Do you think the UN made the proper decision in 1947 ?

[polm]

Do you think the partition plan that the UN decided on in 1947 for Palestine was a fair and just decision ?

Here is a map of the UN's plan:

Map

I want you to answer this question sctrictly based on the situation as it was in 1947. Not based on events that occured AFTER the partition plan was voted on and approved by the UN.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: polm

I want you to answer this question sctrictly based on the situation as it was in 1947. Not based on events that occured AFTER the partition plan was voted on and approved by the UN.

You're a comedian!

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Kiyup

Originally posted by: polm

I want you to answer this question sctrictly based on the situation as it was in 1947. Not based on events that occured AFTER the partition plan was voted on and approved by the UN.

You're a comedian!

funny as I may be I still think this is a serious question.

Do you think it was necessary for the UN to create both an Arab AND a Jewish state in 1947 ?

Do you think the lines were drawn fairly ?

 

[dullard]

No. I've always argued that the most religiously significant places should not be part of a country. Take the Vatican for example - it is its own country. Jerusalem should go that way too, neither Arab nor Jewish.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: dullard
No. I've always argued that the most religiously significant places should not be part of a country. Take the Vatican for example - it is its own country. Jerusalem should go that way too.

look at the map. in the UN plan of 1947 Jerusalem would have become an INTERNATIONAL zone.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: dullard
No. I've always argued that the most religiously significant places should not be part of a country. Take the Vatican for example - it is its own country. Jerusalem should go that way too.

look at the map. in the UN plan of 1947 Jerusalem would have become an INTERNATIONAL zone.

Your map didn't put any grey aroudn it. Sorry. And the UN didn't do anything to keep it international.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: dullard
No. I've always argued that the most religiously significant places should not be part of a country. Take the Vatican for example - it is its own country. Jerusalem should go that way too.

The difference is that the Roman Catholic Church lies sole claim to the Vatican.

Two groups claim Jerusalem has having holy significance. Even if it was an independent state, it would still require sharing by both groups, and if they could do that, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion...

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: dullard
No. I've always argued that the most religiously significant places should not be part of a country. Take the Vatican for example - it is its own country. Jerusalem should go that way too.

look at the map. in the UN plan of 1947 Jerusalem would have become an INTERNATIONAL zone.

Your map didn't put any grey aroudn it. Sorry. And the UN didn't do anything to keep it international.

the plan when to hell when the ware of 1948 started.

I am strictly interested in your opinion of the plan that the UN put together in 1947.

BTW...the grey is there, it is hard to see. Sorry about that.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: JzeroTwo groups claim Jerusalem has having holy significance. Even if it was an independent state, it would still require sharing by both groups, and if they could do that, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion...

The tensions would then be solely in one location. As it is now the tensions are everywhere in that region. Sharing doesn't exist as it is now. Things are completely one group's control or the other.

I am strictly interested in your opinion of the plan that the UN put together in 1947

You can see that I suck at history. But the UN plan in 1947 wasn't sufficient to keep it independent, thus the UN plan wasn't good in 1947. I do think Arab's should have a place of their own and Jews should have a place of their own. It should be up to them to decide who gets control over what regions - and then stick with their agreement. That map could be perfectly fine if only the UN had a plan that could have kept the boarders the way they were.

 

[polm]

Back to topic folks.

I realize that sharing of Jerusalem doesnt work. Though I don't think resolving the Jerusalem problem will fix the current situation. Either way, it isnt the focus of this thread.

I want your opinion of the UN Partition plan on 1947.

 

[polm]

You can see that I suck at history. But the UN plan in 1947 wasn't sufficient to keep it independent, thus the UN plan wasn't good in 1947. I do think Arab's should have a place of their own and Jews should have a place of their own. It should be up to them to decide who gets control over what regions - and then stick with their agreement. That map could be perfectly fine if only the UN had a plan that could have kept the boarders the way they were.

The problem was that neither the Jews nor the Arabs at the time controlled Palestine. The British did. The couldn't come up with a soltion, so they gave it to the UN to solve.

The 1947 plan would have created 2 state that the Arabs and Jews would control independandtly. This was the only way to give the 2 parties the power to make decisions for themselves.

Had the problem been given to the 2 populations to resolve on their own, without British or UN involvement, then we would have probably NEVER had a Jewish state called Israel.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: axiom
No, it was not fair. Why are territories split yet still occupied by the same group? That was pretty stupid. If it couldn't be drawn out then it shouldn't have been drawn out.

oy vay...look I asked you NOT to include events AFTER the acceptance of the plan in 1947.

The lines WERE drawn.

Do you think they were drawn fairly ?

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: axiom
I left that out man. Look at the territories. They are split up into tiny little countries. Could they not have been put together? It seems as if they were drawing these boundaries with concerns for the present rather than concerns for the future.

Well there is some level of contiguity (sp?) between all the Arab Territories and the Israely Territories.

Plus the Arab territories had full borders with their Arab neighbors.

They also made sure to give both states access to the Medditeranian.

Palestine is a very dynamic country. The land is very different from the North, to the South, and even East to West.

The plan gave both states access to ALL parts of the land.

I think it was a pretty fair plan.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I think they should have purchased and zoned some land in Northern Africa.......that would have worked out much better because no one would be fighting over the land today.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
I think they should have purchased and zoned some land in Northern Africa.......that would have worked out much better because no one would be fighting over the land today.

For who ?

Jews or Arabs ?

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: axiom
I'm guessing for the Jews. However the UN accepted biblical doctorine in placing the Jews in Israel. My dad had an interesting opinion. He suggested relocating all the Jews to Afghanistan and letting the Palestinians have all of Israel.

Wouldn't the Afghany Arabs have a problem with that ?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: axiom
I'm guessing for the Jews. However the UN accepted biblical doctorine in placing the Jews in Israel. My dad had an interesting opinion. He suggested relocating all the Jews to Afghanistan and letting the Palestinians have all of Israel.

Wouldn't the Afghany Arabs have a problem with that ?

People in Afghanistan aren't Arab... they are the same race as Indians and Pakistanis.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: axiom
I'm guessing for the Jews. However the UN accepted biblical doctorine in placing the Jews in Israel. My dad had an interesting opinion. He suggested relocating all the Jews to Afghanistan and letting the Palestinians have all of Israel.

Wouldn't the Afghany Arabs have a problem with that ?

People in Afghanistan aren't Arab... they are the same race as Indians and Pakistanis.

pardon my ignorance.

question re-phrased: Wouldnt the people living in Afghanistan have problem with that ?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: axiom
I'm guessing for the Jews. However the UN accepted biblical doctorine in placing the Jews in Israel. My dad had an interesting opinion. He suggested relocating all the Jews to Afghanistan and letting the Palestinians have all of Israel.

The UN did not place the Jews in Israel. They started moving there before 1920.

The British and then the UN could not keep riots and killings from breaking out so they sent each side to their own corner.

 

[Stark]

Most "arabs" in Israel aren't of arabian decent. They're mostly Mediterranean "sea-peoples" once known as philistines.

 

[Darein]

I guess sharing is not a part of either religion?

 

[XZeroII]

no, I can't think of a single decision the UN has made that has been proper.

 

[illusion88]

My fingers smell of acetone. I think I should go wash them with soap and lukewarm water.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
no, I can't think of a single decision the UN has made that has been proper.

Well..with the British out the door, how would you have setup a power system in Palestine to govern the people living there ?

Create 1 state ?

Who would be put in charge ?

You would probably want it to be a democratic state...right ?

There were many many more Arabs than Jews living there at the time. They would have surely taken ALL the positions avialable vi democratic elections.

Do you think an Arab government in Palestine would have let all of those Jews being persecuted around the world into the state, as Israel currently does ?

How do you think the Arab gvernement would have treated it's Jewish citizens ?

Where would you have told those Jews to go ?

 

[Peetoeng]

Originally posted by: polm
Do you think the partition plan that the UN decided on in 1947 for Palestine was a fair and just decision ?

Here is a map of the UN's plan:

Map

I want you to answer this question sctrictly based on the situation as it was in 1947. Not based on events that occured AFTER the partition plan was voted on and approved by the UN.

Apparently the UN assumed that that peace (instead of a number of countries decided to gang-bang one country) would ensue in the region and some countries . If that assumption holds, then the partition seems fair to me.