at Jordan, not Israel.

^ This I have done in previous threads on this issue. Whilst jordan did grab a massive part of palestine the situation would not have arisen had the UN not made it possible with the partition of Palestine in the first place. That the Palestinians would rise up against this plan was quite evident as was the attack by the Arab nations. The whole mess has its origins with Zionism, and this was neatly exploited as a means to deal with the masses of dIsplaced Jews after the war, to the obvious detriment of the Palestinians.

Once again, I had to correct a few errors in your post.

The UN Partition Plan *created* Palestine. The only reason why people are even talking about Palestine is because of the UN Partition Plan.

British Palestine was not Palestinian land. It was British, and all of the area of The British Mandate For Palestine west of the Jordan river was - in its entirety - meant to be allocated as a Jewish home, as per Article 2 of the Mandate.

So it is deeply Ironic to point fingers at Zionism and the UN Partition plan as a reason for the plight of Palestinians. The Zionist-backed UN Partition Plan - which created Palestine as a separate and sovereign country - is the reason why the Palestinians could - for the first time ever - have their own state. But they threw away that opportunity by declaring war on Israel and rejecting the partition plan.

And it is abundantly obvious that the surrounding Arab states had no interest whatsoever in giving the Palestinians a sovereign country, so the Palestinian potential for statehood is actually owed to the evil British and the Evil Zionists.

its a textbook form of genocide when the land claimed by said Palestinians is a fragment of what it was, and is still shrinking every year with encroaching abuses that force more and more to leave their homelands.

Hang on though, it wasn't always UK territory any more than India, Eire or Hong Kong was always British. Lets go farther back than british colonialism in the region . Traditionally speaking, the land was occupied by a arab, muslim majorityliving peacefully alongside the jews prior to the arrival of the british. State or not, they were a homogenous, indigenous group that laid claims to the lands.

Its abundantly clear that the Israeli government isn't interested in a dual state solution any more than the Palestinians, otherwise they wouldn't turn a blind eye to illegal settlers who are in violation of even Israeli law.

@GGP

Thats right hide behind obfuscation. The simple facts are this. The area had been populated by levant arabs for thousands of years, this area has been know as Palestine by everybody except Jews since the pretty much the birth of christianity, for most of this time there were very few jews living in their promised land. Zionism gained a foothold in the early 20th century and this was pushed along by the british government in 1917 with the Balfour declaration " His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country" There was a gradual migration into Palestine by European Jews which turned into a flood after the war. The establishment of Israel was done against the wishes of the vast majority living in the area. You seem to think that the locals deserved all they got for their temerity in trying to prevent their land being given almost wholesale to European Jews.

The area has been taken over by successive empires and states, this does not however justify European Jews taking over the country and marginalising the local population because they are in need of a home.

Indeed.

The Arabs made the choice to go to war in 1948 to annihilate Israel.

If they had recognised Israel in 1948, not a single person would have had to flee - in either direction.

There would now be a peacefully coexisting State of Israel, State of Palestine and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

They made the choice to try to kick the Jews into the sea at birth, and they caused the refugees. This is on them.

1. When did one sixth of the land become "almost wholesale"?
2. The Palestinians were not marginalized by Jews taking over the country. They were marginalized due to the fact that they started a *war* and *lost*.
3. Do you seriously think - given its neighbours - that Palestine would even *exist* today without the 1917 Balfour Declaration, without the 1920 British Mandate, and without the 1947 UN Partition Plan?

You are sidestepping the simple fact that no-one except Britain and Israel were ever remotely interested in the establishment of a Palestinian state. Without the British Mandate, The Palestinian alternative to Zionism was not having their own land. It was being absorbed and made subject to other states... Which is *exactly* what happened when the Palestinians refused the offer of statehood in 1947.

If Israel is ever wiped from the map, there will never be a Palestinian state to replace it. The territory will be invaded and taken by the nearby countries.

You're absolutely right.

The arabs should have acquiesced, and put the kettle on for the Israelis while they evicted them from their lands and burnt down their centuries old olive groves.

they were being marginalised prior to the war.

the war started BECAUSE of the marginalisation. The Israelis came with designs with their land. They made it clear they weren't interested in assimilating, they wanted to RULE. Any other unconsenting populace anywhere else under precisely the same context would have also have reacted hostilely.
.

Please cease this selective historical spin and victim blaming.

Last edited by thomas81 on 30 Nov 2013, 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They would have done no such thing.

Not a single Arab would have been moved from their homes. And no olive groves would have been burnt.

You do know that the Jews frequently begged local Arabs not to flee, don't you, that they begged them to stay put where they had always lived? And those that did became full Israeli citizens?

That was the dream of all mainstream Zionists from right-wingers like Jabotinsky to the dominant Labor Zionism of post-Independence Israel.

Socialist Zionism was dominant in Israel until the 1970s.

Ahahahaha, oooooh boy.

If I convert to Judaism, will that automatically mean Israel is my God given ancestral homeland and I can have a nice Palestinian house in the sun?, I could do with a holiday home away from this cold weather.

What about the Biblical commandment to the 12 tribes of Israel that they must only ever live in their own designated portion of the promised land?
Are the Jews just looking after the other 11 portions for the children of Dan, Reuben, Naphtali etc etc? ready for the Biblical regathering of Israel?, what will they do when they arrive?, kick the Jews out?