Israel to evict WB settlers!

[Almo]

The Palestinian terrorists are the real descendants of Nazis.

No comparison. Read some history.

 

[Virus]

No comparison. Read some history.

You.

 

[Skepticemea]

I've only been on here for a few months, is there a monthly award for the most vicious aspersion cast?

 

[The Don]

I've only been on here for a few months, is there a monthly award for the most vicious aspersion cast?

Nope, the administration of this would be too onerous, so many candidates.

 

[bigjelmapro]

From the article:

...
''He said the land belongs to the government, that we are illegally here. I told him that I lived here before 1967, before you even came to our land.''

Interesting how this disinformation even extends to E. Jerusalem. As if the Jordanian occupation between 1948-67 had actually erased Jewish settlement in the area prior to their occupation. Sure, the Jordanians and the ALA tried drastically to do so, but couldn't.

All these Israeli-Palestinian conflict threads still fail to address the issue where the area behind a voided armistice line of two wars previous between two specifc countries is somehow transferrable to a 3rd party, the PLO/PA in this case.

Fact of the matter is, no matter how hard this supposed 'international community'/UN/etc would like to reframe this conflict, the land is disputed, just like the many disputed areas around the world. This is no different.

As for the OP of this thread, I do agree that relocating these bedoin settlers near a garbage dump goes against health measures and there should be diffferent avenues, with relocation being the last, tried before this goes anywhere.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which zionist in this thread did that?

There's more to the world than this thread, and more Zionists in it. I've been rather pleasantly surprised by how restrained and rational this thread has been.

 

[CapelDodger]

The Palestinian terrorists are the real descendants of Nazis.

They got most of their ideas from the Irgun.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've only been on here for a few months, is there a monthly award for the most vicious aspersion cast?

Time was there'd have been accusations of anti-semitism before Page 1 was half-full. Perhaps on USA Politics there still would be, but I don't go there .

 

[CapelDodger]

Do you not think Austria would have been a better location for a Jewish Homeland? Western Jews would have felt more at home there, nobody would have any sympathy for expelled Austrians, and it would be deeply poetic. What's not to like?

The chance has probably passed, though. But never say never.

 

[Virus]

They got most of their ideas from the Irgun.

Nazis. Then the Soviets.

 

[trustbutverify]

Do you not think Austria would have been a better location for a Jewish Homeland? Western Jews would have felt more at home there, nobody would have any sympathy for expelled Austrians, and it would be deeply poetic. What's not to like?

The chance has probably passed, though. But never say never.

Never.

 

[CapelDodger]

Interesting how this disinformation even extends to E. Jerusalem. As if the Jordanian occupation between 1948-67 had actually erased Jewish settlement in the area prior to their occupation. Sure, the Jordanians and the ALA tried drastically to do so, but couldn't.

Jews have lived in Jerusalem since David took it over from the Canaanites. It was the arrival of nationalist Zionists in Palestine that messed things up for them, and they weren't happy about it. Native Jews joined all the other locals in petitioning the Ottomans and later the British to keep them out, but to no avail. That community still refuses to recognise the existence of Israel.

All these Israeli-Palestinian conflict threads still fail to address the issue where the area behind a voided armistice line of two wars previous between two specifc countries is somehow transferrable to a 3rd party, the PLO/PA in this case.

The issue long predates the establishment of a nation-state called Israel, it goes back to the decision to establish a Jewish Homeland in an area with a diverse population. That was never going to turn out well, as many people said right from the start. It was a no-brainer.

Fact of the matter is, no matter how hard this supposed 'international community'/UN/etc would like to reframe this conflict, the land is disputed, just like the many disputed areas around the world. This is no different.

It's a dispute between colonists on the one hand, and natives on the other. There aren't many of those disputes going on anymore (either the colonists or the natives are history now, usually the latter), but that's not to say more might not erupt in future. Chinese colonies in Africa, for instance. The way Rhodesia/Zimbabwe has worked out the Chinese might just buy the place outright, with who knows what consequences.

As for the OP of this thread, I do agree that relocating these bedoin settlers near a garbage dump goes against health measures and there should be diffferent avenues, with relocation being the last, tried before this goes anywhere.

As has been noted here, the chances of an equitable outcome for traditionally nomadic peoples, or any peoples with a pre-modern sense of land-rights, are generally bleak.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nazis. Then the Soviets.

Could you expand on that a little? I'm all for brevity, but only up to a point.

In the 1930's Ben Gurion pointed to Stalin's policy of relocation of populations as an example of how the "Arab problem" could be dealt with, and Hitler pointed to the same thing vis-a-vis the Poles, but that's obviously not what you're referring to.

 

[Giz]

Do you not think Austria would have been a better location for a Jewish Homeland? Western Jews would have felt more at home there, nobody would have any sympathy for expelled Austrians, and it would be deeply poetic. What's not to like?

The chance has probably passed, though. But never say never.

Yes. Just after Germany had aggressively tried to reclaim all "foreign-owned" Germanic speaking lands (Austria, Sudetenland, etc) and tried to kill all the Jews it would have made perfect sense to put all the remaining Jews right next to Germany where they would have just dispossessed a lot of German ethnics/speakers.

I am sure that it would have been very comfortable for the Jews. No worrying about Shoah 2 and the Germans crossing the border I am sure...

 

[Virus]

Could you expand on that a little? I'm all for brevity, but only up to a point.

In the 1930's Ben Gurion pointed to Stalin's policy of relocation of populations as an example of how the "Arab problem" could be dealt with, and Hitler pointed to the same thing vis-a-vis the Poles, but that's obviously not what you're referring to.

The Palestinian terrorists were originally Nazi allies then they were sponsored by the Soviet Union, who were very generous to terrorists and bad guys.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Palestinian terrorists were originally Nazi allies

No, they weren't.

 

[mortimer]

Jews have lived in Jerusalem since David took it over from the Canaanites. It was the arrival of nationalist Zionists in Palestine that messed things up for them, and they weren't happy about it. Native Jews joined all the other locals in petitioning the Ottomans and later the British to keep them out, but to no avail. That community still refuses to recognise the existence of Israel.

Which community is that? I haven't heard of them.

The issue long predates the establishment of a nation-state called Israel, it goes back to the decision to establish a Jewish Homeland in an area with a diverse population. That was never going to turn out well, as many people said right from the start. It was a no-brainer.

Maybe so, but at the time, not a whole lot was turning out well for Jews, as you may recall. They finally had enough of being persecuted, slaughtered, etc and decided to take their destiny into their own hands. Was there a better place for them to do so? Maybe. But probably not much better.

As has been noted here, the chances of an equitable outcome for traditionally nomadic peoples, or any peoples with a pre-modern sense of land-rights, are generally bleak.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[dc1971]

The Palestinian terrorists were originally Nazi allies then they were sponsored by the Soviet Union, who were very generous to terrorists and bad guys.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Gazpacho]

The Grand Mufti's sin be upon them and their children!

 

[bigjelmapro]

Jews have lived in Jerusalem since David took it over from the Canaanites. It was the arrival of nationalist Zionists in Palestine that messed things up for them, and they weren't happy about it. Native Jews joined all the other locals in petitioning the Ottomans and later the British to keep them out, but to no avail. That community still refuses to recognise the existence of Israel.

Which native Jews are you referring to? I could only summise that you're referring to a minority that prophesize the return of a messiah that would wipe out the unbelievers and supposedly cleanse the land in question for their comfortable stay.

The above sound remarkably similar to the statements of Arafat and the PLO in general. It additionally falls in line with what Arab nationalists and Islamists desire as a whole, subservient dhimmis.

I did in fact respond to a specific issue in that article. Perhaps addressing that would help as well.

The issue long predates the establishment of a nation-state called Israel, it goes back to the decision to establish a Jewish Homeland in an area with a diverse population. That was never going to turn out well, as many people said right from the start. It was a no-brainer.

This Jewish homeland, as stated in the Balfour declaration, is not mutually exclusive to a group of people. The partition plan also made it a priority to divide the lands according to demographics. The resulting rejectionism by the Arab nationalists at this time for the many wars to comes, made it abundantly clear that Israel as a nation state would never exist regardless of its potential borders.

It would be interesting to see a seamless method of state building anywhere else in the world that should serve as a model where diverse populations aren't seen as a hindrance to state building.

It's a dispute between colonists on the one hand, and natives on the other. There aren't many of those disputes going on anymore (either the colonists or the natives are history now, usually the latter), but that's not to say more might not erupt in future. Chinese colonies in Africa, for instance. The way Rhodesia/Zimbabwe has worked out the Chinese might just buy the place outright, with who knows what consequences.

As this land has had a number of different groups of people, how do you distinguish between these supposed colonizers and natives? Land ownership? Length of stay? Existence within pre-existing borders of a sovereign nation? Successful wars/campaigns?

Sidetracking this area of dispute with an abundant use of strawman and by pretending that lands of dispute are wide and few, doesn't make this one go away. FYI, the Chinese were in South Africa primarily as a work force (motivator: resources and exploitation of it) and were not there for the intention of state/homeland building.

As has been noted here, the chances of an equitable outcome for traditionally nomadic peoples, or any peoples with a pre-modern sense of land-rights, are generally bleak.

No argument there. Problem would be how does one include a mainly nomadic people into a country where real estate shrinks and population densities increase?