Who Can Claim the Palestine Region?

submitted by jet199 from unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]cunninglingus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A lovely bundle of the usual arguments for a nation of Israel. The easily question is answered by the British giving that territory to form a nation of Israel. All of the earler history doesn't matter. Land belongs to whomever takes it. Posession is 9/10ths of the law. Palestinians were given Gaza and the West Bank, also by international agreement. They OWN that land, according to the same agreement that gave Israel their land. Israel has repeatedly violated the original international agreement that divided the land, by TAKING Palestinian land and property. Those who refuse to honour the original international agreement are deciding to help Israel remove and genocide Palestinians. The ENTIRE region of Palestine is NOT Israel's. But Israel is in the slow process of taking it, with the help of corrupt people, while these Western groups also destabilize the middle east. The shadow costs have been non-stop wars in the region since 1948, wars that will continue, with severe consequences for all of us.

[–]jet199[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just conveniently leave out the fact that the Palestinians and all the other Arab countries rejected the UN plan to give them the West Bank and Gaza in favour of taking the land via combat (they lost).

How can you own land from a failed treaty never agreed to and turned down? That makes no sense.

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. It seems you are considering one or more of three different conflicts, after which Gaza and the West Bank retained their borders, with the help of Egypt and Jordan, among other nations.

The 'plan' was not related only to the UN, but to several international bodies, and there were several plans drawn up by these bodies, all of which recognizing most of the 1949 Gaza and West Bank boundaries, though Israel occupied these territories in 1967.

Agreements in 1949 and 1967 are very briefly summarized here, along with some of the violations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

Attempts at peace talks thereafter are briefly summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords#Framework_for_Peace_in_the_Middle_East

In all early treaties, the Gaza and West Bank borders were agreed, whereas removing Egypt and Jordan control was the initial main concern for Israel. After the removal of Egypt, Jordan and Syria (Labanon) influence from Israel's borders via treaties, Israel's focus has been to remove Palestinians. (Israel also used the US to remove Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and others as threats, at GREAT cost to the US.

My point is: Israel continued to violate agreements regarding the treatment of Palestinians within Gaza and the West Bank. To your point, when Israel occupied these territories in 1967, there was still the international agreement that Israel would not remove the Palestinians from those territories, or this would have prolonged tensions with Israel's neighbours, and especially with Egypt and Jordan. Gaza and West Bank remained Palestinian at that point, though they were occupied. Those territories were not the de facto property of Israel, or they would have had the rights to remove the residents. Indeed, Israel would use those territories as 'controlled opposition' in order to get $$$$$$$ billions in free military "aid" from the US to deal with those meanies, killing an average of several hundred innocent Palestinians each year.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"A lovely bundle of the usual arguments..." Or as most people like to call it, History. Seriously, this was a great breakdown of the history of the area and you throw that out for a political objective. Face the facts, Arab countries have tried to invade and wipe Israel off the map multiple times in the last century and they got their asses beat every time. To the victor go the spoils. And what's your alternative? Kick out all Jews from Israel and give it to the arabs? How does that jibe with history? By your logic, might as well give it back to the Turks. The Ottomans were the last official owners before the arabs or Israelis.

[–]cunninglingus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're not making a reasonable counter-argument with this word salad of clichés. And I won't respond to the off-topic nonsense about kicking out Jews or Arab invasions &c. You can read my other responses here in the thread if you are genuinely curious about my opinions.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Give it to Sweden.

[–]jet199[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They already have a large part of the population

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

😮

[–]TheMaharishi 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We get all the people living there anyway when they become refugees. So if we get the land. They can stay there?

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

After they nuke it send in the Haitians.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If this is propaganda, it's the best I have ever seen. It seems academically written. The analysis isn't complete, however. The article states that at some point promises were made for the creation of states. So, I'd say that a good way to resolve the problem is to figure out how big the land for those promises was and to just make Gaza bigger by replacing the sea with land and then potentially move some assets. An alternative is to take the countries that made those promises and make them pay (by e.g. giving parts of the UK to the Israelis).

It's assholes all the way down.

[–]jet199[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, it says the Palestinians were offered states and turned them down every time.

You have to accept a promise for it to follow through.

[–]cunninglingus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no reason for Palestinians to leave their homeland.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think I agree with you. The Jews did accept at least one proposal. I think I am most partial to the argument that since there are many Arab states that the existence of one Jewish state would make sense and an argument could be made that it's good for humanity to keep some Jews around for genetic diversity (and historically, they have been quite good at winning Nobel Prizes (I'd love to see scientifically proven whether if when you correct for wealth Jews are still smarter than Arabs)).