This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- FOA Student Finance
- English Lang paper 2
- Chartered Occupational Psychologist (BPS).Please help
- Scape Wembley Tenancy Takeover!
- Econ 15 mark essay
- Eligible for Postgraduate Loan and NHS Learning?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Need urgent help for Ancient History OCR GCSE
- About a course advise
- World Occupational Therapy Day!
- MSc Occupational Therapy (pre registration) - relevant degree
- Occupational Therapy
- Need help: Occupational Therapy msc course
- Occupational health
- MSc Occupational Therapy
- Biology to occupational therapy??
- student nurse degree occupational health check
- Mental health nursing vs occupational therapy
- MSc Organisational Psychology
- Second masters degree funding
Israeli Occupation: what "occupation"?
I thought it would be necessary to open a new thread to avoid hijacking the topic under discussion in the other one. In a trio of threads I will repudiate the following propositions:
a) The notion that Israel's existence is an occupation, and thus "immoral"
b) That having stolen their land, Israel "victimises" the Palestinian people, or that their dealings with them are some how of a more reprehensible moral tone than any other similar violence
c) That the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership are reasonable or just in their opposition to the status quo.
I will also explain why the self-righteous attitude of much of the pro-Palestinian lobby is hypocritical, and disingenuous. The entire cause has become a tree onto which all manner of pan-Arabist ideologues, anti-Semites, theocrats and anti-American voices have hung their frustrations and pinned their ambitions. I apologise in advance for their length, but some matters are injured by brevity.
Occupation here refers to two ideas. Those of more radical persuasions hold that, the very existence of the state of Israel resulted in a Jewish minority exiling an Arab majority and made them foreigners "in their own land". The more moderate voices consider occupation to refer to the post-1967 Israeli presence in Gaza and the West Bank. I shall deal with each in turn.
The more radical view - which considers Israel's very existence to be some sort of crime against humanity and international law - is flawed if we consider a few things. For territory to be occupied it has to have existed as some sort of autonomous entity, possibly with a homogenous population who have some notion of their territory of residence as being sovereign, and seized by force (or perhaps even deceit).
First, as I have said before, the land we now call Palestine was never, ever a state. It was a region belonging to various empires, most recently the Ottoman (until 1917) and British Empires (until 1947) with a very varied indigenous population.
The condition of autonomy and homogeneity didn't exist in Palestine. Jews, Greeks, Christians, Turks and "Arabs" co-habited in the region by the time of Ottoman Empire's sunset (and had done for centuries).
The reason I put the word Arab in quotes is because, well, to be blunt, until the 20th they weren't called that. The word referred specifically to the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia (mainly Bedouins). Prior to 20th century pan-Arabism most inhabitants of the middle east (including Palestine) did not consider themselves "Arab" but identified themselves by their tribe or religion. The very word Arab is thus a political concoction. And there were many ethnic groups, ranging from Albanians and Kurds to Germans and Russians, not to mention an endemic Jewish population. So, from a purely ethnic perspective, the land was not "owned" by any one group of people, and stolen from them, as is often implicitly suggested.
But Arab or not, I cannot dispute that people still lived there. But they never "owned" the entire region, or any important sections of it, in the sense that you own your house in Britain today, or consider yourself to possess an ethnic right of abode in Britain. It was the easiest place in the region for Jews to buy land from a single owner, even if it was not the most attractive. Virtually all the land was owned by the Sultan/ the state (the miri I mentioned in a previous post), and various landowners (primarily Turkish): most people who lived in the region were tenants on state-owned land. From the mid 19th century, Jewish immigrants began purchasing land - not, at least at the time, with a design to "conquer" the region; this is seen in the pattern of land purchasing. Jewish Land comprised small, disparate plots until the Jewish National Fund was set up and began actively acquiring land for Jewish settlement.
They purchased it (not stole or cheated as some here have imputed) from the Turkish authorities (who owned most of the land anyway) under a settlement agreed by the Ottoman Sultan. Because this land was owned by the Turks anyway, the Arab tenant farmers would have experienced no difference at all between the Arab and Jewish landowners. Indeed, it was in the best interests of the Jewish landowners to keep these Arab farmers tenured. So, from a commercial perspective it was not stolen. Indeed, some Arabs were sympathetic to the Zionist ideals, for they too were under the yoke of the Ottomans and had their own nationalist aspirations, believing (the Arab intelligentsia especially) that the Zionist cause would benefit the Palestinian Arabs (which, as a later thread will show, it actually did).
As such, the Jewish settlement in the region of Palestine during the decline of the Ottoman Empire did not amount to a forceful or even a dishonest "occupation". However, from settlements carved into the arid desert of the Ottoman Empire's backwater, to a nation called Israel, is a big jump. Did the establishment of a Jewish state of Israel in 1948 constitute an illegal and unjust seizure of somebody else's homeland by the Jews? Well first it wasn't "somebody else's homeland" but that of many peoples. Many of these people had their own nationalist aspirations; the Jews were not the only ones. But let us examine the conditions under which the Land of Israel morphed into the state of Israel.
The World War One was the first great quake to destabilise the region in modern times. When it began, there were competing visions for the region: Arab nationalists (with little support from most Arabs, due to the competing visions they had for the post-Ottoman region) wanted the entire empire to become a single Arab state. The Jewish population naturally wanted a Jewish Homeland in Palestine: various indigenous groups in various opposing camps. As such, the Jews weren't uniquely "evil" in their desire for a state, they were just better at getting what they wanted. The Jewish/Israeli establishment understood that to get things done in international politics, it was only by pragmatic considerations of the Great Powers' interests, that their hopes could be realised.
During the war, the British made contradictory promises to the Arabs and Jews, and had conflicting interests with the French. The Jews were seen as the best pawn by which to tip the strategic situation in Britain's favour. A change in British policy after the govern change in 1916 resulted in the famed Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed Britain's support for a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region of the Ottoman Empire. It was the British advantage that gave Israel what she wanted, not a brutal conquest by hordes of Jews. In any case, the Arabs did not lose out: by 1930 Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were independent states with their own Kings. Israel would have to wait two more decades, but alas, to many here and elsewhere, somehow, the principle of self-determination does not apply to the Jews in Palestine, although it was valid for the various Arab peoples in the region.
At the end of the First World War, the Ottomans were on the losing side and their empire was carved up into various spheres of influence among the European powers, and new Arab states created by way of that typically short-sighted British method of arbitrary borders drawn as fault lines in ethnically volatile regions. Tough, but that's what happened. It was in their capacity as the victors that they were able to do this. Now clearly this left certain parties less than satisfied, but this would have been the case with any settlement. The British Mandate for Palestine was naturally a grave disappointment to the Arabs.
But as I pointed out earlier, Arab interests were not ignored, and it would have been impossible and undesirable to please everybody. Indeed, the eventual settlement reached for the Mandate was contrary to Jewish aspirations and British promises. In the end settlement they were denied over three quarters of the land promised by the Balfour Declaration (most of which went to creating what is now Jordan). During the intervening period between 1922-the end of the Second World War, Britain administered Palestine, but allowed for, and encouraged, the increased immigration of Jews.
So, the blueprint for a Jewish State of Israel was created in the context of complex international considerations, and the resultant arrangements - although not universally pleasing to Jews and Arabs alike - were not the consequences of conquest, theft, or occupation, but diplomacy. When the state of Israel was eventually created in 1947, endorsed by the UN and Israel, but rejected with hostility by the Arabs (they wanted the entire region for themselves, as opposed to the two-state solution that was offered), the present difficulties were born. Below I deal with the other misconception people have of Israel's occupation. I will explain the reasons for her presence in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and why it is justified.
a) The notion that Israel's existence is an occupation, and thus "immoral"
b) That having stolen their land, Israel "victimises" the Palestinian people, or that their dealings with them are some how of a more reprehensible moral tone than any other similar violence
c) That the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership are reasonable or just in their opposition to the status quo.
I will also explain why the self-righteous attitude of much of the pro-Palestinian lobby is hypocritical, and disingenuous. The entire cause has become a tree onto which all manner of pan-Arabist ideologues, anti-Semites, theocrats and anti-American voices have hung their frustrations and pinned their ambitions. I apologise in advance for their length, but some matters are injured by brevity.
Occupation here refers to two ideas. Those of more radical persuasions hold that, the very existence of the state of Israel resulted in a Jewish minority exiling an Arab majority and made them foreigners "in their own land". The more moderate voices consider occupation to refer to the post-1967 Israeli presence in Gaza and the West Bank. I shall deal with each in turn.
The more radical view - which considers Israel's very existence to be some sort of crime against humanity and international law - is flawed if we consider a few things. For territory to be occupied it has to have existed as some sort of autonomous entity, possibly with a homogenous population who have some notion of their territory of residence as being sovereign, and seized by force (or perhaps even deceit).
First, as I have said before, the land we now call Palestine was never, ever a state. It was a region belonging to various empires, most recently the Ottoman (until 1917) and British Empires (until 1947) with a very varied indigenous population.
The condition of autonomy and homogeneity didn't exist in Palestine. Jews, Greeks, Christians, Turks and "Arabs" co-habited in the region by the time of Ottoman Empire's sunset (and had done for centuries).
The reason I put the word Arab in quotes is because, well, to be blunt, until the 20th they weren't called that. The word referred specifically to the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia (mainly Bedouins). Prior to 20th century pan-Arabism most inhabitants of the middle east (including Palestine) did not consider themselves "Arab" but identified themselves by their tribe or religion. The very word Arab is thus a political concoction. And there were many ethnic groups, ranging from Albanians and Kurds to Germans and Russians, not to mention an endemic Jewish population. So, from a purely ethnic perspective, the land was not "owned" by any one group of people, and stolen from them, as is often implicitly suggested.
But Arab or not, I cannot dispute that people still lived there. But they never "owned" the entire region, or any important sections of it, in the sense that you own your house in Britain today, or consider yourself to possess an ethnic right of abode in Britain. It was the easiest place in the region for Jews to buy land from a single owner, even if it was not the most attractive. Virtually all the land was owned by the Sultan/ the state (the miri I mentioned in a previous post), and various landowners (primarily Turkish): most people who lived in the region were tenants on state-owned land. From the mid 19th century, Jewish immigrants began purchasing land - not, at least at the time, with a design to "conquer" the region; this is seen in the pattern of land purchasing. Jewish Land comprised small, disparate plots until the Jewish National Fund was set up and began actively acquiring land for Jewish settlement.
They purchased it (not stole or cheated as some here have imputed) from the Turkish authorities (who owned most of the land anyway) under a settlement agreed by the Ottoman Sultan. Because this land was owned by the Turks anyway, the Arab tenant farmers would have experienced no difference at all between the Arab and Jewish landowners. Indeed, it was in the best interests of the Jewish landowners to keep these Arab farmers tenured. So, from a commercial perspective it was not stolen. Indeed, some Arabs were sympathetic to the Zionist ideals, for they too were under the yoke of the Ottomans and had their own nationalist aspirations, believing (the Arab intelligentsia especially) that the Zionist cause would benefit the Palestinian Arabs (which, as a later thread will show, it actually did).
As such, the Jewish settlement in the region of Palestine during the decline of the Ottoman Empire did not amount to a forceful or even a dishonest "occupation". However, from settlements carved into the arid desert of the Ottoman Empire's backwater, to a nation called Israel, is a big jump. Did the establishment of a Jewish state of Israel in 1948 constitute an illegal and unjust seizure of somebody else's homeland by the Jews? Well first it wasn't "somebody else's homeland" but that of many peoples. Many of these people had their own nationalist aspirations; the Jews were not the only ones. But let us examine the conditions under which the Land of Israel morphed into the state of Israel.
The World War One was the first great quake to destabilise the region in modern times. When it began, there were competing visions for the region: Arab nationalists (with little support from most Arabs, due to the competing visions they had for the post-Ottoman region) wanted the entire empire to become a single Arab state. The Jewish population naturally wanted a Jewish Homeland in Palestine: various indigenous groups in various opposing camps. As such, the Jews weren't uniquely "evil" in their desire for a state, they were just better at getting what they wanted. The Jewish/Israeli establishment understood that to get things done in international politics, it was only by pragmatic considerations of the Great Powers' interests, that their hopes could be realised.
During the war, the British made contradictory promises to the Arabs and Jews, and had conflicting interests with the French. The Jews were seen as the best pawn by which to tip the strategic situation in Britain's favour. A change in British policy after the govern change in 1916 resulted in the famed Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed Britain's support for a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region of the Ottoman Empire. It was the British advantage that gave Israel what she wanted, not a brutal conquest by hordes of Jews. In any case, the Arabs did not lose out: by 1930 Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were independent states with their own Kings. Israel would have to wait two more decades, but alas, to many here and elsewhere, somehow, the principle of self-determination does not apply to the Jews in Palestine, although it was valid for the various Arab peoples in the region.
At the end of the First World War, the Ottomans were on the losing side and their empire was carved up into various spheres of influence among the European powers, and new Arab states created by way of that typically short-sighted British method of arbitrary borders drawn as fault lines in ethnically volatile regions. Tough, but that's what happened. It was in their capacity as the victors that they were able to do this. Now clearly this left certain parties less than satisfied, but this would have been the case with any settlement. The British Mandate for Palestine was naturally a grave disappointment to the Arabs.
But as I pointed out earlier, Arab interests were not ignored, and it would have been impossible and undesirable to please everybody. Indeed, the eventual settlement reached for the Mandate was contrary to Jewish aspirations and British promises. In the end settlement they were denied over three quarters of the land promised by the Balfour Declaration (most of which went to creating what is now Jordan). During the intervening period between 1922-the end of the Second World War, Britain administered Palestine, but allowed for, and encouraged, the increased immigration of Jews.
So, the blueprint for a Jewish State of Israel was created in the context of complex international considerations, and the resultant arrangements - although not universally pleasing to Jews and Arabs alike - were not the consequences of conquest, theft, or occupation, but diplomacy. When the state of Israel was eventually created in 1947, endorsed by the UN and Israel, but rejected with hostility by the Arabs (they wanted the entire region for themselves, as opposed to the two-state solution that was offered), the present difficulties were born. Below I deal with the other misconception people have of Israel's occupation. I will explain the reasons for her presence in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and why it is justified.
Scroll to see replies
How then did the Palestinian Arabs become dispossessed after 1948? A combination of the caprice of the Arab nations, and of their own misjudgement. During the negotiations for the future of The Mandate for Palestine, a decision was reached by the UN to divide Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab (which included Gaza and the west Bank). Their refusal to accept this option is what made them foreigners in "their own land". They wanted all or nothing and this was unrealistic. The Jews had had to compromise, as had the neighbouring Arab states.
When the mandate came to an end, a situation of extreme tension ensued, as many Palestinian Arabs left in expectation of a war (the Arab states had vowed to strangle the fledgling state of Israel at birth; a threat they duly carried out). Many remained and rose up in armed violence against the new state of Israel. In this climate of tension, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled Israel encouraged by the Arab world (though others became citizens - an option open to all of them), expecting a short and victorious war. Thus, a nation of refugees was needlessly created. But this was not Israel's fault. Indeed, regrettable as the consequences are, it was in no small part, the fault of the Arab states and the Arab Palestinians. They rejected with little good reason, the one best opportunity they have ever had for a Palestinian Homeland alongside Israel. But of course, somehow this is Israel's fault.
After months of mounting tension, in 1948, the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria converged on Israel, piqued at its mere existence. To cut a potentially long story short, these armies were beaten. However this created a very real refugee problem on both sides. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled or fled hostile neighbouring Arab states (we never hear anything of their right of return though, do we?), and the Palestinian Arabs now truly did not have a home land, having rejected the one that was offered in 1947. The peace settlement that was agreed saw hardly any significant border changes. However, the Palestinian Arabs who had left Israel now found themselves destitute. What we now call the West Bank, and Gaza were swallowed up by Jordan and Egypt respectively. So much for an Israeli conquest.
After continuous and mortal provocation throughout the fifties and mid-sixties, Israel fought a pre-emptive war against Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Egypt (talk about an "asymmetrical" fight) in the 1967 Six Day war and won. As a result of it Israel acquired the West Bank, Sinai, Gaza strip and eastern Jerusalem. How can this then be said to be an occupation of anything other than chunks of Jordan and Egypt, gained from an avoidable, but provoked war? Military planners in Israel became convinced that there would have to be a more viable border arrangement with her hostile neighbours and these new territories served as a buffer between Israel and nations that had time and time again showed they could not be trusted. Even so, no Palestinian homeland was invaded here. If Israel had withdrawn from all the conquered (this, we can justifiably call a conquest) territories there would still have been no Palestinian state. But still the tragic ground reality of it was that Israel now found herself with 1 million Arab and Palestinian refugees she had not sought. What to do with them?
Well, a Palestinian state was once again suggested but was outright rejected by the Arab world (most vehemently by Jordan), and virtually everybody else. Jordan and Egypt especially, did not want to see a new Palestinian state which it was a ssumed would threaten their interests, and indeed would have preferred the return of these lands to themselves. So Israel had to do the best it could with a less-than-ideal situation. The settlements in these lands aren't illegal under International Law either (but Ergol seems to dismiss the existence of international law as incidental to Middle Eastern politics). They would be illegal under International law if: local populations were displaced to create Jewish settlements or if they had conquered land and settled on it. This is not the case. Under international law the Israelis have the right to establish measures for their own security (e.g. Nahal settlements) in the disputed territories.
So let's please be aware of what we mean when we use words like "occupation", "invaded", "cheated" and "stolen". They are weasel words used by people with their own agendas, which are more sinister than many blind proponents of the Arab and Palestinian positions know or will admit. The occupation does not exist. Logically following, in my next thread I will discuss how far it's true that the Israelis victimise or systematically brutalise the Palestinian Arabs.
When the mandate came to an end, a situation of extreme tension ensued, as many Palestinian Arabs left in expectation of a war (the Arab states had vowed to strangle the fledgling state of Israel at birth; a threat they duly carried out). Many remained and rose up in armed violence against the new state of Israel. In this climate of tension, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled Israel encouraged by the Arab world (though others became citizens - an option open to all of them), expecting a short and victorious war. Thus, a nation of refugees was needlessly created. But this was not Israel's fault. Indeed, regrettable as the consequences are, it was in no small part, the fault of the Arab states and the Arab Palestinians. They rejected with little good reason, the one best opportunity they have ever had for a Palestinian Homeland alongside Israel. But of course, somehow this is Israel's fault.
After months of mounting tension, in 1948, the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria converged on Israel, piqued at its mere existence. To cut a potentially long story short, these armies were beaten. However this created a very real refugee problem on both sides. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled or fled hostile neighbouring Arab states (we never hear anything of their right of return though, do we?), and the Palestinian Arabs now truly did not have a home land, having rejected the one that was offered in 1947. The peace settlement that was agreed saw hardly any significant border changes. However, the Palestinian Arabs who had left Israel now found themselves destitute. What we now call the West Bank, and Gaza were swallowed up by Jordan and Egypt respectively. So much for an Israeli conquest.
After continuous and mortal provocation throughout the fifties and mid-sixties, Israel fought a pre-emptive war against Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Egypt (talk about an "asymmetrical" fight) in the 1967 Six Day war and won. As a result of it Israel acquired the West Bank, Sinai, Gaza strip and eastern Jerusalem. How can this then be said to be an occupation of anything other than chunks of Jordan and Egypt, gained from an avoidable, but provoked war? Military planners in Israel became convinced that there would have to be a more viable border arrangement with her hostile neighbours and these new territories served as a buffer between Israel and nations that had time and time again showed they could not be trusted. Even so, no Palestinian homeland was invaded here. If Israel had withdrawn from all the conquered (this, we can justifiably call a conquest) territories there would still have been no Palestinian state. But still the tragic ground reality of it was that Israel now found herself with 1 million Arab and Palestinian refugees she had not sought. What to do with them?
Well, a Palestinian state was once again suggested but was outright rejected by the Arab world (most vehemently by Jordan), and virtually everybody else. Jordan and Egypt especially, did not want to see a new Palestinian state which it was a ssumed would threaten their interests, and indeed would have preferred the return of these lands to themselves. So Israel had to do the best it could with a less-than-ideal situation. The settlements in these lands aren't illegal under International Law either (but Ergol seems to dismiss the existence of international law as incidental to Middle Eastern politics). They would be illegal under International law if: local populations were displaced to create Jewish settlements or if they had conquered land and settled on it. This is not the case. Under international law the Israelis have the right to establish measures for their own security (e.g. Nahal settlements) in the disputed territories.
So let's please be aware of what we mean when we use words like "occupation", "invaded", "cheated" and "stolen". They are weasel words used by people with their own agendas, which are more sinister than many blind proponents of the Arab and Palestinian positions know or will admit. The occupation does not exist. Logically following, in my next thread I will discuss how far it's true that the Israelis victimise or systematically brutalise the Palestinian Arabs.
One question that needs an answer to something that puzzles me.
With the massive influx of Jewish immigrants to Israel amounting to many thousands per year, does Israel occupy the same amount of land formerly designated as Palestine that it did in 1967, or have they appropriated more since that time to allow room for all these increasing numbers of people?
I've just had a thought?
Does this thread constitute 'spamming'?
It might be deleted by our mods if it does.
With the massive influx of Jewish immigrants to Israel amounting to many thousands per year, does Israel occupy the same amount of land formerly designated as Palestine that it did in 1967, or have they appropriated more since that time to allow room for all these increasing numbers of people?
I've just had a thought?
Does this thread constitute 'spamming'?
It might be deleted by our mods if it does.
yawn
One question that needs an answer to something that puzzles me.
With the massive influx of Jewish immigrants to Israel amounting to many thousands per year, does Israel occupy the same amount of land formerly designated as Palestine that it did in 1967, or have they appropriated more since that time to allow room for all these increasing numbers of people?
I've just had a thought?
Does this thread constitute 'spamming'?
It might be deleted by our mods if it does.
With the massive influx of Jewish immigrants to Israel amounting to many thousands per year, does Israel occupy the same amount of land formerly designated as Palestine that it did in 1967, or have they appropriated more since that time to allow room for all these increasing numbers of people?
I've just had a thought?
Does this thread constitute 'spamming'?
It might be deleted by our mods if it does.
What makes you think it's spamming? It is a topic of debate, which has seemingly been conveniently ignored.
gemgems89
What makes you think it's spamming? It is a topic of debate, which has seemingly been conveniently ignored.
As a comparison to other posts in the past that have been deemed as spam and deleted.
Although the usual meaning of spamming is the posting of threads on multiple websites, on TSR it is sometimes construed a little differently (being as unique as we are!) and posts which seem to have originated from someone's personal essays have been deleted in those cases where the fact wasn't referenced.
Bis had a look, checked with google and said as he couldn't find it there it was OK.
He deleted his post which told us the ^ and which directly followed mine and is now replaced by yours.
Hey - I'm not looking to get into an argument here - you don't need to get defensive.
Perhaps no one is interested in responding to the OP because they see it as an essay used to forward an opinion. Perhaps - who knows?
Now, however, since you have 'bumped' it to prominence it might get the attention you obviously think it deserves.
yawn
As a comparison to other posts in the past that have been deemed as spam and deleted.
Although the usual meaning of spamming is the posting of threads on multiple websites, on TSR it is sometimes construed a little differently (being as unique as we are!) and posts which seem to have originated from someone's personal essays have been deleted in those cases where the fact wasn't referenced.
Bis had a look, checked with google and said as he couldn't find it there it was OK.
He deleted his post which told us the ^ and which directly followed mine and is now replaced by yours.
Hey - I'm not looking to get into an argument here - you don't need to get defensive.
Perhaps no one is interested in responding to the OP because they see it as an essay used to forward an opinion. Perhaps - who knows?
Now, however, since you have 'bumped' it to prominence it might get the attention you obviously think it deserves.
As a comparison to other posts in the past that have been deemed as spam and deleted.
Although the usual meaning of spamming is the posting of threads on multiple websites, on TSR it is sometimes construed a little differently (being as unique as we are!) and posts which seem to have originated from someone's personal essays have been deleted in those cases where the fact wasn't referenced.
Bis had a look, checked with google and said as he couldn't find it there it was OK.
He deleted his post which told us the ^ and which directly followed mine and is now replaced by yours.
Hey - I'm not looking to get into an argument here - you don't need to get defensive.
Perhaps no one is interested in responding to the OP because they see it as an essay used to forward an opinion. Perhaps - who knows?
Now, however, since you have 'bumped' it to prominence it might get the attention you obviously think it deserves.
Yeah - I also checked on Google and couldn't find anything so it is hardly spam...
Me neither - I did not really realise we were having an argument - I was merely pointing something out, which was not directed at you at all.
Who knows? I just find it fascinating that nobody has challenged his points when the other Israel threads are flourishing.
yawn
One question that needs an answer to something that puzzles me.
With the massive influx of Jewish immigrants to Israel amounting to many thousands per year, does Israel occupy the same amount of land formerly designated as Palestine that it did in 1967, or have they appropriated more since that time to allow room for all these increasing numbers of people?
With the massive influx of Jewish immigrants to Israel amounting to many thousands per year, does Israel occupy the same amount of land formerly designated as Palestine that it did in 1967, or have they appropriated more since that time to allow room for all these increasing numbers of people?
So, can you now answer whether Israeli Jews have appropriated more land since 1967 to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of additional settlers?
samba
What land have they appropriated?
That's what I'm asking you!!
With massive influxes of people to an area that necessitates the building of homes, schools, hospitals etc, there is also a need to impinge on surrounding land to facilitate all of these.
We have almost wiped out all our green belt areas in many parts of this country due to the expanding populations into certain areas and it would seem that the same thing would happen with ever-increasing Jewish settlements.
Now I know that the Palestinians have complained that the building of the 'apartheid wall' has resulted in Israel taking some of their land, but is there any more in addition to this from 1967 to now?
palestinefacts.org
Over half of Israel's population lives in the coastal strip, where the population density is already among the highest in the world, while the Galilee and the Negev remain relatively under-populated and under-developed. Israel has one of the highest population densities in the world with an average of 294 people per square kilometer. Israeli population density has multiplied by six since the nation was established; there was an average of 43 people per square kilometer in 1948.
Jews make up 77.2% of Israel's population, Muslims 15.4%, Christians 2.1%, Druze 1.6% and unaffiliated citizens 3.5%. The percentage of Israeli residents who are Arab is 19%, about the same as it when the country was established in 1948.
Largest cities in Israel (end of 2001):
Jerusalem - 670,000
Tel Aviv - 359,000
Haifa - 272,000
Rishon Letzion - 208,000
Jews make up 77.2% of Israel's population, Muslims 15.4%, Christians 2.1%, Druze 1.6% and unaffiliated citizens 3.5%. The percentage of Israeli residents who are Arab is 19%, about the same as it when the country was established in 1948.
Largest cities in Israel (end of 2001):
Jerusalem - 670,000
Tel Aviv - 359,000
Haifa - 272,000
Rishon Letzion - 208,000
It'd seem that apart from the illegal settlements which have now been destroyed, that Israel have not needed to annex any land.
19% arab, same as in 1948 seems to support the original poster. Also seeming to show that arab population has been growing at the same rate as Jewish immigration.
and wow...rishon letzion has 208,000 people
When I was born Rishon was just 2 blocks of flats, and I was the first kid there samba
It'd seem that apart from the illegal settlements which have now been destroyed, that Israel have not needed to annex any land.
19% arab, same as in 1948 seems to support the original poster. Also seeming to show that arab population has been growing at the same rate as Jewish immigration.
and wow...rishon letzion has 208,000 people When I was born Rishon was just 2 blocks of flats, and I was the first kid there
19% arab, same as in 1948 seems to support the original poster. Also seeming to show that arab population has been growing at the same rate as Jewish immigration.
and wow...rishon letzion has 208,000 people
When I was born Rishon was just 2 blocks of flats, and I was the first kid there Thanks for your response. That is all I wanted.
Did you know that Holland is the most densely populated country in Europe because of the preponderence of water-logged land?
Off topic, I know - but an interesting fact nevertheless.
samba
It'd seem that apart from the illegal settlements which have now been destroyed, that Israel have not needed to annex any land.
19% arab, same as in 1948 seems to support the original poster. Also seeming to show that arab population has been growing at the same rate as Jewish immigration.
and wow...rishon letzion has 208,000 people When I was born Rishon was just 2 blocks of flats, and I was the first kid there
19% arab, same as in 1948 seems to support the original poster. Also seeming to show that arab population has been growing at the same rate as Jewish immigration.
and wow...rishon letzion has 208,000 people
When I was born Rishon was just 2 blocks of flats, and I was the first kid there No offense or anything, but isn't Rishon a bit dodgy? I was talking to one of my Israeli friends, and I think he said that it was expanded in the last few years to become a bit of a hard area in Israel. I may be confused here.
)
Who is spamming now
This isn't an essay forewarded from another source, it's a post (which I posted in another forum - but as a poster on this forum I don't see why I can't re-use my own ideas) intended to correct certain misunderstandings about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Related discussions
- FOA Student Finance
- English Lang paper 2
- Chartered Occupational Psychologist (BPS).Please help
- Scape Wembley Tenancy Takeover!
- Econ 15 mark essay
- Eligible for Postgraduate Loan and NHS Learning?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Need urgent help for Ancient History OCR GCSE
- About a course advise
- World Occupational Therapy Day!
- MSc Occupational Therapy (pre registration) - relevant degree
- Occupational Therapy
- Need help: Occupational Therapy msc course
- Occupational health
- MSc Occupational Therapy
- Biology to occupational therapy??
- student nurse degree occupational health check
- Mental health nursing vs occupational therapy
- MSc Organisational Psychology
- Second masters degree funding
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
