Post Your Comment Please be respectful, humble and considerate; any abusive or disrespectful comments will be deleted promptly. Name/User Id eMail Address* Language English Arabic Comments with URL links will be rejected *It should be NOTED that your email address won't be shared, and all communications between members will be routed via the website's mail server.

Posted by re Michael on October 28, 2009 #93267 There would never have been peace in the Middle East. Zionists want the WHOLE land, and if Palestinians agreed then, Zionists would have occupied the rest anyway; that land wouldn't be enough to their greed! Do you NOT know what the Israeli flag represent?? Land of "Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates... so wake up and realize that Zionism = occupation and occupation is greed of land, resources and destruction of existing lives.

Posted by Michael on October 22, 2009 #92705 If the Palestinians had accepted the Peel Commission plan in 1937, it would have given the Jews a homeland on the eve of WWII. Hundreds of thousands of Jews escaping eastern Europe would have had a place to go, where few other countries accepted them (and created quotas). In essence, the acceptance of this plan by the Arabs may have prevented the Holocaust. Unfortunately, the land was under the jurisdiction of the British. It was not a sovereign country of Palestine. The Zionist movement, which was established more then forty years before this plan, had a true presence in Palestine. Instead of using diplomatic means, the Palestinians (rather former Ottoman Turks) used violence against the Jews (although the Jews were not inoccent either). My point is, although the "Palestinian people" had lived on this land for a great deal of time, their nationalist movement was only developed after the introduction of Zionism. The Jews had an equal number of rights to the land, and if the plan had been accepted, well there may as well have been peace in the Middle East today...

Posted by Chris on October 18, 2009 #92305 Sorry meant to say, '...If you notice now, the map grants to the Jews Haifa,Tel Aviv (as a major alternative coastal urban centre) was to remain in Jewish jurisdiction in the small Arab enclave, and the entirey of the Galilee...'

Posted by Chris on October 18, 2009 #92303 As an answer to Phyllis Berry: Apart from the ideological consideration - do you give up 1/3 of your land to foreign colonists who came when your land was occupied by a foreign imperial power that refused you your political rights and democratic administration of your own land - there are also more practical consideration for why the deal was rejected: 1) The map simply did not correspond to the realities on the ground. The Jews did not own that amount of land, (purchased only about 6% by that time, though it was the highest graded land in the land), and the plan was giving them much that they simply had no right to. 2) There were also economic considerations, and these may in fact have been the most important ones.Palestine had two major revenue sources - Haifa as an industrial centre, and the orange groves in the Galilee in the North. In fact the country was dadngerously dependent on the citrus industry, as the British administration had failed to achieve any considerable investment in the rest of the country, and the inflow of capital by the Zionist side aided almost exclusively their own privileged enclave (by that time the Zionist had managed to secure a distinct economic regime in their own areas, and maintained the boycott on Arab labour). Most of the land on the Galilee however belonged to Arabs, and though the Zionists were more productive due to their use of imported technology, the Palestinian growers still produced the majority. If you notice now, the map grants to the Jews Haifa, was to remain in Jewish jurisdiction in the small Arab enclave, and the entirey of the Galilee, which also possessed the best land. The image for the Palestinian side is misleading. A large amount of the land in the Palestinian state is simply the Negev, which is a dessert, while the Eastern Areas are the hilly country, which is less suitable for cultivation. The Palestinian state would be destined for impoverishment. 3) But another very important factor which the map does not reveal, was that the Peel proposals called for forced transfer of the Arabs living in the area to be the Jewish state, a forced transfer of more than a hundred thousand. This was of course completely unacceptable to the Palestinians

Posted by Aarib on March 18, 2009 #71267 All of the water and resources are on the Israeli side...

Posted by golo on March 18, 2009 #71260 Imagine someone comming to your country and saying "hey, i'm going to give 1/3 of your coutntry to these foreigners, what'd you say?". That's why.

Posted by Phyllis Berry on March 13, 2009 #70690 Looked a good deal for the Arabs - can anyone tell me why not?