What if Britain had let all the Jews of Europe into Israel in the 30s?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple interesting links this one is about the making the desert bloom myth (also touches on demographics though)

This site clearly wears it's heart on it's sleeve! But I think it's most interesting when it quoting members of the early Zionist movement and how myths that have since developed gain say them

here's their page on the Mark Twain quote, anecdotal indeed!


This one's an article more about the changes in Zionism, but also talks about some interesting perspectives of the time and how early concerns are still pretty much valid in terms of the myths they concerned about
 


Well if we are going to use that as a definition, almost all of history and much of everything else human records is *Anecdotal*. The other problem here is that Anecdotal evidence is still evidence which must be considered and it only after consideration that it can be given weight.

The other issue is that many professional observers at the time also recorded their observation on the state of Palestine in this period and they confirmed what Mark Twain said. These cannot be dismissed as *Anecdotal*.




I confess I think this is a very dubious site but even putting that aside, what exactly on the page disputes what we are saying that the land was desolate and it had a very low population?
 
Well if we are going to use that as a definition, almost all of history and much of everything else human records is *Anecdotal*. The other problem here is that Anecdotal evidence is still evidence which must be considered and it only after consideration that it can be given weight.

The other issue is that many professional observers at the time also recorded their observation on the state of Palestine in this period and they confirmed what Mark Twain said. These cannot be dismissed as *Anecdotal*.
When a writer goes on a pilgrimmage and writes about what he sees, he's not trying to be scientific, he merely reports what he sees. He does not bother with numbers, research, questioning, or a thousand other scientific details that a proper scientific researcher or a proper census engages in.

You're just throwing a tantrum because your favorite piece of 'evidence' cannot be reasonably used as actual evidence, and hence are trying to taint everything else.

While Napoleon's quote about history being a well-written lie is valid in points, the period of 1900-1948 in Palestine was one of the most important and pivotal moments for the existence of two peoples, as it changed their destinies forever. It would be careless of them to not record it, which is why we have harder evidence than the memoirs of a traveling American novelist.
I confess I think this is a very dubious site but even putting that aside, what exactly on the page disputes what we are saying that the land was desolate and it had a very low population?
And if we were arguing for the Jewish side and you for the Arab one, we'd be using Israeli sites, some of which would be rather obviously pro-Zionist. And yet some of these would have reliable facts despite their obvious loyalties, and cannot be discounted out of hand.

Also, from the site:
Mark Twain often compared Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon to the fertile lands in the United States of America, which is clearly unfair. Both are in separate parts of the world, have different environments, different governments, ... etc.
The arable land percentage of Israel today is 14% according the to the CIA Worldbook - and bear in mind that's after decades of improvement and development. Palestine has some traditionally fertile land as I said, but the technology and advancement between the US and Palestine were incredibly disparate. He's comparing the Mississippi, the global bread basket, to a territory that has some good soil and a decent water table, but little else.

Quite frankly, we're not disputing it being poor and underdeveloped. But we are disputing that it was solely the Arabs' fault for being so.

And for all the "Jews made it bloom" bit, Israel has consistently gotten international aid from the United States that has only gone below US$50M per annum only four times (1951, 1957, 1964, 1967) and that after 1971 never dipped lower than a half-million dollars.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel-1949-present

If the Arabs had been getting that sort of money prior to 1900, I assure you, it would have been a very different Palestine, and certainly far more developed and populous. Quite frankly, I'm surprised by all the "Israeli paradise" quotes and speeches that seem to forget how much money the Israeli government has been getting without having to repay a dime.
https://www.wrmea.org/u.s.-aid-to-israel-1948-present.html
 
Well if we are going to use that as a definition, almost all of history and much of everything else human records is *Anecdotal*. The other problem here is that Anecdotal evidence is still evidence which must be considered and it only after consideration that it can be given weight.

The other issue is that many professional observers at the time also recorded their observation on the state of Palestine in this period and they confirmed what Mark Twain said. These cannot be dismissed as *Anecdotal*.

You are plainly straw manning here. I said that you cited ONE source which was my issue. Not that anecdotal sources are all useless.
 
From what I've seen is the arguement here is, arabs should be happy they were given Jordan and Lebanon as these should be part of isreal as well.
 
I don't know how accurate these figures are but I've seen figures that suggest Palestine's population was c.350,000 in 1850 and by 1900, it had grown to 600,000. This increase was due to a mix of immigration, a lot of Bosnian Muslims moved there after 1878, and natural increase. As a way of comparison, it is estimated that the global population in 1850 was about 1.2 billion and about 1.6 billion in 1900. I don't know about you but a 100% increase in the population when the global population grew much less doesn't really speak to me of a desolate land.

To an extent though, even engaging with the "land without people for a people without land" argument is dangerous because that legitimizes what has consistently been a tool of imperialism. European writers have regularly described non-European lands as either wild/untamed or decaying, which is then used explicitly to justify conquest so that Europeans can 'develop' the land. The next occasion I see where this line of reasoning hasn't been used as a means of displacing undesirable locals will also be the first.

Edit:

But to answer the OP, it would have been a disaster if actually attempted and that is making the generous assumption that most of Europe's Jews move to Palestine in the gap between just how bad the Nazis are becoming apperant and escape becoming impossible.
 
Not sure what you're talking about with this.
The argument bernadz uses is that the Mandate of Palestine originally included present-day Jordan as well, something he tries to sound as being generous since the Israelis weren't given that land on top of what they had. He also argues that the distinctions of Jordanian, Palestinian, Syrian, etc... are all artificial, and that the Palestinians should have just settled in the neighboring countries and gotten over the loss of Palestine already.

Lebanon was thrown in because he showed a map of Ancient Israel, and haider thought he was also going to drag the Lebanese into it. Technically, they only wanted South Lebanon, but we all know how that turned out, didn't it? :p
 
The argument bernadz uses is that the Mandate of Palestine originally included present-day Jordan as well, something he tries to sound as being generous since the Israelis weren't given that land on top of what they had. He also argues that the distinctions of Jordanian, Palestinian, Syrian, etc... are all artificial, and that the Palestinians should have just settled in the neighboring countries and gotten over the loss of Palestine already.

Lebanon was thrown in because he showed a map of Ancient Israel, and haider thought he was also going to drag the Lebanese into it. Technically, they only wanted South Lebanon, but we all know how that turned out, didn't it? :p
This^
This BTW side question if isreal got Jordan and lebenon how does this effect the arabic culture etc? Lebenon is pretty important in that and jordan i dunno (what is jordan known for?)
 
This^
This BTW side question if isreal got Jordan and lebenon how does this effect the arabic culture etc? Lebenon is pretty important in that and jordan i dunno (what is jordan known for?)
Each culture has its own differences and thumbprint to differ it from the next Arab culture. Lebanese are more mountainous, Palestinians are more farmers, Jordanians have more shepherds, etc... though the others exist in the other cultures. Differences in dialects and the way they pronounce certain words, bits of dress and uniform, etc... Furthermore, Jordanian cuisine tends to be more about rice, dairy, and meat while Lebanese cuisine is rather varied between vegetables, fruit, and meats.

One joke in Jordan is about a Jordanian man married to a Palestinian woman. She lays down the food, and he notices it's all vegetables and greens. He says "Woman, if I wanted to eat grass, I'd go graze with the sheep!"

But within this context, the Palestinians and Jordanians would commiserate over the loss of their homelands, and while there would be those trying to separate their sufferings for their own purposes (mainly "misery poker" or "my day sucked more than yours"), there would be the common sense of loss, struggle, and desire to regain what had been taken away by force.

The South Lebanese, by contrast, would have it rougher as they'd be seen as the redheaded stepchild (in a way). The Pals and Jordanians are primarily Sunni Muslims. The South Lebanese are almost entirely Shi'ites, a minority that's generally be downtrodden until the successes of Hezbollah brought them to the fore.
 
You are plainly straw manning here. I said that you cited ONE source which was my issue. Not that anecdotal sources are all useless.

I actually in a previous post quoted another one. I did not know that you wanted more.

If I went to a doctor and said the pills he gave me were making me sometimes sick but I cannot put a reason or place to it and I have not really looked into it, the doctor, even a judge in a trial or a policeman would not ignore my comments just because its anecdotal.
 
I hope you are going to discuss now and not just preach.

When a writer goes on a pilgrimmage and writes about what he sees, he's not trying to be scientific, he merely reports what he sees. He does not bother with numbers, research, questioning, or a thousand other scientific details that a proper scientific researcher or a proper census engages in.

Indeed but does not change anything in the discussion. It is still evidence and need to be considered.


..

And if we were arguing for the Jewish side and you for the Arab one, we'd be using Israeli sites, some of which would be rather obviously pro-Zionist. And yet some of these would have reliable facts despite their obvious loyalties, and cannot be discounted out of hand.

Irrelevant we are facts, not views.



..

If the Arabs had been getting that sort of money prior to 1900, I assure you, it would have been a very different Palestine, and certainly far more developed and populous. Quite frankly, I'm surprised by all the "Israeli paradise" quotes and speeches that seem to forget how much money the Israeli government has been getting without having to repay a dime.
https://www.wrmea.org/u.s.-aid-to-israel-1948-present.html

The first point you are confusing is Arab, most Israeli Jews are Arabs and Muslim and Christain Arabs who are citizens of Israel are about 3 million. The major dividing line is not between Jews and Arabs in this conflict but Jews and Arabs against intransigent Arabs. A large percentage of the Arabs despite what you say early did make a choice and that is not to go to war and compromise.

People make choices, the future is not fixed.

The next is that if you check the foreign aid Israel gets it is mainly for defence, not agriculture as you say etc.

Finally, you are wrong about the money, the Palestinians have received extremely large of sums of money from Arab states, from the USSR, the West and other sources. Much more foreign aid than almost any people in the world. What happens to the money read on.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/...llionaires-how-hamass-leaders-got-rich-quick/
 
Mr. Twain lived in Missouri... Twain could have gone out west to California and written about how staggeringly empty the whole place feels outside of a few cities and towns. He just wrote about Palestine because it was a foreign country and also holy land, so it was better fodder for writing.
The above could only be written by someone who knows almost nothing about Twain.

Twain grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, but he left home at age 18 to work as a printer in several cities, including New York. He also worked as a Mississippi steamboat pilot for several years, until the Civil War began. He then went out west - to Nevada, where his brother was secretary to the new Territorial Governor.

Twain spent the next few years in the West - trying his hand at mining, then as a reporter. He wrote an entire volume of memoirs about this period, called Roughing It. He also had success as a humor writer. In 1867, the San Francisco newspaper Alta California paid for Twain to join a group tour of Europe and the Near East, and send back letters about his experiences.

The letters were a great success. They were collected and published as The Innocents Abroad, a best-seller which made Twain rich. He married the sister of a fellow tourist and settled in upstate New York, then in Connecticut. He never lived in Missouri again.

The Innocents Abroad covers France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Syria, the "Holy Land", and Egypt. There are eleven chapters on the "Holy Land", because it was particularly interesting to the Bible-reading American public. But that is less than a fifth of the whole book. It isn't "about" Palestine.
 
I hope you are going to discuss now and not just preach.
I have been discussing, you're just throwing disingenuous arguments.
Indeed but does not change anything in the discussion. It is still evidence and need to be considered.
It is an anecdote by a writer, who spent time in the Holy Land and wrote it from his perspective. It is clearly neither impartial nor attempting to be, as witness his dismissive, practically contemptuous description of several Islamic landmarks and Ottoman rule and cities. It's clear this was written in the days of the weakening Ottoman Empire, gradually breaking down from overextension and crippling debt. It's to be expected the Ottoman lands would be backwards and poorer than Europe; this is not a sign of desolation, merely of a third world country in the making.
Irrelevant we are facts, not views.
Which I've been doing for the past several posts. You've tried to dismiss a Palestinian website for dismissing your almost religious attachment to Mark Twain's writing, and my response was that many websites discussing the Palestinian-Israeli issue tend to be one or the other, and have a tendency to show their allegiance. There are certainly neutral websites, but the sides most passionately arguing for one side or another are the ones who try to present the most facts, thus inevitably tainting their facts in someone's eyes.

Also, all Twain's writing proves was that Palestine was small and underdeveloped as a region. The use of "Devastation" is theatrics.
The first point you are confusing is Arab, most Israeli Jews are Arabs and Muslim and Christain Arabs who are citizens of Israel are about 3 million. The major dividing line is not between Jews and Arabs in this conflict but Jews and Arabs against intransigent Arabs. A large percentage of the Arabs despite what you say early did make a choice and that is not to go to war and compromise.
Might need to work on your nouns there, buddy.

Yes, the IDF recruits Arab auxiliaries, and has a few Arab units in it. Problem is, these people are not viewed very kindly by the rest of the Palestinian Arabs. To give a comparison, the French have words to say about the SS-Charlemagne division, and the Algerian harkis are now all exiles in France. Hell, the SLA officers had to learn to live in Israel because France wouldn't accept them after Lebanon made loud protests. They live in a moral and legal grey area, very much disliked by others of their former group, and have to rely on continued Israeli goodwill. And for the most part, it's recognized they're not doing this on their own but at the orders of IDF command.
People make choices, the future is not fixed.
And yet the options one has are often limited by the aftereffects of the past and the limitations of the present.
The next is that if you check the foreign aid Israel gets it is mainly for defence, not agriculture as you say etc.
And every penny Israel doesn't have to pay for its defense is a penny going towards agriculture, development, and industry.
Finally, you are wrong about the money, the Palestinians have received extremely large of sums of money from Arab states, from the USSR, the West and other sources. Much more foreign aid than almost any people in the world. What happens to the money read on.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/...llionaires-how-hamass-leaders-got-rich-quick/
Which still pale against the amounts paid not only by the USA, but channeled through organizations such as the B'nai Brith Intl. and other Jewish charities, which have considerable influence in the West. The USSR has never given money as generously as the USA has, and while the USA has made generous aid to Arab countries, it all comes with strings attached, unlike what is paid to Israel, and the average paid to the Middle East per country is way below what Israel receives per annum.
https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/ISR

While I concede the fact that the Palestinian leadership is rather kleptocratic, the argument in this thread is that the Palestinian territory was underdeveloped not because of wanton malice, but of the natural geopolitical situation of the times. Also, people tend to notice less the politician sucking dollars out of their wallet and more the people in F-16s blowing up everything they've lived in and worked hard to earn.

And your repeated arguments that the Palestinians should have just "gotten over it" are ludicrous. While the 1992 Oslo talks were the beginning of the Palestinians "getting over it", it was soon realized that they were getting a deal that would favor Israel, as Israel sped up procedures that would dump Palestinians from Israel into Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel has been repeatedly taking slices and chunks out of it, building settlements and favoring settlers over its citizens in more traditional places like the Tel Aviv metropolitan area who just want the peace treaty over and done with so they can turn to more peaceful ventures. The settlers, by contrast, are voting for people like Tsibi Levni, who advocated moving Arab towns over to the Palestinian side and Bib Netanyahu, who constantly bellows about security and defense, repeatedly souring US-Arab and US-Iranian relations just to gain more votes with the average Israeli. Tsibi Livni has since retired, but she is just one of many right-wing politicians with agendas that encourage building more settlements and trying to squeeze more out of the peace deal, or overturning the peace negotiations entirely. When the other guy votes loud, angry people into office, you're more likely to drop the moderates and try calling for the violent radicals yourself to balance them out.

Also, you used the example of the German loss of Kaliningrad and that they've gotten over it, and that the Palestinians should too. By that logic, one would say the Irish Catholics should have gotten over it - but then the Good Friday Agreements finally came out with a solution that the Catholics can accept, after decades if not centuries of a Protestant boot on Catholic neck.
http://education.niassembly.gov.uk/post_16/snapshots_of_devolution/gfa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Basically, in 1930 the Irish got most of their island back except Ulster, where British rule continued and the Protestant militias tended to have run of the place. By your argument, the Irish Catholics should have been glad they got 80% of their land back. But instead, the PIRA persisted, kept up its pressure on the British government, and through its efforts exasperated the British into finally giving up and giving them what they wanted. Not "getting over it", I'd say, worked very well for them.

Coincidentally, the IRA and the Palestinian guerrilla groups tended to be close buddies during the 1970s and 1980s, often sharing intel and resources. And when one team holds out until they get a good deal while the other tries peace negotiations only to get repeatedly snubbed or make repeated concessions, which side do you think people will remember won?
The above could only be written by someone who knows almost nothing about Twain.

Twain grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, but he left home at age 18 to work as a printer in several cities, including New York. He also worked as a Mississippi steamboat pilot for several years, until the Civil War began. He then went out west - to Nevada, where his brother was secretary to the new Territorial Governor.

Twain spent the next few years in the West - trying his hand at mining, then as a reporter. He wrote an entire volume of memoirs about this period, called Roughing It. He also had success as a humor writer. In 1867, the San Francisco newspaper Alta California paid for Twain to join a group tour of Europe and the Near East, and send back letters about his experiences.

The letters were a great success. They were collected and published as The Innocents Abroad, a best-seller which made Twain rich. He married the sister of a fellow tourist and settled in upstate New York, then in Connecticut. He never lived in Missouri again.

The Innocents Abroad covers France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Syria, the "Holy Land", and Egypt. There are eleven chapters on the "Holy Land", because it was particularly interesting to the Bible-reading American public. But that is less than a fifth of the whole book. It isn't "about" Palestine.
And I concede the point. The problem is, this particular entry has become a contested point in this thread because bernardz is holding on to it tightly as proof that the Palestinians basically fucked up their land and that they deserved to have it given to someone more worthy. Or something like that.

Thing is, it's clear Twain wasn't trying to give a fair shake to the Arabs or Ottomans here, and we're talking about a man who reacted to an Englishman poking fun at Americans as louts and ignorant yokels by tearing into the Arthurian mythos so fiercely that the English literary scene reacted as though he had marched into Buckingham Palace and took a giant steaming shit on Queen Victoria herself. So naturally, Twain used overly dramatic language about those silly foreigners and their backwards ways.
 
Poland had centuries of infrastructure and historically more developed lands.

The Jews being poor in Poland is because they were generally regarded as the scum of the earth, forced to live in ghettos and despised by the Polish population. Hell, some Poles were eager to let Hitler in because they thought he'd rid them of their Jew problem. It's about then he made it clear he also had a "Poland problem" he intended to solve.

Well written. You have just forgot to add that Poles sucked anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk...and so on.
 
I have been discussing, you're just throwing disingenuous arguments.
It is an anecdote by a writer, who spent time in the Holy Land and wrote it from his perspective. It is clearly neither impartial nor attempting to be, as witness his dismissive, practically contemptuous description of several Islamic landmarks and Ottoman rule and cities. It's clear this was written in the days of the weakening Ottoman Empire, gradually breaking down from overextension and crippling debt. It's to be expected the Ottoman lands would be backwards and poorer than Europe; this is not a sign of desolation, merely of a third world country in the making.

Its still evidence and must be considered particularly as it

Which I've been doing for the past several posts. You've tried to dismiss a Palestinian website for dismissing your almost religious attachment to Mark Twain's writing, and my response was that many websites discussing the Palestinian-Israeli issue tend to be one or the other, and have a tendency to show their allegiance. There are certainly neutral websites, but the sides most passionately arguing for one side or another are the ones who try to present the most facts, thus inevitably tainting their facts in someone's eyes.

There are other sources that I and others quoted all saying the same thing which you ignored.

Also, all Twain's writing proves was that Palestine was small and underdeveloped as a region. The use of "Devastation" is theatrics.


Actually, I never quoted that Twain said "that Palestine was small" what I quoted was the " smallness of the city of Jerusalem". So you have not read the quote I supplied nor the discussion that it shows which was not concerned with either of your two points "Palestine was small and underdeveloped as a region". Clearly what you are doing is strawman arguments again.



Might need to work on your nouns there, buddy.

Yes, the IDF recruits Arab auxiliaries, and has a few Arab units in it. Problem is, these people are not viewed very kindly by the rest of the Palestinian Arabs. To give a comparison, the French have words to say about the SS-Charlemagne division, and the Algerian harkis are now all exiles in France. Hell, the SLA officers had to learn to live in Israel because France wouldn't accept them after Lebanon made loud protests. They live in a moral and legal grey area, very much disliked by others of their former group, and have to rely on continued Israeli goodwill. And for the most part, it's recognized they're not doing this on their own but at the orders of IDF command.


I was talking the Muslim, Christain, Druze etc Arab people who are citizens of Israel. Please you are not reading what people are writing here.

PS Have you done a search on Arab soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces, let me google this for you

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ara...ZFAKHezODKgQ_AUIDigB&biw=2294&bih=818&dpr=1.5

They do not look like just auxiliaries. It should also be added that these soldiers volunteer


And yet the options one has are often limited by the aftereffects of the past and the limitations of the present.

Well millions of Israeli Muslims, Christians, etc Arabs show it was a real option.

And every penny Israel doesn't have to pay for its defense is a penny going towards agriculture, development, and industry.

Which still pale against the amounts paid not only by the USA, but channeled through organizations such as the B'nai Brith Intl. and other Jewish charities, which have considerable influence in the West. The USSR has never given money as generously as the USA has, and while the USA has made generous aid to Arab countries, it all comes with strings attached, unlike what is paid to Israel, and the average paid to the Middle East per country is way below what Israel receives per annum.
https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/ISR

Indeed Israel large defence spending is holding it back. Without this conflict, Israel would be much richer.




While I concede the fact that the Palestinian leadership is rather kleptocratic, the argument in this thread is that the Palestinian territory was underdeveloped not because of wanton malice, but of the natural geopolitical situation of the times. Also, people tend to notice less the politician sucking dollars out of their wallet and more the people in F-16s blowing up everything they've lived in and worked hard to earn.


Agreed people are not looking at the problem which is the Palestinian leadership but distracted by the glitter the F-16, which if you think about it is only there because of the lousy policies this leadership.

Now for those like you that who suffer historical amnesia, let me point out that the Palestinians had several democratic elections and they have chosen this path. Whether they voted knowingly, they were duped, they were ignorant or complacent, is irrelevant. People they deserve, the leadership they elect - “Elections have consequences.”

And your repeated arguments that the Palestinians should have just "gotten over it" are ludicrous. While the 1992 Oslo talks were the beginning of the Palestinians "getting over it", it was soon realized that they were getting a deal that would favor Israel, as Israel sped up procedures that would dump Palestinians from Israel into Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel has been repeatedly taking slices and chunks out of it, building settlements and favoring settlers over its citizens in more traditional places like the Tel Aviv metropolitan area who just want the peace treaty over and done with so they can turn to more peaceful ventures. The settlers, by contrast, are voting for people like Tsibi Levni, who advocated moving Arab towns over to the Palestinian side and Bib Netanyahu, who constantly bellows about security and defense, repeatedly souring US-Arab and US-Iranian relations just to gain more votes with the average Israeli. Tsibi Livni has since retired, but she is just one of many right-wing politicians with agendas that encourage building more settlements and trying to squeeze more out of the peace deal, or overturning the peace negotiations entirely. When the other guy votes loud, angry people into office, you're more likely to drop the moderates and try calling for the violent radicals yourself to balance them out.

Also, you used the example of the German loss of Kaliningrad and that they've gotten over it, and that the Palestinians should too. By that logic, one would say the Irish Catholics should have gotten over it - but then the Good Friday Agreements finally came out with a solution that the Catholics can accept, after decades if not centuries of a Protestant boot on Catholic neck.
http://education.niassembly.gov.uk/post_16/snapshots_of_devolution/gfa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Basically, in 1930 the Irish got most of their island back except Ulster, where British rule continued and the Protestant militias tended to have run of the place. By your argument, the Irish Catholics should have been glad they got 80% of their land back. But instead, the PIRA persisted, kept up its pressure on the British government, and through its efforts exasperated the British into finally giving up and giving them what they wanted. Not "getting over it", I'd say, worked very well for them.

Coincidentally, the IRA and the Palestinian guerrilla groups tended to be close buddies during the 1970s and 1980s, often sharing intel and resources. And when one team holds out until they get a good deal while the other tries peace negotiations only to get repeatedly snubbed or make repeated concessions, which side do you think people will remember won?

And I concede the point. The problem is, this particular entry has become a contested point in this thread because bernardz is holding on to it tightly as proof that the Palestinians basically fucked up their land and that they deserved to have it given to someone more worthy. Or something like that.

Thing is, it's clear Twain wasn't trying to give a fair shake to the Arabs or Ottomans here, and we're talking about a man who reacted to an Englishman poking fun at Americans as louts and ignorant yokels by tearing into the Arthurian mythos so fiercely that the English literary scene reacted as though he had marched into Buckingham Palace and took a giant steaming shit on Queen Victoria herself. So naturally, Twain used overly dramatic language about those silly foreigners and their backwards ways.

see above
 
Its still evidence and must be considered particularly as it
And we countered it's not particularly good evidence, especially given the rather inflammatory text, calling Muslims "Heathens", and comparing a mosque to a barn. As much as Mark Twain is a landmark in American literature, the text in question was specifically written to inflame emotions, something which puts its objectivity into question.

And again, all it proves that Palestine was not as well developed or as rich as, say, the US East coast of the same time period. Nor should it have been logically.
There are other sources that I and others quoted all saying the same thing which you ignored.
You quoted like two or three sources, one of which was Mark Twain's writing. The other was about Gaza Hamas leaders growing rich and one about the Druze and Arab soldiers in the IDF.
Actually, I never quoted that Twain said "that Palestine was small" what I quoted was the " smallness of the city of Jerusalem". So you have not read the quote I supplied nor the discussion that it shows which was not concerned with either of your two points "Palestine was small and underdeveloped as a region". Clearly what you are doing is strawman arguments again.[/quote]
No, I was not. You brought up the argument to show that the region had room to spare for the Israelis, and that many Arab cities were small and felt empty. My counter was that it was only natural, as the historic region of Palestine was poor and rural, having a decent amount of arable land in certain spots but overall lacking infrastructure and technology to support a larger population.
I was talking the Muslim, Christain, Druze etc Arab people who are citizens of Israel. Please you are not reading what people are writing here.

PS Have you done a search on Arab soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces, let me google this for you

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ara...ZFAKHezODKgQ_AUIDigB&biw=2294&bih=818&dpr=1.5

They do not look like just auxiliaries. It should also be added that these soldiers volunteer
The Druze are an ethnic group that chose in the frame of ethnic struggle; the Arab Nationalist movements were largely Sunni, and the Druze leadership distrusted them and the surrounding Arab governments (which were largely Sunni too). That was not a belief in peace, but an act of allying with whichever side best serves their interest.

I do not begrudge the Druze their choice; the Middle East has long been a troublesome, turbulent region, and a balance of power is always a tricky thing.
Well millions of Israeli Muslims, Christians, etc Arabs show it was a real option.
http://www.kairospalestine.ps/index.php/about-us/kairos-palestine-document

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...eflects-governmental-responsibility-1.6140133

Somehow that doesn't show it as being a fair peace. Just one guy with more guns than the other. While the cycle of violence has exacerbated things, the peaceful solutions have been repeatedly been tested and found wanting. Israel was repeatedly requested to stop building settlements, but continues to create settlements clandestinely and then retroactively legalizes them. That is Israel's MO; the fait accompli. It does something, then dares you to take it back.

My point here is, the peaceful solution was tested, but was repeatedly vandalized by successive radical and not-so-radical Israeli governments, all trying to sound harder and tougher than the last and continuing on a path that jeopardizes the Palestinians' chances of keeping anything of worth.
Indeed Israel large defence spending is holding it back. Without this conflict, Israel would be much richer.
And very little of that money will ever see its way to the Arabs, Christian or Muslim.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-less-than-half-the-funding-of-jews-1.5427909

https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-how-much-do-the-settlements-really-cost-1001171248

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-pouring-money-west-bank-settlements-report

The settlements aren't that big, and house several thousands in contested territory. While Israel's population is not that high, most of the Israelis live - as I have noted before - in the Tel Aviv greater metropolitan area, around Haifa up north, and in and around Jerusalem. These settlements are a pissing match designed to force a situation on the ground while the peace negotiations meander on.
Agreed people are not looking at the problem which is the Palestinian leadership but distracted by the glitter the F-16, which if you think about it is only there because of the lousy policies this leadership.

Now for those like you that who suffer historical amnesia, let me point out that the Palestinians had several democratic elections and they have chosen this path. Whether they voted knowingly, they were duped, they were ignorant or complacent, is irrelevant. People they deserve, the leadership they elect - “Elections have consequences.”
They voted for the PLO, who offered a fair peace, and didn't get it. They got nothing. So they voted for HAMAS. That's how it went. They tried to give peace a chance, and all they got was nothing.

And then the PLA just gave up, with Mahmoud Abbas's breakdown at Trump's unilateral decision which basically blocked the door on the Palestinian moderates. So you know, American elections, which the Arabs had no say in, also had consequences.

So much for choice.

Furthermore, the HAMAS government was only in power since 2006. They weren't responsible for the situation in Palestine before that, and the PLO only took control since 1994. The big issue of contention which brought this up is that Israel had billions of dollars worth of aid to build up and develop its economy, something which has since allowed the desert "to bloom under Jewish custodianship", but has been conveniently ignored by many a starry-eyed westerner.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top