Israel to Expand West Bank Settlement

[DuctapeFatwa]

Israel said Thursday it will build 102 new apartments in a West Bank settlement, even though a now stalled U.S.-backed peace plan requires an eventual construction freeze.

The apartments are to be built south of Jerusalem in the settlement of Efrat, which is one of the largest in the West Bank, with 7,000 settlers.

The plans were announced by the Housing Ministry in a building tender published Thursday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The troubled"road map" peace plan requires a freeze of construction in some 150 Jewish settlements sprinkled across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which Israel siezed during the 1967 war....

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030904_539.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. There is a hornet's nest in my back yard

I think I'll go poke it with a stick.

[Flying_Pig]

2. Ah yes....

Peace in our time. NOT! :wtf:

[tinnypriv]

3. No, you fucking media whores

It requires an IMMEDIATE freeze.

Can these idiots read? :puke:

[userdave2061]

53. It also requires an IMMEDIATE dismantling of hamas/sister terror groups

Perhaps none can read?

[Cassandra]

4. I hope the Palestinians will enjoy them...

when they are turned over to them. Does anyone have any poll numbers about the support or lack thereof among the Israeli population for the expansion of settlements?

[tinnypriv]

5. Please

Do you really believe that talking point from Barak?

I mean, really believe it? You're not just repeating it to p*** people off?

Because even if you did believe it, and the talking point was true (which it isn't), the Palestinians still wouldn't get this settlement.

Try looking at a map.

Efrat is part of a settlement bloc connected to Jerusalem via bypass 60. The wall is going to annex that area (west of Bethlehem).

Where do you get this stuff? Hannity and Colmes?

[Cassandra]

37. I am proud to say...

I have never watched Hannity and Colmes. Nor do I take my talking points from Barak. I just think that a large number of settlements will be turned over sooner or later so Likud and Co would be well advised to save Israel's money and stop pissing everyone off. If they don't get this settlement, they'll get others.

[tinnypriv]

75. "They'll get others"

For example?

Ari'el?
Ma'ale Adumiumm
Kiryat Arba?
Pisquat Ze'ev?

Name a couple.

[The Magistrate]

6. To The Best Of My Recollection, Ma'am

Recent polling data indicates the majority of Israeli citizens, even Jewish citizens, do not back the settler movement, and are willing to write off the settlements as part of a comprehensive peace. It also indicates a majority of the settlers would be willing to move back west behid the Green Line, although most would want compensation or other financial assistance to do so.

The problem is that the determined claque that supports the settlement policy votes cohesively, and amid the factions of Israeli coalition politics, serves as an indispensible make-weight in the formation of governments.

[Cassandra]

38. Thank you, Sir

Your overview is always welcome and useful. Is there anything that would make this claque back down on this; any pressure that can be brought to bear by moderates and liberals in Israel?

[The Magistrate]

44. My Knowledge Of Israeli Politics Is Insufficient, Ma'am

The short answer, of course, as in any democracy, is that they must vote. The problem is that, in a climate where security concerns are paramount, many will seek a "strong man" to protect them, regardless of his convictions, or theirs, in other matters. The costs of the settlements, in the current climate of austerity and unemployment afflicting Israel, may mobilize some against the settler claque. The rise of the aggressively secular Shinui party may be an encouraging sign.

[TheYellowDog]

7. Excellent

I am so proud of Israel.

[Darranar]

8. Why do you like the settlements?

They are simply people living on stolen land.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Let me get this straight...

You get all warm and fuzzy inside about the IDF blowing up an apartment building that was home to innocent civilians and yr ever so proud of Israel for continuing to flagrantly violate international law and any decency by building apartments for Israeli settlers on land that isn't part of Israel. Oh-kay. Great to see what passes for progressive thought nowadays!!


Violet...

[Gimel]

10. Yes, I see it

"land that isn't part of Israel" and on another thread, that Palestinians should have voting rights in Israeli elections. Really want it both ways, don't you.

Perhaps it's not your contradition, Violet, and sorry if you are not advocating Palestinian participation in Israeli parliamentary elections. It may be other posters, but they generally have the same positon as you. That is, to denounce Israel any way possible.

The IDF is not blowing up apartment building that belong to innocent civilians, by the way. Check those facts carefully. If necessary, in person, before making such assumptions.

[Darranar]

12. I suppose you missed that article...

about the apartment building the IDF blew up, didn't you?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Check the facts carefully?

Uh, the IDF did blow up an apartment building that was home to innocent civilians. The thread is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=10283

Uh, thanks for misrepresenting my position, Gimel. I don't denouce Israel any way possible, but you already know that seeing you've been here a fair while. And, no. I've never claimed that Palestinians should have voting rights in Israeli elections. The only Palestinians I'd advocate that for would be those in areas that Israel might annexe. So, yes. Maybe some other poster said that, but I didn't see it, but just because people support the same cause doesn't mean they march in lockstep and agree on every aspect of what is a pretty complex issue. Keep that in mind, okay?

I was a bit surprised to see you popping up and responding to a post of mine. Weren't you asked a while ago by the mods to put me on ignore? I was asked to do that to you, and since then I've avoided replying to any of yr posts, cause I figured you must not have enjoyed our discussions as much as I did. So is ignoretime over now? ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

78. Ignore time

I understood that it is voluntary. Seeing as how you've been repsonding as well.

Don't mind if I just "pop in" somewhere.

The apartment building was only half occupied, and some of the occupants were terrorists. Everyone was evacuated. Seeing as how that news seems to travel faster than reality, I guess the facts get a little confused.

Innocent people are not targeted by the IDF.

[Darranar]

83. Ahh...

so if you're evacuated from your home, and your home is blown up, I hope you don't mind.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Not so...

Actually, I hadn't been responding to yr posts, Gimel. I too understood that it was voluntary, and out of a respect for the mods and a belief that the request was as a result of yr complaints, I refrained from responding to ANY of yr posts. But now you've decided it's okay for you to just "pop in" somewhere, please don't start complaining when I start doing the same...

Yr initial claim was: "The IDF is not blowing up apartment building that belong to innocent civilians, by the way." Obviously untrue and I gave you the link to a thread that proved it in the hope you'd actually read it....

Violet...

[TheYellowDog]

11. Violet

In a sense, you are completely right. You have me pegged correctly. I am proud of Israel for having the guts to stand up to terrorism.

[tinnypriv]

13. "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth"

- Franklin D. Roosevelt (1939).

[rini]

14. unfortunately it often does

[GabysPoppy]

17. "Repition does transform a lie into a truth"

- George W. Bush (2001, 2002, 2003)

[Darranar]

18. Yep...

How, unfortunately, true.

[tinnypriv]

20. Did he really say that?

That's worse than the Trifecta BS. :D

[GabysPoppy]

21. Actions speak louder than words

But you already knew that

[tinnypriv]

30. Yep

I hold The Egyptian and The Terrorist to that standard.

They come up way short.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. TheYellowDog...

So would it be safe to say you've got conservative views when it comes to foreign policy issues, but left-wing views on other issues?

Standing up to terrorism? Does that mean that you think anything is acceptable, no matter how much it harms civilians as long as it can be given the mantle of 'The Fight Against Terrorism'? Did you support the bombing of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq? After all, the US was showing its guts in standing up to terrorism. Are you proud of that too?


Violet...

[rini]

15. i looked up Efrat, it is a suburb of Jerusalm.

So now Israelis, in your oh so gracious opinion, can't build in their own country?

[Darranar]

16. It is in the West Bank...

it is a settlement.

[tinnypriv]

19. I didn't have to look it up

Since I know where it is, and stated so accurately, above.

Efrat is part of a settlement bloc west of Bethlehem connected to Jerusalem via (Jewish-only) bypass road 60. It is not part of the city of Jerusalem.

For your information, "Suburb" is a euphamism for Greater Jerusalem expansion policies in the heart of the West Bank. Har Homa, Ma'ale Adumimm etc.

BTW, once the settlement plans in Abu Dis are complete (two, three years, tops), you'll be running around saying that Abu Dis is actually part of Israel.

You won't know what you're talking about then, and you don't know what you're talking about now.

[rini]

22. I am so damn pleased you know something.

Efrat is indeed a growing "bedroom" suburb of Israel. The government of Israel is remaking the The Kendall Town Scheme, commissioned by Jordan in 1966. In my humble view, as THERE IS NO COUNTRY OF PALESTINE, and until one is declared it is Israel; Israel can build any damn suburb it chooses.

[Darranar]

23. So you support the settlements...

on palestinian land? You support the unjust stealing of land by the Israelis?

[rini]

24. As I have said before

It is not and has never been Palestinian land. To answer your question in general, yes, I just can't stand the religious fanatics who think of nothing but themselves all the while claiming they are fulfilling G-ds wants. People who think they have an inside ear to
G-d make me nervous. Sometimes what is possible should not be done for the greater good. I guess what I am saying is I would feel more comfortable if the land actually was occupied by a family who want to stay, then they should be compensated; Eminant Domain and all that garbage. But if is abandoned, then the land belongs to the state to with as it pleases. And that State is Israel.

[Darranar]

25. Uh... that is a great untruth...

It is not and has never been Palestinian land. Uh... how not? They lived on it, so how is it not their land?

[rini]

26. Because there has never been a country of Palestine and

when the Jews began to return the land was (for the most part) unpopulated.

[Darranar]

27. HAHAHAHAHA!

More junk.

There has never been a Palestinian state? Regardless, private ownership of land counts.

It was for the most part unpopulated???? I'll just ignore that comment. It's been refuted so many times...

[Cassandra]

39. If private ownership of land counts....

then land bought by Jews is Jewish land, not stolen from gullible Arabs as some on other threads would have us believe. And the Ottoman and Turkish and Arab absentee owners had every right to sell to Jews.

[Darranar]

43. I never have disagreed with you on that point

n/t

[Cassandra]

57. No, but others have

so I wanted to head them off at the pass. :-)

[rini]

46. ah

a well read person.

[StandWatie]

65. it was a very small percentage of land

and I'm way too left buy into capitalist logic that favors foreign landovers over indigenous farmers.

[rini]

45. land

some people are proof postive that repeating a lie does make it truth. I won't even repeat the books you should look at because even books written over 100 years ago by people who never imagined the wonders the Israelis would work on the land, must be pro-zionist. So there is nothing to argue.

[Darranar]

48. Ah...

you accuse me of writing off everything as biased towards Israel since I refused to count us-israel.org as an objective website. Please use your common sense in the future.

As to your claims, please see The Magistrate's post #28 or my post #49.

[The Magistrate]

28. The Land Was Certainly Populated, Sir

In the latter portion of the nineteenth century, roughly half a million Arabs lived there. A sparse population, perhaps, but well adjusted to the cultivatable land available at the then current level of technique and capital. Urban populations were a far smaller portion of the total at that time: the population of Jerusalem, for example, was not much more than twenty thousands. There were large tracts of country where lack of water, or its abundance in the form of malarial marsh, dictated only a marginal populace could dwell. The slogan, "a land without a people for a people without a land" may have been sincerely believed by many, but it did not fit the facts, even then.

[rini]

47. quite right

sparsly populated and many were sharecroppers who did not own the land they worked.

[Darranar]

49. Palestinians still owned the land...

you can't steal it from them.

btw, the number of Arabs then is approximately equal to the number of Jews in 1948 - does that mean that all the land they owned should suddenly have been revoked?

[quilp]

50. D: what do you think the Palestinians can effectively do to get the

result you advocate? One even I accept, inspite of my extreme opinion regarding the Palestinian right of resistance. I have to honestly confess that I don't think anything they do will make a difference to the end result that they will lose everything.

As I have said before, I think that their suicide bombs come from despair, and to preserve an illusion of having some power over their future, rather than any any real belief they can change anything.

[Darranar]

51. It requires Israeli cooperation...

the same way that an end to terrorism against Israelis would involve Palestinian cooperation. It is often unfair, but it's the way of the world.

For starters: An effort to increase the ability of the Palestinian people to participate in the government. This would add legitimancy to the PA. Additionally, when the people elect the officials, the officials always have to answer to something - I think it will knowck out quite a bit of corruption within the government.

Additionally, cracking down on the suicide bombers will most certainly aid the cause of the Palestinians in the view of the world. Like it or not, terrorism is a taint on the reputation of the cause of the Palestinian state. Reducing it would likewise reduce massive sympathy for Israel.

The problem with this is that it would be hard for the PA to do either of these things with succesful progress towards peace without Israeli cooperation. This would include opening up the wall and dismantling some of the most intrusive settlements, along with the reduction of checkpoints that greatly interfere with Palestinian life.

[quilp]

52. If the Palestinians never threw another bomb.

If they stopped resisting the Israelis in any violent way. If they met every demand in the current peace plan. Do you believe the Likudniks would dismantle the settlements and return the land on the West Bank to the Palestinians living there?

Is any "Israeli cooperation" possible as long Sharon and the Likud hold power? Aren't they as much of a problem as Arafat and his cronies? If the Palestinians did all that was demanded of them wouldn't it be simply taken as proof that the current Likud policies are working? And even more settlements and repression would result?

Do you know anything about this new guy the Palestinians have? I liked his insistance on certain conditions before he would accept the job. But on the other hand he was chosen by Arafat. So where is his legitimacy to come from as far as the Israelis are concerned?

[Darranar]

54. No, I don't...

and that is a serious problem. However, I do think that Israeli support for Likud would disintegrate if that happened, and parties willing to compromise would be elected.

I know very little about this new guy the Palestinians have. He seems a second Abu Mazen to me, and could well end the same way.

[The Magistrate]

55. That Is The Essential Point, Mr. Darranar

Likud would be out of office, if not for the attacks by Hamas, and the rest.

[tinnypriv]

56. And then the question is

With Likud out of office, would the settlements be evacuated and the West Bank/Gaza turned over to the Palestinians?

(Bear in mind the settlements were started by Labour, and the huge increase in the 90's was done under a Labour government. The leadership of Labour also has been consistently opposed to an independent Palestinian state - Rabin etc).

The answer, is of course, no.

Whatever the current leadership of Israel is on a given day is essentially irrelevent. Israel will only do what the United States says is acceptable. At the moment, the US is saying that settlement building is fine, so it obviously continues.

I think the essential point is that the United States has to make clear it is opposed to settlement in the occupied territories (cut off funding it for a start) and that it is also opposed to an Israeli state larger than 1967-Israel (minor border adjustments excepted).

Until that happens, discussion of Israeli electoral issues is fairly pointless. Israeli's don't need to change their attitudes - Americans do.

[The Magistrate]

60. There Is Truth In What You Say, Sir

Settlements did originate under a Labor government, and have increased under Labor as well as Likud. The circumstances were somewhat different: the triumphalism after '67 is no longer present, and the settlement movement no longer seems to enjoy its political popularity, which led later Labor leaders to hope to secure their right flank by catering to it.

It seems to me certain no Likud government would ever perform the necessary removals, while it is at least possible a Labor government, in coalition with center-left secular parties in the present circumstances, might.

We are in complete agreement that pressure from the United States is required in this question, and that it should be made clear from the United States that settlements, and territorial aggrandizement, must cease and be reversed. The monies contributed from the United States certainly provide a lever to achieve this, and ought to be used to that end. It would seem to me a much more useful political line for progressive persons to concentrate upon than some more dear to the most passionate, for it will meet with wide agreement, and little visceral resistance among people not strongly committed to either view.

[tinnypriv]

61. Completely agreed

Esp with:

"The monies contributed from the United States certainly provide a lever to achieve this, and ought to be used to that end. It would seem to me a much more useful political line for progressive persons to concentrate upon than some more dear to the most passionate, for it will meet with wide agreement, and little visceral resistance among people not strongly committed to either view."

Certainly a policy plank for progressives should be demanding the implementation of a monitoring system for US aid to Israel. Egypt has just such a system of 100's of American advisors who check that Egypt does not funnel money to projects that conflict with US interests. It would be simplicity itself to make sure Israel does not use any US funds for West Bank/Gaza settlement projects.

In fact, you don't even need a monitoring system. Israel handily publishes the damn info on the web! :D

http://www.cbs.gov.il (587 units built in the OPT, 138 begun, 3,525 under construction during the first 3 months of 2003)

This sort of policy (which Howard Dean is not far from I suspect, and he is being atrociously smeared for it), should find many backers:

1. Those in Israel who resent the settlers for their religious extremism, their taking funds away from education, welfare etc.

2. US Conservatives who do not wish to give Israel a blank cheque to build whatever they like outside their borders.

3. Pro-justice Liberals.

4. The UN.

5. Leftist elements in Meretz, some individual Mapam members, in Israel.

6. A huge majority of the American people, a majority of the Israeli people, 100% of the Palestinian people.

Not inconsiderable. Unfortunately, reactionary US elements are still currently committed to Greater Israel policies. But I'm sure dedicated effort could change that.

[jos]

62. Labour is no longer opposed to a Palestinian state

And has not been since the Oslo agreements. This is not to excuse the settlement activity that has gone on when Labour has been in power.

[StandWatie]

63. likud isn't opposed to a "palestinian state"

One of them said the Palestinians could call the thing a fried chicken for all he cared but it wasn't going to be a state.

on edit: in Likud talk that's an "additional Palestinian state" but that's about the only difference between labour and likud.

on another edit: David Bari-Lan "If the Palestinians want to call these scattered areas 'a state' we won't mind, in fact, if they want they can call it 'fried chicken'"

[tinnypriv]

64. I didn't say they were

I said Labor has been consistently opposed to an independent Palestinian state. No Labor leader has ever deviated from that.

Despite that caveat, Rabin at the time of Oslo was on record as being opposed to just a Palestinian state, even one dominated by Israel ('I tell you, it will not be created!').

Oslo was crafted in order to avoid having to turn over the West Bank and Gaza, except in the context of a canton-style programme (called a 'state' later in the process, after even Likud got rational about it).

That is completely clear since the agreement was explicitly founded on the principles of UN 242, 338 alone, which say nothing about Palestinian self-determination.

So, the point stands: without a deviation in American policy, Israel will not turn over the West Bank and Gaza and allow an independent Palestinian state to exist. It doesn't matter whether Likud or Labor are in power.

[jos]

66. The facts don't support you

Both Rabin and Barak were prepared to support what you describe as an "independent" state. The canton business is Sharon and the Likudnicks.

I have criticized Israel a great deal, but don't tell me it wouldn't make a difference if Avraham Burg were prime minister rather than Sharon.

[StandWatie]

67. not so

Peres is on record saying he "screwed the Palestinians" with Oslo. The only definition of state that matters is a body with the sole recourse to legitimate violence within it's borders and under that definition no Israeli of any political stature has ever said that would be permissible.

[tinnypriv]

76. I'm afraid it isn't

The canton programme was initiated under Labor and largely completed under the government of Barak, helped by Clinton.

Also, historically there is not a great deal of difference between Sharon's Allon+ plan, and Labor plans. In fact, the Labor plans annex larger Palestinian municipal areas. Sharon's Likud constituency is more attuned to "demographic" concerns, so his plan doesn't.

Neither Rabin nor Barak are on record as supporting an independent Palestinian state. They signed no agreements to that effect or ever promised to sign agreements to that effect. Those are the facts.

As for Burg, of course it would make a difference, but the difference would be slight with regards to the facts on the ground. Certainly image wise there would be radical change.

[quilp]

68. If the USA can force the settlements to halt why don't they?

Unless it is fear of the American-Jewish vote, what advantage do the settlements have for Bush? Surely real peace between the Israelis and Palestinians would be good for Bush no matter what the Likudniks or Hamas want. And right now he must be desperate for some kind of Middle East success. Taking on the settler problem is a lot easier, not to say cheaper, than anything else he's tried to do. I mean, he could save money from cutting funding, and make the military side very much Sharon's headache. He'd might even get the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Darranar]

69. Peace between the Israelis and Palestinians...

would not be good for Bush. Sharon and his fellow Likudniks are his right-wing compatriots, and peace would bring about their removal.

[quilp]

71. Darranar: You are even more cynical than I am.

You seem to be suggesting there is more between these three than just "politics". You are implying that Sharon and the Likudniks have no interest in peace even if they get all their own way in the West Bank and Gaza. They can't stop even if they "win". They must look for constant war.

[Darranar]

72. Look...

Have you noticed that Israel seems to be constantly criticizing Syria and Iran - the two most likely targets of the next Bush "liberation?" It seems clear to me that Sharon is happy to aid whatever aims Bush may have within the Middle East - clearly, a bad sign.

Bush has very little to gain by a peaceful solution to the I/P conflict, except for campaign propaganda. What he has to lose is a leader who endorses his major policies in the Middle east, regardless of what they are.

One must remember that many prominent pro-Israel organizations supported the unjust and immoral war in Iraq - at least in part because of the Sharon government's support of it. That most certainly strengthened the opinion that opposition to the Iraq war was bad for one's political future - which, of course, ended up helping Bush.

Yes, i personally believe that the Likud doesn't want peace - at least not any peace that doesn't involve the Palestinians all locked up in jails or "disappearing" as an Israeli knesset member suggested about the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

I don't think that they'll continue the conflict purely for political gain. However, they want their objective and if peace iniatives fail to bring it, they will ignore them.

[quilp]

73. I thought the whole point of the fanaticism of the Likudniks was "Israel"

Once that is achieved that's it. They are totally fanatical about the "Holy Land". But exclusively the "Holy Land". Do you think they share Bush's imperial ambitions? Or is it that they believe only if the USA militarily controls the Middle East "Israel" is safe? I thought Sharon was using Bush more than Bush is using Sharon.

[Darranar]

74. Imperial ambitions?

I think that they lack the power or the drive for such ambitions. My guess would be, however, that American imperisalism in the Middle East aids Israel's security and interests - to them, at least. They've already shown that they don't care about Arabs or Muslims.

[tinnypriv]

77. Why don't they?

Because they want settlements.

Israel took the West Bank and Gaza by force, it simply isn't going to give it up unless forced to. The easiest way of keeping control is extending the mantra of "dunnum after dunnum" to the occupied territories, i.e. building settlements, infrastructure etc.

The US has never been opposed to that policy, so it obviously continues.

You have to bear in mind that the United States and Israel probably assumed the Palestinians would simply not be able to bear the destruction they have endured and that they would capitulate.

Their steadfastness has been impressive, but certainly it was and has been an unexpected reality to US/Israeli planners.

As for Bush, you think he has the first clue what goes on in the territories? Most Israelis don't. Why would he?

[quilp]

88. How could the Israelis not know? It is their kids who are the soldiers.

If they don't know it can only be because they don't want to know.

As for "unexpected reality to US planners". Seems like we are about to learn that lesson in Iraq. Again!

[Gimel]

79. Pardonez moi, miseur

In your line of reasoning, do you think the Israeli security should be abolished in order to give the Palestinians a chance to cooperate? Like give Hamas a chance to be peaceful and the like? See it they'll come around to the frame of mind of peaceful coexistence?

Not just a cease-fire, you're talking about, but eliminating border check points. Just let all who wish to pass enter Israel.

[tinnypriv]

80. He's talking about internal checkpoints

On the WB, which have nothing to do with security, since you can just walk round them.

[Gimel]

81. Most have been removed

Darranar said "This would include opening up the wall and dismantling some of the most intrusive settlements, along with the reduction of checkpoints that greatly interfere with Palestinian life."

So I was wondering what he thout about my concern, as posted. What does "opening up the wall" mean, then? There are gateways for legitimate travel.

[tinnypriv]

85. Virtually all the gateways on the wall are closed

And there has been no significant removal of internal WB checkpoints.

Both facts.

However, you do have a legitimate concern regardless.

[Darranar]

84. No, I don't advocate that...

but the wall has nothing to do with security.

[LivingInTheBubble]

59. Makes me chuckle to be honest.

Denial of the existence of palestine is an approach which I find very odd.
Look at a map from before 1950. Palestine is definately there. Children in the fifties where taught about the land of palestine.

So what if not many people were living on the land (I dont know about the accuracy of that). Australia, a big country with only 20M people doesnt stop existing because it is sparsely populated. Lichtenstein only has a population of thousands but it doesn't cease to exist.

As for owning the land, many people did not have the concept of land ownership - unfortunately this just meant the land they lived on was stolen from them.

I dont own the land I work on either, do I exist, does my country exist? Should I roll over and die when someone who claims a religious right decides to occupy it. I would probably fight against the occupiers as would many people.

[rini]

82. where in the world

did you go to school? It's been Israel since 1948, before that the Palestinian Mandate of GB, before that Palestinian provence of Turkey, as far back as you care to go there has never been a country of Palestine.

[Aidoneus]

32. so the "Palestinians" are immigrants, then?

I think you hinted at that view once before, no?

[The Magistrate]

33. Actually, Some Were, Sir

There was an appreciable inflow of people during the Mandatory period, from Egypt, Syria, and east of the Jordan, attracted by the availablity of wage work in the ports, and in the new factories and commercial farms, both Jewish and Arab owned. Mandatory Palestine had a noticeably better economy than the neighboring colonies.

[tinnypriv]

34. Yes but the regional economies also fluctuated

You're correct, but it is worth pointing out that there was not only immigration, but also in some years large-scale emmigration. It depended on the state of the economies in any given year.

For example, the yearly exodus from the Hauran (the largest proportion of immigrants to Palestine) depended "mainly on the state of the crops" in Syria (Perl Commission Report, 1937), and in a "good" year, "the amount of illegal immigration into Palestine (was) negligible" (ibid).

So yes, some were immigrants, but a lot of those in fact left during a given year. Some stayed permanently, but not a great deal.

A considerable majority of Arabs in the mandate were therefore indigenious, although not European-style nationalist.

[The Magistrate]

41. Certainly, Sir

The situation is fairly analogous to the relation between the U.S. and Mexico. It was not my intention to maintain the Arab population of Palestine was not indigenous, merely to point out the kernel of fact beneath some allegations. The Arab population in Palestine increased by roughly 700,000 during the first four decades of the last century, and by far the greatest portion of this by far was owing to the effect on natural increase of improvements in public sanitation and health services in urban centers, and of a cash economy and increased agricultural productivity. In the checkered record of Western imperialism, it is worth noting that where its administations were most solidly established, there was typically real material improvement in the lives of the inhabitants.

It is not often remarked on, either, that a good portion of the Jews who immigrated to Palestine during the Mandatory period subsequently departed, owing to economic difficulties. This was particularly evident in the latter portion of the 1920s, when times were hard the world over, and Mandatory Palestine was no exception.

[tinnypriv]

29. Riiight

:thumbsup:

Good job!

You do realise this is a progressive forum? You just signed up to the Likud party platform.... :crazy:

[Forkboy]

31. It's supposed to be a progressive forum

but not down here.I see as much right ring drivel here as I would watching Fox.

[Cassandra]

40. Just because the right-wing has co-opted...

"support" for Israel, doesn't mean that any and all support for Israel is right-wing. It is actually possible to be a liberal or moderate Democrat and still favor Israelis over Palestinians (in the hopes of a two-state solution).

[Forkboy]

42. Nowhere have I said

that support for Israel equates with being right wing.

[Cassandra]

58. So what did this mean?

"It's supposed to be a progressive forum but not down here.I see as much right wing drivel here as I would watching Fox."

[Forkboy]

70. Exactly what it says

:shrug:

Where do I equate right-wing with being in favor of Israel? I don't consider you right wing and you favor Israel.There's many great posters on both sides of the issue here.Unfortunately,there's also some who post from very right-wing sources on a regular basis as well.

[The Stranger]

86. They still will not freeze settlements because

the government of Israel is run by Jewish Supremacists.