Iranian Ambassador Makes Inflammatory Remarks About Holocaust

[ParanoiA]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235279,00.html

 

I don't know if anyone is really interested in stirring this subject up, but watching the video that goes along with this article reminded me of that nagging question I've never received a satisfactory answer for...Why did the UN choose that particular stretch of land we know as Israel?

 

Why did the UN decide that palestinians shall pay the price and force them to move?

 

Why don't we understand how that would be unacceptable and would likely be militarily rejected by most of the powers involved in that process if it was imposed on them?

 

Ok...I guess that's three questions. But the first one is the most burning.

[ecoli]

Why did[/i'] the UN choose that particular stretch of land we know as Israel?

 

Historical and religious regions. The UN actually proposed a different land first, somewhere in Africa, but the zionists rejected that proposal.

 

Why did the UN decide that palestinians shall pay the price and force them to move?

A common, but understandable misconception. Jews didn't just to move into Israel when it was created. Jews started immigrating to the British-colony of Palestine starting in the late 1800's. After the Holocaust, immigration to Palestine became even greater. All land owned by Jews was legally purchased (AFAIK). By 1948, there was already a sizable population of Jews living in the region.

 

The second misconception, is that, there has never been any legal action taken to remove Palestinians from Israel. In 1948, self-created refugees left Israel, seeking entry into neighboring Muslim nations. By and large, they were denied entry into these countries, and resettled themselves in places like the West bank. Around this time, anti-Semetic sentiments flared up in these nations, and many Jews, who had lived peacefully in this nations until that point, were forced to move out (most to Israel).

 

Israel was never meant to be a country of exclusion. It a nation filled of people who do not fit anywhere else. Jews from Russia to Ethiopa have found safe haven there, chased out of their homelands due to anti-Semitism and persecution.

 

By and large, modern Israelis have no ill will towards Palestinians, and see security measures that are harmful to Palestinians as a necesary evil that protects them from their own deaths. Many Israelis currently support a two state solution (sorry, don't have an exact number).

 

Why don't we understand how that would be unacceptable and would likely be militarily rejected by most of the powers involved in that process if it was imposed on them?

 

If the situation was that black and white, then there wouldn't be any debate about it. But, it's not. And unfortunately, most people these days are basing their opinions off of faulty or incomplete histories.

 

And, I know that my little history up there is not complete. Not every Jew loves palestinians, or have treated them approprately in the past. But, if we actually want peace, then I think it's time to start forgiving past injustices, don't you?

 

edit: 4000 posts w00t

[Skye]

The UN didn't choose the land, Britain did, decades before the UN was invented. Britain was granted mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations, following the break up of the Ottoman empire. The British Balfour declaration in 1917 called for a Jewish homeland to be established in Palestine. Due to the this, and the desire for national independence of the Arab Palestinians, there was growing violence between both groups. In 1947 the situation was turned over to the shiny new UN, who decided to partition the state, and create Jerusalem as an international city, map:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/3cbe4ee1ef30169085256b98006f540d!OpenDocument

 

Israel was then proclaimed as an independent state. The Arabs didn't accept the deal, and so many Arabs (and Persians!) don't consider the creation of Israel as valid. In any case Israel was expanded by a series of wars, the first in 1948, which led to the boundaries in the inset of that map.

[Pangloss]

Another interpretation on that, by the way, is that France and Great Britain were the only two powers interested in doing anything with the region after WW1. That interpretation comes from Yergin's "The Prize", the definitive history of the oil industry.

 

Yergin goes on to note that Britain and France made a big trade during this time, with France essentially giving Britain Iraq in exchange for Jordan. This left Britain in posession of the Mosul oil fields, which were the only proven reserve at the time. They were well aware of the importance of this, and carved out the nation of Iraq accordingly, making sure to leave access to the sea.

 

Not that it particularly matters today, I suppose, but it's something to think about the next time you pull into a Shell station to gas up. (BP did Iran, Shell did Iraq, if memory serves, but I may be a bit off here.)

[ecoli]

Originally, Jordan was part of the palestinian mandate. I thought that Jordan was given statehood opposite of Israel, for the Muslim arabs at the time. I'm wondering why this two solution didn't solve all the problems at the beginning? Is it because Jordan didn't let palestinians into the region?

[ParanoiA]

Ok, so it's Britain's fault. Cool. Just kidding...

 

Thanks for the history lesson. It sounds like the location of Israel was a combination of religious reasoning and British declaration. It still seems rather rotten that Palestine is chosen for Israel's homeland when both Palestinians and Israelis have arguably equal claim to that land in terms of historical presence. I can see why they're pissed. However I can also see Israel's POV. They have to live somewhere and they have religious ties to that region as equally, if not moreso than the palestinians. It's too bad the Persians can't accept a shared Jerusalem.

 

I've always liked the two state solution, but then I don't live there and I don't fully understand the consequences of that solution. Why are the palestinians not in agreement with that resolution? Is it about Jerusalem?

[Severian]

All land owned by Jews was legally purchased (AFAIK).

 

Which land? Obviously the arabs who were displaced must have owned land before, and didn't own it afterwards. So who got this land?

 

The second misconception, is that, there has never been any legal action taken to remove Palestinians from Israel. In 1948, self-created refugees left Israel, seeking entry into neighboring Muslim nations.

 

They were refugees running away from a war, who were then prevented from returning to their homes at the end of the war. This is hardly 'self-created', and quite frankly to say it is is a lot more inflammatory than the Iranian ambassador's remarks.

 

Israel was never meant to be a country of exclusion.

 

By refusing to let the palestinians return to their homes, it was instantly a country of exclusion.

[ecoli]

Which land? Obviously the arabs who were displaced must have owned land before, and didn't own it afterwards. So who got this land?

I really don't know enough about real estate property law to answer this question.

If you leave somewhere by your own accord, do you have a substantial claim for ownership if you want to come back.

 

an anology: is you abandon your house, should you be upset when the bank resells it?

 

They were refugees running away from a war, who were then prevented from returning to their homes at the end of the war. This is hardly 'self-created', and quite frankly to say it is is a lot more inflammatory than the Iranian ambassador's remarks.

They weren't forced out of their homes. They left voluntarily. What else would you call it?

 

By refusing to let the palestinians return to their homes, it was instantly a country of exclusion.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

 

This is a pretty good article, but your point is addressed in great detail in the last quarter, starting from the section "UN resolution 194" to the end.

 

Ok, so it's Britain's fault. Cool. Just kidding...

well, western imperialism can certainly be blamed to a certain extent.

 

Thanks for the history lesson. It sounds like the location of Israel was a combination of religious reasoning and British declaration. It still seems rather rotten that Palestine is chosen for Israel's homeland when both Palestinians and Israelis have arguably equal claim to that land in terms of historical presence. I can see why they're pissed. However I can also see Israel's POV. They have to live somewhere and they have religious ties to that region as equally, if not moreso than the palestinians. It's too bad the Persians can't accept a shared Jerusalem.

I'm glad you are more willing to see both sides of this argument. Of course, both sides have a variety of opinions, but it's the extremists that are causing all the problems.

 

I'm a big supporter of redirecting a large portion of Israel's defense budget into education and public works programs for Palestinians and Israelis. Especially the children. That will, be ultimately, the only solution that will work.

 

I've always liked the two state solution, but then I don't live there and I don't fully understand the consequences of that solution. Why are the palestinians not in agreement with that resolution? Is it about Jerusalem?

The desire to keep all the land is, in my opinion, mostly about greed. It's a problem that many of the human race has. The inability to share with neighbors.

 

The Palestinians do not agree that Israelis have any right to the land, and see them as western invaders. The Israeli's, especially after 60 years of there being an Israeli state, see Israel as their homeland. Esepcially since Jews HAVE been living in the region for just as long as the Palestinians.

 

I certainly understand current opinion about Israel's military actions. But, I do not understand those who say that Israel does not have a right to exist.