If Hamas were to take over, women's rights would be gone, clitoris would be cut off, and homosexuals whipped, killed and their bodies hung for all to see.
Mixing and matching different groups that call themselves muslim or jew to reach your conclusions is pointless. Hamas doesn't engage in female genital mutilation as far as I know, female genital mutilation by the way having absolutely zero to do with Islam, its a pre-islamic tribal practice. Israel already has taken over, and women's rights in Gaza and the west bank are already gone because plenty of heads and bodies are splattered all over the place with high powered bombs, tank shells, and other weapons of mass destruction. Why is that the better alternative?
Sure bigots use the fact that Israel is jewish as their real reason to condemn them, but then you go and do the same thing to the other side. The reality is, there is a huge military force that has created a real prison, a prison where they routinely slaughter people for reasons that are probably have a lot to do with ethnic differences and the idea that anyone who doesn't totally submit to military might is the next Hitler.
Don't side with radical palestinians or radical israelis or radical anything. Side with humanity. Don't side with murderers whoever they are, and no matter what excuse they give for their thirst for blood. People always make distinctions between goverments and the people that they control, but for some reason when it comes to the Palestinian/Israeli debate everyone lumps all jews and muslims under the IDF and Hamas banner. That's not true so why keep the lie up. Theres people in that area that have committed no crime and were just born in the wrong place-but they suffer and that's whats important to look at.
I'd like to weigh in on this some more. Full disclosure: I'm no expert on the history of the Israel/Palestine region, so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of the facts I claim below. Also, sorry if I rehash points made earlier in this thread.
So in late 1947 there was this partition plan presented for the region then known as Mandate Palestine, or British Palestine. Apparently this plan was proposed because the British were tired of dealing with all the shenanigans there. Well, a majority of the UN General Assembly voted for it, but the Arab states of the Middle East didn't. Subsequently, they considered the UN to have no authority over the area (even though they had joined the UN voluntarily - at least as far as states go). The Palestinian Arabs also, by and large, rejected UN authority and thus rejected the partition plan.
In the conflict that followed, the clear aim of the combatant Arab states and Palestinian Arabs was to prevent a Jewish state from arising - that is, to prevent Jews from asserting statehood in the region of Palestine. On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs never declared statehood themselves. Why is that? Furthermore, Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed the West Bank. Why did they do that?
At its core, Zionism seems to concern political independence for Jews. This is quite understandable to me, since Jews have been getting a bad rap for centuries. However, the Israeli state that formed from the 1947-1948 war was hardly pristine in its origins. For one thing, it exceeded the territories allocated to it under the UN partition plan. For another, the new Israeli government decreed that the roughly 700,000 Palestinian Arab refugees would not be allowed to return and reclaim their homes and lands. Most of these refugees were not combatants in the slightest, from what I understand. That's why I tentatively conclude that it was wrong to prevent them from returning.
Later on, in the aftermath of the 1967 war, Israeli forces occupied both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Why did they do this? Was it simply an exploitable opportunity? Or what?
Sometimes I wonder whether the entire area shouldn't just be taken over by the UN, at least as a stop-gap measure for the time being. Of course, doing such would be antithetical to Zionism, as it would eradicate political independence for Jews. However, I think it could well provide greater stability and security for Jews and Palestinian Arabs alike.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: Later on, in the aftermath of the 1967 war, Israeli forces occupied both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Why did they do this? Was it simply an exploitable opportunity? Or what?
The story seems to be that a non-nuclear state (as was 1967 Israel) could never have defended its pre ‘67 borders if the enemy could attack from the West Bank, Golan Heights or Gaza.
Of course, the argument, if indeed valid, oversees two points: 1) now Israel is a nuclear nation, and need no longer concern itself with geostrategic considerations, and is free to allow borers to be set by referendum, and 2) the mass expulsions of the locals form the Golan Heights where barbarous and pointless.
Otherwise I feel somewhat persuaded by the Israeli justification.
So in late 1947 there was this partition plan presented for the region then known as Mandate Palestine, or British Palestine. Apparently this plan was proposed because the British were tired of dealing with all the shenanigans there.
Must have been that famous British reluctance to meddle around the world that nobody has ever heard of and led them to become one of the warring parties in the 1956 war. Why the British left has to do with:
A.) moral pressure: The British were in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate. The claim was always that their presence in Palestine was temporary, done only for the purpose of tutoring the locals to make them ready for self-government. By 1948 this pretense was bankrupt.
B.) military pressure: the Jews and Arabs skirmished among themselves, but the Jews in particular also skirmished against the British.
C.) diplomatic pressure: The US in the period worked hard to dismantle the British Empire.
A recommendation to the Security Council by the General Assembly, never adopted by the Security Council is meaningless by UN's own rules. The UN itself did in fact not claim authorithy over the area as you imagine it.
On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs never declared statehood themselves. Why is that?
Why is that Canadian Eskimos never declared statehood? They lacked politically consciousness and organisation. We are talking about people who don't have radios, don't read newspapers etc.
Furthermore, Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip
False.
and Jordan annexed the West Bank.
The Hashemites annexed the West Bank. It was not in the interest of the Arab Cause.
That is a strange question to ask since Israel planned for and launched the 1967 war. There was no incidental opportunity to exploit. The "opportunity" was created by Israel's military conquest. The reason for it is indeed simple - territorial ambition.
Then why conveniently leave out the atrocities Muslim tyranny has caused. If Hamas were to take over, women's rights would be gone, clitoris would be cut off, and homosexuals whipped, killed and their bodies hung for all to see.
Oh look, chauvinism!
But you dislike neo-Nazis? Strange, you could have fooled me.
Marko:
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think that would be such a terrible idea?
Marko:Must have been that famous British reluctance to meddle around the world that nobody has ever heard of and led them to become one of the warring parties in the 1956 war. Why the British left has to do with: A.) moral pressure: The British were in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate. The claim was always that their presence in Palestine was temporary, done only for the purpose of tutoring the locals to make them ready for self-government. By 1948 this pretense was bankrupt. B.) military pressure: the Jews and Arabs skirmished among themselves, but the Jews in particular also skirmished against the British. C.) diplomatic pressure: The US in the period worked hard to dismantle the British Empire.
Right, that's what I meant by "shenanigans".
Marko:A recommendation to the Security Council by the General Assembly, never adopted by the Security Council is meaningless by UN's own rules. The UN itself did in fact not claim authorithy over the area as you imagine it.
I wasn't aware of that. So the Partition Plan was simply a recommendation to the Security Council by the General Assembly?
On another note, I love how the UN has this two-tiered structure, where the elite tier (the Security Council) makes the final decisions and thus holds the actual power.
Marko:Why is that Canadian Eskimos never declared statehood? They lacked politically consciousness and organisation. We are talking about people who don't have radios, don't read newspapers etc.
I find it hard to believe that no Palestinian Arabs had radios, read news papers, vel. sim.
Marko:Furthermore, Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip False.
Apparently I misspoke. The Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip. So it wasn't annexed de jure, but I'd say it was de facto.
Marko:and Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Hashemites annexed the West Bank. It was not in the interest of the Arab Cause.
According to Wikipedia, the Hashemites are traditionally part of the Quraish tribe, which is an Arab tribe. Or are you referring to Arab nationalism when you say "the Arab Cause"?
Marko:That is a strange question to ask since Israel planned for and launched the 1967 war. There was no incidental opportunity to exploit. The "opportunity" was created by Israel's military conquest. The reason for it is indeed simple - territorial ambition.
Israeli officials would say that the Egyptians started the war with their massive troop buildups in Sinai. If someone's walking up to your house brandishing a firearm, do you wait until he actually shoots at you before shooting at or otherwise fighting him?
The Israelis actually used the fact that they did not have free passage through the Straits as their casus belli.
With regards to your analogy, assuming your pre-emption was just, is it then okay to march over to where the assailant lived and take-over his home?
Hard Rain:The Israelis actually used the fact that they did not have free passage through the Straits as their casus belli.
Do you have a source for this?
Hard Rain:With regards to your analogy, assuming your pre-emption was just, is it then okay to march over to where the assailant lived and take-over his home?
Not in my opinion.
I believe it was in the Michael Oren book called "Six Days of War". Unfortunately I don't have my copy at hand at this time.
Ron Paul: Israel created Hamas
See Ron Paul's video on you tube here:
[ View : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFaSzU9XF5o&feature=related]
Well that's interesting when we know how Israel accuses Hamas of all kinds of evil!
On the "you are an anti-semite!" weapon used to silence critics of Israel
Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni explained to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, that the ani-semite weapon is a trick used all the time to silence Israel's critics. See the interview here:
[ View : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA&feature=fvw]
Actually the Israelis didn't use the blockade of the Straits of Tiran as their sole casus belli. I wrote about this earlier so I'll copy and paste:
Is isreal a proxy of the west or is zionism an infiltration of the west. I always hear about the jewish influence in the west, in history in present day. The British left the region in 1948 and the jews that where there took over the region by force. They have video evidence of this occurring, even today we have isreal which is a jewish state in control of the region, which proves that the jews took over the region by force. What interest would that region be to anyone in the west, without the religious underpinnings, what interest would any group of people have in that land. The west from what I can see would have limited geo-political interest in that region, be it for trade or resources. This means that this group of people some how convinced the west, that now largely supports isreal, that securing that region for jewish control was within the interest of the west. Some people have said that, "the jewish holocaust" was the justification for the creation of the state of isreal. Some other people have said that the jews have had their strong hold over Britain since cromwell. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that the history of the holocaust is not accurate and if that is the case the justification for the creation of the isreal was unfounded. Unless you expect me to believe that the jews innocently emigrated to that region and then when faced with conflict, fought back and we ended up with the isreal we have today? Ok so if the holocaust was the justification for the creation of isreal in the west, what is the justification for the continued support of isreal. Why would the west care about isreal, if jews have no influence in the west? The twisted justification for the continued support of isreal comes from the threat of terrorism from the arabs, that has been pushed in to the western psyche through years of media. Due to the location of isreal in the middle east and the jewish/arab conflict paradigm, the west has sided with the jews and the jewish cause. Of course the west has always had a closer relationship with the jews than the arabs historically. But that comes back to my point about interest, is isreal realy in the interest of the west?
I am not against jews in general, i actually work with jews and I know that a lot of jewish people do not even agree with zionism or isreal and some do not even know what it is.
Sorry Tartan but former Israeli Prime Minister Begin begs to differ.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Begin on the 1967 war:
"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum."
See complete Begin speech on Israeli Foreign Ministry's website:
[ View : http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National]
To be honest, I have not idea what your point is with that reply. Could you elaborate?
Oh no. Don't get me wrong. I don't comdemn all Palestinians. I comdemn people and not the groups, unlike some people. The OP asked why there is an anti-Zionist vibe with Libertarians and I provided an answer based on my experience with anti-Zionist-Libertarian. So forgive me, people, if you feel that my suspicions are unwarranted.
But if I had to choose the lesser of two evil, I would choose Isreal. As a gay man I can feel at least somewhat safe on their streets.
. As an American I certainly feel safer in the streets of New York over the streets of Baghdad- but I wouldn't say that this government is the lesser of the two evil's when it comes to what one side has done to the other. Although I do find it confusing to see the military with the higher body count be called the "lesser" evil, hearing people choose different sides of "lesser" or "greater" murderers is just dissapointing for me.
Pro-Israeli propaganda says that in 1967 Israel felt Egyptians were about to attack and preempted them. That's why I quoted Begin saying Israel chose to attack and that an Egyptian attack was far from certain.
Here is another quote from the same speech that is even more explicit:
"And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world."
Begin also says that Israel doesn't fight only when it has no other choice:
"(...) there is no divine mandate to go to war only if there is no alternative. There is no moral imperative that a nation must, or is entitled to, fight only when its back is to the sea, or to the abyss (...) A free, sovereign nation, which hates war and loves peace, and which is concerned about its security, must create the conditions under which war, if there is a need for it, will not be for lack of alternative. The conditions much be such - and their creation depends upon man's reason and his actions - that the price of victory will be few casualties, not many."
The question is not to paint the Israelis as pure evil and the Palestinians as blameless victims. Let's take the case of Native Americans for exemple. Some Native Americans were very vicious, they killed unarmed white men, women and children, they practiced horrible torture on their victims. No one is denying that but also no one is denying the fact that generally speaking Native Americans were the victims and the white settlers the aggressors.
The same thing applies to Palestine. Did Palestinians kill innocent Israelis? yes! But the Palestinians were the victims of Zionist aggression, they were dispossessed, killed and expelled. The Palestinians were right to resist being dispossessed. Now we may disagree about some of the methods they used to resist aggression but saying that they were not the victims but the aggressors is total nonesense.
Marko:I find it hard to believe that no Palestinian Arabs had radios, read news papers, vel. sim.
According to Wikipedia, the Hashemites are traditionally part of the Quraish tribe, which is an Arab tribe. Or are you referring to Arab nationalism when you say "the Arab Cause"? You were asking why Jordan annexed the West Bank. The hell if I know why they did it. Ask the Hashemites. It certainly was not in the interest of the Arab Cause on the behalf of which the war was ostensibly fought, which was well understood at the time. It was annexed because the Hashemites figured it was in their personal interest to do so and were enough of sell outs to go ahead with it even as they understood it would undermine the position of Arabs in Palestine.
Of course it does.
Well obviously if I did show you proof, it would probably be false propaganda, in your opinion. But here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3211772.stm
Isreal is the only "free" nation in the middle east. It's not free, but it's more free then the rest. Yet you guys condemn them and want Isreal to dissolve and Palestinians to take over. But it won't be the Palestinians, it will be Hamas. They're the thugs of their people and they will take over.So it won't be a utopia, as some like to imply. If the Palestinians want freedom and a chance at a good life then they need to set up a secular, coercion free society. But that's never going to be the case because they follow religion.
Murder is murder. I just don't like it when one murderer is condmened while the other one is given a pass because someone sides with their cause.
Did you read that article? Am I correct in understanding that Israeli secret service forces those gay men to work as prostitutes?
Gaza's state of high crime didn't happen by accident, being choked off economically and having your people killed everyday isn't going to create tolerance and harmony. No one's been defending Hamas, but there's a reason they came to exist and its not because Palestinians woke up one day and decided that they hate all jews and must push them into the sea- its because of decades of occupation and murder. How do you know what would happen if the Palestinians were allowed to live their lives? Its never been tried- obviously what's been going on currently is of no help to anyone
And again you blame palestinians for not having freedom when its the IDF that sets up barriers for goods to come in and destroys actual human capital making it impossible to even think about the philosophy of a coercion free society when the only thing to think about is what to eat and who are your friends and enemies. They are destitute and live no lives, air strikes and tank shells create a blood for blood mentality- that has to stop.
Murder is murder, but I am sick of hearing how palestinians deserve everything they get. No one said that any israeli citizens deserve to be hit by rockets. Why do everyday palestinians deserve to be choked off from the world and killed like dogs.
The Palestinians are not the helpless victims here. It's quite clear that they were offered a rather large portion of the Mandate as their homeland (88% of the Mandate of Palestine ended up as part of two states - the Arab state and Jordan - which had Palestinian majorities). They chose to reject it and instead launched a war against the existence of the Jewish state. Those dispossessed were those who engaged in the fighting and lived in communities which sheltered those who fired on Jewish convoys and settlements. Trying to paint the Palestinians as the victims is a brutal misunderstanding of history.
Second, JB Say, quoting Begin is rather useless since he didn't take office until 1977. H is correct in saying that the Israelis had a choice - they could either invade Egypt and counter the Egyptian army's massive violation of the ceasefire of 1948, or they could have sat back and been attacked. I'd urge you to pay more attention to what I quoted by Dinstein above, namely that the Six Day War was not a separate war, but, since the 1947/48 War of Independence only ended in ceasefire, the Six Day 'War' was actually a continuation of the original War of Independence.
Tartan says: "Second, JB Say, quoting Begin is rather useless since he didn't take office until 1977"
So you are saying that if someone wasn’t a prime minister during an event he can’t possibly know anything about it. Ok then, let’s use you own logic against you. I am pretty confident Tartan that you were never a Prime Minister of Israel therefore you can’t talk about Israel anymore!
BTW Tartan, Begin was a cabinet member during the 1967 war, which means he was a member of the Israeli government that went to war against Egypt. You either did not know this (in this case you are not as knowledgeable as you are trying to appear) or you hid this information (in this case you deliberately misrepresented facts to advance your point of view, because you were trying to say that Begin was in no position to know anything about the war).
Tartan says: "Trying to paint the Palestinians as the victims is a brutal misunderstanding of history."
Well trying to portray the Zionists as blameless victims and Palestinians as the oppressors is vulgar propaganda. As Mises says facts are stubborn!
The tactics of pro-Israel propagandists is to portray anyone who does not agree with the official Israeli narrative as either a self-hating-Jew, an anti-semite, an ignorant or a liar.
But Tartan goes even further he even dismisses seasoned Zionists as irrelevant when they say something that can cast a negative light on his Perfect Perfect Israel. His attack on former Prime Minister Begin is risible. Tartan appears more knowledgeable about Zionist history than one of the giants of Zionism.
Let’s see who is this man Tartan so easily dismissed as irrelevant:
Menachem Begin was born in BrestLitovsk in 1913
A passionate Zionist from an early age, he joined Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Betar youth movement in his teens, rising quickly to important administrative and leadership positions.
He made his way British controlled Palestine in1943. He joint the jewish terrorist group/liberation movement the Irgun. He was involved in blowing up the central British administrative offices in the King David Hotel.
He fought in the 1948 war
Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Begin disbanded the Irgun.
From 1948 to 1977, Menachem Begin was the leader of Israel's opposition.
He founded the Likud Party.
Joined a unity government during the 1967 war.
Was elected Prime Minister in 1977
Signed peace treaty with Egypt in 1979.
In 1981, Begin ordered the Israeli Air Force to bomb the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, where the Iraqi regime was developing nuclear weapons.
In 1982 he invaded Lebanon.after repeated acts of PLO terror, Israel launched Operation Peace for Galilee to remove the terrorist threat from Israel's northern border.
He died in 1992.
See article on Begin on the Jewish Virtual Library here: [ View : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/begin.html]
It's funny to see JB Say completely make up things that I have supposedly said (such as that Begin wasn't a Zionist). I never said that. Anyone with half a brain can read what I said and know that I, on the whole, agreed with Begin's remarks and thought that it highlighted the accuracies of my argument more than it did JB's. Begin was, as I've said, right in saying that Israel had a choice in 1967 - that choice just happened to be respond to Egypt's actions (see the Dinstein quote I provided above for what those actions were) or be invaded and crushed. I'm quite confident Israel did the right thing, and so was Begin.
I know full well he was a cabinet member, however his idea of what the casus belli was may differ from more important members of the cabinet - i.e. the Prime Minister. Again, see the Dinstein quotes.
Which mandate is this? If its the one Arafat rejected the agreement wasn't as cut as dry as you're painting it- I'm sure you already know this.
The brutal misunderstanding of history is to paint one of the most powerful militaries in the world as a victim from people who are mostly armed with rocks. Why not just look at the plain and simple number of bodies that have been piled up by the IDF. Its a number that far exceeds israeli deaths by multitudes- and its not limited to just Gaza or the West Bank either. Lebanon lost over a thousand civilians not even a decade ago from IDF mass murder.
Hamas and IDF are murderous organizations- the IDF just kills a hell of a lot more and is the one in charge of the occupation and total control of all palestinian lives. They are in complete control of their fate. Of course I am getting the implication that people see palestinians as barbarians that want to drink the blood of jewish babies if the IDF were to dare give them freedom.
Tartan said: “It's funny to see JB Say completely make up things that I have supposedly said (such as that Begin wasn't a Zionist). I never said that.”
You’re the one making things up. I challenge you to quote me saying that you said Begin was not a Zionist.
Also I would like you to provide references for the following claims:
1- That the UN partition plan was about Palestine and Jordan and that the Palestinians were to get 88% of the land
2-That all the Palestinians that were expelled in 1948 were combattants.
Tartan said: “The Palestinians (...) were offered a rather large portion of the Mandate as their homeland (88% of the Mandate of Palestine ended up as part of two states - the Arab state and Jordan - which had Palestinian majorities)”.
As usual you manipulated facts to come to your conclusion, here’s what the 1947 UN partition Plan really says:
Summary of UN General Assembly Resolution 181
November 29, 1947
The territory of Palestine should be divided as follows:
See: [ View : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681322.stm]
Concerning Jordan, here are the facts:
Modern Jordan was founded in 1921, and it was recognized by the League of Nations as a state under the British mandate in 1922 known as The Emirate of Transjordan. The Transjordan memorandum excluded the territories east of the River Jordan from all of the provisions of the mandate dealing with Jewish settlement.The country remained under British supervision until 1946.In 1946, Jordan joined the United Nations as an independent sovereign state officially known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See: [ View : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan#British_protectorate_of_Transjordan]
So trying to bring Jordan into the mix is intellectually dishonest.
It’s clear that the Zionist narrative is not supported by facts. So They have to manipulate facts, manufacture facts, misquote etc. in order to present their fictitious version of history.
Tartan Pimpernel: The Palestinians are not the helpless victims here.
The Palestinians are not the helpless victims here.
I can not understand how you can not see the jews as the aggressor. Trying to create a jewish state (aka isreal) is the aggression.
Jewish people were living in that region throughout history, along side other non jews, much like they have throughout the world. When they decided that they wanted to create a state that they classified as their state, that was the aggression. I am not particularly fond of islamic culture or even indian culture, but that does not mean that i understand the isreali situation as a matter of self defense.
It is clear that the jews wanted to create isreal and as we see today it exist, with a massive wall on its border. Isreal society is toxic, they have forced military participation, they have a strict government and heavy propaganda. The youth of isreal are brainwashed with militarism and I have heard many dissident isrealis speak about this. They have state media there, just like in the UK. But this only goes to show my point that any society based on such a type of conflict, regardless of its origins will be a toxic society.
Of course I am getting the implication that people see palestinians as barbarians that want to drink the blood of jewish babies if the IDF were to dare give them freedom.
Well I am from Israel, and I can tell you that's more or less the truth. Palestinians are filled with hatred and if given half a chance would banish all Jews from here and kill those who remain.
You mean do to the Israelis what they did to them...
How about this video where Israelis say with their own words what they think of Palestinians:
[ View : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t_ZjetcSMQ&feature=player_embedded]
The territory of Palestine should be divided as follows: A Jewish State covering 56.47% of Mandatory Palestine(excluding Jerusalem) with a population of 498,000 Jews and 325,000 Arabs; An Arab State covering 43.53% of Mandatory Palestine(excluding Jerusalem), with 807,000 Arab inhabitants and 10,000 Jewish inhabitants;
It is easy to see even this first proposal was heavily slanted against the Palestinian Arabs. 40% of the Jewish state would be Arab. But on the other hand only 1% of the Arab state would be Jewish. It was gerrymandering. Giving the Jews as large a state by area as possible while still keeping them a comfortable mayority so they would be able to impose themselves on the Arabs without too much hassle.
And that is by demographics. If we looked into land ownership which is what we as libertarians (not democrats) are really interested in, the figures would look even more scandalous.
Jewish people were living in that region throughout history, along side other non jews, much like they have throughout the world. When they decided that they wanted to create a state that they classified as their state, that was the aggression. I am not particularly fond of islamic culture or even indian culture, but that does not mean that i understand the isreali situation as a matter of self defense. It is clear that the jews wanted to create isreal and as we see today it exist, with a massive wall on its border. Isreal society is toxic, they have forced military participation, they have a strict government and heavy propaganda. The youth of isreal are brainwashed with militarism and I have heard many dissident isrealis speak about this. They have state media there, just like in the UK. But this only goes to show my point that any society based on such a type of conflict, regardless of its origins will be a toxic society.
The only way in which Israel is unlike most other states is its colonialism. That is the agression part and the only thing that needs concern us. Israeli-on-Israeli agression isn't really exceptional and would not be any of our business even if it were.
It's become quite clear to me that a lot of the debate on here has turned into the traditional mud-flinging and semantics. Certain users, namely JB Say, have turned to this - we get told of 'racist' Israel etc.
What I say goes unnoticed. For instance, JB chose to completely ignore that I wrote 88% of Mandate Palestine (INCLUDING JORDAN, AS I SAID) went to the Arabs. Instead, he chose to forget I said "including Jordan" and went on to say "oh look how these evil Zionists twist facts because nothing they say is true blah blah."
I'm rather convinced what I've said is in fact the truth and if anyone else wants to debate points with me then I'm more than happy to do so - just keep it reasonable.