Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Protests over Gaza deaths at 5PM Today (Monday) outside Israeli Embassy..

1…222324252628»

Comments

  • #812
    munchester29
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    taconnol wrote: »
    Exactly.

    It's more akin to the Germanic tribes the Anglos and Saxons returning to part of modern-day Germany and demanding to be given land to create their own nation. Or descendents of the ancient race of Cathaginians returning to Southern Spain to demand the land south of the river Ebro to be returned to them. Or any descendents of the Assyrians could lay claim to large swathes of the Middle East or...I could go on.

    Not really the same, since the Jews always maintained a presence in Israel, as a religious and ethnic group, and were not assimilated into the area and the populace.
    taconnol wrote: »
    Jews also claim to have the not entirely historically accurate text that we call the Old Testament as their "primary document" of claim. Basically God promised it to them: except that Christians and Muslims also consider the Old Testament to be a religious text and can both equally argue that the land is promised to them as well.


    It’s not just the Old Testament – every occupier since Roman times kept records and there are history books from Roman times – this is well documented history.


  • #813
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Not really the same, since the Jews always maintained a presence in Israel, as a religious and ethnic group, and were not assimilated into the area and the populace.

    Some converted to Christianity and Islam. They would have intermarried with those groups and have been absorbed by them. To say there was no inter-marriage is stretching things.

    Some remained ethnically and religously distinct, but that doesn't mean others didn't convert. Remember the early Christian church was a Jewish sect, and they would have inter-married with others when they converted to Christianity.


  • #814
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Dragan wrote: »
    Like us wanting the North.

    Except imagine that the North was annexed while the Roman Empire was still up and running..
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Not really the same, since the Jews always maintained a presence in Israel, as a religious and ethnic group, and were not assimilated into the area and the populace.
    So now the justifications for being given land include the ability to keep their own identity? I could equally argue that muslims have been able to maintain a presence in Spain since 1492 and therefore should be given some of the land back, if they so wish.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    It’s not just the Old Testament – every occupier since Roman times kept records and there are history books from Roman times – this is well documented history.
    I never denied that the Jewish people used to live in the area in Classical times. I said that their main justification for getting the land back is a religious one, not a historical one.


  • #815
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Hammiepeters wrote: »
    Were they ever in any doubt? Still ,20 odd posts later, even the wishful thinkers and their selective views of history have been unable to establish that a country named Palestine ever existed.

    I more than proved that there were people there. People who were dispossesed, who had there nation destroyed for all intents and purposes, which was my original point, which you denied.

    You talk about selective history, why then ignore that the Palestinians, were a indigenous population who lived there and were dispossesed? It seems to me you have a huge problem with Arab states wanting to do this to Israeli's, but seem to straight out deny it was done to the Palestinians, based on nothing more than they had no independent state, despite the fact that they constituted a nation of people under the Ottomans, and constituted on under the British and Palestinian nationalism existed as early as World War 1, when they and other rebelled against the Ottomans and sided with the British. Your argument doesn't change what was done to the Palestinians 1 iota. I more than explained my point at this point. The only wishful thinking going on, is coming from those who wish to deny the dispossesion of the Palestinians, on a ridiculous semanticaly point.

    If you want to argue semantics, and deny this dispossession, go right ahead. Doesn't change what was done to the Palestinians.


  • #816
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    i think that there are still some palestinians still alive who were forced off the land but it was the israelis great^50 grandads who were forced off. am i right?

    seems to me it's like walking into the living room and telling someone to get up because you were sitting there....last week

    correction:

    it's like walking into the living room, pointing a gun in the face of the person sitting there and forcing him to sit on a crappy little stool, then holding him there and whenever he tries to hit you with his fist to try to stop you holding him there, you shoot him and then tell everyone that you're justified in shooting him because he's hitting you, conveniently forgetting to mention the reason that he's hitting you, ie you kicked him off his comfy chair because your great granddad once sat on it and forced him to sit on a crappy stool


  • Advertisement
  • #817
    munchester29
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    Your own link there refers to Palestine. You really should read them before posting them.

    Also, I stated that it was an autonomous state, not independent.

    Having said that, what you mentioned doesn't contradict what I have said, as I said the Palestinian state was autonomous and not completely independent.

    Read what I said and quoted again.

    The word “Palestine” as used prior to the 20th century had nothing to do with today’s Palestinians. The region has been named by the Romans after the old and extinct enemies of Israel – the Philistines.

    Al Zaydani’s rule was similar to scores of other similar rulers under the Ottoman empire, and his so called autonomous standing was due to foreign power support, and ended with his death by his Ottoman masters.

    The (very small) northern area of Israel that was ruled by al Zaydani consisted mainly of Safed, Tiberias, Acre & Nazareth, who had a population comprised of Muslim, Christian & Jewish, so you can’t even claim a Muslim autonomy there, let alone a Palestinian state with Palestinian people.


    wes wrote: »
    That was the state I was referring to (in fact the book also refers to it). Also, Daher El-Omar, was of Bedouin descent, who came from that area. His ancestry is hardly unknown, read the book and you will see this information.


    Your claim here actually enforces what I’ve said, since the Bedouin are traditionally nomadic people. The area they came from could be anywhere in the Arab peninsula and beyond.
    wes wrote: »
    You made a claims, there was never a Palestinian state. There was one. Your own Wikipedia link confirms it existence. It just doesn't refer to it as Palestinian, which doesn't mean anything, as my point was there was a nation of people who clearly lived there.

    I’ve already proved that there was no Palestinian state, even if it’s only because of the fact that there were many Jews & Christians among the people living there.
    Finding an Arab ruler amongst the hundreds if not thousands of Arab rulers that controlled various small parts of what is now Israel since the times of the Romans and basing your claim in regards to the “Palestinian people” on that is ridiculous.

    There were nations of people living all over the world under various rules, some with autonomy some without. Are they Palestinians also?
    wes wrote: »
    There were local people who were there who ruled the land and would constitute a nation. Which is the point I was making. Thanks for confirming it.

    There were local Muslim, Jewish & Christian people in that area. That’s all that can be said. Not really enough to support a claim of a Palestinian nation.
    wes wrote: »
    This hardly unknown, Christians were judged under there own laws as well. What you call autonomous rule, is nothing of the sort. This is the way the Ottomans ran things, each community was put under there own relgious laws.

    You are absolutely correct here.
    The same is true for how Ottomans used local leaders to rule their local areas, for example – Al Zaydani.


  • #818
    munchester29
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    Some converted to Christianity and Islam. They would have intermarried with those groups and have been absorbed by them. To say there was no inter-marriage is stretching things.

    Some remained ethnically and religously distinct, but that doesn't mean others didn't convert. Remember the early Christian church was a Jewish sect, and they would have inter-married with others when they converted to Christianity.

    I wasn't saying there were no conversions or marriages between people of different faiths. I'm sure there are examples of converts from any religion to any religion in the area.

    My point was there was always a Jewish presence there - Jews who practiced Judaism and never converted.


  • #819
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Read what I said and quoted again.

    The word “Palestine” as used prior to the 20th century had nothing to do with today’s Palestinians. The region has been named by the Romans after the old and extinct enemies of Israel – the Philistines.

    Yes, and this has no bearing on other people taking the name later.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Al Zaydani’s rule was similar to scores of other similar rulers under the Ottoman empire, and his so called autonomous standing was due to foreign power support, and ended with his death by his Ottoman masters.

    He was a local leader. They constituted a nation. What you say doesn't change this.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    The (very small) northern area of Israel that was ruled by al Zaydani consisted mainly of Safed, Tiberias, Acre & Nazareth, who had a population comprised of Muslim, Christian & Jewish, so you can’t even claim a Muslim autonomy there, let alone a Palestinian state with Palestinian people.

    What are you talking about? I claimed no such thing. The area was always comprised of many different people.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Your claim here actually enforces what I’ve said, since the Bedouin are traditionally nomadic people. The area they came from could be anywhere in the Arab peninsula and beyond.

    They lived in that general area. Which is confimed by the book.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    I’ve already proved that there was no Palestinian state, even if it’s only because of the fact that there were many Jews & Christians among the people living there.

    Christian are also Palestinians. There not exclusively Muslims.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Finding an Arab ruler amongst the hundreds if not thousands of Arab rulers that controlled various small parts of what is now Israel since the times of the Romans and basing your claim in regards to the “Palestinian people” on that is ridiculous.

    No, it isn't. It shows a civil society existed centuries ago. It shows people lived there. Your claim is the absurd one.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    There were nations of people living all over the world under various rules, some with autonomy some without. Are they Palestinians also?

    What your saying here is pure nonsense and I am making no such claims.

    Also, they don't identify as such. There were Syrians and Kurds who also lived under the Ottoamans for example. These were also nations of people.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    There were local Muslim, Jewish & Christian people in that area. That’s all that can be said. Not really enough to support a claim of a Palestinian nation.

    The existence of a civil society supports this claim, which is supported by your own links and the book I was talking about. You pretending there was not one, doesn't make it so.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    You are absolutely correct here.
    The same is true for how Ottomans used local leaders to rule their local areas, for example – Al Zaydani.

    No, its a very different concept. I am arguing there existed a civil society. You are pretending there wasn't one, when your own sources confirm one existed.

    Again, your trying to compare a judge to a ruler of a autonomous area, 2 very different things.


  • #820
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    I wasn't saying there were no conversions or marriages between people of different faiths. I'm sure there are examples of converts from any religion to any religion in the area.

    My point was there was always a Jewish presence there - Jews who practiced Judaism and never converted.

    Yes, and there were some who did. That is my point.


  • #821
    munchester29
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    taconnol wrote: »
    So now the justifications for being given land include the ability to keep their own identity? I could equally argue that muslims have been able to maintain a presence in Spain since 1492 and therefore should be given some of the land back, if they so wish.

    You could argue that, no laws against that.
    You could even start your own movement to free Spain and return it to the Muslim fold, you can create a terrorist organization and claim the land is yours and use violence to get your way.

    The outcome of your valiant struggle to free Muslim Spain will be decided by either whomever is stronger (in this case I believe Spain will kick your ass), or by a UN decision, which is how the Jews got Israel.

    taconnol wrote: »
    I never denied that the Jewish people used to live in the area in Classical times. I said that their main justification for getting the land back is a religious one, not a historical one.

    Not true – there were always a Jewish community in Israel – since biblical times and until today, so their claims are also based on historical facts.


  • Advertisement
  • #822
    and2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭and2


    bomb scare at israeli embassy(dublin)


  • #823
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Read what I said and quoted again.

    The word “Palestine” as used prior to the 20th century had nothing to do with today’s Palestinians. The region has been named by the Romans after the old and extinct enemies of Israel – the Philistines.

    There were nations of people living all over the world under various rules, some with autonomy some without. Are they Palestinians also?

    I've posted this on a number of occassions. Please take note of it this time, as should you repeat the type of claim above again, I'll have to state that you are being deliberatly obtuse and dishonest.
    The same study of Nebel 2001 also suggest that Arab Israelis and Palestinians together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously Christianized and later largely Islamized, then both ultimately becoming culturally Arabized. Another study, [85] referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, reaffirmed that Palestinian "Muslim Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel, Sinai and part of Jordan."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#DNA_and_genetic_studies


  • #824
    munchester29
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    wes wrote: »
    The existence of a civil society supports this claim, which is supported by your own links and the book I was talking about. You pretending there was not one, doesn't make it so.

    Off course there was a civil society – I wasn’t arguing that.

    That civil society was not based on nationality or religion, and they never identified themselves as Palestinians which goes against the claim that a “Palestinian nation” existed under Ottoman rule.

    You basically base the claim that this was a Palestinian nation on the fact that Al Zaydani was Muslim, and lived in the area. Nothing more.


  • #825
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    munchester29 wrote: »
    You could argue that, no laws against that. You could even start your own movement to free Spain and return it to the Muslim fold, you can create a terrorist organization and claim the land is yours and use violence to get your way.
    I like your continuation of my analogy for Israel. It's not far off the mark.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    The outcome of your valiant struggle to free Muslim Spain will be decided by either whomever is stronger (in this case I believe Spain will kick your ass), or by a UN decision, which is how the Jews got Israel.
    Hah "kick my ass?" That's what this is about? Israel gots the bigger guns so they what they say goes, ok? That sort of nation-building was acceptable in the 19th century but those levels are violence are unacceptable today.

    You're conveniently ignoring that the UN decision was hugely influenced by immense guilt over the treatment of the Jews in WW2. The Zionist movement had very little success until they secured the support of the British mandate in the Balfour Declaration and of course their ultimate aim was not realised until after WW2.

    The idea that the UN decision was a completely objective look at the facts and weighing up of both sides is risible.
    munchester29 wrote: »
    Not true – there were always a Jewish community in Israel – since biblical times and until today, so their claims are also based on historical facts.
    Again, I am not denying the existence of a Jewish community in Israel, I am saying their main claims are religious. Does the phrase "promised land" mean anything to you?


  • #826
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've posted this on a number of occassions. Please take note of it this time, as should you repeat the type of claim above again, I'll have to state that you are being deliberatly obtuse and dishonest.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#DNA_and_genetic_studies

    Okay, you make this point way better than I was doing.


  • #827
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Off course there was a civil society – I wasn’t arguing that.

    That civil society was not based on nationality or religion, and they never identified themselves as Palestinians which goes against the claim that a “Palestinian nation” existed under Ottoman rule.

    You basically base the claim that this was a Palestinian nation on the fact that Al Zaydani was Muslim, and lived in the area. Nothing more.

    No, I am basing my claims on the civil society, with it own ruler that made up a nation of people. I never mentioned religion, you are the only one who has brought that up. You really need to read my posts, as you clearly haven't.

    The civil society shows there were people there, who made up a nation. A people who were dispossesed.

    Also, look at Nodins post, which show the Palestinians have been there for centuries.


  • #828
    munchester29
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've posted this on a number of occassions. Please take note of it this time, as should you repeat the type of claim above again, I'll have to state that you are being deliberatly obtuse and dishonest.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#DNA_and_genetic_studies

    Didn’t really understand how what you posted refutes my point.
    I wasn’t talking about genetics; I was talking about the origin of the name “Palestine” as associated with a Palestinian nationality .

    Genetically speaking, I’m not surprised at all by these researches. I’ve always believed that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a family feud.

    I would like to comment though, that there are other researchers out there with other opinions and findings also. I won’t bother finding sources because I don’t really have a problem with the research conclusions of what you posted.


  • #829
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    indough wrote: »

    please define nation

    Oh I lol'd. It was a harsh, hollow lol, but still.

    Have your Zionist arguments become so confused that you must resort to esoteric questions like what is a nation? If so you will soon find your own position on shaky ground. Nations are merely the latest means by which people in a country or region define themselves. The tricky part about nations is that in order to legitimise themselves they need an organisational myth. Yours is that the Zionist state has always existed and was taken from the Israelites for 2 millennia, after which they reconquered it. Legitimacy is sought in the Bible.

    This is a rather shaky argument, since prior to 1800, or certainly 1600, the concept of a nation never existed. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about the nation of Israel before those times. This is also why the rise of Zionism and immigration to the region of Palestine by Zionists happened after 1800, it coincided with more conventional forms of nationalism, which Jewish people found hard to be a part of, for various reasons that don't need to be talked about here. Also, the Bible as a tool of legitimacy, is redundant for anyone who doesn't believe in the book. So that is not much addition here.

    The people of Palestine exist, and their nation exists insofar as they have been living in that region since before they were colonised. That is their legitimacy. There is no better way to legitimise one's claim to a region. What the Romans called that region, or who has been in power over that region, is of little importance. Perhaps at some points they were under the oppression of various imperialistic powers, but really what does that show other than Israel is the latest of such powers?

    Israel has colonised Palestine. It was created by a group of politicians in the 20th century, and since then has sought to legitimise itself by destroying the people who lived there previously, by pushing those peoples to the edge of the earth, forcing them to live in squalor, making four million people live as refugees. That is how Imperial powers before it have sought legitimacy, and for all your words to the contrary, that is how Israel asserts itself.

    Your question is a very interesting one, since to answer it you must first forfeit your belief that Israel is a nation. But at this stage you are so intent on proving that Israel is in the right, that your irrational thinking got the better of you. This goes for all Zionists on this thread-your whole irrational argument is bound up in the fatalistic mission to prove that Israel is a nation, when this is the last thing that you could possibly prove.

    I don't believe in nations, but I believe in oppressor and oppressed, coloniser and colonised. Israel has clearly chosen the first position, and thus chosen the criticism and at times disgust that such actions warrant.


  • #830
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Genetically speaking, I’m not surprised at all by these researches. I’ve always believed that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a family feud.

    In a way, yes it is like a family feud. It's sad that sometimes the bloodiest of battles among those that are the closest like Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc. But whatever the pretext ( usually religion), the real causes of the battles are almost always the same: land, water, resources.

    I remember studying the crusades from the Muslim point of view and they initially viewed the invasions as a land-grab. They weren't even aware of the Europeans' religious basis for the attacks until much later. And they were absolutely right: at it's core, the crusades weren't about religion at all.

    Similarly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't to do with religion either.


  • #831
    munchester29
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 472 ✭✭munchester29


    taconnol wrote: »
    In a way, yes it is like a family feud. It's sad that sometimes the bloodiest of battles among those that are the closest like Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc. But whatever the pretext ( usually religion), the real causes of the battles are almost always the same: land, water, resources.

    I remember studying the crusades from the Muslim point of view and they initially viewed the invasions as a land-grab. They weren't even aware of the Europeans' religious basis for the attacks until much later. And they were absolutely right: at it's core, the crusades weren't about religion at all.

    Similarly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't to do with religion either.


    I think the biggest problem with this conflict, and the most serious hurdle that people will need to overcome if there is ever going to be peace in the middle east, is the tendency to rehash and argue about historical facts - what happened and who was right and who was wrong, who has better historical claims, religious claims, territorial claims, whatever.

    I think both sides need to stop the stupid bickering, and look at the present if there is ever going to be a chance to achieve peace in the future.

    We have an existing conflict, with roots in ancient times.

    The Israelis are in Israel to stay, the Palestinians are there to stay, and both sides fought each other for too many years now, which cost both the warring sides and the rest of the world too much pain, suffering and money.

    If the two sides won’t be able to forget or repress past wrongs and fighting, if they won't stop demonizing each other, there will never be peace in that area, things will only get worse.


  • Advertisement
  • #832
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    munchester29 wrote: »
    I think the biggest problem with this conflict, and the most serious hurdle that people will need to overcome if there is ever going to be peace in the middle east, is the tendency to rehash and argue about historical facts - what happened and who was right and who was wrong, who has better historical claims, religious claims, territorial claims, whatever.

    I think both sides need to stop the stupid bickering, and look at the present if there is ever going to be a chance to achieve peace in the future.

    We have an existing conflict, with roots in ancient times.

    The Israelis are in Israel to stay, the Palestinians are there to stay, and both sides fought each other for too many years now, which cost both the warring sides and the rest of the world too much pain, suffering and money.

    If the two sides won’t be able to forget or repress past wrongs and fighting, if they won't stop demonizing each other, there will never be peace in that area, things will only get worse.

    I agree with a lot of what your said, but I think both sides have to aknowledge the others wrongs, and once they have done that, they can move on. I thinking asking both sides to forget them is impossible, but to get both sides to accept the others story is possible and both can see there common humanity.


  • #833
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    munchester29 wrote: »
    Didn’t really u(....)you posted.

    The emergence of Palestininian national identity can be traced to as early as the 1830's or as late as 1920-21, depending on your prejudices. Its date is rather irrelevant. The fact is that there are a distinct people called the Palestinians who have a national identity, and are - many of them - currently living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem etc.


  • #834
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Anyone see the one page IPSC advertisment in the Irish Times today?

    http://www.ipsc.ie/pdf/IPSC%20Irish%20Times%20Advert%20-%20FINAL.pdf


  • #835
    JonnyBlackrock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭JonnyBlackrock


    phenomenon wrote: »
    Why can't the Palestinians just move to another Arab land if they're so unhappy in the Gaza strip and West Bank?

    Israel isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The Palestinans can accept the current situation and live on their autonomous regions in peace with Israel or they can move elsewhere in the Middle East and reunite with their brothers.

    Simple answer to that one. Their Arab "brethren" won't let them in. The folk in Gaza escaped/ran away/were expelled from their homes in Palestine and thought they were going to Egypt. But Egypt wouldn't take them in so they were stuck in Gaza. In Lebanon Palestinians have been rotting in refugee camps since 1948 because the Lebanese wouldn't take them in and give them asylum, and instead they are being used as pawns in political power games.

    The estimate is that 600,000 people became refugees when the state of Israel was created, and they are refugees to this day because of the behaviour of their "brethren". 50 million people were made refugees by the Second World War. By 1950 they had all been resettled and the problem was solved.


  • #836
    Professey Chin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    Dammit I thought we'd gotten rid of this thread :(


  • #837
    phenomenon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 446 ✭✭phenomenon


    JonnyBlackrock wrote: »
    Simple answer to that one. Their Arab "brethren" won't let them in. The folk in Gaza escaped/ran away/were expelled from their homes in Palestine and thought they were going to Egypt. But Egypt wouldn't take them in so they were stuck in Gaza. In Lebanon Palestinians have been rotting in refugee camps since 1948 because the Lebanese wouldn't take them in and give them asylum, and instead they are being used as pawns in political power games.

    The estimate is that 600,000 people became refugees when the state of Israel was created, and they are refugees to this day because of the behaviour of their "brethren". 50 million people were made refugees by the Second World War. By 1950 they had all been resettled and the problem was solved.

    That's disgraceful. They are all the one "tribe".
    It's about as ridiculous as County Meath refusing to let Dubliners live on their land, even though we're all Irish.


  • #838
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Ultimate Chin wrote: »
    Dammit I thought we'd gotten rid of this thread :(
    Don't blame me for regurgitating it :pac:


  • #839
    JonnyBlackrock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭JonnyBlackrock


    That's a very apt analogy.
    After the partition of Ireland in 1922, considerable numbers of Protestants didn't want to live in the Catholic free-State so went to live in the North, and equally considerable numbers of Catholics didn't want to live in the Protestant North so came to live in the Free State. It's as if all those people are still living in refugee camps 80 years later.


  • #840
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JonnyBlackrock wrote: »
    Simple answer to that one. Their Arab "brethren" won't let them in. The folk in Gaza escaped/ran away/were expelled from their homes in Palestine and thought they were going to Egypt. But Egypt wouldn't take them in so they were stuck in Gaza. In Lebanon Palestinians have been rotting in refugee camps since 1948 because the Lebanese wouldn't take them in and give them asylum, and instead they are being used as pawns in political power games.

    Gaza was held by Egypt in 1948.

    There were two waves of refugees - one in 1948, and one in 1967.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement