Yes. we would. and maybe it would be worse. Jews had been migrating to Israel for a 700 years. there was a very large population there by the mid 1940's.
AND there was NO STATE in that area at all and had not been for the majority of that 700 years.
Then what was the purpose/need of the Balfour Declaration?
so the notion that the "Zionists" were out to distroy all of Palistine becomes a bit difficult for me to swallow.
Ferd, haven't you read anything written by the Zionists prior to and after the establishment of the nation state of Israel? They firmly rejected the two nation deal long before 1948.
Quote:
But look we can go rounds about this history till the cows come home. and we wont agree on too many points I presume.
That doesnt really help us. The problem now is what next? What is to be done now?
i think there is clear indication that Barak Obama will work toward a solution that jepordizes Isreal. I believe there has to be a 2 state solution and I believe that Palistine will have to move away from its stated position that Isreal must be distroyed.
I think it would be a wonderful world if both parties would agree to a two state solution. However, I doubt they will. Too much blood's been spilled and every day that passes with more blood makes it even more unlikely. If you look at the region it makes absolutely no sense to force the existence of a state that the entire region sees as illegitimate and threatening. Sadly, I don't think that things look good for Israel long term rather it be a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. I think we're going to see us working more with the Palestinians and the Arab world to contain Israel. But forces in the region aren't going to stop until she's gone. If Christ tarries, I believe it's likely that we'll see another large scale invasion of Israel and it will really hit the fan and the global community will be cleaning up the mess for a generation or two.
You bring up some very excellent points. I have always wondered why people support Israel politically for biblical reasons. I understand praying for Israel, but doing everything politically in the favor of Israel because they are called God's chosen people in the Bible seemed confused to me.
I think we sincerely want modern Israel to be the fulfillment of prophesy. It helps us feel that our religious views are validated by history. But modern Israel is nothing like the restored Israel described in the Bible. When you mix that psychology and politics it becomes a dangerous dogma and frankly the peace of the entire planet hangs in the balance.
I pray for the Jewish people...but I don't believe that modern Israel is the restored Israel prophesied about in the Bible. I mean, modern Israel is a Socialist country and the throne of David has yet to be established. What we're looking at is the product of the Zionist agenda.
Antipas, you are cherry picking your facts here. The partition didn't run "Palestinians" out of the Israeli side. First of all, the term "Palestinian" is relatively new. At the time in 1948 there was no state in what is now Israel and Gaza and the West Bank. NO STATE. going back to just after WW1 the League of Nations indicated that there should be a move towards the creation of 2 states in the area. the Partition was simply a follow thru of that much older plan.
It should also be noted that no Arab who lived in the Israeli side of the Partition had their land confiscated. and ALL were offered the right to stay and be part of the state of Israel. Some did stay and their families are still part of Israel to this day.
Some didn't and these joined with the 5 Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948. Israel won that war, and tried to force these Arabs that fought against them back to Jordan. Jordan would not have them back (many had immigrated from Jordan with the promise of land). Jordan wanted them to stay in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza because it gave them (Jordan) claim to the land.
That is also part of this story that isn't being told here.
Israel was perfectly fine with a two stated solution at the time and many Arabs in the Israel side were fine with it too. However some were not and the Arab states around them were not. It had very little to do with a store keeper wanting to keep his store and being run off by Jews.
I don't like having to put this one side out by itself. Anyone who knows anything about this history understands that there have been wrongs committed by both sides. Everyone ought to be able to agree that the sources of the violence are many and varied and trying to boil such a complex problem down to one simple thing. "Palestinians" want their land back". Is simply not accurate. Not because that isn't part of the equation but because it is only part of a larger and much more complex picture.
Thanks for sharing Ferd. Very interesting.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
That wasn't a plan the Palestinians were happy with bro.
Wow. You mean to tell me that if the UN partitioned the land you lived on and gave you the right to live under Native American authority you wouldn't feel violated? A number of Americans would.
True. But this is a result of the initial problem...partitioning land by UN edict.
That is also part of this story that isn't being told here.
Whoa....that's WAY too simplistic. Please note, in a 15 July 1937 editorial, David Ben Gurion implied that partition could never be an acceptable long-term solution: 'The Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution.'
That was in 1937. You are sweeping the entire Zionist movement under the rug and ignoring it. During the Zionist Congress, Ben Gurion supported the proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. At the same time, he delivered speeches which made it clear that he did not accept partition as a final solution: 'If I had been faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel in return for giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I would have postponed the establishment of the state. No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land'... ...'this is a standing right under all conditions. Even if, at any point, the Jews choose to decline it, they have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land exists and stands for ever.'
Let's face it...the complete annexation of Palestine was on the Zionist agenda from the start. Only a fool would deny that.
Again an over simplification.
If you don't like only one side of the story being told....tell us about the Zionists and their rejection of the two state solution and their radical agenda to completely annex Palestine.
You've over simplified and completely ignored so many unsavory details it's unreal.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
Then what was the purpose/need of the Balfour Declaration?
? start with the name Rothchild then recognize the need for Jewish support in Eastern Europe as Russia fell to communism...
we are getting really obscure and complex now....
but since we are here. the reasons for the Balfore decision in 1917 was not unlike the reasons for the 1930(?)White Paper which effectivly reversed the Balfore decision.
All the sudden support from the Jewish quarter against the Nazi's was a given and the Brits needed to gain support from Muslim Arabs against the Nazi's thus the White Paper that limited the influx of jews to the area and reversed the 2 state solution....
And here in lies the answer to those Zionists resisting a two state solution. You cannot talk about what they were saying without putting it into the context of the times. Jews were being murdered all over Europe both during and before the Nazi's. the Zionists were dealing with a population that needed to protect itself.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The area dsignated Transjordan was plenty large enough for any Arabs who wanted to live in that area.
There were no people called "Palestinians" for years.
LOL
I think folks just don't get it. Sure, maybe it was big enough, maybe they were offered a two state solution....but here's the deal....the UN was forcing this thing regardless of what the indigenous people thought and many did loose their land, homes, businesses, etc.
Again let's compare it to the UN forcing the US to surrender large swaths of land to the Native Americans. And then when we complain the UN argues that there was enough room for the two peoples, and that we should welcome a two state solution and just choose to live under their authority. I think most of us would have a problem with that too bro.
Linear Mode
