You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Middle East Conflict
- Thread starter The blue phantom
- Start date
As I pointed out earlier the plan you mentioned offered the Palestinians, who made up 66% of the population, 44% of the land. Are you surprised they rejected it?If they peacefully protest effectively then, Yes. i.e Give up on the total destruction of Israel rhetoric and commit to mutually agreed borders. Just to be clear the Palestinians must agree to let the Israelis live in peace.
What would happen then is that the Palestinian cause would become the morally superior position and popular opinion would swing behind them.
As far as I know Palestine has never won a 'war' against Israel and, as another poster has already pointed out, no one ends up in a better position or with more land after losing a war. It's utter madness to expect the Palestinians to win this militarily.
And now a simple Yes or No for you.
Would the Palestinians be better off today if they had stuck to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?
Especially when you take into account a mere half century previously they made up 92% of the population. Any Palestinian around in 1947 might well have wondered what was going on.
So they were justified in ignoring the UN because they did not agree with it? Sounds familar.As I pointed out earlier the plan you mentioned offered the Palestinians, who made up 66% of the population, 44% of the land. Are you surprised they rejected it?
Especially when you take into account a mere half century previously they made up 92% of the population. Any Palestinian around in 1947 might well have wondered what was going on.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,034
In reality two thirds of the 56% allocated to Israel was the Negev desert where hardly anyone lived so doing a comparison isn’t quite as straightforward as you make out.As I pointed out earlier the plan you mentioned offered the Palestinians, who made up 66% of the population, 44% of the land. Are you surprised they rejected it?
Especially when you take into account a mere half century previously they made up 92% of the population. Any Palestinian around in 1947 might well have wondered what was going on.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
They are trying this one again
which makes this kinda awkward
which makes this kinda awkward
The blue phantom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 8,602
And this is what we have. He knows full well the Israeli Goverment will never ever remove any settlers. Changes tack and ask me about something from nearly 80 years ago.No, you answer my question first.
And now a simple Yes or No for you.
Would the Palestinians be better off today if they had stuck to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?
I take your point. On the other hand I believe the coastal strip running from Lebanon southwards was particularly fertile.In reality two thirds of the 56% allocated to Israel was the Negev desert where hardly anyone lived so doing a comparison isn’t quite as straightforward as you make out.
cucumberman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 5,061
The 1947 UN Partition Plan of the 56%-42% partition as per accepted by Israel invoked the displacement of approximately 200,000 Palestinians.And now a simple Yes or No for you.
Would the Palestinians be better off today if they had stuck to the 1947 UN Partition Plan?
However, in contrast to the Partition Plan, within 6 months after the enactment, IDF displaced approximately 400,000 which was 200% more than based on the Partition Plan; and by 1949 the total displacement of 750,000 Palestinians, which was 350% more than the 1947 Partition Plan
By 1967 and thereafter, the displacement was 1.2 million, which was 600% more than the 1947 Partition Plan.
So, based on the above, did Israel abide to the 1947 Partition Plan, or they disavowed days after the Partition Plan enacted 1948?
Here’s an analogy
Imagine that you are Palestine and I am Israel. You have a family of 10 people, while I am a family of 6. You live in the house for many years and have 10 bedrooms.
Because your house is I regard as my ancestral house, I requested for live-in and ownership of the house. The authorities approved that I take ownership of 6 bedrooms out of the 10 bedrooms in the house.
So, my family of 6 each live in a bedroom. Ergo room per my person. In contrast, Your family of 10 are given 4 bedrooms. Ergo you have 2 rooms each with 2 persons, and 2 remaining rooms each with 3 persons.
You complain that its not fair because they get fewer rooms for more persons. I interjected that the house is my ancestral home so I go vocal. I get support from my authorities. I invited my 2 other relatives to live-in so I get to own two more of your rooms. Now I get a family of 8 with 8 bedrooms, while you have a family of 10 with 2 bedrooms.
I also take control of your utilities, your water, your access in and out of your 2 remaining rooms.
How does the side of your family take it?
Postman Pep
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 5,025
The face of evil ..... and her genocidal husband.
Look, my point is that the Palestinians do not seem to have won anything with war but utter misery and loss of land. After each 'war', as per usual, the victors rewrite the borders to their liking. That's how it is. That's how it has always been. If Palestine would have won then Israel would not exist BUT Palestine did not win, Israel did. Having lost a war you cannot just shake hands and say lets go back to exactly how it was pre war. You are at the mercy of the victors.The 1947 UN Partition Plan of the 56%-42% partition as per accepted by Israel invoked the displacement of approximately 200,000 Palestinians.
However, in contrast to the Partition Plan, within 6 months after the enactment, IDF displaced approximately 400,000 which was 200% more than based on the Partition Plan; and by 1949 the total displacement of 750,000 Palestinians, which was 350% more than the 1947 Partition Plan
By 1967 and thereafter, the displacement was 1.2 million, which was 600% more than the 1947 Partition Plan.
So, based on the above, did Israel abide to the 1947 Partition Plan, or they disavowed days after the Partition Plan enacted 1948?
Here’s an analogy
Imagine that you are Palestine and I am Israel. You have a family of 10 people, while I am a family of 6. You live in the house for many years and have 10 bedrooms.
Because your house is I regard as my ancestral house, I requested for live-in and ownership of the house. The authorities approved that I take ownership of 6 bedrooms out of the 10 bedrooms in the house.
So, my family of 6 each live in a bedroom. Ergo room per my person. In contrast, Your family of 10 are given 4 bedrooms. Ergo you have 2 rooms each with 2 persons, and 2 remaining rooms each with 3 persons.
You complain that its not fair because they get fewer rooms for more persons. I interjected that the house is my ancestral home so I go vocal. I get support from my authorities. I invited my 2 other relatives to live-in so I get to own two more of your rooms. Now I get a family of 8 with 8 bedrooms, while you have a family of 10 with 2 bedrooms.
I also take control of your utilities, your water, your access in and out of your 2 remaining rooms.
How does the side of your family take it?
I go back to my original post.
The Palestinians need to forget war and concentrate on gaining the moral high ground and popular support by dropping the annihilation of Israel nonsense and promoting peaceful protest. Both sides need to be realistic, both sides need to compromise. And, perhaps even more important, both sides need to prove they are trustworthy partners.