Palestine history??

**Bigfella** · 24 Feb 10,, 21:19

Originally Posted by bigross86

First we start with accepting that Israel indeed has the same validity as a state that yours has. We'll go from there.

Never a question in my mind BR, not at any time since I was aware that such a place existed. I do have a quibble or two with some of the territory Israel occupies, but that doesn't speak to the validity of the state as a whole.

To put this in context, China claims to trace a more or less continuous civilization in the same place for 4000 years (a bit of mythmaking there, but enough truth for this example). This whups pretty much everyone else's arses. I don't consider the Chinese state any more or less valid or 'morally valid' or whatever than Australia, Israel or Timor Leste (or anyone else).

**Aussiegunner** · 25 Feb 10,, 13:19

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Sorry, but that is just a bizarre argument. What 'relationship' do Palestineans have to the historic dispossession of Jews? Why is it any more suitable for them to be disposessed than any other random group? The misfortune to live in an area that was a Jewish state several millenia ago? Sorry, won't wash.

If you read my previous posts properly you will see that I have made it quite clear that I don't think that the jews had the right to disposess individual Palestineans of their land. As you say, its not Yasser's fault that the Yihtzak's ancestors was kicked out of the area in 1AD and in any case, Yihtzak couldn't tell us exactly where his ancestors had lived then anyway. I merely think that the jews had and still have the right to immigrate to the place based on their historical attachment to it. Once they got there it should have been up to them to buy or rent land as needed. Many did and that is fine, but I don't agree with the confiscations and think that the Palestineans should be compensated for where that happenned. I even think that they should have the right of return, contingent on them adopting civilised behaviour.

As for who governs the place, I subscribe to the liberal zionist view that Israel/Palestine should have been a secular state in which both groups could live. I don't know if that is still possible now, but since we are talking about history this is the way that it should have been.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

All the peoples you listed (and any others under European rule at the time) were in exactly the same position as Palestineans in the C19th and early C20th - subjects of a foreign empire. Zionist settlers had just as valid a claim to land controlled by the French, British, Spanish or Germans as they did to land controlled by Ottomans. Being conquered sucks.

I simply don't accept that the claim to Israel is any more valid than that of any other settler society (ours included). I also believe that a majority Jewish state that could trace its settlement back to the 1850s & hold its territory militarily would have the same validity as Israel.

I can trace my family's history in Australia back to the 1780s & 1840s. The last migrant was before the C20th. Few Israelis can claim any of the above, let alone all of it. The fact that a very tiny handful can claim longer occupation doesn't magically grant extra validity to the others. Their state is as vaild as mine. No more, no less.

Well you can subscribe to the view that just because the Jews were kicked out for a certain period of time that their claim to be able to live there was null and void if you like but I won't. The fact that the decendants of the Jewish disporia lived outside of Israel for up to 2000 years has any bearing on the validity of their claim, and think that there are very sound moral reasons for holding this position. As far as I am concerned if a group is booted out of a place then the claim lasts as long as the group is identifiable as the wronged group and as long as they want to continue to stake the claim. Otherwise you are just saying that might is right and that as long as you can impose yourself for a certain period of time, then the other group has to wear it.

Obviously how long the current occupants have been there has to be considered and disposessing them for the sins of their distant ancestors is definately not right, but if some sort accomodation can be reached to meet the needs of both groups then it should be sought.

**Coup De Grace** · 21 Mar 10,, 13:56

I will skip to your second question seeing as the first one gets enough attention, I don't think that the Palestinians take any meaningful side anymore, the Palestinian authority is pretty powerless now, Hamas are the ones that really has any influence, and I'd at least like to think that most of the Palestinians disagree with their ways and can't be heard out. Who's more wrong, Israel or Hamas? DEFINITELY Hamas. The Palestinians need better leadership if they ever want to achieve anything close to peace.

**Aranthus** · 06 Dec 11,, 19:04

Originally Posted by penguinsfeet

Hi there,

I have two questions:-

Does anyone know of a concise web based history of Palestine and Israel, from early times to present day? I am looking for almost day to day or week to week really within reason. <edit> (yes, by concise, I guess I mean along the lines of a timeline of facts as apposed to a novel). I would also be interested in any really detailed books you may know of.

Second question.

Who is more in the wrong “down there” at the moment in your opinion?

Thanks in advance

Steve

In answer to your first question, the best website I have been able to find is Middle East: MidEastWeb Check in the reference section for their timeline and history. This is one of the least biased sites I know of. As far as books, you could try "Elusive Victory" by Trevor DuPuy, although that's more on the military history. Also, War and Peace in the Middle East by Avi Schlaim or Righteous Victims by Benny Morris, although the Left leaning bias of both is farily obvious.

As to your second question. I'm with bigross on this one. Both sides are in the wrong, but the Israelis less so. That determination is going to be based on one issue. Did the Jews living in Palestine in 1947 have the right to create their own state on those parts of Palestine where they were the majority? If you answer that question yes, then the Palestinians are primarily at fault for starting the war to deprive the Jews of that state. If you answer it no, then the Israelis are mostly at fault for being where they shouldn't be. I answer the question yes, so I think that the Palestinians are more at fault than the Israelis.

**snapper** · 09 Dec 11,, 15:40

Palestine was called 'Palestine' after the Philistines but some Roman Emperor who's name escapes me... Titus or Hadrian I think. Of course the Philistines were arounf before the Mohammed and so were 'pagan' but they were in modern Israel before the Jews. If it's a matter of which religion is older then the Jews win obviously. If it's a question of who was there first and how they can be identified now I am not sure any of them a direct claim and certainly dividing the merits of both claims is impossible.

**USSWisconsin** · 09 Dec 11,, 18:00

Both sides are in the wrong

Probably - doing bad things rarely gets good results. Both sides seem to keep trying that. Given that Israel has the upper hand, it is stronger, richer and better educated; what could be done by them to fix this? In the same vein - Palestine needs to stop lashing out and justifying everything bad that Israel does by commiting terrorism against them. It won't work - ever - Israel is tough - they will always respond to attacks with more violence - and they have better ways to inflict it.

I think Palestine needs a Martin Luther King type leader, someone who can enforce a non-violence rule, and go to the table with Israel, acknowleging that they too have the right to exist. Looking back thousands of years doesn't help decide who owns what today - where else would that make any sense?

**astralis** · 19 Dec 11,, 15:27

Wisconsin,

I think Palestine needs a Martin Luther King type leader, someone who can enforce a non-violence rule, and go to the table with Israel, acknowleging that they too have the right to exist.

between the real and the ideal, i honestly think the current PA combo is about as best as it gets for israel.

the thing with israel, though, is that it has very little incentive to negotiate with the Palestinians. the current PA leadership is giving israel precisely what israel largely wants from the Palestinians-- peace and quiet-- at little cost. certainly not the big costs politically that a land exchange would entail.

herein is the central problem between israelis and palestinians: whatever leverage palestinians have over israelis come from violence. but, as you note, when it comes to dealing out violence palestinians tend to come out the loser.

that's why, given the current historic lows of violence, israel would be well advised to take the first formal step. there is very little politically that palestinians can further offer without sparking serious unrest...and unlike the israelis, they don't have the institutions just yet to absorb such unrest.