Israel steals more land

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Czar
ok, they are refugees, where did they originate from?

Perhaps they came from their parents?
I'm sure you know the definition

One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.

One who flees, as from home, confinement, captivity, or justice: escapee, fugitive, runaway. See seek/avoid.

refugee, one who leaves one's native land either because of expulsion or to escape persecution.


so from where did they run from to be classified as refugees?
well?

Your question was answered yesterday. I posted a link to the UN page that deals with the palestinian refugees (the UN calls them refugees) and someone else said it depended upon which ones. Why don't you go back a few pages and look?


Here is another link for you that tells you what the UN considers a palestinian refugee:

http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

you said " they are refugees living on Israeli land", then were did they come from?

I am asking you to see where you stand and see what your reasoning is


I thought we had been through this. The palestinians are refugees from being kicked off the land they were on during the attack on Israel in '48. They don't belong to any government (because no one wants them - and they don't want to be part of any country but their own) so they are considered refugees by the UN.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
oh come on.. your own link
Making peace - Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. Recent cases include an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and an end to the civil war in El Salvador. The United Nations has used quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars.

taking credit where credit isn't due eh? did the blue hatted fellows go and stop soviet troops?:p no, the major decision was made by the soviets themselves as it was too costly. the un could do nothing, soviets had veto power. and thats the example the un site picks to list:p
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Those ?Palestinian Refugees?
Who are they, what is the real story?

The major and perhaps only sticking point in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is that of the ?return of the Palestinian refugees.? It sank the Camp David conference that President Clinton had arranged, even though Mr. Barak had made unprecedented concessions for the sake of peace. The new man, Mahmoud Abbas, who routinely refers to Israel as the ?Zionist enemy,? also insists that the ?right of return? is not negotiable, and that there can be no peace unless those ?refugees? are allowed to ?return? to Israel.

What are the facts?

650,000 ?refugees? swell to 5 million. You have heard about those ?Palestinian refugees,? who claim ?right of return? to Israel. Of course, virtually none of them ever lived in Israel -- they are the children and mostly grandchildren of those who fled in 1948. The total number of those who fled in 1948 is estimated to have been about 650,000. Now the number who wish to return has swollen to almost five million!

How did this exodus come about? In 1948, on the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel, five Arab armies invaded the new country from all sides. In frightful radio broadcasts, they urged the Arabs living there to leave, so that the invading armies could operate without interference. They could return after the expected quick victory in that ?holy war,? get their property back ? and that of the Jews. Things turned out differently. The invading armies were defeated. Those who had left became refugees ? people without a country. Those who stayed, and their children, are full-fledged citizens of the State of Israel.

These so-called ?Palestinian refugees? have not been allowed to settle in the ?indivisible Arab nation.? They have been supported in camps since 1948. So far, over $2.0 billion has been spent on their maintenance. No end is in sight. Who pays for that? You guessed it: Through UNWRA Relief, the United States contributes more than 60% of the total cost.
The Arab countries, among them some of the richest in the world, who fritter away their enormous fortunes on frivolous luxuries, are satisfied to leave their Arab brethren in those miserable camps. They have never contributed a penny to their maintenance.

Another side of the ?refugee? story. But there is another side to the ?refugee? story. Little is heard of the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who fled those countries to settle in the newly formed Jewish State of Israel. Every one of these refugees was immediately accepted, resettled, taken care of, and given full citizenship by the fledgling, impoverished, and embattled Jewish State. There never has been, and there certainly is not now, a Jewish ?refugee? camp in Israel or anywhere else.

The Arab ?refugees? who fled Israel left little wealth and little history, since most of them had not come to ?Palestine? until Jewish settlers opened economic opportunities in what had been a desolate country for centuries. But the Jews of Arab lands have a history going back thousands of years. When forced to flee, they left behind land, wealth, and a long history. They arrived in Israel, quite literally only ?with their shirts on their backs.? They now make up almost 60% of the vibrant and productive population of Israel. What have the Arabs, the richest people in the world, done with their ?refugees? in more than 50 years? They have kept them in misery, on the dole of the world, and have taught their hopeless youth the ?skills? of suicide missions and of slaughtering defenseless and unarmed men, women, and children.

If the Arab nations truly decided to make peace with Israel and to put an end to the century-long strife, they could easily accomplish it by accepting the ?Palestinian refugees? in their countries and, just as Israel did with Jewish refugees from Arab countries, integrating them into their societies and making useful citizens of them. In fact, acceptance in their countries might also be offered to the Israeli Arabs, who, despite enjoying a higher standard of living, education, and health than Arabs in any of the surrounding countries and despite having the same civil rights as Israeli Jews, are not happy to live in a Jewish state.

Population transfers are common, especially in the wake of wars. They have been practiced throughout history. In 1923, Greece and Turkey agreed to the resettlement of 2 million Greeks and 800,000 Turks; in 1945, the resettlement of 3 million Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia was arranged. Following the collapse of its North African Empire, France accepted close to 1.5 million people. More than 12 million(!) Muslims and Hindus were exchanged between India and Pakistan. Israel has recognized this historical necessity. The ?Arab Nation," with its enormous wealth and vast under-populated lands, has stubbornly refused to face facts.

It is clear that the ?Palestinian refugee problem? is a red herring, kept alive by the Arab nations for their political purposes, and with cynical disregard for the great number of impoverished people who live in these camps. It is being kept alive and is being used as a ?non-negotiable? bargaining chip, for the purpose of destroying the State of Israel ? a feat that the Arabs have attempted several times by military means, but which has always ended in disastrous failure. Apart from the unsolvable social problems it would create, the introduction of, say, even one-half of the 5 million who claim to be ?refugees? would, with one stroke, dramatically alter the demographic makeup of the country and would inevitably destroy the Jewish State. That is of course the whole idea behind the demand for the ?return of the refugees?. If the Arab nations were willing to solve the ?refugee problem,? the legitimacy of Israel could no longer be questioned. But that is not acceptable to the Arabs. They are firmly committed not to allow Israel or any ?non-believers? to be in control of any part of the Middle East. It is that, and that alone, which is the real cause of the ?Palestinian refugee problem.?http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_03c.html
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Those ?Palestinian Refugees?
Who are they, what is the real story?

The major and perhaps only sticking point in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is that of the ?return of the Palestinian refugees.? It sank the Camp David conference that President Clinton had arranged, even though Mr. Barak had made unprecedented concessions for the sake of peace. The new man, Mahmoud Abbas, who routinely refers to Israel as the ?Zionist enemy,? also insists that the ?right of return? is not negotiable, and that there can be no peace unless those ?refugees? are allowed to ?return? to Israel.

What are the facts?

650,000 ?refugees? swell to 5 million. You have heard about those ?Palestinian refugees,? who claim ?right of return? to Israel. Of course, virtually none of them ever lived in Israel -- they are the children and mostly grandchildren of those who fled in 1948. The total number of those who fled in 1948 is estimated to have been about 650,000. Now the number who wish to return has swollen to almost five million!

How did this exodus come about? In 1948, on the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel, five Arab armies invaded the new country from all sides. In frightful radio broadcasts, they urged the Arabs living there to leave, so that the invading armies could operate without interference. They could return after the expected quick victory in that ?holy war,? get their property back ? and that of the Jews. Things turned out differently. The invading armies were defeated. Those who had left became refugees ? people without a country. Those who stayed, and their children, are full-fledged citizens of the State of Israel.

These so-called ?Palestinian refugees? have not been allowed to settle in the ?indivisible Arab nation.? They have been supported in camps since 1948. So far, over $2.0 billion has been spent on their maintenance. No end is in sight. Who pays for that? You guessed it: Through UNWRA Relief, the United States contributes more than 60% of the total cost.
The Arab countries, among them some of the richest in the world, who fritter away their enormous fortunes on frivolous luxuries, are satisfied to leave their Arab brethren in those miserable camps. They have never contributed a penny to their maintenance.

Another side of the ?refugee? story. But there is another side to the ?refugee? story. Little is heard of the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who fled those countries to settle in the newly formed Jewish State of Israel. Every one of these refugees was immediately accepted, resettled, taken care of, and given full citizenship by the fledgling, impoverished, and embattled Jewish State. There never has been, and there certainly is not now, a Jewish ?refugee? camp in Israel or anywhere else.

The Arab ?refugees? who fled Israel left little wealth and little history, since most of them had not come to ?Palestine? until Jewish settlers opened economic opportunities in what had been a desolate country for centuries. But the Jews of Arab lands have a history going back thousands of years. When forced to flee, they left behind land, wealth, and a long history. They arrived in Israel, quite literally only ?with their shirts on their backs.? They now make up almost 60% of the vibrant and productive population of Israel. What have the Arabs, the richest people in the world, done with their ?refugees? in more than 50 years? They have kept them in misery, on the dole of the world, and have taught their hopeless youth the ?skills? of suicide missions and of slaughtering defenseless and unarmed men, women, and children.

If the Arab nations truly decided to make peace with Israel and to put an end to the century-long strife, they could easily accomplish it by accepting the ?Palestinian refugees? in their countries and, just as Israel did with Jewish refugees from Arab countries, integrating them into their societies and making useful citizens of them. In fact, acceptance in their countries might also be offered to the Israeli Arabs, who, despite enjoying a higher standard of living, education, and health than Arabs in any of the surrounding countries and despite having the same civil rights as Israeli Jews, are not happy to live in a Jewish state.

Population transfers are common, especially in the wake of wars. They have been practiced throughout history. In 1923, Greece and Turkey agreed to the resettlement of 2 million Greeks and 800,000 Turks; in 1945, the resettlement of 3 million Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia was arranged. Following the collapse of its North African Empire, France accepted close to 1.5 million people. More than 12 million(!) Muslims and Hindus were exchanged between India and Pakistan. Israel has recognized this historical necessity. The ?Arab Nation," with its enormous wealth and vast under-populated lands, has stubbornly refused to face facts.

It is clear that the ?Palestinian refugee problem? is a red herring, kept alive by the Arab nations for their political purposes, and with cynical disregard for the great number of impoverished people who live in these camps. It is being kept alive and is being used as a ?non-negotiable? bargaining chip, for the purpose of destroying the State of Israel ? a feat that the Arabs have attempted several times by military means, but which has always ended in disastrous failure. Apart from the unsolvable social problems it would create, the introduction of, say, even one-half of the 5 million who claim to be ?refugees? would, with one stroke, dramatically alter the demographic makeup of the country and would inevitably destroy the Jewish State. That is of course the whole idea behind the demand for the ?return of the refugees?. If the Arab nations were willing to solve the ?refugee problem,? the legitimacy of Israel could no longer be questioned. But that is not acceptable to the Arabs. They are firmly committed not to allow Israel or any ?non-believers? to be in control of any part of the Middle East. It is that, and that alone, which is the real cause of the ?Palestinian refugee problem.?http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_03c.html


So your are saying that isreal did in fact steal the land of 650K palestinains and because they are not jewish they can't have the land back?
 

smc13

Senior member
Jan 5, 2005
606
0
0
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: smc13

172 peaceful settlements? which ones? What about the fighting in the Balkans (in the 90's)? What about the fighting in Sudan? what about the fighting in ethiopia? What about North Korea's nukes? What about Iran's nukes. What about the 16 resolutions on Iraq? What conflict did the UN actually solve?

You see, that?s the problem with people like you, you?re arguing about something you have no idea about, which is now fairly apparent judging by your doltish questions. Why don?t you stop insulting your own intelligence and do a simple search on UN? How can you possibly argue about usefulness of UN without being aware of its achievements?

The translation of your post is "I have no idea what peaceful settlements the UN has resolved and I pulled the 172 number out of my butt."

I understand.

Here you go, straight from the source: un.org

Here is just the tip of an ice-berg.

1963 Yemen
1992 Mozqambique
1995 Eastern Slavonia
1996 Guatemala

How about some current operations:

Burundi
East Timor

Do you feel enlightened now?

I was enlightened already. :)

You post minor issues and act as if the UN is doing well. What about Cambodia in 1975? What about the Balkans in the '90s. What about the fighting in Ethiopia ? What about Sudan? What about Somalia? What about Nepal? What about chechnya? What about Afganistan before the US showed up? What about Kashmir? What about Indonesia? What about Algeria? What about Uganda? What about Columbia? What about Congo? What about Burundi? What about North Korea? What about Iran?


The UN is a side show. They don't get involved in major conflicts and if their peace keepers come under sustained attack they pull out. They won't get involved in a conflict that a permanent member of the Security Council doesn't want them to (Like the Balkans) because the permanent members have veto power. They don't have real authority. They don't have military strength, and the world is too chaotic, diverse, and disagreable for the UN to get involved in the major conflicts. They are the World Government without the power to govern. Every time they make a resolution but don't enforce it they weaken themselves further. The only real use of the UN is as a place for countries to come together and talk.
 

Siwy

Senior member
Sep 13, 2002
556
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh come on.. your own link
Making peace - Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. Recent cases include an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and an end to the civil war in El Salvador. The United Nations has used quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars.

taking credit where credit isn't due eh? did the blue hatted fellows go and stop soviet troops?:p no, the major decision was made by the soviets themselves as it was too costly. the un could do nothing, soviets had veto power. and thats the example the un site picks to list:p

The soviet withdrawal was negotiated by UN resulting in Accords which were called ?Agreements on the Settlement of the Situation Relating to Afghanistan?. Just like in any conflict the negotiations were influenced by the situation on the ground, no doubt about it, but UN was instrumental in the Soviet withdrawal through declarations on international guarantees, return of refugees, etc.
 

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278

So your are saying that isreal did in fact steal the land of 650K palestinains and because they are not jewish they can't have the land back?

Yes that is exactly what he?s saying. It?s ok for a Jew from anywhere in the World to go live in Israel but it?s not ok for a Palestinian. Ridicules isn?t he?
 

Siwy

Senior member
Sep 13, 2002
556
0
0
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: smc13

172 peaceful settlements? which ones? What about the fighting in the Balkans (in the 90's)? What about the fighting in Sudan? what about the fighting in ethiopia? What about North Korea's nukes? What about Iran's nukes. What about the 16 resolutions on Iraq? What conflict did the UN actually solve?

You see, that?s the problem with people like you, you?re arguing about something you have no idea about, which is now fairly apparent judging by your doltish questions. Why don?t you stop insulting your own intelligence and do a simple search on UN? How can you possibly argue about usefulness of UN without being aware of its achievements?

The translation of your post is "I have no idea what peaceful settlements the UN has resolved and I pulled the 172 number out of my butt."

I understand.

Here you go, straight from the source: un.org

Here is just the tip of an ice-berg.

1963 Yemen
1992 Mozqambique
1995 Eastern Slavonia
1996 Guatemala

How about some current operations:

Burundi
East Timor

Do you feel enlightened now?

I was enlightened already. :)

You post minor issues and act as if the UN is doing well. What about Cambodia in 1975? What about the Balkans in the '90s. What about the fighting in Ethiopia ? What about Sudan? What about Somalia? What about Nepal? What about chechnya? What about Afganistan before the US showed up? What about Kashmir? What about Indonesia? What about Algeria? What about Uganda? What about Columbia? What about Congo? What about Burundi? What about North Korea? What about Iran?


The UN is a side show. They don't get involved in major conflicts and if their peace keepers come under sustained attack they pull out. They won't get involved in a conflict that a permanent member of the Security Council doesn't want them to (Like the Balkans) because the permanent members have veto power. They don't have real authority. They don't have military strength, and the world is too chaotic, diverse, and disagreable for the UN to get involved in the major conflicts. They are the World Government without the power to govern. Every time they make a resolution but don't enforce it they weaken themselves further. The only real use of the UN is as a place for countries to come together and talk.

UN is doing well, ask millions of people whose lives were saved and changed for the better in the last couple of decades. If it wasn?t for UN and its members, there would be many more continuing conflicts around the world and many millions lives wasted.

Did UN have failures in the past? Of course it did; it would be almost impossible not to have failures with the amount and complexity of work this organization faces. It needs changes and hopefully they will be implemented sooner than later, but to say it is not useful is like spitting in the face of millions of innocent people who are still alive today thanks to UN.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Czar
ok, they are refugees, where did they originate from?

Perhaps they came from their parents?
I'm sure you know the definition

One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.

One who flees, as from home, confinement, captivity, or justice: escapee, fugitive, runaway. See seek/avoid.

refugee, one who leaves one's native land either because of expulsion or to escape persecution.


so from where did they run from to be classified as refugees?
well?

Your question was answered yesterday. I posted a link to the UN page that deals with the palestinian refugees (the UN calls them refugees) and someone else said it depended upon which ones. Why don't you go back a few pages and look?


Here is another link for you that tells you what the UN considers a palestinian refugee:

http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

you said " they are refugees living on Israeli land", then were did they come from?

I am asking you to see where you stand and see what your reasoning is


I thought we had been through this. The palestinians are refugees from being kicked off the land they were on during the attack on Israel in '48. They don't belong to any government (because no one wants them - and they don't want to be part of any country but their own) so they are considered refugees by the UN.

ok, so no one lived in the west bank and gaza at that time since they all came running from the now current state of Israel and surrounding countries?
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,877
1
81
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: smc13
Originally posted by: Siwy
Originally posted by: smc13

172 peaceful settlements? which ones? What about the fighting in the Balkans (in the 90's)? What about the fighting in Sudan? what about the fighting in ethiopia? What about North Korea's nukes? What about Iran's nukes. What about the 16 resolutions on Iraq? What conflict did the UN actually solve?

You see, that?s the problem with people like you, you?re arguing about something you have no idea about, which is now fairly apparent judging by your doltish questions. Why don?t you stop insulting your own intelligence and do a simple search on UN? How can you possibly argue about usefulness of UN without being aware of its achievements?

The translation of your post is "I have no idea what peaceful settlements the UN has resolved and I pulled the 172 number out of my butt."

I understand.

Here you go, straight from the source: un.org

Here is just the tip of an ice-berg.

1963 Yemen
1992 Mozqambique
1995 Eastern Slavonia
1996 Guatemala

How about some current operations:

Burundi
East Timor

Do you feel enlightened now?

I was enlightened already. :)

You post minor issues and act as if the UN is doing well. What about Cambodia in 1975? What about the Balkans in the '90s. What about the fighting in Ethiopia ? What about Sudan? What about Somalia? What about Nepal? What about chechnya? What about Afganistan before the US showed up? What about Kashmir? What about Indonesia? What about Algeria? What about Uganda? What about Columbia? What about Congo? What about Burundi? What about North Korea? What about Iran?


The UN is a side show. They don't get involved in major conflicts and if their peace keepers come under sustained attack they pull out. They won't get involved in a conflict that a permanent member of the Security Council doesn't want them to (Like the Balkans) because the permanent members have veto power. They don't have real authority. They don't have military strength, and the world is too chaotic, diverse, and disagreable for the UN to get involved in the major conflicts. They are the World Government without the power to govern. Every time they make a resolution but don't enforce it they weaken themselves further. The only real use of the UN is as a place for countries to come together and talk.

UN is doing well, ask millions of people whose lives were saved and changed for the better in the last couple of decades. If it wasn?t for UN and its members, there would be many more continuing conflicts around the world and many millions lives wasted.

Did UN have failures in the past? Of course it did; it would be almost impossible not to have failures with the amount and complexity of work this organization faces. It needs changes and hopefully they will be implemented sooner than later, but to say it is not useful is like spitting in the face of millions of innocent people who are still alive today thanks to UN.


agree. every country or organiztion has it's share of mistakes. look at america. it is a GREAT country but we had this whole slave trade(If you dont know about this one...), banning chinese(EARLY 1900s), sending japanese to the camps(WWII), Anti black movements/mccarthyism(mid 1900s), etc. they have been doing a great job, consiedreing it is composed of so many diverse nations.

besides, let it go. It's neither Isreal or Palestinean's fault. It is all the falut of the radical Muslium and Jewish extremeists. I have met both palestinians and Isrealis. They truly do want peace and they are really decent people.
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: Spencer278
So your are saying that isreal did in fact steal the land of 650K palestinains and because they are not jewish they can't have the land back?

I don't know many details of the 650k, but my first thought is that they abandoned their right of citizenship with their treasonous acts. This is, of course, assuming the post above is true.

Is it possible for "palestinians" to become Israeli citizens? If so, I dont' see a reason for an independent palestinian state. They fled Israel. Just because they don't want to be part of Israel does not mean they're entitled to more land.
 

Siwy

Senior member
Sep 13, 2002
556
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: Spencer278
So your are saying that isreal did in fact steal the land of 650K palestinains and because they are not jewish they can't have the land back?

I don't know many details of the 650k, but my first thought is that they abandoned their right of citizenship with their treasonous acts. This is, of course, assuming the post above is true.

Is it possible for "palestinians" to become Israeli citizens? If so, I dont' see a reason for an independent palestinian state. They fled Israel. Just because they don't want to be part of Israel does not mean they're entitled to more land.

And how is an average Palestinian family responsible for Arab leaders' treasonous acts? Do you suppose that average Iraqis are also responsible for Saddam Hussain's crimes against Kuwait?
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: cquark...without caring about the UN partition boundaries.

The UN never cared about them, why should they be concerned with the UN.

Because that's Israel's only claim to the land, other than the argument that they had a country there 27 centuries ago, which is a claim no American could seriously give credence to, given what that argument would mean for the US.

 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
The UN resolutions have been biased against Israel and for the Arabs since hostilities started.

The UN was willing to carve a new state out of Arab territory to create Israel, which is more than generous.

Then the Arab nations immediately/conviently forgot why they asked for a ceasefire and started trouble again.

Or the Israelis started trouble again, as often was the case.
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: Siwy
And how is an average Palestinian family responsible for Arab leaders' treasonous acts? Do you suppose that average Iraqis are also responsible for Saddam Hussain's crimes against Kuwait?

Assuming the above is true, the 650k that left should own some responsibility for their decision. They left, expecting the jews to be wiped out. It didn't happen, and now they're crying to the international community. What exactly is they're complaint? Killing off the jews failed, now come bail us out?

edit: Note that the 650k palestinians should not be refugees. They did not flee persecution, they left so that the other arabs could better target jews. If they're not refugees, do they still have a right of return?
 

Siwy

Senior member
Sep 13, 2002
556
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: Siwy
And how is an average Palestinian family responsible for Arab leaders' treasonous acts? Do you suppose that average Iraqis are also responsible for Saddam Hussain's crimes against Kuwait?

Assuming the above is true, the 650k that left should own some responsibility for their decision. They left, expecting the jews to be wiped out. It didn't happen, and now they're crying to the international community. What exactly is they're complaint? Killing off the jews failed, now come bail us out?
They left because they were scared for their lives ~ they did what any family, wanting to survive a war, would do.
edit: Note that the 650k palestinians should not be refugees. They did not flee persecution, they left so that the other arabs could better target jews. If they're not refugees, do they still have a right of return?

That's only according to you and some hard line Zionist Zealots. It's definitely not a view shared by the world.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: Siwy
And how is an average Palestinian family responsible for Arab leaders' treasonous acts? Do you suppose that average Iraqis are also responsible for Saddam Hussain's crimes against Kuwait?

Assuming the above is true, the 650k that left should own some responsibility for their decision. They left, expecting the jews to be wiped out. It didn't happen, and now they're crying to the international community. What exactly is they're complaint? Killing off the jews failed, now come bail us out?

edit: Note that the 650k palestinians should not be refugees. They did not flee persecution, they left so that the other arabs could better target jews. If they're not refugees, do they still have a right of return?

some went on their own free will others were driven out by israelis
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: Siwy
That's only according to you and some hard line Zionist Zealots. It's definitely not a view shared by the world.

If you actually read my posts, you would have noticed this line:

This is, of course, assuming the post above is true.

Here's a hint, Civvy. I made the assumption and was public about it. If you want to refute my post, you can simply refute my assumption. Of course, you would have to actually READ my posts in this thread to know this.
 

Siwy

Senior member
Sep 13, 2002
556
0
0
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: Siwy
That's only according to you and some hard line Zionist Zealots. It's definitely not a view shared by the world.

If you actually read my posts, you would have noticed this line:

This is, of course, assuming the post above is true.

Here's a hint, Civvy. I made the assumption and was public about it. If you want to refute my post, you can simply refute my assumption. Of course, you would have to actually READ my posts in this thread to know this.

I do realize that it is just your assumption. And that is the problem, you assume too much. Why don't you get some facts and then come back, maybe all of us will learn something new.
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: Siwy
I do realize that it is just your assumption. And that is the problem, you assume too much. Why don't you get some facts and then come back, maybe all of us will learn something new.

If you're aware of facts contrary to the other poster, I would love to see them. As an outside party to the initial discussion, when they weren't refuted, I assumed there was some credibility to them.

Of course, they're probably twisted to an extent. I would love to see a counter argument, which you seem aware of, but don't want to share. Maybe the proper interpretation is that they should have a right of return as Israelis? Right of return certainly does not grant a population right to a country of its own.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: ciba
Originally posted by: Siwy
I do realize that it is just your assumption. And that is the problem, you assume too much. Why don't you get some facts and then come back, maybe all of us will learn something new.

If you're aware of facts contrary to the other poster, I would love to see them. As an outside party to the initial discussion, when they weren't refuted, I assumed there was some credibility to them.

Of course, they're probably twisted to an extent. I would love to see a counter argument, which you seem aware of, but don't want to share. Maybe the proper interpretation is that they should have a right of return as Israelis? Right of return certainly does not grant a population right to a country of its own.

So you are saying that they are allowed to go back and become FULL citizens with protection under the law and ability to participate within the political process unfettered? If that is the case, then I wouild be for only one country: whether the name be Isreal or Palestine.
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: magomago
So you are saying that they are allowed to go back and become FULL citizens with protection under the law and ability to participate within the political process unfettered? If that is the case, then I wouild be for only one country: whether the name be Isreal or Palestine.

I'm not saying they are now, but maybe it is the right solution.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
the right solution should have been to settle the palestinians in the homes of the jews the arab states got rid of. whats the number? almost 900k jews that were forced to flee the arab states? with the arab states confiscated 30 billion in jewish property and assets? they pulled off the nazi's dream of a total purge without the stigma. there are losers in war, and if you choose sides and flee, you don't get to go back. do pakistanis who fled india have a right of return? do hindus who left pakistan? there was a transfer of 14 million people between those two states. imagine if some hindu stood up today and claimed to have the right to vote in pakistan and be owed land generations after their ancestors fled? any reasonable person would call it absurd. same goes with turkish refugees with bulgaria, soviet union and finland and of course the 12 million germans after ww2 in poland and Czechoslovakia. no right of return. only the arab states keep them as refugees as a weapon against israel.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The original right solution would habve been for Egypt and Jordan to take care of their little brothers as promised instead of getting greedy.

Neither has after 60 years completed that agreement or even offered to attempt to impliment it.

Egpyt wants nothing to do with Gaza and Jordan is willing to stay out of the fray w/ respect to the West Bank.