|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Come on, be real. You think your statement that, "Europe decided to give the land to the Jews" is consistent with the fact that the land was partitioned into two parts, one for Jews and one for Arabs? |
Yes, because the land was originally desiginated for them through the Balfour mandate. Like I said elsewhere most of thoose Jews were fairly recent arrivals, who had their arrival facilitated by the British. The land wasn't really given to the Arabs, because like I said they were already living on it. When I say already living on it, I mean on a long term continous basis. |
Come on, enough already. The Balfour Declaration "looked with favor" upon the establishment of a Jewish homeland "in" Palestine. You can't interpret the Balfour Declaration to mean the Jews were meant to get the whole pie. The decision speaks for itself--the land was divided in two.
| Leon wrote: |
| The Zionists are settler colonists. They also were installed through the help of the former colonial power, Britian. One group of Europeans are in charge, they leave, but they leave land to another group of Europeans to be in charge of. That would surely inspire anti-colonial feelings. |
There is no good reason to call immigrants colonists except for propaganda purposes. It's an emotionally loaded word which short-circuits rational analysis.
That said, by saying "settler colonist" you are closer to the mark than with the traditional definition of colonialism. Surely there were anti-colonial feelings in Palestine, and no doubt some Arabs viewed the Jews as colonizers. But every other instance of settler colonialism mentioned in your link involves members of an established foreign nation. The Jews had no nation.
Moreover it ignores the reality of the worldwide Jewish condition at that time. Many left because of anti-Semitism in Europe and many came to Israel in the wake of the Holocaust. Often they were literally refugees. Colonization implies a more deliberate enterprise than this.
In general, the problem I have with your arguments on this issue is that you seem hopelessly in love with over-generalizing and labeling in ways that distort the situation.
For example, you call the Jewish nation "Europeans" and you present it as if the British lords handed over the keys to power to another member of their posh club. Please. It's true that a large *portion* of world Jewry did *live* in Europe for a while. But I think we all know how that worked out.
| Leon wrote: |
| In some sense Palestine was a product of Colonialism, in so much as borders and shared colonial experience, but the people of Palestine would have been there regardless of colonialism. Israel is there only because of it. |
Well, without foreign invasions or colonizers of any sort, we're left with the ancient Israelite kingdom. But let's not go there...
Let me try to be fair. The things is, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. You're saying let's imagine a Palestinian state was established a couple hundred years ago, it endured all world wars, regional aggressors, and internal disruptions, and they didn't allow any Jews into the country? Then we wouldn't have Israel today?
Yeah, you're probably right. But it's just an imaginative exercise, it doesn't really help us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Come on, be real. You think your statement that, "Europe decided to give the land to the Jews" is consistent with the fact that the land was partitioned into two parts, one for Jews and one for Arabs? |
Yes, because the land was originally desiginated for them through the Balfour mandate. Like I said elsewhere most of thoose Jews were fairly recent arrivals, who had their arrival facilitated by the British. The land wasn't really given to the Arabs, because like I said they were already living on it. When I say already living on it, I mean on a long term continous basis. |
Come on, enough already. The Balfour Declaration "looked with favor" upon the establishment of a Jewish homeland "in" Palestine. You can't interpret the Balfour Declaration to mean the Jews were meant to get the whole pie. The decision speaks for itself--the land was divided in two. |
I'm not sure why you keep bring up that it was split in two. Look what happens when colonial powers split things in two, we get situations like India and Pakistan. Regardless that's not really the point, the fact that a people not from the middle east, in recent history, got any land at all, let alone their own state, was a mechanization of colonialism. Like you said, it speaks for itself.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Zionists are settler colonists. They also were installed through the help of the former colonial power, Britian. One group of Europeans are in charge, they leave, but they leave land to another group of Europeans to be in charge of. That would surely inspire anti-colonial feelings. |
There is no good reason to call immigrants colonists except for propaganda purposes. It's an emotionally loaded word which short-circuits rational analysis.
That said, by saying "settler colonist" you are closer to the mark than with the traditional definition of colonialism. Surely there were anti-colonial feelings in Palestine, and no doubt some Arabs viewed the Jews as colonizers. But every other instance of settler colonialism mentioned in your link involves members of an established foreign nation. The Jews had no nation.
Moreover it ignores the reality of the worldwide Jewish condition at that time. Many left because of anti-Semitism in Europe and many came to Israel in the wake of the Holocaust. Often they were literally refugees. Colonization implies a more deliberate enterprise than this.
In general, the problem I have with your arguments on this issue is that you seem hopelessly in love with over-generalizing and labeling in ways that distort the situation.
For example, you call the Jewish nation "Europeans" and you present it as if the British lords handed over the keys to power to another member of their posh club. Please. It's true that a large *portion* of world Jewry did *live* in Europe for a while. But I think we all know how that worked out. |
You seem really hung up on this preciese definition of colonialism. You admit that some Arabs viewed Israel as an outcome of colonialism, I'm saying that it was more than some, and many still view it that way. As to the Jews situation in Europe, that is a tragedy, but it is irrelavent to the situation. Try telling that the Jews had a hard time to the people who lost their homes, or who are living in an ocuppied territory with little acsess to the outside world, I imagine that they find that pretty irrelavent. Try telling the refugees living in Jordan or Syria that the Jews were also refugees, I'm not sure that they would really think that is relavent. You accused me of trying to use emotionaly charged language, but bringing up the holocaust in a thread about Israel is the ultimate form of using emotionally charged language.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| In some sense Palestine was a product of Colonialism, in so much as borders and shared colonial experience, but the people of Palestine would have been there regardless of colonialism. Israel is there only because of it. |
Well, without foreign invasions or colonizers of any sort, we're left with the ancient Israelite kingdom. But let's not go there... |
Yes, lets not. There is recent history and ancient history. I do not know enough about ancient history to even begin to broach the situation, and doubt its relavence.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Let me try to be fair. The things is, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. You're saying let's imagine a Palestinian state was established a couple hundred years ago, it endured all world wars, regional aggressors, and internal disruptions, and they didn't allow any Jews into the country? Then we wouldn't have Israel today?
Yeah, you're probably right. But it's just an imaginative exercise, it doesn't really help us. |
I'm saying that Palestine isn't a defacto outcome of colonialism, in that the people were already there, and for a long and continous time, this point is just to adress something you said, not that important to the debate. Honestly all of this is an imaginative exercise for people with too much time, but I'm interested and knowledgable about it so that's alright. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Come on, enough already. The Balfour Declaration "looked with favor" upon the establishment of a Jewish homeland "in" Palestine. You can't interpret the Balfour Declaration to mean the Jews were meant to get the whole pie. The decision speaks for itself--the land was divided in two. |
I'm not sure why you keep bring up that it was split in two.... |
I'm bringing it up because you said "Europe decided to give the land to the Jews." Which is untrue. You can try to parse it however you want or say it's not the point, but we had a factual dispute. That's why I'm bringing it up.
| Leon wrote: |
| You seem really hung up on this preciese definition of colonialism. You admit that some Arabs viewed Israel as an outcome of colonialism, I'm saying that it was more than some, and many still view it that way. As to the Jews situation in Europe, that is a tragedy, but it is irrelavent to the situation. Try telling that the Jews had a hard time to the people who lost their homes, or who are living in an ocuppied territory with little acsess to the outside world, I imagine that they find that pretty irrelavent. Try telling the refugees living in Jordan or Syria that the Jews were also refugees, I'm not sure that they would really think that is relavent. You accused me of trying to use emotionaly charged language, but bringing up the holocaust in a thread about Israel is the ultimate form of using emotionally charged language. |
If you want to call the Jewish immigrants colonialists, then we need to evaluate that claim by understanding the historical context of what brought them to Israel. In this connection, the Holocaust and European anti-Semitism are directly relevant. For you to say it's not is absurd.
When you bring up the current political situation and the refugees in Syria and Jordan, you are the one who's making an invalid appeal to emotion with no connection to the point we're discussing. We're discussing how the Jewish people arrived, not what happened after nationhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. . |
I'm not sure how this point matters even if this numbers are accurate. Minorities have (or should have) the same rights as the majority. If you are talking about the territorial accquisition the bulk of the new Jewish state was UNINHABITED desert. Plus it was based on expected new immigration. The UN was thinking ahead. As for the 1947 borders they would still be in place had the Arabs decided to live and let live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. The Arabs were told by Britain that if they fought Turkey, they would become free. It was a lie. The Arabs had a right to be angry with Britain and against the idea of having their homeland partition where they are the majority. The desire of a minority was used to ignore the demands of the majority. Those who say that the Arabs rejected a state in 1947 are the same people who would reject it if they were Arabs, too. |
And the Jews were told that if they loaned the UK money, they would have a nation. Britain was double dealing regardless and someone was going to get burned. But really, considering Israel happened thirty years down the line, and all the meddling in Arab affairs that France and Britain (as well as the US) engaged in, I'm not sure Israel matters nearly as much as the direct colonization of the entire region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
The USA already has more debt than we can possibly pay. People always want more money to be spent, especially when it's someone else's money, but offer little explanation of how we can repay our loans before borrowing more to fund future spending.
And Junior's country is having a debt crisis too. It's not surprising.
London and Washington are turning once great nations into lands of deadbeat borrowers. "Let's borrow some more billions of dollars and pounds from one country so we can give it to another!" That's a perfect recipe for poverty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. The Arabs were told by Britain that if they fought Turkey, they would become free. It was a lie. The Arabs had a right to be angry with Britain and against the idea of having their homeland partition where they are the majority. The desire of a minority was used to ignore the demands of the majority. Those who say that the Arabs rejected a state in 1947 are the same people who would reject it if they were Arabs, too. |
And the Jews were told that if they loaned the UK money, they would have a nation. Britain was double dealing regardless and someone was going to get burned. But really, considering Israel happened thirty years down the line, and all the meddling in Arab affairs that France and Britain (as well as the US) engaged in, I'm not sure Israel matters nearly as much as the direct colonization of the entire region. |
Yes, but the problem is that Israel decided to have East Jerusalem which is very important to the rest of the region which encourages sectarian tensions between Jews and Arabs, and since the US backs Israel, it gets drawn into the mess. Britain no longer gets drawn into this. It tends to criticize Israel, but even the BBC is afraid of offending Israel. Israel has to have peace with security, and that entails some just settlement to the conflict. It was ironic that Netanyahu dressed Obama down, and the Republicans who talk about patriotism helped him do that. He spoke about the 1967 lines and land swaps. Israel even signed that after the war, and it's not new, and just some days ago Meir Dagan, the ex-Mossad head attacked Netanyahu and echoed Obama's words. Imagine that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [. Britain no longer gets drawn into this. It tends to criticize Israel, but even the BBC is afraid of offending Israel. . |
hmm...Google "BBC criticizes Israel" You can find a rather lengthy list of articles. Doesn't seem like the BBC is too afraid of offending Israel...in fact it sometimes seems to bend over backwards to give the Palestinians the benefit of the doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. . |
I'm not sure how this point matters even if this numbers are accurate. Minorities have (or should have) the same rights as the majority. If you are talking about the territorial accquisition the bulk of the new Jewish state was UNINHABITED desert. Plus it was based on expected new immigration. The UN was thinking ahead. As for the 1947 borders they would still be in place had the Arabs decided to live and let live. |
Actually, I am going based on the British census. You are referring to the Negev. I am stating that when one looks at 1947, the majority of the inhabitants were Arab to the tune of 68%. In 1922, the Christian and Muslim Arabs would have been over 85% of the population. I would have to crunch the numbers. It was probably higher than that. I am giving you a more conservative percentage. Thus, it is understandable that the Arabs saw some injustice in having the land divided. At any rate, the proposed Jewish state if the war did not occur would have had a very large Arab minority who would have become rather quickly the majority.
Why would the majority accept the division of the land, and why didn't the majority have the right to say no? You could say if the Arabs accept 1947, but that's using hindsight...I could say if Hitler didn't engage in the holocaust, America and Canada didn't block Jewish immigration there probably wouldn't be an Israel. Anyway, they could have formed a bi-national state as Judah Magnes, Martin Buber, and Albert Einstein suggested, but Ben Gurion wanted more of a mono-ethnic state and to ethnic cleanse the Arabs.
At any rate, without the recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, there will be one state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. . |
I'm not sure how this point matters even if this numbers are accurate. Minorities have (or should have) the same rights as the majority. If you are talking about the territorial accquisition the bulk of the new Jewish state was UNINHABITED desert. Plus it was based on expected new immigration. The UN was thinking ahead. As for the 1947 borders they would still be in place had the Arabs decided to live and let live. |
Thus, it is understandable that the Arabs saw some injustice in having the land divided. At any rate, the proposed Jewish state if the war did not occur would have had a very large Arab minority who would have become rather quickly the majority.
Why would the majority accept the division of the land, and why didn't the majority have the right to say no? . |
Because it wasn't actually their land at that point...it was under British rule and then handed off to the U.N later no? Palestine was not a distinct entity in regards to statehood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [. Britain no longer gets drawn into this. It tends to criticize Israel, but even the BBC is afraid of offending Israel. . |
hmm...Google "BBC criticizes Israel" You can find a rather lengthy list of articles. Doesn't seem like the BBC is too afraid of offending Israel...in fact it sometimes seems to bend over backwards to give the Palestinians the benefit of the doubt. |
There is some criticism, but the BBC appears to fear offending Israel.
The BBC is under attack for using sound effects to mask the lyric "free Palestine" from a performance by rapper Mic Righteous on BBC Radio 1Xtra.
The corporation is being accused of bias after effectively editing the words from Mic Righteous's improvised set, in which he expressed his views on subjects ranging from the American government to poverty and the floods in Pakistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/13/bbc-palestine-lyric-mic-righteous
Read this blog:
http://justjournalism.com/media-analysis/mediaguardian-alleges-pro-israel-bias-at-bbc/
If you've followed the BBC, they were threatened in the past by Israel of basically being banned by Israel if they didn't report a certain way.
Just before the invasion of Iraq last year, a BBC current affairs documentary (not mainstream news) exposed Israel�s unadmitted nuclear weapons programme, a rare if very late-evening example of the corporation risking Israel�s displeasure. The Israeli authorities threatened to expel the BBC�s Jerusalem bureau and boycotted its news teams, only lifting their strictures when BBC management appointed a monitor of all the corporation�s Middle East coverage. His findings will appear later this year, but there is no doubt he exists as a result of pressure from Israel and its powerful friends in Britain.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/storynottold.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. . |
I'm not sure how this point matters even if this numbers are accurate. Minorities have (or should have) the same rights as the majority. If you are talking about the territorial accquisition the bulk of the new Jewish state was UNINHABITED desert. Plus it was based on expected new immigration. The UN was thinking ahead. As for the 1947 borders they would still be in place had the Arabs decided to live and let live. |
Thus, it is understandable that the Arabs saw some injustice in having the land divided. At any rate, the proposed Jewish state if the war did not occur would have had a very large Arab minority who would have become rather quickly the majority.
Why would the majority accept the division of the land, and why didn't the majority have the right to say no? . |
Because it wasn't actually their land at that point...it was under British rule and then handed off to the U.N later no? Palestine was not a distinct entity in regards to statehood. |
The British were never from Palestine, so it was not their land. It was the land of the inhabitants. Did you forget that whole bit where we discussed
how colonialism and imperialism are not good things. Was India not for the inhabits of India? It was controlled by the British, but it was still Indian, none-the-less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. . |
I'm not sure how this point matters even if this numbers are accurate. Minorities have (or should have) the same rights as the majority. If you are talking about the territorial accquisition the bulk of the new Jewish state was UNINHABITED desert. Plus it was based on expected new immigration. The UN was thinking ahead. As for the 1947 borders they would still be in place had the Arabs decided to live and let live. |
Thus, it is understandable that the Arabs saw some injustice in having the land divided. At any rate, the proposed Jewish state if the war did not occur would have had a very large Arab minority who would have become rather quickly the majority.
Why would the majority accept the division of the land, and why didn't the majority have the right to say no? . |
Because it wasn't actually their land at that point...it was under British rule and then handed off to the U.N later no? Palestine was not a distinct entity in regards to statehood. |
The British were never from Palestine, so it was not their land. It was the land of the inhabitants. Did you forget that whole bit where we discussed
how colonialism and imperialism are not good things. Was India not for the inhabits of India? It was controlled by the British, but it was still Indian, none-the-less. |
This is not a good argument applied to this situation. Many of the "Palestinians" today are also from elsewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| [In a sense people treat the Arab rejection of the 1947 General Assembly plan as if to say that there was some deficiency in the Arab culture leading to such a reaction. It comes from many Jews who use hind-sight and WASPs who support Israel. The Arabs of Palestine did not have hind-sight. They were 68% of the population at the time a partition was suggested, and if we went back 30 years or so before that the Arabs would have been close to 80% as many European Jews were immigrating to Palestine. . |
I'm not sure how this point matters even if this numbers are accurate. Minorities have (or should have) the same rights as the majority. If you are talking about the territorial accquisition the bulk of the new Jewish state was UNINHABITED desert. Plus it was based on expected new immigration. The UN was thinking ahead. As for the 1947 borders they would still be in place had the Arabs decided to live and let live. |
Thus, it is understandable that the Arabs saw some injustice in having the land divided. At any rate, the proposed Jewish state if the war did not occur would have had a very large Arab minority who would have become rather quickly the majority.
Why would the majority accept the division of the land, and why didn't the majority have the right to say no? . |
Because it wasn't actually their land at that point...it was under British rule and then handed off to the U.N later no? Palestine was not a distinct entity in regards to statehood. |
The British were never from Palestine, so it was not their land. It was the land of the inhabitants. Did you forget that whole bit where we discussed
how colonialism and imperialism are not good things. Was India not for the inhabits of India? It was controlled by the British, but it was still Indian, none-the-less. |
This is not a good argument applied to this situation. Many of the "Palestinians" today are also from elsewhere. |
And not just today. Many of the "Palestinians" in the old days were also from somewhere else. Arafat himself was Egyptian, not Palestinian. Bit rich that he became the chairman of the PLO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| but the problem is that Israel decided to have East Jerusalem which is very important to the rest of the region. |
By "rest of the region", you must mean Arabs?
Why is east Jerusalem "very important" to Arabs? The majority of people living there are Jews.
On its own, East Jerusalem would be useless as a capital because it has no link to the sea: it could not be a commercial hub. In fact under Jordanian rule (1948-1967) east Jerusalem saw much population decrease and loss of importance. Many Jordanians (now called "Palestinians") living in EJ at that time moved to Amman.
And lets not forget how Jews in East Jerusalem were treated under Jordanian occupation. Upon its capture, Jordan immediately expelled all Jewish residents in the Jewish quarter. All the main synagogues were destroyed, and the Jewish quarter was bulldozed. The ancient Jewish cemetary on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, and its gravestones were used for paving roads. Jordan also destroyed Jewish villages outside of Jerusalem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
