Turkey's View of Israel

[Timur]

Even though about 40% of the nation might be thinking that Israel is a threat, there is another 40% of the population that knows, trusts and loves the beautiful nation of Israel! <3

You are the only sane existence in the all middle east. You surely deserve the whole of that peninsula.

And I hope Turkey's policies towards Israel will change 180 degrees by the inevitable change of government!

I dont think that 60 % of turks think your way.. never met a Turk who is not at least skeptic..until you..

but the worst part is that you are still respectless to your country you say we are not sane..

 

[SouI]

but the worst part is that you are still respectless to your country you say we are not sane..

As obvious as it is, I don't consider Turkey as a ME nation.

 

[TankMan]

Its quite interesting that when it comes to the israeli palestinian conflict, everyone is an expert. When we hear about the Chinese occupation of tibet or the Armenian genocide nobody behaves like this

Chinese, Tibetans or Armenians definitely behave like this. The Israel-Palestine conflict has existed for almost a century now, which is why it has become popular. The Armenian genocide is something that happened and finished a century ago. The Tibetan issue has been reduced to a Dalai-Lama and Tibet has essentially integrated with China, even the US supports China on that.

The Israel-Palestine conflict, on the other hand, is ongoing, which makes it a more pertinent topic.

every random dude becomes a historian or even worse, an expert in the field of genetic studies.

Do explain your credentials and what gives you the right to call out others on them supposedly posing as 'an expert'.

There has never been a country or a state called palestine.

I already addressed that in my post.

From Ottoman rule to British rule to Israeli occupation, the Palestinians were never given their right to self-determination.

''Country'' or ''State'' implies a sovereign territory with its own independent territory. Palestine has never been given the right to govern itself as a nation-state. But the fact is that the Palestinians, as a people, exist on the land known as Palestine. Therefore, they have the right to a nation-state, a right they are being deprived from by the Israelis.

Auni abdel Hadi, one of the palestinian leaders in 1937 said to the Peel comission that there is no country called palestine, zionists invented it, we were always part of Syria. Even a Palestinian leader like zuheir Mohsen made it clear in 1977. What is interesting is that you posted palestine of 1923 and ironically decided not to post pictures of how palestine looked like it 1920. What we know to be Jordan today plus what we know to be palestine were one entity under british Rule called Palestine. It was in 1922 that the British decided to chop palestine into two, making 80 of palestine Jordan and the remaining 20 percent to be the British mandate for Palestine. So palestine is just as artificial as Israel, just as artificial as Kuwait or Azerbaijan.

Your argument is a strawman. I am not arguing that Palestine is some historical nation-state - that's actually the Israelis' argument.

My argument is that as of 1947, a large amount of people called Palestinians lived on a land called Palestine. It doesn't matter if they historically were part of Syria or Jordan. What matters is that they were attacked and their land was occupied by the Israelis.

You say Palestine is just as ''artificial'' as Israel, Kuwait or Azerbaijan. All three of those are nation-states recognized internationally. Therefore, you are agreeing that Palestine has a right to exist as a sovereign nation-state.

By Posting that map you basically admitted how uneducated you are about the subject. Instead of that map I'm going to rely on Historical sources by both Israelis and Palestinians. Benny Morris is the most prominent israeli Historian. He is often quoted by Pro palestinian activists like Noam Chomsky. Even some one like Edward Saied, the greatest palestinian philospher and intelectual had to say this about Morris: a genuene will to understand the past without desire to lie or conceal the truth. He has been attacked by his own Israeli compatriats for his one sided views against israel. Morris has concluded that the jewish purchase of land in Palestine since 1882 until 1939 displaced only several thousand arab families. Compare that to the number of arabs who were forced to leave during the aswan dam construction in egyp or the 200 thousand iraqi christians being forced to immigrate to Jordan. I refer you to Proffessor Rashed Khalidi about the Jewish purchase of land in Palestine and Dr Kenneth Stein. One arab one jew. In 1937, Haj amin al Husseini, The Palestinian Leader made it clear to Laurie Hammond, one of Peel commission inspectors that the lands were mostly purchased from absentee Landlords. When did Haj amin Al husseini say that? In 1937. When there were nearly half a million jews in Palestine.

Nowhere in this wall of text have you addressed my argument. I am not talking about land purchased by Jews from 1882 to 1939. I am talking about the formation of the state of Israel on the land of Palestine, the overwhelming majority of which was inhabited by locals and not purchased at the time of the partition plan.

It's pointless to try and intimidate me by quoting big names if none of it addresses my argument.

In 1947 the UN issues a partition plan, the Jews accept while Arabs reject it

That's because the Jews had everything to gain from that unfair, one-sided sham of a partition plan while the Palestians and Arabs had everything to lose from it. It was their right to reject it.

Arabs reject it and invade Israel

No, they didn't invade Israel. They intervened in Palestine. Israel didn't exist when that happened. All that existed was a Zionist militia.

in a defensive war Israel captures terretories.

Incorrect. In an offensive war, the Zionist militia invades and captures territories.

Both 1948 and 1967 were wars initiated by Arabs themselves, and theyare the ones who should be held accountable for the consequences.

The invasion of Palestine was initiated by the Zionist milita. They are the ones who should be held accountable for the consequences.

Palestinians were never given the right of self determination????? You know why? Because their leaders in each period supported the losing side.

Is that seriously your argument? ''Because their leaders supported the losing side''. That does not justify the occupation or displacement of twelve million Palestinians.

 

[Bismarck]

You cant compare Tibet or Armenian issue with Palestine one, because of one reason. It's political irrelevant, and has no effect of world society.

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

Those dammed alien reptilian sadist satanist zionist imperialist atheist evil capitalist jews!!1!

Now, you're being silly. No problem with Jews, the Zionists are bad.

 

[Aryan122]

Chinese, Tibetans or Armenians definitely behave like this. The Israel-Palestine conflict has existed for almost a century now, which is why it has become popular. The Armenian genocide is something that happened and finished a century ago. The Tibetan issue has been reduced to a Dalai-Lama and Tibet has essentially integrated with China, even the US supports China on that.
.

They are Tibetans and Armenians. The are the ones who are or were directly involved. If you were Palestinian I wouldn't say a word. But you're not. This is what is frustrating. In almost every single Pro-Palestine rally on campuses across American and Canada, you would rarely find a Palestinian. It's either Arabs of different countries or Muslims of Pakistan and India alongside some leftist Americans. President Ahmadinejad. In almost every single provincial trips he would talk about Palestine.
You said the Armenian genocide was something that happened and finished a century ago. Alright. By this logic, If Jews had killed the entire Palestinian Arab population in 1948. Our Children and grandchildren would have said the same thing. In the same way, our grandchildren in 20 years from now would say who cares about 1.2 million Palestinian who were killed in 1948. Something happened and finished.
Tibet has essentially integrated with China??? you mean annexed.

Do explain your credentials and what gives you the right to call out others on them supposedly posing as 'an expert'.

you were the one who started posting historic pictures and maps. I didn't claim to be an expert. However I used the words of the experts and credible Historians to prove my point. That being said.

''Country'' or ''State'' implies a sovereign territory with its own independent territory. Palestine has never been given the right to govern itself as a nation-state. But the fact is that the Palestinians, as a people, exist on the land known as Palestine. Therefore, they have the right to a nation-state, a right they are being deprived from by the Israelis.

Because Palestine has never been a political or geographical entity in any meaningful sense. Between 1516 and 1918 Palestine was divied into Sinjaks which were part of vilayats. The Northern part of was today Palestine was part of velayat of Syria and was governed by Pasha from Damascus. This is why for a long time Palestinians themselves regarded Palestine as سوریه جنوبیه . The peel commission in 1937 found that " the sympathy of Palestinian Arabs with their kinsmen in Syria had been plainly shown both people clung to the principle that Palestine was part of Syria and should never have been cut off from it ". In Short periods in mid 1800s Palestine was divided into vilayet of Beirut which was basically all of Lebanon plus northern Palestine from Tel Aviv all the way to Beirut. There was also an independent sanjak called Jerusalem from Jaffa to Jerusalem and beersheva. Now if you ask arabs they regard all of this land, Syrian Lebanon Jordan and Palestine as بلاد شام or The Levant. they would move from place to place. J.L Burkhardt reported that as early as in the second decade of the nineteenth century" a few individuals die in the same village in which they were born. Families are continually moving from one place to another".

With your logic all countries of the middle east will fall into pieces. I'm curious what do you think about Kurdish people do they have the right to a nation-state in Kurdistan. what do you think about 4 million Arabs who have lived in Iran for 5 centuries at least. Do they have the right to a nation-state. How about balouchis in Both Pakistan and Iran.

I fully support the Two sate solution. Palestinians have as much right to the land as the Israelis.

Nowhere in this wall of text have you addressed my argument. I am not talking about land purchased by Jews from 1882 to 1939. I am talking about the formation of the state of Israel on the land of Palestine, the overwhelming majority of which was inhabited by locals and not purchased at the time of the partition plan.

It's pointless to try and intimidate me by quoting big names if none of it addresses my argument.

The formation of a Jewish national home in Palestine was binding International law that was agreed between Chaim wiezman and Emir faisal and approved by the league of nations in 1920 and 1922. The San remo conference is a good example. At the time of Partition there was a clear Jewish majority in that area. 540,000 Jews along 400,000 Arabs. These arabs were not kicked out of their homes and properties . where is my proof? 2.3 million Israeli Arabs who are decedents of those Arabs partitioned to Israel or captured in the war of 1948 who live in Israel today as full integrated citizens. were there 700,000 refugees who fled or were displaced by Pamlech or Hagannah that is subject to dispute and debate. By the way where did Palestinians had come from? A study of Jewish settlement of Rishon Ltzion in 1882 showed that 40 Jewish families that settled there attracted 400 Arab families many which were Bedouin or Egyptian. A British report in 1937 said" the growth in the number of Arabs had largely been due to health services combating malaria and reducing infant death and improving water supply. these improvements were introduced to Palestine by Jewish refugees from Europe.

That's because the Jews had everything to gain from that unfair, one-sided sham of a partition plan while the Palestians and Arabs had everything to lose from it. It was their right to reject it.

let's review what jews gained and what arabs would have gaine:

Jewish Gain:
- The establishment of a Jewish national home
- partition enables them to call their national homeland their own enable to convert it to a Jewish state

Palestine Gain:
- They Obtain their national independence and can cooperate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighboring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress
- They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jewish
- In particular the final limitation of of the Jewish national home within a fixed frontier and enactment of a new mandate for the protection of holy places
- as a set off to the loss of territory the Arabs regard as their the Arab state will receive subvention from the jewish state. It will also, in view of the backwardness of transjordan, obtain a grant of 2000000 E from the British treasury and if arrangement can be made with the exchange of land and population.

No, they didn't invade Israel. They intervened in Palestine. Israel didn't exist when that happened. All that existed was a Zionist militia.

The day after Israel declared statehood they attacked.

Is that seriously your argument? ''Because their leaders supported the losing side''. That does not justify the occupation or displacement of twelve million Palestinians.

700,000 Palestinians were displaced. now they are 12 million. I didn't say that this justifies it I said that's how our ugly world is. You should see the world as it is not how you want it to be. Persia lost caucuses( Georgia, Azerbaijan,Armenia Daghestand Chechnya) in the Persian-Russian wars of 1800 due to our Leaders mistakes and Russian military superiority but today if you talk to Iranians they will mostly blame the leaders. The mistakes of Saddam Hussein led to 1.5 million Iraqis dying due to the lack of food and medicine. The mistakes of Adolf Hitler led to the death of millions of Germans, the destruction of the entire country, humiliation, and then the partitioning of Germany between the powers.people are held wrongly due to the actions of their leaders and unfortunately that's what the world is.

 

[TheGrim]

Uzay Bulut and Burak Bekdil whore out their comment space to pro-Israel and anti-Turkish institutions. Whether they do this because they are imbeciles, self loathing Turks (we have many scum as such), money, a twisted/racist view of the world or a combination of all I don't know. Fact is the OP of this thread is sharing articles full of drivel in the hopes of trying to change Israels perception among Turkish PDF members, to mock the country of Turkey or to simply piss us off (most likely a combination of all 3). My message to the op: bullshit articles like this only reinforce the negative view of Israel as they show how pathetically the attempt is made to smear the Turkish Republic and make us feel empathic towards a country that murdered 8 of our citizens in international waters ...try harder, cretin.

 

[TankMan]

They are Tibetans and Armenians. The are the ones who are or were directly involved. If you were Palestinian I wouldn't say a word. But you're not. This is what is frustrating. In almost every single Pro-Palestine rally on campuses across American and Canada, you would rarely find a Palestinian. It's either Arabs of different countries or Muslims of Pakistan and India alongside some leftist Americans. President Ahmadinejad. In almost every single provincial trips he would talk about Palestine.
You said the Armenian genocide was something that happened and finished a century ago. Alright. By this logic, If Jews had killed the entire Palestinian Arab population in 1948. Our Children and grandchildren would have said the same thing. In the same way, our grandchildren in 20 years from now would say who cares about 1.2 million Palestinian who were killed in 1948. Something happened and finished.
Tibet has essentially integrated with China??? you mean annexed.

Already addressed all of this. Yes, if the Jews had killed the entire Palestinian Arab population in 1948, people wouldn't talk about it this much. Maybe a day dedicated to mourning or something, but nothing else. That's human nature.
Tibet has integrated with China through annexation. Even the US accepts it. End of story.

you were the one who started posting historic pictures and maps. I didn't claim to be an expert.

And where on those pictures and maps did I say that I was an expert? I didn't claim to be an expert either. But you don't need to be an expert to debunk such blatantly obvious one-sided propaganda.

However I used the words of the experts and credible Historians to prove my point. That being said.

No, you just mentioned some experts to make your argument look strong, even though none of those experts said anything that addresses any of my arguments.

Because Palestine has never been a political or geographical entity in any meaningful sense.

Doesn't justify occupying them.

Between 1516 and 1918 Palestine was divied into Sinjaks which were part of vilayats. The Northern part of was today Palestine was part of velayat of Syria and was governed by Pasha from Damascus. This is why for a long time Palestinians themselves regarded Palestine as سوریه جنوبیه . The peel commission in 1937 found that " the sympathy of Palestinian Arabs with their kinsmen in Syria had been plainly shown both people clung to the principle that Palestine was part of Syria and should never have been cut off from it ". In Short periods in mid 1800s Palestine was divided into vilayet of Beirut which was basically all of Lebanon plus northern Palestine from Tel Aviv all the way to Beirut. There was also an independent sanjak called Jerusalem from Jaffa to Jerusalem and beersheva. Now if you ask arabs they regard all of this land, Syrian Lebanon Jordan and Palestine as بلاد شام or The Levant. they would move from place to place. J.L Burkhardt reported that as early as in the second decade of the nineteenth century" a few individuals die in the same village in which they were born. Families are continually moving from one place to another".

Again, none of this justifies an occupation by Israel, and none of this justifies depriving the Palestinians of their right to self-determination. Quoting historians is pointless if you don't have any argument. Your argument is that ''Palestine never existed''. These historians are actually disproving your argument since they say Palestine existed, admittedly under the rule of other nations, a fact I addressed in my very first post on this thread.

With your logic all countries of the middle east will fall into pieces.

No, they won't. What is ''my logic''? It's simple: when there are people living on a land, invading them and taking over the land despite their objection and resistance is a deplorable act of aggression. If Syria, Jordan, Lebanon or any other Arab country is not ruling them or claiming the land as their own, that doesn't make the land 'fair game' for foreign invaders.. It makes it deserving of autonomy.

Countries in the Middle East

I'm curious what do you think about Kurdish people do they have the right to a nation-state in Kurdistan.

If their claims are legitimate, yes. And with Syria and Iraq breaking apart nowadays, it is very likely that the Kurds do end up getting their own state.

what do you think about 4 million Arabs who have lived in Iran for 5 centuries at least. Do they have the right to a nation-state.

They have lived in Iran under their government without resistance or being oppressed for five hundred years. They are effectively part of Iran now. They do not want a separate nation-state and therefore discussing it is pointless.

How about balouchis in Both Pakistan and Iran.

A very small amount of Balochis want independence, the rest are fully integrated with their respective nations. The minority can not decide what the Balochis want. Besides, Balochistan is not being invaded or occupied by foreigners.

You are comparing completely different situations to somehow try and justify the Israeli occupation. It isn't working.

Jewish Gain:
- The establishment of a Jewish national home
- partition enables them to call their national homeland their own enable to convert it to a Jewish state

Palestine Gain:
- They Obtain their national independence and can cooperate on an equal footing with the Arabs of the neighboring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress
- They are finally delivered from the fear of being swamped by the Jewish
- In particular the final limitation of of the Jewish national home within a fixed frontier and enactment of a new mandate for the protection of holy places
- as a set off to the loss of territory the Arabs regard as their the Arab state will receive subvention from the jewish state. It will also, in view of the backwardness of transjordan, obtain a grant of 2000000 E from the British treasury and if arrangement can be made with the exchange of land and population.

I meant gain in terms of land. The Jews gained 60% of it, despite being a minority.

Your comparison is flawed. Palestine never had the option of obtaining national independence. 60% of their land was to be occupied. That's not even close to independence. ''Delivered from their fear'', what on Earth is that supposed to mean? So your idea is that by actually being swarmed and losing most of their land at the hands of the Jews, their 'fear' is somehow reduced? It's the other way around. That increased their fear.

The day after Israel declared statehood they attacked.

Their declaration was not accepted by the natives.

that's how our ugly world is.

So, your argument boils down to ''others do it too''.

You should see the world as it is not how you want it to be.

Follow your own advice. The way the world is right now is that there are 12 million Palestinians being displaced, occupied or killed by Israel. The entity called Palestine exists. Deal with it. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a nation-state two centuries ago. It exists now.

 

[egolfs]

They have lived in Iran under their government without resistance or being oppressed for five million years.

???

 

[TankMan]

???

I meant four million Arabs living in Iran for over five hundred years. My apologies for the mistake, thank you for pointing it out.

 

[Aryan122]

Already addressed all of this. Yes, if the Jews had killed the entire Palestinian Arab population in 1948, people wouldn't talk about it this much. Maybe a day dedicated to mourning or something, but nothing else. That's human nature.
Tibet has integrated with China through annexation. Even the US accepts it. End of story.

Thank you for your affirmation. The areas that Israel conquered in 1948 have also been annexed and integrated. All arabs who remained gained full citizenship with equal rights. Today according to the polls 85 percent of Israeli arabs recognize Israel s right to exist and even 54 percent would recognize it as a jewish state. Nearly 67 percent have said that Israel is a good place to live. So thats for the 2.4 million Arabs of Israel.

And where on those pictures and maps did I say that I was an expert? I didn't claim to be an expert either. But you don't need to be an expert to debunk such blatantly obvious one-sided propaganda.

Usually when i have discussions with people on this subject they first turn to occupation, when i show them the evidence for legal purchase of land in Palestine, they turn to genetics, that these jews are not really the decedents of jews who lived here. Then they become so desperate that they turn to international law, then to demographics. If we were talking about History, of course, anybody can study history, discuss history, debate history but when it comes to palestine it is more than History. It's obsession. People start throwing any random crap they have ever heard.

Again, none of this justifies an occupation by Israel, and none of this justifies depriving the Palestinians of their right to self-determination. Quoting historians is pointless if you don't have any argument. Your argument is that ''Palestine never existed''. These historians are actually disproving your argument since they say Palestine existed, admittedly under the rule of other nations, a fact I addressed in my very first post on this thread.

After the Germans and Ottomons were defeated in World war 1, President Wilson declared the principle of self determination. A decision had to be made for the 45000 square mile that had been captured from the Ottomons.
1- give the land to some arab state
2- give all the land to the jews even areas that arabs were a majority
3- give all the land to arabs even in areas in which jews were a majority
4- divide the land fairly between jews and arabs
Fourth option was chosen.The most important objection the arabs had to the balfour declaration was that the balfour declaration has considered palestine as a seperate entity than as part of syria. As the peel comossion was later to observe was that the arabs had always considered palestine as part of syria. The last thing they wanted was a seperate palestine because then that would include a small but substantial hime for the jews. The arab opposition to any jewish right of self determination at any parts of palestine in which they were a majority couple with arab self determination in areas in which they were a majority turned extremely violent.
So they were given self determination, but they rejected it bucause they did not want mutual self determination.

No, they won't. What is ''my logic''? It's simple: when there are people living on a land, invading them and taking over the land despite their objection and resistance is a deplorable act of aggression. If Syria, Jordan, Lebanon or any other Arab country is not ruling them or claiming the land as their own, that doesn't make the land 'fair game' for foreign invaders.. It makes it deserving of autonomy.

Thats the reason why people like you run away from the records of land purchases of 1880s all the way up to 1940. Because that contradicts your preconceived ideas about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The lands that were occupied in 1948 and 1967 was a result of arab aggression. Iraq-Iran war is filled with these territorial exchanges and conquests. In Iran we have national holidays in memory of operations Iran carried out to capture Basra and other parts of Iraq.

They have lived in Iran under their government without resistance or being oppressed for five hundred years. They are effectively part of Iran now. They do not want a separate nation-state and therefore discussing it is pointless.

It doesn't surprise me. Most people I have met from the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent are not well informed about the middle east. I was born in Khuzestan, thats where most Iranian Arabs live. I was 11 years old when they placed a bomb in Saman bank near our school. Dozens of people were killed and hundreds wounded. They were خلق عرب . These were the last remains of ...................
The reason you don't hear about it is because Reza shah in 1925 crushed the arabs self rule in Persia. Nearly 10 thousand people were killed, and the entire leadership including Sheikh khazaal شيخ خزعل were executed. The weakening of qajar dynasty led to self rule in all parts of Persia, Kurds, Balouchis, even gilakis who were persians. But the most powerful self rule was arab self rule in Khuzestan with their capital in muhamarra or khoramshahr for nearly a century that was crushed the Reza shah. Today the democratic front of Ahwaz or Alahwaz movement is in fact quit popular among arabs in Iran. The jews had absolutely no idea how to deal with the arabs, someone like Haj amin al husseini who was the palestinian leader and had the blood of hundreds of jews on his hands lived until 1974. While the arab leader of iranian arabs with his entire generals and deputies were all executed in 1925. Mass persian immigration, full integration of arabs. Everybody thought its over. We changed the name from persia to Iran so that everybody can feel right at home The arabs are now part of Iran. Until 1979, mass arab pogroms against persians started all across the province. Khoramshahr was the centre of all these bombing and attrocities sometimes hundreds of bomb attacks in a week. What do you want? Self rule, the arab said. I wont even go to the Soosangerd events. I can recall dozens of times i was called by my arab classmates " persian settler". I could wright millions of words about arab pursuit for self rule the pogroms they carried out in the last century just for that.

You are comparing completely different situations to somehow try and justify the Israeli occupation. It isn't working

I was not comparing i just wanted to know how educated you are in these matters. If i wanted to compare i would ask you to tell me whether you recognize Argentina? Or Brazil. So, do you?

I meant gain in terms of land. The Jews gained 60% of it, despite being a minority.

Your comparison is flawed. Palestine never had the option of obtaining national independence. 60% of their land was to be occupied. That's not even close to independence. ''Delivered from their fear'', what on Earth is that supposed to mean? So your idea is that by actually being swarmed and losing most of their land at the hands of the Jews, their 'fear' is somehow reduced? It's the other way around. That increased their fear.

But in 1937 the peel commission gave a proposal for the partitioning of palestine in which the palestinians would get 75 percent of palestine and jews would get 25. You can look up 1937 partition plan.

The jews reluctantly accepted while arabs rejected it and turned to violence. In 1948 the un partition plan was issued to give 55 percent to the jewish state and 45 percent to the arab state. Now in this 55 percent, jews were a clear majority with 540 thousand jews and 400 thousand arabs. In terms of land yes the jews got more but if you only consider the fact that 2/3 of the land jews got was desert and even up to this day is still desert and unusable. Check out the negev desert As you can see the 400 thousand arabs would have remained where they were and they would have been given equal right as their 2.4 million decedents have been given equal rights today in Israel. The un partition was for the partition of land not an exchange of population. Nobody had move anywhere.

Their declaration was not accepted by the natives.

 

[TankMan]

Usually when i have discussions with people on this subject they first turn to occupation, when i show them the evidence for legal purchase of land in Palestine, they turn to genetics,

Legal land purchase constituted no more than a small fraction of the land given to the Jews by the partition plan, which was rejected by the natives and then captured forcefully by Jewish militant groups . Those who know the facts don't need to turn to genetics or anything.

The areas that Israel conquered in 1948 have also been annexed and integrated. All arabs who remained gained full citizenship with equal rights. Today according to the polls 85 percent of Israeli arabs recognize Israel s right to exist and even 54 percent would recognize it as a jewish state. Nearly 67 percent have said that Israel is a good place to live. So thats for the 2.4 million Arabs of Israel.

Those who refused to integrate have been pushed into the West Bank and Gaza, the former of which is directly occupied by Israel and the latter is blockaded by the Israelis. Those territories contain the majority of Palestinian Arabs and are nowhere near integrating.

4- divide the land fairly between jews and arabs
Fourth option was chosen.The most important objection the arabs had to the balfour declaration was that the balfour declaration has considered palestine as a seperate entity than as part of syria. As the peel comossion was later to observe was that the arabs had always considered palestine as part of syria. The last thing they wanted was a seperate palestine because then that would include a small but substantial hime for the jews. The arab opposition to any jewish right of self determination at any parts of palestine in which they were a majority couple with arab self determination in areas in which they were a majority turned extremely violent.
So they were given self determination, but they rejected it bucause they did not want mutual self determination.

Ultimately the land was not divided fairly since the Jews constituted no more than 32% of Mandatory Palestine (after 1920, i.e excluding Trans-Jordan) and were given 60% of the land.

The Peel Commission was a lot more fair, but was rejected by the Arabs. This was a huge mistake on their part, but it is understandable why they would've made this mistake - no, it has nothing to do with them not wanting Jews anywhere near them.

The Zionist Congress discussed the Peel Commission proposal, and the majority opposed it because they said they needed more land. The minority of Zionists that supported it did so only because they said they would expand their borders. They had already made it clear that they would expand beyond the Peel Commission borders.

Therefore the Arabs would have considered any land being given to the Zionists as a threat. They obviously could've handled it a lot more diplomatically, which is why this was a mistake.

As for violence, it was the Jews who formed militant groups like Haganah, Irgun and Lehi to eliminate political opposition and intimidate locals.

Thats the reason why people like you run away from the records of land purchases of 1880s all the way up to 1940. Because that contradicts your preconceived ideas about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

I don't run away from anything. You are making an assumption based on your own preconceived ideas.
Here's the land the Jews purchased:

Here's the land they got:

That is in no way proportionate.

It doesn't surprise me. Most people I have met from the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent are not well informed about the middle east. I was born in Khuzestan, thats where most Iranian Arabs live. I was 11 years old when they placed a bomb in Saman bank near our school. Dozens of people were killed and hundreds wounded. They were خلق عرب . These were the last remains of ...................
The reason you don't hear about it is because Reza shah in 1925 crushed the arabs self rule in Persia. Nearly 10 thousand people were killed, and the entire leadership including Sheikh khazaal شيخ خزعل were executed. The weakening of qajar dynasty led to self rule in all parts of Persia, Kurds, Balouchis, even gilakis who were persians. But the most powerful self rule was arab self rule in Khuzestan with their capital in muhamarra or khoramshahr for nearly a century that was crushed the Reza shah. Today the democratic front of Ahwaz or Alahwaz movement is in fact quit popular among arabs in Iran. The jews had absolutely no idea how to deal with the arabs, someone like Haj amin al husseini who was the palestinian leader and had the blood of hundreds of jews on his hands lived until 1974. While the arab leader of iranian arabs with his entire generals and deputies were all executed in 1925. Mass persian immigration, full integration of arabs. Everybody thought its over. We changed the name from persia to Iran so that everybody can feel right at home The arabs are now part of Iran. Until 1979, mass arab pogroms against persians started all across the province. Khoramshahr was the centre of all these bombing and attrocities sometimes hundreds of bomb attacks in a week. What do you want? Self rule, the arab said. I wont even go to the Soosangerd events. I can recall dozens of times i was called by my arab classmates " persian settler". I could wright millions of words about arab pursuit for self rule the pogroms they carried out in the last century just for that.

You are right, I am not an expert on the issue of Persian Arabs. Likewise I wouldn't expect someone from the middle east to know too much about the India-Pakistan subcontinent unless that's their academic specialty. The middle east is not mine.

So essentially you are saying there was oppression and that integration was done forcefully. In which case I would apply the same standards and support their rights. But this is off topic. If you think it's an ongoing issue that you need to discuss further, open a new thread about it.

I was not comparing i just wanted to know how educated you are in these matters.

I you want to know how educated I am in specific matters, ask so directly. There are no ''these matters'', and my knowledge regarding Persian Arabs, for example, is irrelevant to my knowledge regarding Palestine. Discuss specific matters, and don't try to undermine my arguments by demonstrating that they don't apply to matters completely irrelevant to them.

But in 1937 the peel commission gave a proposal for the partitioning of palestine in which the palestinians would get 75 percent of palestine and jews would get 25. You can look up 1937 partition plan.

Already addressed the Peel Commission. The Jews made it clear they would expand their borders regardless. The majority of the Zionist Congress then rejected it and demanded a more favourable plan.

The jews reluctantly accepted while arabs rejected it and turned to violence.

Absolutely false. Both sides rejected it. The Jews had already formed militant groups. The situation was already violent before the Peel Commission.

 

[Aryan122]

You are right, I am not an expert on the issue of Persian Arabs. Likewise I wouldn't expect someone from the middle east to know too much about the India-Pakistan subcontinent unless that's their academic specialty. The middle east is not mine.

So essentially you are saying there was oppression and that integration was done forcefully. In which case I would apply the same standards and support their rights. But this is off topic. If you think it's an ongoing issue that you need to discuss further, open a new thread about it.

That's precisely what i'm talking about. I would never comment or even dare to go near the Pakistan India tensions, or even talk about Kashmir. For the shear reason that I have no Idea what the conflict is all about, what are Pakistani grievances, what are Indians saying, I have no Idea, because it's not my business. And if you talk to Persians and Turks, most have no clue about any of these things.
Middle east is not a place for the right of self determination, there is just no History of Democracy in this region. You can study the Modern History of Persia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. What you would find most ironic is that almost all of these countries that you probably admire, were founded through ethnic cleansing and genocide. Take Persia for example, since 1921, In order to Unify Persia, Reza Shah crushed every single self governance. These were various Iranian ethnicities who had formed their own independent governments. Tens of thousands of People were killed and ultimately his son Mohammad Reza Shah continued his path by crushing the Azerbaijani revolt. These were ethnic Azeris in North Western Iran who wanted self Rule. What you know to be Iran today came to being through a lot of bloodshed. Take Turkey now, what you know as modern Turkey was established on the blood of 1.5 million Armenians and the displacement of the remaining 1million. These Armenians had 6 provinces in Turkey. Did theseArmenians had homes properties, lands, and ..... What happened to it? The Kurds aNd the Turks took them. Add this to the displacement of 3 million Kurds since 1984 in Turkey. Now take Saudi Arabia, study the founding father of Al saud. You know how many tribes he massacred and how many he ethnically cleansed and conquered. Search for GREATER YEMEN. And see for yourself how much of that Yemen has been lost through time to saudi Arabia.
Almost all great middle eastern countries were established through bloodshed and ethnic cleansing.
You as an outsider might find it hard to grasp these matters but the understanding that the people of the middle east have from the ballot box and democracy is quit different. Take Iraq for example, they have been given the right of self determination for nearly 12 years and yet ethnic cleansing seems to be the mechanism that they still resort to in order to resolve their problems. Take Lebanon, the oldest arab democracy, study the History of that country and count how many civil wars and how many ethnic cleanings took place. Israel is part of the same equation. What happened in Palestine is like a day in the beach compared to what happened in other Middle Eastern countries. Both in scale and magnitude. Take Kurds for example, for the last two centuries, the kurds have been fighting for their independence, from sykespicot until now, in no international agreement they were ever recognized as a nation entitled to its own state. In Iraq, they have been given self governance, but the Iraqi kurdistan is not even 15 percent of the entire territories the kurds want their future state to be. The Kurdish people have been living uninterrupted for thousands of years in their ancestral homeland. Is it fair to treat them like this? These are all debatable issues. Middle East because of its harsh environment is not a place of self determination but rather a place of iron fist, meaning if you want to survive you have to .........
Now when you put Israel in this context everything would make sense.

Ultimately the land was not divided fairly since the Jews constituted no more than 32% of Mandatory Palestine (after 1920, i.e excluding Trans-Jordan) and were given 60% of the land.

The Peel Commission was a lot more fair, but was rejected by the Arabs. This was a huge mistake on their part, but it is understandable why they would've made this mistake - no, it has nothing to do with them not wanting Jews anywhere near them.

The Zionist Congress discussed the Peel Commission proposal, and the majority opposed it because they said they needed more land. The minority of Zionists that supported it did so only because they said they would expand their borders. They had already made it clear that they would expand beyond the Peel Commission borders.

Therefore the Arabs would have considered any land being given to the Zionists as a threat. They obviously could've handled it a lot more diplomatically, which is why this was a mistake.

As for violence, it was the Jews who formed militant groups like Haganah, Irgun and Lehi to eliminate political opposition and intimidate locals.

Only if you consider the negev desert which deemed uncultavable and unusable. Now if the negev desert is excluded the usable land allocated to arabs was substantially bigger. Much of the land allocated to the jews was originally swamp and desert that had been irrigated and fertiled by jewish immigrants since erally 1880s. additionally, the land that had been allocated to The Jews did not include western jerusalem in which had a jewish majority or even Hebron. Jerusalem with a population of 100 thousand jews was to be cut off from the Jewish state, and Hebron was to be part of the Arab state, with no jewish precense, eventhough jews had lived there for thousands of years until the arab massacre of 1929 and 1936 drove them out. There are mutiple contributing factors that come into play when nationas are partitioned and divided up. Its not just whether they live and own the entire land, let me give you some examples. Take Austrailia, this is the population distrubution of Austrlia.

Now take Canada,

As you can see population or the distribution of population are not the only factors considered when a nation is being given the right of entitlement to a land. What is critical in the case of Israel and Palestine, is that land allocated to the jews, they were the majority, and the land allocated to the arabs, they were the majority.
Back to the 1937 partition. it is true that some zionists wanted all of what was Palestine but the zionist leadership by Chaim Weizmann and Ben Gurion accepted the partition plan as the basis for further NEGOTIATIONS over gaining more territory. Now if Arabs had accepted, today the advocates for Palestine had a great case to make. They said a jewish state even the size of a postage stamp is not acceptable.
I think you are refering to some statements by the zionist leadership about terretorial expansion. Talk is talk, action is important. Let me give you some examples, when president Khatami was in power in Iran, he had a deputy named mohammad abtahi. He suggested " soft ethnic cleansing " meaning that Arabs and Kurds of Iran would be employed and send off to central Iran away from their provinces and we would transfer Persians to Kurdish and Arab provinces. Since Persians are the majority and they are the minority Through means of employment and job oppurtinities and interrmarige we would completely eradicate these trouble making ethnicites. This was something that was discussed on the highest levels of government and military but was it ever implimented. No Never. Take Menachim begin for example he said that Eretz Israel is from the nile river to the euphratis, now this was a guy who ten years later gave the entire sinai back to egypt and his party 25 years later pulled out of gaza. Actions speak louder than words. These were all based on assumptions, just a few weeks ago, a member of the parliment in Iran said if we show flexibility on the nuclear issue, tomorrow we have to show flexibility on gay rights. Tomorrow they will ask us to legalize alcohol.
Brother, you have never lived with Arabs, you dont know them, when I hear palestinian arguments it is nothing but redudent pan-arab propoganda. The same arguments saddam hussein used in order to justify his war against Iran. You as an outsider see it as an invasion by zionist i see it as a usual ethnic clash something the middle east is used to.

 

[TankMan]

That's precisely what i'm talking about. I would never comment or even dare to go near the Pakistan India tensions, or even talk about Kashmir. For the shear reason that I have no Idea what the conflict is all about, what are Pakistani grievances, what are Indians saying, I have no Idea, because it's not my business. And if you talk to Persians and Turks, most have no clue about any of these things.
Middle east is not a place for the right of self determination, there is just no History of Democracy in this region. You can study the Modern History of Persia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. What you would find most ironic is that almost all of these countries that you probably admire, were founded through ethnic cleansing and genocide. Take Persia for example, since 1921, In order to Unify Persia, Reza Shah crushed every single self governance. These were various Iranian ethnicities who had formed their own independent governments. Tens of thousands of People were killed and ultimately his son Mohammad Reza Shah continued his path by crushing the Azerbaijani revolt. These were ethnic Azeris in North Western Iran who wanted self Rule. What you know to be Iran today came to being through a lot of bloodshed. Take Turkey now, what you know as modern Turkey was established on the blood of 1.5 million Armenians and the displacement of the remaining 1million. These Armenians had 6 provinces in Turkey. Did theseArmenians had homes properties, lands, and ..... What happened to it? The Kurds aNd the Turks took them. Add this to the displacement of 3 million Kurds since 1984 in Turkey. Now take Saudi Arabia, study the founding father of Al saud. You know how many tribes he massacred and how many he ethnically cleansed and conquered. Search for GREATER YEMEN. And see for yourself how much of that Yemen has been lost through time to saudi Arabia.
Almost all great middle eastern countries were established through bloodshed and ethnic cleansing.
You as an outsider might find it hard to grasp these matters but the understanding that the people of the middle east have from the ballot box and democracy is quit different. Take Iraq for example, they have been given the right of self determination for nearly 12 years and yet ethnic cleansing seems to be the mechanism that they still resort to in order to resolve their problems. Take Lebanon, the oldest arab democracy, study the History of that country and count how many civil wars and how many ethnic cleanings took place. Israel is part of the same equation. What happened in Palestine is like a day in the beach compared to what happened in other Middle Eastern countries. Both in scale and magnitude. Take Kurds for example, for the last two centuries, the kurds have been fighting for their independence, from sykespicot until now, in no international agreement they were ever recognized as a nation entitled to its own state. In Iraq, they have been given self governance, but the Iraqi kurdistan is not even 15 percent of the entire territories the kurds want their future state to be. The Kurdish people have been living uninterrupted for thousands of years in their ancestral homeland. Is it fair to treat them like this? These are all debatable issues. Middle East because of its harsh environment is not a place of self determination but rather a place of iron fist, meaning if you want to survive you have to .........
Now when you put Israel in this context everything would make sense.

I respect your views and thank you for the detailed argument.

I never said the Middle East's only problem was Israel. It isn't, and yes, the Middle East is messed up and we could discuss it forever without arriving at a conclusion. Sykes-Picot is one of the factors in the whole issue, and I realize that the Kurds are another debatable issue.

Israel does make sense in the context, but that doesn't make it right.

Only if you consider the negev desert which deemed uncultavable and unusable. Now if the negev desert is excluded the usable land allocated to arabs was substantially bigger. Much of the land allocated to the jews was originally swamp and desert that had been irrigated and fertiled by jewish immigrants since erally 1880s. additionally, the land that had been allocated to The Jews did not include western jerusalem in which had a jewish majority or even Hebron. Jerusalem with a population of 100 thousand jews was to be cut off from the Jewish state, and Hebron was to be part of the Arab state, with no jewish precense, eventhough jews had lived there for thousands of years until the arab massacre of 1929 and 1936 drove them out. There are mutiple contributing factors that come into play when nationas are partitioned and divided up.

The Negev is otherwise resource-rich and the Arabs had used systems of irrigation to cultivate crops there back in the 8th century. The Israelis could easily use that land, with some difficulty maybe but to completely disregard it would be wrong.

Jerusalem was to be made a UN controlled city, since it's one of the main points of contention.

As for the massacres, the Jews played a big enough part in that. They began forming militant groups back in the 1920s, which led to an escalation. The Arabs weren't angels, but neither were the Jews.

Back to the 1937 partition. it is true that some zionists wanted all of what was Palestine but the zionist leadership by Chaim Weizmann and Ben Gurion accepted the partition plan as the basis for further NEGOTIATIONS over gaining more territory. Now if Arabs had accepted, today the advocates for Palestine had a great case to make. They said a jewish state even the size of a postage stamp is not acceptable

Yes, you are right and this is why I said it was a big mistake on part of the Arabs.

Let me give you some examples, when president Khatami was in power in Iran, he had a deputy named mohammad abtahi. He suggested " soft ethnic cleansing " meaning that Arabs and Kurds of Iran would be employed and send off to central Iran away from their provinces and we would transfer Persians to Kurdish and Arab provinces. Since Persians are the majority and they are the minority Through means of employment and job oppurtinities and interrmarige we would completely eradicate these trouble making ethnicites. This was something that was discussed on the highest levels of government and military but was it ever implimented. No Never. Take Menachim begin for example he said that Eretz Israel is from the nile river to the euphratis, now this was a guy who ten years later gave the entire sinai back to egypt and his party 25 years later pulled out of gaza. Actions speak louder than words. These were all based on assumptions, just a few weeks ago, a member of the parliment in Iran said if we show flexibility on the nuclear issue, tomorrow we have to show flexibility on gay rights. Tomorrow they will ask us to legalize alcohol.

In politics, what you lead your opposition to believe you're going to do is just as important as what you actually do, since their response will be according to what they believe your plan to be. Again, I never said the Arab leadership was intelligent.

You as an outsider see it as an invasion by zionist i see it as a usual ethnic clash something the middle east is used to.

Fair enough.