Humanitarian Relocation?

[Coyote]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

I see a massive double standard in allowing Palestinians to remain in Israeli controlled occupied territories.

 

[Boston1]

Coyote

Is the mass expulsion of people from their homes clearly heinous (and as you have said time and time again inhumane) or is it ambiguous? Is it NEVER to be supported, or can it be supported sometimes?

Again, I'm just asking you to clarify your position. You SEEM to be saying that it is ALWAYS inhumane and a crime and thus should never be supported. At the same time you SEEM to be making an exception for Jews.

Pick a side and run with it. But you can not have it both ways.

That is a fair question.

Let me ask you this. If you own a thousand acres, and someone build a cluster of homes on it, and declared theirs....what would you do?

Depends on if I actually legally owned that thousand acres

 

[Coyote]

No, it's not humanitarian if it's against the will of the population. It's an absolutely inhumane thing to do.

We aren't dealing in bleeding-heart args here.

In general - forced population transfers have not gone well.

"Orderly transfer of German populations. The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." So says the Potsdam agreement.
Oh! The horror!

It's not a bleeding heart argument. It's considered a crime.

Tell me how well it worked in the Partition of India, or the expulsion of Jews from Europe and from Arab Countries, or how well it worked under Stalin's Russiafication program. Oh wait, it didn't did it?

You are mistaking victims for Arab Muslims of Israel.

Not at all.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Is the mass expulsion of people from their homes clearly heinous (and as you have said time and time again inhumane) or is it ambiguous? Is it NEVER to be supported, or can it be supported sometimes?

Again, I'm just asking you to clarify your position. You SEEM to be saying that it is ALWAYS inhumane and a crime and thus should never be supported. At the same time you SEEM to be making an exception for Jews.

Pick a side and run with it. But you can not have it both ways.

That is a fair question.

Let me ask you this. If you own a thousand acres, and someone build a cluster of homes on it, and declared theirs....what would you do?

Depends on if I actually legally owned that thousand acres

Assume you do.

 

[Coyote]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

Let's clarify this. There is a difference between settlements and "all Judaic people".

 

[Boston1]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

I see a massive double standard in allowing Palestinians to remain in Israeli controlled occupied territories.

But the areas in question were intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland, so how can the Judaic people occupying an area intended for them ?

the thing to do is segregate the combatants from non combatants and throw the combatants out exactly as the Geneva Conventions specify

 

[Boston1]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

Let's clarify this. There is a difference between settlements and "all Judaic people".

Wrong

The mandated area OPEN to the creation of a national Jewish homeland include EVERYTHING west of the Jordan.

Check the Jordan Memorandum of the Mandate period

 

[Coyote]

Double standards?

Settlements - a mixture of legally aquired and illegally aquired land built in contested territory who's eviction you don't support.

Yet...in Israel, we have illegal Beduoin settlements forceably evicted to build Jewish communities - who's eviction you support.

In thinking this over though, I agree - you can not humanely forceably expel those people unless they are on illegally aquired land, that would require some sort of settlement with the legal land owners.

 

[Coyote]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

I see a massive double standard in allowing Palestinians to remain in Israeli controlled occupied territories.

But the areas in question were intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland, so how can the Judaic people occupying an area intended for them ?

the thing to do is segregate the combatants from non combatants and throw the combatants out exactly as the Geneva Conventions specify

That was never law. The closest you can come to legal territory is the borders Israel claimed at it's independence.

 

[Coyote]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

Let's clarify this. There is a difference between settlements and "all Judaic people".

Wrong

The mandated area OPEN to the creation of a national Jewish homeland include EVERYTHING west of the Jordan.

Check the Jordan Memorandum of the Mandate period

The mandate was not law, nor was it an agreement or any legal promises to either the Jews or the Arabs.

 

[Shusha]

One thing you have not addressed is Israel's confiscation of land through the absentee landowner laws - land which was taken by the state and reserved for Jewish settlement only.

Land lost during war should be compensated monetarily, imo, if return is not an option. (And its not at this point.) There are nearly a million Jews who should be compensated as well.

But the newer ones, the ones created out of military outposts in occupied territory and given to Jewish settlers?

Sure. But first let's address two things:

1. What makes it "Palestinian land" and not "Jewish land" or "Israeli land"?

2. Why can't Jews live in the eventual State of Palestine?

 

[Coyote]

One thing you have not addressed is Israel's confiscation of land through the absentee landowner laws - land which was taken by the state and reserved for Jewish settlement only.

Land lost during war should be compensated monetarily, imo, if return is not an option. (And its not at this point.) There are nearly a million Jews who should be compensated as well.

The land was deliberately stolen through legislative actions - I think that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance there. What million Jews? Do you mean the ones expelled form Arab countries? If so, that is not the fault of the Palestinians but a seperate issue.

But the newer ones, the ones created out of military outposts in occupied territory and given to Jewish settlers?

Sure. But first let's address two things:

1. What makes it "Palestinian land" and not "Jewish land" or "Israeli land"?

2. Why can't Jews live in the eventual State of Palestine?

You have two seperate issues.

1. I seriously doubt military outposts in Occupied Territory were "bought' - if you can show they were, I'll back down.

2. Why can't they? I have no issue there.

 

[Shusha]

Let me ask you this. If you own a thousand acres, and someone build a cluster of homes on it, and declared theirs....what would you do?

Who is "you"? A private individual or a wanna-be-State?

If a private individual owns a thousand acres then it belongs to the individual. The sovereignty of that land is an entirely different question. The private individual can own the thousand acres under either Israel or a wanna-be-Palestine as sovereigns and remain a private owner.

So far you have failed to prove BOTH that the thousand acres belongs to a private individual AND that the thousand acres is under the sovereignty of "Palestine".

What is actually happening is that "Palestinians" are building on land that is NOT theirs. And Israel is acting appropriately by removing them.

 

[Coyote]

Let me ask you this. If you own a thousand acres, and someone build a cluster of homes on it, and declared theirs....what would you do?

Who is "you"? A private individual or a wanna-be-State?

If a private individual owns a thousand acres then it belongs to the individual. The sovereignty of that land is an entirely different question. The private individual can own the thousand acres under either Israel or a wanna-be-Palestine as sovereigns and remain a private owner.

So far you have failed to prove BOTH that the thousand acres belongs to a private individual AND that the thousand acres is under the sovereignty of "Palestine".

What is actually happening is that "Palestinians" are building on land that is NOT theirs. And Israel is acting appropriately by removing them.

What Palestinians are building on land that is NOT theirs?

 

[Boston1]

Double standards?

Settlements - a mixture of legally aquired and illegally aquired land built in contested territory who's eviction you don't support.

Yet...in Israel, we have illegal Beduoin settlements forceably evicted to build Jewish communities - who's eviction you support.

In thinking this over though, I agree - you can not humanely forceably expel those people unless they are on illegally aquired land, that would require some sort of settlement with the legal land owners.

Yes

Major double standards

You complain about Arab Muslims being allowed to stay in Israel but you're ignoring that Judaic people were forced from Arab Muslim countries throughout the middle east.

 

[Boston1]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

I see a massive double standard in allowing Palestinians to remain in Israeli controlled occupied territories.

But the areas in question were intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland, so how can the Judaic people occupying an area intended for them ?

the thing to do is segregate the combatants from non combatants and throw the combatants out exactly as the Geneva Conventions specify

That was never law. The closest you can come to legal territory is the borders Israel claimed at it's independence.

Feel free to identify those borders ;--)

From what I can see Israel left itself open to all lands within the mandate area that were allocated to it.

 

[Shusha]

What Palestinians are building on land that is NOT theirs?

All the specific instances you have brought up so far.

 

[Boston1]

I see a massive double standard in removing all Judaic people from Arab mandated areas but insisting Arab Muslims be allowed to stay in Judaic mandated areas.

The concept wreaks of prejudice, racism and bigotry.

Let's clarify this. There is a difference between settlements and "all Judaic people".

Wrong

The mandated area OPEN to the creation of a national Jewish homeland include EVERYTHING west of the Jordan.

Check the Jordan Memorandum of the Mandate period

The mandate was not law, nor was it an agreement or any legal promises to either the Jews or the Arabs.

Nonsense

The mandate was an internationally agreed legal settlement for the dispersal of Ottoman holdings.

 

[Boston1]

One thing you have not addressed is Israel's confiscation of land through the absentee landowner laws - land which was taken by the state and reserved for Jewish settlement only.

Land lost during war should be compensated monetarily, imo, if return is not an option. (And its not at this point.) There are nearly a million Jews who should be compensated as well.

The land was deliberately stolen through legislative actions - I think that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance there. What million Jews? Do you mean the ones expelled form Arab countries? If so, that is not the fault of the Palestinians but a seperate issue.

But the newer ones, the ones created out of military outposts in occupied territory and given to Jewish settlers?

Sure. But first let's address two things:

1. What makes it "Palestinian land" and not "Jewish land" or "Israeli land"?

2. Why can't Jews live in the eventual State of Palestine?

You have two seperate issues.

1. I seriously doubt military outposts in Occupied Territory were "bought' - if you can show they were, I'll back down.

2. Why can't they? I have no issue there.

NO LAND WAS STOLEN

The Zionists were buying land peacefully from willing Arab sellers.

Why the constant false claims ?

 

[Coyote]

What Palestinians are building on land that is NOT theirs?

All the specific instances you have brought up so far.

Now the debate is getting very convoluted.

You seem to be saying we should assume the settlements are on legally owned Israeli land and any non-Jewish settlements aren't.

The only specific instance I brought up was the Beduoins, which were (according to Israeli law) illegal and I stated that.

Why don't you prove the Israeli settlements were all on legally purchased land since you are constantly asking me to prove a negative.