[redcarpet]

was a common belief in transfer

The UN couldn't authorise it though. The Provisional Government of Israel accepted the UN Resolution, despite the lack of an illegal expulsion article.

Again, Israel accepted, even if they didn't like, the resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

the jewish acceptance of partition was merely we'll take this now and that later

If so it makes no difference. The UN would have to grant expanded borders. It did in 1949, after the Arabs' sabotage attempt on violent, terroristic means. And you're criticising only Jewish figures? It doesn't matter whom engages in ethnic cleansing, neither side was allowed to. Some Zionists wanted to, and some Arab leaders & ordinary people wanted to as well. So what's you're point? That ONLY the thinking of Zionist Jews at the time was wrong?

Let's see; you're opposed to Jews immigrating to what is now the State of Israel, you denounce Jews having a particular view on how a Jewish majority is maintained in Israel after UN creation......weren't you complaining about racism a few posts ago?

If there is a racism problem, it's yours. Dare I say.

Jews are a people. Okay, well all people have the right of self-determination. How can that right be complied with without implementing it? Most Israelis want to retain their own state. Anything else violates that right. And the UN was obliged to implement partition in 1947; any other kind of resolution would have been rejected by the ICJ as in breach of the UN Charter.

You can't have it both ways. Doesn't matter if 100% of Palestinian Arabs opposed partition; Jews has the right to self-determination as well.

You can't successfully, fully, exercise that right, as a persecuted minority in an Arab society. Which is what Palestine was. So logical, OF COURSE the recommendation by the UN Commission was partition. Arab leaders wouldn't budge on domestic laws and practices that were discriminatory and lobbied hard against British repeal in the Mandate years. Therefore, logically, the report insisted that partition was the only way to satisfy the demands & rights of both people.

It's not like peaceful partitions of dysfunctional states don't happen - they do.

Yes, I don't recall a war of independence by New Zealand against Australia(and conversely Britain) (which was going to be part of Australia). Or India against Pakistan when it came to that partition.

There are plenty of examples where reasonable people at the time of partition accepted it, without 100% liking it 'It's a decision we can live with.' as they say. To talk as if a war is the only response........that's not true. Neither historically and no left wing person nor an internationalst would dare take that view.

[pugsville]

The UN couldn't authorise it though. The Provisional Government of Israel accepted the UN Resolution, despite the lack of an illegal expulsion article.

Again, Israel accepted, even if they didn't like, the resolution. The Arabs rejected it.



If so it makes no difference. The UN would have to grant expanded borders. It did in 1949, after the Arabs' sabotage attempt on violent, terroristic means. And you're criticising only Jewish figures? It doesn't matter whom engages in ethnic cleansing, neither side was allowed to. Some Zionists wanted to, and some Arab leaders & ordinary people wanted to as well. So what's you're point? That ONLY the thinking of Zionist Jews at the time was wrong?

Let's see; you're opposed to Jews immigrating to what is now the State of Israel, you denounce Jews having a particular view on how a Jewish majority is maintained in Israel after UN creation......weren't you complaining about racism a few posts ago?

If there is a racism problem, it's yours. Dare I say.

Jews are a people. Okay, well all people have the right of self-determination. How can that right be complied with without implementing it? Most Israelis want to retain their own state. Anything else violates that right. And the UN was obliged to implement partition in 1947; any other kind of resolution would have been rejected by the ICJ as in breach of the UN Charter.

You can't have it both ways. Doesn't matter if 100% of Palestinian Arabs opposed partition; Jews has the right to self-determination as well.

You can't successfully, fully, exercise that right, as a persecuted minority in an Arab society. Which is what Palestine was. So logical, OF COURSE the recommendation by the UN Commission was partition. Arab leaders wouldn't budge on domestic laws and practices that were discriminatory and lobbied hard against British repeal in the Mandate years. Therefore, logically, the report insisted that partition was the only way to satisfy the demands & rights of both people.

Yes, I don't recall a war of independence by New Zealand against Australia(and conversely Britain) (which was going to be part of Australia). Or India against Pakistan when it came to that partition.

There are plenty of examples where reasonable people at the time of partition accepted it, without 100% liking it 'It's a decision we can live with.' as they say. To talk as if a war is the only response........that's not true. Neither historically and no left wing person nor an internationalst would dare take that view.

it does not matter the un partition plan did not mention expulsion. it was going to happen anyway. the zionist forces invaded the Palestinian partition intent on conquest and expulsion. the zionists ideal was a larger state with a mostly jewish population, the leadership had no qualms about using force to create the ideal.

there was no zionism acceptance of partition other than empty words. ben grunion's words make it clear such acceptance was only tactical and the state of Israel would be expanded at the soonest opportunity by force.

what right do foreigners have to self determination in another country? the Zionists were foreign immigrants who immigrated specifically to set up there own state. before such immigration the jewish population was both general against a Jewish state (on religion grounds) and way too small.

the zionists lobbied successfully to prevent the election of an arab leadership or representative body of all Palestine. the also lobbied for discriminatory hiring practices and wages rates in favour of jews. they also got all the Government development concessions and excises designed to support their businesses. the influence in the mandate was almost solely with the Zionists.


the partition of india and Pakistan was hardly without violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India#Independence.2C_population_transfer.2C_and_violence

[wat0n]

Plan Dalet states quite explicitly that the objective was to secure key positions to defend against the incoming Arab invasion. It was not really a plan of conquest.

That much suggests the Haganah had in fact accepted partition, regardless of whatever vague speech by Ben Gurion plenty of time before the UN partition was passed (which in any event was quite different from the Peel Plan that was under discussion when he made the speech, which had indeed a much smaller territory allocated to the Jewish state compared to UNGA resolution 181).

Your interpretation of the historical evidence is quite selective and indeed even Morris has stated clearly that in his view the Haganah did not fight in 1947 with the goal of taking over the territory allocated to the Palestinian state.

[redcarpet]

"what right do foreigners have to self determination in another country?"

Mandatory Palestine wasn't a 'country'. And the Right to Self-Determination applies to Jews by simple fact they are a people. All peoples have the right, wherever they are. Therefore Jews in Mandatory Palestine needed that right complies with. Which the UN Commission accepted could only be accomplished by partition.

Yes Arabs in Palestine had the right. So did Jews, including those born outside Mandatory Palestine. All groups of people have the right. Whether they are all in one state, pre-state territory, or spread across the world.

Are you telling us that people only have the right t self-determination if they are in a state or pre-state territory? Without an exception list there are no exceptions, sir.

"the partition of india and Pakistan was hardly without violence."

No one said it was without violence. You avoided my argument, which was Pakistan didn't launch a war of aggression against the newly born Republic of India, nor vice-versa. They accepted the decision, even though they didn't like it.

Whereas in the Levant the Jewish Agency accepted the Partition Resolution; the Pal. Arabs & Arab states rejected it. Either we have the Rule of Law at the international level or Mob Rule. Make up your mind.

Rejecting a resolution because you don't like it.......rejecting a right because you want to cherry-[pick when and where it applies.......only Arabs have the right to live in the State of Israel even if they weren't born in it.....you want to complain about racism?

Soon you'll complain about rogue states violating the UN Charter and UN resolutions..... Your complaining about expulsion is just as hypocritical. If a Jewish military officer from Irgun orders expulsion you're incensed......and not a word about Arab intentions of expulsion if they won the 1948 War........aren't you meant to be left-wing and internationalist?

[pugsville]

"what right do foreigners have to self determination in another country?"

Mandatory Palestine wasn't a 'country'. And the Right to Self-Determination applies to Jews by simple fact they are a people. All peoples have the right, wherever they are. Therefore Jews in Mandatory Palestine needed that right complies with. Which the UN Commission accepted could only be accomplished by partition.

Yes Arabs in Palestine had the right. So did Jews, including those born outside Mandatory Palestine. All groups of people have the right. Whether they are all in one state, pre-state territory, or spread across the world.

Are you telling us that people only have the right t self-determination if they are in a state or pre-state territory? Without an exception list there are no exceptions, sir.

"the partition of india and Pakistan was hardly without violence."

No one said it was without violence. You avoided my argument, which was Pakistan didn't launch a war of aggression against the newly born Republic of India, nor vice-versa. They accepted the decision, even though they didn't like it.

Whereas in the Levant the Jewish Agency accepted the Partition Resolution; the Palestinian Arabs & Arab states rejected it. Either we have the Rule of Law at the international level or Mob Rule. Make up your mind.

Rejecting a resolution because you don't like it.......rejecting a right because you want to cherry-[pick when and where it applies.......only Arabs have the right to live in the State of Israel even if they weren't born in it.....you want to complain about racism?

Soon you'll complain about rogue states violating the UN Charter and UN resolutions..... Your complaining about expulsion is just as hypocritical. If a Jewish military officer from Irgun orders expulsion you're incensed......and not a word about Arab intentions of expulsion if they won the 1948 War........aren't you meant to be left-wing and internationalist?

the British sought legal opinion about the status of the mandate and got that it was a country.

complete and utter Rubbish. european Jews having lived in Europe for generations had no just rights in Palestine. what are you saying that every nation with a small minority HAS to allow the unrestricted immigration of more of that minority and agree to partition where they HAVE to give up more than half the country.? it's just absurd and unworkable. so jews have the right top demand the partition of theUSA, Australia, Britain, France? i

so the Palestinians have to accept that vast immigration of zionists Jews but Israel can reject the Return of Palestinian refugees.

the Jewish agency only said they accepted partition. their invasion and annexation of the Palestinian areas shows by their actions they did not. Ben Gurion said he would not accept anything less than all of Palestine. any agreement was purely tactical. and indeed they harboured designs of a vastly increased Israel.

the Partition resolution only passed due to threats and bribes.

so Israel is going allow all the refugees to return withdraw from the terrorities? and comply with UN resolutions?
all settlements are going to be removed? do agree that this should be done or are you against the rule of law?

so jews cannot be condemned for actual crimes, but Palestinians are condemned for might have beens. surely that is a double standard.

[redcarpet]

so the Palestinians have to accept that vast immigration of zionists Jews but Israel can reject the Return of Palestinian refugees.

Most of them wouldn't be 'returning'. They were born outside Israel.

"the British sought legal opinion about the status of the mandate and got that it was a country."

Source?

"their invasion and annexation of the Palestinian areas shows by their actions they did not."

The State of Israel was at war. Obviously in a war you're allowed to send your military over the border. Are you going to condemn the Red Army for crossing into Eastern Europe in WW2 when repelling the Whemarcht? The Right of Self-Denfense does not have such an exemption, it's not there under Article 51.

Nor do human rights stop at borders. They don't vanish the moment you cross a border as an immigrant. I won't bother asking you to point out to us where it says in the UN Charter or UNUD either, because you just make up these arguments.

"the Partition resolution only passed due to threats and bribes."

Ah, right. As in NO other factors came into play? Like the UN Commission recommended partition...that didn't persuade those opposed initially? TheZionist idea didn't persuade anyone? There was no boost to their arguments in the shadow of the Nazi Holocaust? No Second Holocaust argument that helped persuade anyone? Arab terror and riots didn't persuade? Internationalism didn't persuade?


Once you're done pretending 'only' 'threats and bribes' got the resolution passed

Also, a resolution that decided anything would obviously breach the UN Charter. The ICJ would have struck it down, remember.

"so jews cannot be condemned for actual crimes, but Palestinians are condemned for might have beens. surely that is a double standard."

All crimes should be condemned no matter whom commits them.

"or are you against the rule of law?"

It would appear you are. You seem to want to pretend that in 1947 Most Jews in Mandatory Palestine didn't have the right to self-determination; that only those born there did. Even though it doesn't say that anywhere.

"so Israel is going allow all the refugees to return"

I hope they all do. The 50,000 of them left. The rest are not 'refugees'.

"and comply with UN resolutions?"

All that are obligatory, yes. The voluntary rest only based on bilateral negotiated agreement.

"all settlements are going to be removed?" If Israel's borders aren't expanded by the UN to include them, yes. They're obliged to. If the UNGA expands Israel's borders it won't have to evacuate those inside it. I imagine if there is a future UN resolution that deals with the I/P conflict on the FSI with expanded borders the Israelis will get the 11% they regularly demand. The 'core settlement blocs' in and around eastern Jerusalem. Would they impose dividing Jerusalem? I doubt it, more like the shared/international city proposed in the 1947 Resolution.

Also the majority of the settlements wouldn't need to be evacuated if the Pal. state govt. consents to them remaining, which Abbas has consented. He said yes to that to Herzog. But, that's assuming that the same position is carried on by his successor. But that's hard to conceive as Fatah continues to lose popular support compared to Hamas.

[pugsville]

the partition vote was very close given the bribes and threats deployed it's a pretty reasonable assumption that it would not have passed without them. look it up do some reading.

on what basis do you claim a vote against partition would have broken the UN charter and on what basis do you say the ICJ would have strike it down?

all Israeli settlements are clear in breach international law. if you are in favour of the rules of law, you would be advocating the complete removal of all settlements immediately.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Its a myth that before the creation of Israel Jews and Arabs were living happily.

just look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_k ... _Palestine
during the 20s when Arab Nationalism started to rise Jews were being constantly attacked
later Jews established the Irgun an organisation to protect the Jews and fight back against Arab aggression

[pugsville]

obviously they were not living together happily when the zionists were embarking on a thinly disguised war of colonial conquest during the mandate period.

no population anywhere in the world would be happy at a massive influx of foreigners planing to set up their own state and rule over the natives reducing them to second class citizens in their own country

[Zionist Nationalist]

Its also a myth that most of the "Palestinians" are natives majority of them are immigrants from Syria,Egypt,Jordan,Iraq,Saudi Arabia and even Turkey

[pugsville]

Its also a myth that most of the "Palestinians" are natives majority of them are immigrants from Syria,Egypt,Jordan,Iraq,Saudi Arabia and even Turkey

completely and utterly false his is complete fabrication and distortion of the facts pushed by many, repeatedly claimed on tis site and elsewhere and repeatedly shot down for the bunch of crap it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... _Palestine

"Demographer Uziel Schmelz, in his analysis of Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron kazas, found that most Ottoman citizens living in these areas, comprising about one quarter of the population of Palestine, were living at the place where they were born. Specifically, of Muslims, 93.1% were born in their current locality of residence, 5.2% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 1.6% were born outside Palestine. Of Christians, 93.4% were born in their current locality, 3.0% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 3.6% were born outside Palestine. Of Jews (excluding the large fraction who were not Ottoman citizens), 59.0% were born in their current locality, 1.9% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 39.0% were born outside Palestine.[36]

According to Roberto Bachi, head of the Israeli Institute of Statistics from 1949 onwards, between 1922-1945 there was a net Arab migration into Palestine of between 40,000-42,000, excluding 9,700 people who were incorporated after territorial adjustments were made to the borders in the 1920s. Basing himself on these figures, and including those netted by the border alterations, Joseph Melzer calculates an upper boundary of 8.5% for Arab growth in the two decades, and interprets it to mean the local Palestinian community's growth was generated primarily by natural increase.[37]

Martin Gilbert estimated that 50,000 Arabs immigrated to Mandatory Palestine from neighboring lands between 1919 and 1939 "attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews".[38] According to Itzhak Galnoor, although most of the local Palestinian community's growth was the result of natural increase, Arab immigration to Palestine was significant. Based on his estimates, approximately 100,000 Arabs immigrated to Palestine between 1922 and 1948.[39]

The overall assessment of several British reports was that the increase in the Arab population was primarily due to natural increase.[40][41] These included the Hope Simpson Enquiry (1930),[42] the Passfield White Paper (1930),[43] the Peel Commission report (1937),[44] and the Survey of Palestine (1945).[45] However, the Hope Simpson Enquiry did note that there was significant illegal immigration from the surrounding Arab territories,[42] while the Peel Commission and Survey of Palestine claimed that immigration played only a minor role in the growth of the Arab population. The 1931 census of Palestine considered the question of illegal immigration since the previous census in 1922.[46] It estimated that unrecorded immigration during that period may have amounted to 9,000 Jews and 4,000 Arabs.[46] It also gave the proportion of persons living in Palestine in 1931 who were born outside Palestine: Muslims, 2%; Christians, 20%; Jews, 58%.[46]"

[Zionist Nationalist]

here is another analysis http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking- ... -palestine

[pugsville]

here is another analysis http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking- ... -palestine

]
you have posted this before and theist majority of the article is irrelevant fluff, it makes some vague claims. but the actual historical data complete refutes the article.

we have the census data and the yearly baths and deaths and this data is freely available in the year buyer book reports of the league of nations. it totally demolishes the idea of significant area migration during the mandate period.

we have gone around with this before. this article is plain wrong. the historical statistics totally refute it.

[Zionist Nationalist]

There are almost no natives in Israel/Palestine today as the only natives were a few arabized Jews. Jews who lived there in the past 2000 years (old yishuv) and some Arabs that settled 1000 years ago all of those are small portion of everyone that live there today

just 200 years ago this place was almost abandoned.

[skinster]

This thread is about the BDS movement. Pick another thread for history/hasbara. I'll add updates on BDS later.

[Dave]

I have decided to support BDS simply because it's a useful tool to smoke out disloyal diaspora Jews.

Plenty of such examples in this thread.

I don't care at all about Israeli apartheid itself and would do the same thing if I were Israeli.

The only danger factor is that if BDS is overly effective then Israeli Jews will immigrate here.

[Decky]

I recon a lot would come to the UK. The US is a war zone you can't nip out to the shop for a pint of milk without someone trying to blow you away and the police who are meant to be protecting people are the worst of the lot for going mad with guns.

[Dave]

I hope Israelis nervous about BDS read your post and are influenced by it.

Though I wouldn't wish such a fate for the UK either.

[Decky]

It wouldn't make any great difference, the UK is already ZOG. It has been ever since Benjamin D'Israeli was prime minister.

[skinster]

BDS updates:
Under pressure from Presbyterians, RE/MAX announces it will no longer profit from sales of Jewish settlements
Kuwait’s government pension divests from G4S following BDS pressure
Genocide scholars pull out of Israel conference
Viet Thanh Nguyen, 2016 Pulitzer Prize winner, endorses academic and cultural boycott of Israel
Religious Studies Scholars statement of solidarity with the Palestinian BDS Movement
UW-Madison graduate student union endorses BDS

Here is an updated list of all the BDS victories over the last decade.