Moonwitch said:
I was refering to the strategic land grabs by Israel. This is something which is virtually ignored by the mass media and people are ignorant too. If people were to see how Israel has illegal grown it may help open eyes to the true motives and aims of the Israel government.
Of course some map showing Israeli growth over a couple of decades isn't going to show what is really happening.
I asked you to be specific and you only reiterate generalities. Would you please specify the land grabs to which you refer. That might help to bring into focus the arguments you are trying to make. They are now vague. The same is true for what you only insinuate as the "true motives and aims of the Israeli government."
Instead of posting some misleading maps why not just articulate your beliefs regarding the true motives and aims of the Israelis? Even you admit that "some map showing Israeli growth over a couple of decades isn't going to show what is really happening." That admission compels articulation of your beliefs especially as you decry the ignorance of the situation by the mass media and general public ("This is something which is virtually ignored by the mass media and people are ignorant too").
"Land grabs", like "apartheid", "genocide" is a provocative term. In order to resolve complex issues I think one should try to avoid carelessly invoking such provocative terms. There are two sides to almost all issues and it helps to approach conflict resolution rationally.
In support of a more historical perspective on the mideast land division I endeavored to show that, as originally contemplated by Britain and the League of Nations after WW I, the state of Israel was to consist of land much larger than all of Israel
and the PLA today. A big chunk of that land, west of the Jordan river, was ceded to Jordan, precipitated by a show of military force on the part of
Abdullah, the son of King Husayn of the Hijaz. Then after WW II, the UN further cut back the size of Israel by partitioning the remaining land between a proposed new Arab state (Palestine) and the nascent state of Israel. The Arabs in the region rejected the creation of a non-Islamic state and went to war to eliminate it.
When the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 and then were defeated, Israel did take control over some of the partitioned land as per the green line map above. No one seriously argues that much of that green line territory should be ceded back to the indigenous Arabs who steadfastly refused to accept the creation of any Jewish state, even one on a plot of land comprising one half of one percent (1/2 %) of the mideast land mass. The other 99.5% is occupied almost exclusively by Arabs and their Islamic co-religionists.
Ostensibly, the current debate over land concerns that land which Israel occupied as a result of the 1967 war - principly the west bank of the river Jordan. Controversial west bank Israel settlements do not foreclose the possibility of the return of the great majority of this land to the PLA or a Palestinian state. In point of fact, Israel agreed to return ninety seven percent (97 %) of the west bank during the negotiations following execution of the Oslo accords in the late 1990s. Arafat rejected that offer. I believe this is when the phrase 'the PLO never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity" was coined.
Negotiations over the return of the occupied territorries got stalled with the out break of the Al Asqa intifada starting in 2000. I think it is almost universally agreed that Israel will ultimately terminate its occupation of the great majority of these territories for the creation of the state of Palestine. Accordingly, the last maps in your post are spurious. They only mislead and incite, but I am open to hearing from you what your articulated position is.
