Any 'pro-Palestinian' atheists here?

[bigjelmapro]

oh, so you no longer believe that Israel should recieve any special treats and goodies from the USA, as part of the "special relationship?

Good to see you're trying another angle and have given up this playing with words (ie 'demands').

If the US wants to lose it per capita, 10th largest export partner, ahead of Russia, Argentina, Spain and Ireland, of over $30 billion per year, over $50 billion if you include commercial services, then by all means.

What you have consistently failed to understand is the concept of bilateral trade and incentives in regards to US-Israel relations.

I'll let the American representative to the UN know that he no longer has to vote "NO" or abstain from all votes against Israel in the UNSC.

If the US wants to lose pretty much its only true ally in the ME, by all means. Its part of the relationship to politically back Israel. This would apply to any 'special' relationship between countries. Especially when dealing with the Arab bloc's attempts to isolate Israel, which a number of posters here support doing.

 

[bigjelmapro]

How many other nations were created there for people not living there?

A sizeable portion of the Western world was, albeit, a number of these nations either exterminated or forcefully displaced (devoid of war that is) an actual indigenous population.

Good to see that you're still peddling this drivel ignoring any connection of Jews to the miniscule land in question. Hypocrisy never ends, does it?

 

[DC]

A sizeable portion of the Western world was, albeit, a number of these nations either exterminated or forcefully displaced (devoid of war that is) an actual indigenous population.

Good to see that you're still peddling this drivel ignoring any connection of Jews to the miniscule land in question. Hypocrisy never ends, does it?

So you believe after 100s of years of living in diaspora, generation after generation, you still are indigenous population of that place?

I know Jews were from that place a long long time ago.
But meanwhile other people lived there. And it brings alot of troubles creating a nation there. and especially it is a huge exceptions for Jews being made.
No other people had so much luck to have the International community creating a nation for them.
Native Americans dont get that in the Americas, the Aborigenis dont get that in Australia, Kurds dont get that in the Middle east etc etc.

I dont say it should not have been done, but there must be some understanding as to why the people actually living there were not very happy with that decision.
Just like most in the USA would not be happy to give a huge part of the land they see as theirs to someone else and let them have an independent nation there. Same for the rest of America, same for Australia, same for Iran/Turkey/Iraq.

 

[Thunder]

A sizeable portion of the Western world was, albeit, a number of these nations either exterminated or forcefully displaced (devoid of war that is) an actual indigenous population.

my Aunt tried the same pathetic argument with me.

I told her I was proud that to visit a country where my family comes from, and that the capital city worked hard to preserve out heritage. that country was the Czech Republic and the city was Prague.

what was her response to me? "we are from Israel!!!!"

no, Bigjelampro and my dear Aunt, we may have a cultural and religious connection to Israel, but we also have a religious and cultural connection to Egypt, to Iraq, and even Persia.

the most important Talmud, is not the Jerusalem Talmud, but the Babylonian Talmud.

our ancestors lived outside of Israel, if you are not descended from converts in the Roman Empire, for almost 2,000 years.

we have lived in Europe, Asia, North Africa, even India, for almost 2,000 years.

we are NOT...indigineous to Israel. such a suggestion is historically silly and fundamentally pathetic.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

my Aunt tried the same pathetic argument with me.

I told her I was proud that to visit a country where my family comes from, and that the capital city worked hard to preserve out heritage. that country was the Czech Republic and the city was Prague.

what was her response to me? "we are from Israel!!!!"

no, Bigjelampro and my dear Aunt, we may have a cultural and religious connection to Israel, but we also have a religious and cultural connection to Egypt, to Iraq, and even Persia.

the most important Talmud, is not the Jerusalem Talmud, but the Babylonian Talmud.

our ancestors lived outside of Israel, if you are not descended from converts in the Roman Empire, for almost 2,000 years.

we have lived in Europe, Asia, North Africa, even India, for almost 2,000 years.

we are NOT...indigineous to Israel. such a suggestion is historically silly and fundamentally pathetic.

The bolded bit, why?

Are you talking Exodus?

 

[Doctor Evil]

Oh god. Such ignorance.

The Jerusalem Talmud is not as authoritative because Jewish life in the Galilee was hampered by the disrespect and sometimes hostility that the community had to endure. The book was never completed and there were less opportunities to raise great rabbis which could study it.

This has nothing to do with the fact that all Jews saw Jerusalem as the center of their religion, and the land of Israel as their place of origin. Trying to use the importance of the Babylonian Talmud to argue otherwise is hogwash.

 

[Thunder]

thw fact remains that it is total historical revisionism, to consider all the Jews of the world, to be indigineous to Israel.

 

[IDB87]

the British Mandate stipulated that Palestine would be a Jewish homeland, even though a very small minority of the population was actually Jewish.

and in 1947, the UN gave 65% of Palestine to the Jews, even though they made up 40% of the population. Almost all of them being immigrants.

How much of this 65% did the Negev make up, Parky? How many Palestinians lived in this desert?

The majority of the livable land the Jews acquired consisted of land they already lived on and owned. The rest of the land 'given' to them (the % of which makes the value seem huge) was essentially a wasteland that was only inhabited by Bedouins, and that has only recently seen development.

 

[Thunder]

How much of this 65% did the Negev make up, Parky? How many Palestinians lived in this desert?

so what. didn't Israel make the desert bloom?

 

[IDB87]

so what. didn't Israel make the desert bloom?

You missed the important bits:

If the majority of land given to the Jews was what could be considered 'wasteland', what does that tell you?

If there were no, or very few, Palestinians living in the Negev what does that tell you?

Break that 65% down into two categories. Try to separate the useful land that the Jews got (or already owned) from the Negev, which was considered a wasteland.

 

[Thunder]

Break that 65% down into two categories. Try to separate the useful land that the Jews got (or already owned) from the Negev, which was considered a wasteland.

ah...so if the land is a desert, its ok to give it away to anyone and everyone?

interesting.

why not instead of giving the Jews hundreds of square miles of desert in Palestine, give the Jews hundreds of square miles of fertile land in eastern or southern Europe.

after WW1, the Allied powers had the power and ability to divide up the former Austo-Hungarian Empire in any way they saw fit. They could have devoted 20,000 square miles or so to the Jewish people.

or they could have given the Jews a nice coastal section of Germany after WW2.

 

[IDB87]

ah...so if the land is a desert, its ok to give it away to anyone and everyone?

Please try to focus. It wasn't just a desert, it was a wasteland. Only the Bedouins and a few border communities could call it home and find any use of it.

why not instead of giving the Jews hundreds of square miles of desert in Palestine, give the Jews hundreds of square miles of fertile land in eastern or southern Europe.

Because fertile land is actually worth something. You have never heard anyone claim to exploit the vast wealth of the Negev's resources for a reason.

If the majority of land given to the Jews was a 'wasteland', what do you think a more accurate percentage of useful land was? Could it be comparable to what the Palestinians were given?

Edit*

If Israel is just under 8000 square miles and the Negev is over 4000 square miles, what does that tell you?

 

[Thunder]

Please try to focus. It wasn't just a desert, it was a wasteland.

please, define "wasteland".

still, the fact remains that in 1947, 65% of the land was given to 40% of the population.

and in 1917, Palestine was deemed to become a Jewish homeland, even though only around 10% of the land was Jewish.

 

[IDB87]

please, define "wasteland".

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wasteland+definition

still, the fact remains that in 1947, 65% of the land was given to 40% of the population.

More than half of that was a wasteland. Israel is just under 8000 square miles, while the Negev desert makes up more than half of the country's landmass.

 

[Thunder]

More than half of that was a wasteland. Israel is just under 8000 square miles, while the Negev desert makes up more than half of the country's landmass.

well, if the Negev was such crap, why didn't they just give it to the Arabs?

 

[IDB87]

well, if the Negev was such crap, why didn't they just give it to the Arabs?

I don't think I ever claimed to speak for the U.N. OR the British, so that's beyond me to answer.

I just think the percentage of land allocated to both sides should reflect the usefulness of that land, especially if one side or the other is using it as some kind of leverage.

Especially when it is a huge margin of difference!

It may very well be the rest of the land the Jews were 'given' in 1947 was land that was already owned by Jews.

 

[Thunder]

It may very well be the rest of the land the Jews were 'given' in 1947 was land that was already owned by Jews.

forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't the Jews only own around 12% of Palestine in 1947?

oops..it was only 9%.

 

[Doctor Evil]

I don't think I ever claimed to speak for the U.N. OR the British, so that's beyond me to answer.

I just think the percentage of land allocated to both sides should reflect the usefulness of that land, especially if one side or the other is using it as some kind of leverage.

Especially when it is a huge margin of difference!

It may very well be the rest of the land the Jews were 'given' in 1947 was land that was already owned by Jews.

The Negev was allocated for the Jews since David Ben Gurion believed that the Jews could make the Negev habitable. This was one of his obsessions. Indeed, when he retired he went to spend the rest of his days at a small Kibbutz in the Negev. (More than 60 years later Israel have only partially managed to make the Negev habitable.)

The UN commission allocated the Negev to the Jewish state because it gave the Jews land, albeit a desert, where they can settle the large number of Jewish refugees which were expected to immigrate to Israel once the state was formed. All this without impacting many of the local Arabs, since the Negev was fairly unpopulated.

The British were against this idea. They wanted the Negev to be either a part of the Arab state, or even better, to be given to Egypt. (Or was that Jordan?) The reason, they wanted a land connection between their bases in Jordan and Egypt, which they still considered to be part of their Empire. Ironically, both countries have broken free from the Empire soon after.

I would be surprised that Parky, with his obsession for the subject, was not aware of these well known details. That is, if I was not used to that by now.

 

[IDB87]

forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't the Jews only own around 12% of Palestine in 1947?

oops..it was only 9%.

That would depend on your source.

With land that was owned by Jews and Arabs that were willing to become part of the State, you get something like 15%

You also have to factor in the Negev, again. The largest chunk 'owned' by Palestinians (which could not be cultivated) was 16,925,805 dunams. I won't bother translating dunams to square feet, but it's huge.

You'd also have to differentiate between privately owned land and land that was owned by the mandatory government.

 

[Thunder]

That would depend on your source.

With land that was owned by Jews and Arabs that were willing to become part of the State, you get something like 15%

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html#b

My source is the Jewish Virtual Library, and they said 9%.

And that's 9% of the land allotted to the Jews by the partition plan, NOT 9% of the total land of Palestine.

and frankly, suggesting that the British Mandate "owned" the great majority of the land of Palestine, is pure and pathetic colonial thinking.

land that is conquered by outsiders belongs to the people who live there. if the British was the rightful owner of most of Palestine after 1919, than Germany was the rightful owner of Poland after 1938.