First of all, the population of what is now Israel was only 3% Jewish at the end of the Ottoman period.
The Negev most certainly was not uninhabited. Besides a number of towns built there, like Beersheba, it was inhabited by beduin, as it had for thousands of years.
Most of the land was not state owned; most of it was occupied in common by villages, and the British simply declared all these communal lands as vacant and then sold them to Zionists.
It is true that many absentee Arab owners sold their land to Zionists, but they really had no choice: Before the war, they live in the same country as their land, and after the war they were colonial subjects of one power, where their lands were in the territories of another colonial power, so they had no access to their lands or any means of obtaining income from them, so they generally had little option but to dump them for pennies on the dollar.
Intimidation and outright terror were used against recalcitrant land owners.
Let me give you a scenario: What would happen if Arabs with tons of money started purchasing all the land in your state with the stated intention of turning it into an Islamic, Arab country? Would you just shrug and say, "meh, free market!" or would you participate in a political movement to limit Arab purchases of land?
Now take that a step further: The government of your state has issued a public proclamation declaring its intent to turn your state into an Islamic Arab homeland. What would be your reaction to your state government?
Take it one step further: Your state has been militarily occupied by a foreign power who has ended your participation in government and denied you any voting rights, declared the intent to create an Arab Islamic state there, and has backed rich Arabs buying up all the land, including seizing everything not specifically deeded to an individual and turning it over to them, and looking the other way when Arabs strong-arm people into giving in.
Take it to the final step: The Arabs unilaterally declare statehood, impose it by force, and herd you and the rest of the "natives" into the worst areas of the state, refuse any building permits in perpetuity, respond in overwhelming, arbitrary, and disproportionate force whenever a native does anything bad to an Arab, and subjects you to humiliating searches and checkpoints, while continually shipping in millions more Arabs, forbidding any of your relatives from visiting or moving near you, and building a wall around you and bombing you whenever any individual resists?
I'll tell you what you would do: You'd join an armed resistance movement, or at least support it, and many of your fellows would be willing to throw away their hopeless lives in support of national freedom.
But somehow, it's not OK when Palestinians react this way.
In the final analysis, support for Israel an lack of understanding of the Palestinian situation is based on religious fundamentalism: that Israel belongs to the Jews because the Bible says so, even though DNA evidence has proven that the Palestinians are the original inhabitants of the country.
While there's no denying the immense human tragedy that the Jews endured under Naziism and its easy to understand the consequent impetus to create a Jewish homeland, the Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust, nor is there any justice in what was done to them.
It's a tough problem, because Israel exists, and most of the people who live there have no responsibility for the creation of Israel - but there can be no solution that maintains or reinforces the status quo, because it is national suicide for the Palestinians.
Israel would do well to settle the issue, even at some major sacrifice, before it's too late.
reply
share
Pianohero4
11 years ago
If the quality of life, average IQ, industrial infrastructure, sciences, arts, etc of my country would greatly increase due to an influx of X group of people, only low iq racist idiots would protest that influx. Also, I would love to hear an objective argument for who "owns" a land, that doesn't inevitably come back to current Israeli citizens being the "owners" by drawing out the logical conclusions of said premise. Ie, here are some standard constructs for such arguments. Who was there earliest in recorded history? Who is there currently (this is the most common axiom, which is why nobody is calling for the united states to give back the land to native Americans and to emigrate out). Who deserves it more (ie, who would flourish better, whether evolutionarily, socially etc. This one also prevents arguments for the return of the America's to the natives since the non-natives put out better use/production etc).
Please excuse any typos, this was typed on an iPad
reply
share
samwich56
10 years ago
Eminent domain,please go back to stormfront.
There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser about to wipe out all life
reply
share
!!!deleted!!! (55817158)
8 years ago
Your comment only proves the OP's point. No one cares about anything you just said, this is a movie forum. If you're interested in politics go somewhere else.
reply
share