Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Wheee the blame game appears! The Joos secretly caused the partition not to happen earlier! I did not see that one coming, but it's super-creative. Bonus points to the pamphlet guys on that one.
But your position is that the amount of land should have been zero, as there should never have been a partition, right?
Yes, somebody developed a propagandistic narrative on history and you bought into it when you visited their web site.
Why is Israel larger today than when it was partitioned? Because various neighbors keep invading it, and Israel keeps occupying the area it finds is strategically necessary for defense.
You don't believe this why? You would do the same. It's sensible.
Why is Israel far larger today than when it was partitioned? Because half of that is the southern desert area which nobody gives a shit about. But it sure does make it interesting on those web sites, when the area of Israel grows and grows!
I said that Israel has given up more land than the size of Israel. You have characterized this as "pieces here and there." Really? The amount of land Israel has won at wartime and given back is approximately 26000 sq. miles. Israel is approximately 8000 sq. miles.
|
The blame game would hold one party more accountable than the others. It was the constant bickering between both the Arabs, AND the Jews, that caused the original recommendation to be rejected.
Any good strategist would tell you, to use whatever you can, to your advantage, to meet your ideal solution. Now, the holocaust was a terrible thing, but, through that, they were able to broker a better deal, for more land, when the partition solution was re-envisioned. I suppose, in essence, this was the first time holocaust guilt impacted how the world dealt with the Jews, with the founding of a larger Israel than was originally recommended... Funny, how we argued less over the size, and they, too, argued less over the size, during/after the holocaust, eh?
Likewise, any good strategist would tell you to jump at opportunity - Grabbing Arab land in the name of "strategic importance to defence." It's important that I take the land of my neighbours, to defend myself against burglary, but to do so would nor just be morally wrong, due to me putting people out on the streets, but it'd also be illegal... on a larger scale, it'd be considered a war crime, displacing so many civilians, from land that was not my own, for a flimsy, certainly not water-tight reason, that only serves to my own benefit.
The amount of land GIVEN should've been zero. We should've let the Arabs and the Jews fight over the land, if that's where they wished to have the land. If they could muster up enough military might to topple the Arabs, even in a small area... good for them. At least it would've been earned, at least it would've been won, in accordance to war protocol. The fact that they feel so entitled to the land, that it's their God-given right to be there, is what annoys me. It is Arab land, surrounded by Arab land. It was not won, it was (for all intents and purposes) stolen. That is not how things should be, and it further weakens the so-called moral high-ground that the people of Israel try to claim, during their occupation of the Arab land, during their war with the rightful owners.
It's getting close to a million Arabs having been displaced, due to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Now, this is not through choice of their own, rather, through Israeli expansion, and bombardment... stealing what they feel is "necessary defensive land," not giving a damn what happens to the civilians that inhabit it - What's more, they then intercept every vessel sent to provide aid to these hundreds of thousands of refugees.
They're an uncaring people, fighting an unjust war, playing on the hope that we'll not touch them, and continue to turn a blind eye to their illegal actions, through our continued (false) guilt over what happened during WWII.
It's shameful.