[redcarpet]

I agree that they face discrimination, but racial tension isnt an exclusive problem to Israel.
I think Jews can live in peace with Arabs in one Country, but it cannot be a single nation right away.
I propose(not like it matters) that a loose confederation with free movement and trade be setup between the states of Israel,Gaza and West Bank ,with Jerusalem as the united Capitol. This setup will ease fears for Jews of Israel becoming an Islamic nation and Jews becoming second class citizens, it will provide a way for Palestinians to have economic security and freedom of movement. If economic and social walls are broken down, so will the distrust and hatred of each other and lead to a Federated incorporated Country.

So you depart from the international consensus on a two-state solution based on a view that a bi-nationalist one state solution is still possible post-1967?

[pugsville]

"But now we do get to my fields of expertise:
(2) "recent times" = last 10 years? last 20 years? last 100 years? more than 50% of the Arabs of 1948 arrived in the previous 20-40 years. The brits needed cheap labor to build their railways and infrastructure. they had great plans for palestine, to abuse it like the rest of the world for couple of centuries."

Simpley not true, go look at the population figures and growth rates, the historical figures simply do not support this in any way or shape. This is repeated again and agian and it is not true. It's like 'terra nullus" here in australia. It just so much fetid dingo's kidneys.

given a general agreed figure of 731,000 arab population in 1914 a growth rate 0.02% gives a 1947 arab population 137,644 pretty close to the population at the time. The evidence is quite clear there was NO big arab migration into plaestine in the 20th century. People keep repeating but repeating something does not make it true.

You want to contest, produce some population figures.

[Oxymoron]

So you depart from the international consensus on a two-state solution based on a view that a bi-nationalist one state solution is still possible post-1967?

The West Bank and Gaza cannot surivive as independent states, unless they are subsidized by other powers thus leading to influence of outside powers creating potential conflict with Israel. The only real option is a loose single state, that will slowly integrate over decades of built up trust and cooperation.

[chaostrivia]

Simpley not true, go look at the population figures and growth rates, the historical figures simply do not support this in any way or shape. This is repeated again and agian and it is not true. It's like 'terra nullus" here in australia. It just so much fetid dingo's kidneys.

given a general agreed figure of 731,000 arab population in 1914 a growth rate 0.02% gives a 1947 arab population 137,644 pretty close to the population at the time. The evidence is quite clear there was NO big arab migration into plaestine in the 20th century. People keep repeating but repeating something does not make it true.

You want to contest, produce some population figures.

Oh, gladly. I had to find it online because its in the books, but that was not too much of a problem...

I don't know as of the source of your "general agreed figure".... Anyway, here are the real data:
According to the census conducted by the Brits, in 1922 there were about 660 thousand non-jews in Palestine, and according to another one in 1945, there were 1,200 thousand non-jews in Palestine. This makes a growth rate of 2.7% per annum and not 0.02% .... (namely: a "negligible" factor of 100 between your history and reality...)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ma ... Population , and cross references therein.

I heard stories from people who lived in Palestine during the 30's, for example a collegue at work (who died couple of years ago - one of the most unique persons I ever had the privilege to get to know). He told me of the huge jewish and arab immigration waves that he has witnessed in his own eyes during his childhood/youth in Haifa.

So

People keep repeating but repeating something does not make it true.

Yea. Repeated lies usually turn from lies into truth, but not in this case!

Now, what about (3)? should I post the true chronological order of events that drove Palestine from peace into chaos or should I spare you another inconvenient confrontation with the facts?

[danholo]

New prosperity brought foreign workers while improved healthcare increased the population. Indeed, this seems to be more vague then purported. How many immigrants arrived from Arab lands? Does it even matter? Jews have rights in Palestine nonetheless. What is very possible is that Arabs in Palestinian rural areas moved to cities for work opportunities, creating immigration waves in cities. Honestly, it's not like Palestine's Jews inhabited that many parts here to witness what was going on "in general".

Details would be welcome.

[pugsville]

The league of nations annual reports for palestine give a growth rate of 2.7% 1922 to 1948 ( I used 2% not 0.02% in my calculations I should have type 2% not 0.02% my mistake there) and that is births minus deaths. It remians that the evidence presented maintains there is simply no case to be made for such mass immigration. I have the complete league of nations annual reports 1922 to about 1942 and they very detailed and interesting.

Yes there was a marked increase of urbanization and moving to the cities, prodomintaely on the coast, but the same was happening in lebanon.

This often repeated myth that arabs have immigrated on mass from other places to palestine is simply not true. The figures and growth rate (recorded births and deaths) make it abosolutely clear that there is simply no way for this to occured. this is readily evident to anyone have a look at the available historical data. the league of nations reports covered all nations and were published every year. there are not figures published after the fact when there are more axes to grind.

[chaostrivia]

eh. errr......
(A) So lets stick with the numbers alone. I like numbers. Its what I do for a living. Here is a small analysis I made for you using negation to dismiss your claim. Let me know if I missed something:

Have a look at this graph of the overall world population: http://fi.edu/guide/hughes/images/pop-1a.jpg

The "boom" (=sharp acceleration in the graph) in the earth population happened not before the 1950's, the reason is the advent of anti-biotics and vaccines. But I ask you actually to draw your attention to the lack of change in slope before the boom. A constant slope.

Therefore, now I make a very reasonable assumption: The population growth rate among arabs of palestine in the 1920's was not much different than their own growth rate in the 1910's, 1900's... etc'. In accordance with the rest of the world, and common sense: * fundamental improvements such as vaccines and anti-biotics still did not appear * nothing unusual happened with them in those years.

Under this assumption, given that no immigration took place, we take your growth rate of 100% every 20 years and interpolate backwards in time, we end up with 300k in 1900, 150k in 1880, 75k in 1860......... and ... ehmm... 20,000 palestinian arabs in 1820?

You seriously argue that the world overall population grew 20% in those years while the arabs of palestine doubled? (Remember also that the new advancements in medicine in the magnificent 20th century, were first implemented in western hospitals. Also, back then, the Palestinians were not so religious as they are today, if you would have told a Palestinian Arab in the 1930's about the monster called Hamas he would have laughed at you and considered you to be a lunatic).

An annual 2.7% growth rate is too much even for today, a border case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... rowth_rate. In Israel of 2009, with 25% palestinian fraction and one of the world's best healthcare systems, we have only 1.71% per annum!

An annual 2.7% growth rate in the 1920's and 1930's without immigration is science fiction.


(B) the train system of the british mandate (sorry, no english version, look at the pictures...). I haven't heard of any jews who worked in construction for the brits (an absolute zero). I didn't hear of Indians or Chinese working on the magnificent train infrastructure that they were building in Palestine . Do you know of any australians who were building this huge project? ehh...no? who did it then? oh.. I think I know...

(C) what about the first hand witnesses I have heard? I didn't invent this knowledge up. A guy who lived in those years told me what he saw - leftist me immediately argued: "oh.. that's a lie". Just as you did. But then I checked it up, it isn't a lie.

(D) what about the source of your "general agreed figure" of 1914?

(E) what about (3)?

[pugsville]

In reply to question in the other thread, no you havent convinced me at all. The palestinian mortality and infant mortality were dropping in the 20 - 30's (why I dont know) it wasnt in egypt which was growing around 1.8%, so it reasonable that palestine was growing more . The population growth rate in the 20's and 30's I would guess be greater than earlier because of (i) the war, the turkish economy collasped, coastal shipping moved almost everything and their railway system was barely working at best (ii) increased urbanization (iii) decased mortality rate.

On the historical figures in the league of nations archives which has the palestiian growth rate at 2.7% which were publiched at the time. Are you saying that the British were falsifying these records ? Why would they do that?

Antedocatal evidence is not really helpful, how many people did they actually talk to, were they moving from the countryside into the towns or come from further a field. they was a urbanization migration occuring at the time.

The railways, exactly how many people were involved. Cant find anything.

I didnt get into the jewish terror attacks debate as I figured it would just derail discussion here a list of irgun attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

[chaostrivia]

so to conclude, I agree that the truth is not clear yet and subject to debate. I will look deeper into that and maybe will find the you are correct or alternatively find more convincing evidence that you are wrong.

the source of your "general agreed figure" is still absent, because it is invented.


now for the "first and most proliferate" attacks, this is really not subject for debate. Here anybody who have read an introduction to the history of Palestine under the British mandate know that you are wrong...

The first ones to attack were the arabs, and this is undisputed.
The Irgun comes late in the story... far from the beginning of it... look at the table you provided, the attacks start in 1936.

Arab riots and murders of jews started in the early 20's, right after the so-called "the happy days" ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Trumpeldor#Tel_Hai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
(and many, many more!)

The jews were not even armed or organized or prepared for the first attacks.
The irgun and the "hagana" (=defense) and the other organizations, were founded because of the Arab attacks. In 1948 they joined together to form the IDF. So absurdly, we owe the survival of Israel in the 1948 war to these Arab murderous gangs...

Jewish terrorism was a late 30's + early 40's phenomena.
Jews stopped defending and started to be also offensive in 1936, as a response to the mass murder campaign initiated by the arabs, called: the 1936 arab revolt in palestine

In short:
1920-1935 - jews only on the defensive.
1936-2009 - jews on the defensive and also on the offensive

[pugsville]

"Despite the assistance of 20,000 additional British troops and several thousand Haganah men, the uprising continued for over two years. By the time it concluded in March 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs; 400 Jews; and 200 Britons had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded"

Dont sound like a campagain of mass murder by the Arabs to me. Yes there were riots, jews were targeted and killed. There were murders and the authorites were dealing with it often in a brutal and offhand fashion, collective punishiment and house demolition were amongst the weapons favoured by the Birtish. But the organized and prolonged campagin of terror by Irgun was a new factor. Irgun's justifications sound just like the empty words coming from Hamas.

[danholo]

Fortunately people armed with clubs won't get far when faced with guns. The Arab riots turned into pretty much a slaughter of Arabs by the British.

[chaostrivia]

But danholo this is the motif of the Israeli-Arab conflict:
After every move the Arabs make they finish up in a worse position than how they started it.
this include: 1936 arab riots, 1948 war, 1967 blockade, 2nd intidafa, terrorism from Lebanon... etc etc etc. With the help of the UN, this might change in 2009, when terrorizing civilians with thousands of rockets for years might prove for the 1st time to be rewarding, but lets hope this won't be the case.

[danholo]

And for some reason we are the bad guy because Arabs are incompetent when it comes to their promises. I will never apologize for beating a guy to a pulp after he came at me with a knife yelling he would kill me for "stealing his dollar". It just doesn't make sense to me yet we should feel guilty about those Jews who really had no alternatives except to take a gun... The reality of history is muffled, chaostrivia. The actual history is that we are Jewish colonial masters who have an endless supply of resources, which we can oppress our poor neighbors with.

[DubiousDan]

Chaostrivia :

But danholo this is the motif of the Israeli-Arab conflict:
After every move the Arabs make they finish up in a worse position than how they started it.
this include: 1936 arab riots, 1948 war, 1967 blockade, 2nd intidafa, terrorism from Lebanon... etc etc etc. With the help of the UN, this might change in 2009, when terrorizing civilians with thousands of rockets for years might prove for the 1st time to be rewarding, but lets hope this won't be the case.

Me:

From the Encyclopedia Britannica CD, year 1999.

However, in Russia a small group, which took the name Hovevei Ziyyon (Lovers of Zion), gathered around him and formed a committee in Odessa to promote the settlement of Jewish farmers and artisans in Palestine. Although these early settlements were able to survive only with the help of Baron Edmond de Rothschild of Paris, they laid the foundations of practical Jewish colonization in Palestine.

Me:
Zionism was an organized attempt to create a nation for Jews. It had the resources of European and American Jews behind it. This is not to say that the majority of Jews were Zionists at that time. They weren’t. They were a minority, however, some of their backers had money, a great deal of money. The Palestinians were a disorganized impoverished subject population with no experience at self rule and poorly educated.
Zionism set out from the beginning of its settlement phase with the intent of creating a Jewish state. That meant that from the beginning Palestinians were going to be displaced. The Jews bought land from Palestinians, however, due to the Ottoman Empire’s rather poor record keeping it was not always clear who actually owned the land. Now as then, in backward autocratic regimes, money talks.

The first Arab riots were due to a failure of the British to rule. If there had been a government which actually represented the majority of the people in Palestine at that time, the Jewish emigration would have been stopped, because the majority didn’t want it. The British government didn’t represent the people of Palestine, it represented the people of Great Briton. There were quite a few wealthy Jews in Great Briton.
When we felt that the British Government no longer represented our interests, we went to revolution. At the time, the Boston Massacre was a riot. I believe Samuel Adams called the participants terrorists when he defended the British soldiers at their trial.
However, we were better organized, and we had France to support our revolution. Without France, I doubt if we would have made it. The Palestinians were not well organized, and they had no great power to support them. In the beginning, not even the Arab states supported them. Russia even joined with the United States to create Israel.

[danholo]

And what's your point? Why did you leave the approved partition of Palestine out of your story?

[DubiousDan]

Danholo :

And what's your point? Why did you leave the approved partition of Palestine out of your story?

Me:
My point was that the British took over a country and gave it to another people. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Allies divvied up the spoils, and Great Briton got Palestine. This had pretty much been arranged beforehand. During the War, Lord Balfour wrote a letter to Baron Rothschild, head of the British Branch of the Rothschild banking empire. This letter committed Great Briton to work towards a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Here we see the usual merging of finance and politicians.
It was not money alone that doomed the Palestinians. Some of the greatest men of letters and science of that time were Jews. When Hitler persecuted the Jews, he drove out some of his most brilliant people.
The two men who persuaded Balfour to write that letter were Nahum Sokolow and Chaim Weizmann. Both of these men were among the World’s intellectual elite, and Weizmann was not only a politician but an eminent scientist.

Not many notable Palestinians wandered around England at the time to plead the Palestinian cause. Not many wealthy ones either. So for some strange reason, the Zionist got what they wanted.

No, I guess my point was that the Palestinians were a lot like the American Indians. They didn’t really have a chance from the beginning, and when the more advanced, brighter and richer people came to rob them of their land, they didn’t have the sense to run away or lay down and die. They fought, it was a hopeless futile fight, but they fought. Unlike the American Indians the Palestinians are still fighting, and of course, they are still losing.

Still, I get a little tired of listening to the blame the victim game.

As for why I didn’t address the partitioning, I guess I didn’t see much difference between robbing half a country and robbing a whole country. Besides, that was the script from the beginning, the whole country. From the time Baron Rothschild’s first settlements took root, the Palestinians were doomed.

[danholo]

My point was that the British took over a country and gave it to another people.

How did they "give it" to another people? Indeed, Zionist Jews were campaigning for a state, and got promises, but it wasn't so simple, as there was another party the Britons had to contend with, often taking the side of the Arabs. Yet you are completely omitting the fact that Palestinians would've gotten half - even without money. But they refused, because of their own selfish desires. You can a) live in your deluded reality where "the victims are being blamed" or you can b) consider actual reality where there are two parties who were battling for their own freedom, from their perspective. For Jews it was independence at all costs, for Palestinians it was "all or nothing". Actually, not really, as the Palestinian national movement wasn't strong enough nor was there a considerable unified Palestinian force.

As for why I didn’t address the partitioning, I guess I didn’t see much difference between robbing half a country and robbing a whole country. Besides, that was the script from the beginning, the whole country. From the time Baron Rothschild’s first settlements took root, the Palestinians were doomed.

So Jews have no rights in Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine have rights over others? Racist.

[chaostrivia]

danholo, well said.

DubiousDan, allow me to help you a bit on terminology, you seem very much............ confused:

Not many notable Palestinians wandered around England at the time to plead the Palestinian cause.

The terms "Palestinians" and "Palestinian people" did not exist back then. As a reference, I can bring the Balfour declaration you mentioned, who writes about "jewish zionists" and "non-Jewish communities in Palestine", but not "Palestinians".
Also in the late 30's, the representative body of the (what later to become) "Palestinians", was simply called: Arab higher Committee.

The "Palestinian people" is a by-product of zionism and the prosperity it brought upon this land. Before the term "Palestinian people" became to be in common use (late 50's, or so), these were just "Arabs who live in Palestine".
Many... confused.... people like you in the west favor the 50 year old "Palestinian people" who are actually no different than all other 335 million Arabs surrounding Israel over the 5000 year old jewish people and their only home country. kinda odd, no?

[pugsville]

The break down in law and order in mandate palestine prinicpally caused by the increased illegal jewish immigrationand the jewish terrorism. Without these two things the pressure would not have kept increasing. The zoinist leaders were willing to push things in order to get what they wanted, they used the british. In palestine was a democracy jewish immigration would have been stopped. If you support the jewish immigration at the time you are saying that jews have rights over others, the minority have the right to set immigration policy. Do you think the arab minority have the right to say that arab refugees must return or do you say in a democratic state have the rught to set immigration policy, if so how can the illgal jewish immigraton be supported.

The proposed partition had few jews lving under arab rule and many many arabs living under jewish rule. The borders were such as to give the maxium possible land to the jewish side of the partition which had a jewish majority which would see undoubted jewish primacy and more jewish immigration leading to a stronger jewish grip on power. If both sides were dealt with equally surley a much more equitiable partition could be proposed. The arabs refused the partition offered which I think was based of giving the maxium land and minmium voice to palestinian arab concearns. They may not have refused all possible partition. I think it perfectly understandable that they rejected the proposed partition it was not based on equality.

If the zoinist leaders had been able to stop the radical zionist terrorism and agreed to a halt to immigration until things were worked out peace might have had some sort of chance. Maybe not a good chance but maybe a chance. the british did nothing to develop palestinian self rule or representation which might have enabled the palestinian arabs to develop something which was capable of talking. The Zionist were developing their own orgizations, they were not devloping insituitions for all peoples just their people, they were manifestily arrnaging things so they had the institutions to set up a jewish state representing jewish interests, they arrived with the initention of taking over as much land as the could, many had no compunction about the means.

Planting bombs to kill inncocents was no barrier to high office in Israel, Irgun were accepted into the IDF, they had no problem accpeting terrorists. Even in the 90's the state of Israel honored former Irgun members with a award. it was the jewish unilateral declaration of their state which was the end of talking, it was jewish terrorists who assinated the UN envoy trying to patch up a cease fire a man who had saved 1,000s of jews during the war.

[danholo]

Well, pugsville, it really seems like you are not a fair arbitrator in this conflict. Thankfully the international community was given this responsibility and decided to make a compromise for both parties. The Arabs declined. This is what doomed them, nothing else.

The proposed partition had few jews lving under arab rule and many many arabs living under jewish rule. The borders were such as to give the maxium possible land to the jewish side of the partition which had a jewish majority which would see undoubted jewish primacy and more jewish immigration leading to a stronger jewish grip on power.

Yes, indeed. The point was to create a Jewish and Arab state. What don't you understand? Only Arabs can rule themselves but Jews have to be ruled by Arabs? In the name of human rights and justice: NEVER. (maybe in a thousand years)

If both sides were dealt with equally surley a much more equitiable partition could be proposed. The arabs refused the partition offered which I think was based of giving the maxium land and minmium voice to palestinian arab concearns. They may not have refused all possible partition. I think it perfectly understandable that they rejected the proposed partition it was not based on equality.

Arabs would've rejected any proposal. The Peel commission, for example in 1937, offered the Arabs much more, but of course they refused. Arabs in their machismo would never give way to their pride. This is an Arab cultural quality which simply dominates their decision making and attitude. This means that equality is irrelevant in this issue. They are completely oblivious to the concept. I think you are presenting a totally illusory reality to what it was, then. As far as the Arabs are concerned, Jews have no right over Palestine, even over the lands they bought fair and square. It also seems like Arab immigrants have more rights then Jews in Palestine.

Thankfully people like you do not make these decisions, as most of would be dead and be living in dysfunctional Arab countries.

If the zoinist leaders had been able to stop the radical zionist terrorism and agreed to a halt to immigration until things were worked out peace might have had some sort of chance. Maybe not a good chance but maybe a chance.

Of course, if they would've just done something a little more, there would be peace. All of this is irrespective to Arab belligerence and pride.

Planting bombs to kill inncocents was no barrier to high office in Israel, Irgun were accepted into the IDF, they had no problem accpeting terrorists. Even in the 90's the state of Israel honored former Irgun members with a award. it was the jewish unilateral declaration of their state which was the end of talking, it was jewish terrorists who assinated the UN envoy trying to patch up a cease fire a man who had saved 1,000s of jews during the war.

Yup, people are stupid in this way. They fought for the cause, so they will be celebrated as heroes, irrespective of what they did. I honestly don't care that the Irgun bombed British targets, but the people who manned these groups are genuine crazies who are still scared of the Nazis. On the other hand, the incorporation of all the armed Jewish groups was done for a good reason, to avoid stratifying the society into splinter groups as Palestinians have become today. It was important to get these people under the rule of law then have them roam around as they please, "liberating Eretz Israel".