Is it fair to compare French Algeria with the West Bank?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#21
Is this sort of thing to be universally applied to everybody else?
Well, it applied to Poland after the end of World War II--but that was only after Hitler raped Poland. Before World War II, a Polish claim on territories because Poland controlled these territories in 1100 or whatever would have been dismissed as completely laughable!
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,067
#22
Well, it applied to Poland after the end of World War II--but that was only after Hitler raped Poland. Before World War II, a Polish claim on territories because Poland controlled these territories in 1100 or whatever would have been dismissed as completely laughable!
pretty dubious. I don't think Stalin was motivated by matter if principle. The claim was Stalin and the red Army wished.
 
Aug 2018
19
Canada
#23
Simply not true, for starters Israeli forces had already engaged in invasion of the proposed Arab state, massacres and ethnic cleansing predated any actions by the various Arab states. Israeli invasion of the Arab state came first.

Secondly the Arab Legion (Jordanian army) never entered the proposed Jewish partition state, had strict orders NOT to do so, and Jordan had sought an understanding with the Zionist leadership before hand. In no way were the Jordanian forces actually invading the proposed Jewish partition state. They were in competition with the Zionist forces over which of them got to conquer which parts of the proposed Arab partition state. generally the Arab states were opposed to an independent Palestinian state,
So you're contradicting your last bold assertion/Slander.
IAC, and undeniably, there was a war BECAUSE the Arabs rejected the partition/Sharing.
Their acceptance would have ended the tensions.



But the Israelis prevent those living in East Jersalem fro voting in them.
You tried a/another false non sequitur assertion about Palestinians not voting in Israeli elections. I busted it.

The primary purpose of the Mandate was to prepare the population of Palestine for Independence. The tack on about a Jewish National home means what ? no one ever defined it and that was deliberately so,
Another Lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Key_issues

Key issues
National home for the Jewish people (Preamble and Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 11)


The Preamble of the mandate document declared:

the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[55]​


How is that of any relevance what so ever. How does the existence of a population of an ethnic group in a nation give full rights to every other member of the ethnic group wherever they live in the world.
? Empty/goofy strawman.

Does the presence of along standing Are population give all Arabs wherever they reside rights in Paletsine?
Huh?

PS2.
Still waiting for an answer to my initial busting of your slanderous claim.
Again:
The Arab population of palestine grew significantly in all but one decade of Jewish settlement 1880-1940.
 
Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#24
pretty dubious. I don't think Stalin was motivated by matter if principle. The claim was Stalin and the red Army wished.
That's probably true, but the Poles did use this information as propaganda. They claimed that these were historically Polish lands which had to get their Polishness restored.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#25
So you're contradicting your last bold assertion/Slander.
IAC, and undeniably, there was a war BECAUSE the Arabs rejected the partition/Sharing.
Their acceptance would have ended the tensions.
Who attacked first, though? The Arabs, right? After all, I seem to recall Israel's founding being followed almost immediately by five Arab declarations of war.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#26
The Zionists "accepted" the partition then immediately embarked on a war on conquest on teh Palestinian state along with ethic cleanings and massacres. It a strange version of acceptance.
Who attacked first, though? Israel or the Arabs?

Israel prevents all Palestinians from voting in elections.
In Israeli elections. It generally has no problems with them voting in Palestinian elections.

As for Israeli Arabs, they can vote but their parties are always excluded from Israeli governing coalitions.

Maybe there was some non counting of Bedouin, it's possible it actually had a Jewish minority.
That's conjecture, but in any case, the Jewish state ended up losing Jaffa in the final draft of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Thus, any additional Bedouins would have to be weighed against the Arabs in Jaffa who were taken out of the proposed Jewish state.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,067
#27
So you're contradicting your last bold assertion/Slander.
IAC, and undeniably, there was a war BECAUSE the Arabs rejected the partition/Sharing.
Their acceptance would have ended the tensions.
You still have not addressed the point the Israeli invasion came first.

And 5 arab armies did Not invade the proposed Israeli state,

No they would not have. The Zionist leadership was always very interested in expansion regardless of the initial boundaries. They always internally stressed their claim to the entirety, During meetings with the British and French in 1956 in teh plotting for the Suez crisis war they asked for the west bank, Golan and southern Lebanon.

You a/another false non sequitur assertion about Palestinians not voting in Israeli elections. I busted it.
Where>? How I see no refutation?

Another Lie
Not a "tack on.
No the primary purpose of the mandate was preparing the population all the population for Independence in the immediate future,. that was the basis that mandates rested upon.

And on what basis did the British Empire get to decide these things? Whats the principle at work here?
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,067
#28
Who attacked first, though? Israel or the Arabs?
.
the Israelis.

In Israeli elections. It generally has no problems with them voting in Palestinian elections.
Those who leave in Jerusalem have been prevented from voting in Palestinian elections (thogh I note it's been a while so). East Jerusalem is part of the west bank. Those who have accepted Israeli citizenship cann vote in Israeli elections.


That's conjecture, but in any case, the Jewish state ended up losing Jaffa in the final draft on the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Thus, any additional Bedouins would have to be weighed against the Arabs in Jaffa who were taken out of the proposed Jewish state.
The Jaffa Arabs were already counted. Just the British had not really counting the Bedouin in their census there was not time so their population was really rough estimates.

But the partition gave most of the land to a 1/3 of the population including amost all the coast, the ports and the most fertile land. It was a totally maximalist solution to partition from a Jewish perspective, only what 10,000 jews would be on wrong side of the border versus 400,000 Arabs , 0.2% of Jews being disadvantaged versus about 35% of Arabs. It was hardly anything close to fair.

The Partition vote only passed to bribery and intimidation.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Reports_of_pressure_for_and_against_the_Plan
 
Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,716
SoCal
#29
Why'd they attack?

Those who leave in Jerusalem have been prevented from voting in Palestinian elections (thogh I note it's been a while so). East Jerusalem is part of the west bank. Those who have accepted Israeli citizenship cann vote in Israeli elections.
That's why I said "generally" here. East Jerusalem appears to be an exception to the rule.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,067
#30
Why'd they attack?
Conquest of the proposed Arab state of course. or at least parts of it. There are a mix of factors at play, defense/expansion. It's hard to isolate. the Arab states were waiting for the formal lapse of the mandate. Jordanian actions are heavily dictated/controlled by Britain, the Arab Legion still had British officers , the Jordanian annexation of the west bank had been fully approved by the British , as well as the stipulation by the British not to enter Israeli Territory. Te Arab Legion was the best force in the war. The British had not resupplied teh Arab Legion before the war deliberately, which left them pretty short of Ammunition.

The Jordanian and British talked, the Israelis and Jordanians talked. Exactly what understandings is a little murky, other that the Limitations of sphere of action.

In reality both sides knew that no one was going accept anything. If the vote had gone the other way exactly nothing would have changed except some of the justification arguments afterwards.

There had been on going civil war in Palestine, the Zionist leadership would not accept any evacuation from any settlement which in effect they would expand to "protect" those settlements, there was a definite plan ion triangle the narrow waist of Palestine.

The British hated al Hussenni though they in large part created him, they selected him teh guy who came fourth in the election, they massively expanded the powers of the Mufti and handed over control of money which enabled him to become so dominate. The Jewish Agency opposed any representative intuitions for the Mandate, and opposed elections to the briefly proposed Arab Agency. her was on the real badly missed opportunities in the relatively early and quite days of the Mandate, (and clearly in breech of the mandate fundamentals of preparing the population for fairly immediate independence) an elected leadership of the Arab population would have been much more moderate.

One of the Jewish population leaders was assassinated by the Jewish radicals for serious pursing dialog with Arabs about a one state solution., and Al Hussenni terrorised or assassinated moderate Arab leaders later, in the 1948 the Palestinian population had almost no role other than local defense. the various arab states had no desire to arm the Palestinian population, as they had no desire for independent Palestinian state, most of the Palestinian leadership viewed politics as very dangerous and likely to get them killed by Al Husseini's thugs.