You are going to have 47% of the 100% which was originally yours.
‘Oslo Agreement’ to the Palestinians:
You are going to have 22% of the 100% which was originally yours.
Barak’s ‘Generous Offer’ to the Palestinians:
We are going to give you 80% of the 22% of the 100% of the land which was originally yours.
Sharon’s ‘Peace Plan’ to the Palestinians in 2000:
We are going to give you 42% of the 80% of the 22% of the 100% of the land which was originally yours, and this 42% will remain under continuous curfew.
‘American Zionists’ to the Palestinians:
According to our version of the Bible, you are entitled to 0% of the 42% of the 80% of the 22% of the 100% of the land which was originally yours.
The ‘Road Map’ to the Palestinians that Bush envisions:
If you stop your resistance to the occupation (which we call ‘terrorism’), and your refugees give up their right to return to their ancestral homes, and you agree to only elect officials acceptable to Bush and Olmert, and you agree to lock up all your resistance fighters, and you agree to only drive your cars on roads that Olmert assigns for your use, and you do not object to the ‘wall’ that Sharon started building and Olmert is finishing, and you agree not to claim Jerusalem as your capital, and you agree that your children’s school curriculum only includes courses and books approved by the Israeli government, and you agree not to give birth to more than three children per family, and stop complaining about the new law that prohibits Israeli Arabs from marrying Palestinian Arabs, while it allows them to marry any other nationality in the world. THEN President Bush will consider putting pressure on Olmert to consider negotiating with you on the 42% of the 80% of the 22% of the 100% of the land which was originally yours.
[source]
Technorati Tags: Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Humour
Here are some inaccuracies worth highlighting:
1. You begin with the premise that “all” of Palestine belonged to the Arabs/Palestinians. Even the most maximalist version of Palestinian history does not claim that “all” the land belonged to them – when they highlight the fact that Jews and Arabs got along well before Zionism they are insinuating as such. So there were Jews who were indigenous and those that purchased land from absentee landlords (in order to be balanced you should be anti-absentee landlord as well).
2.There is the concept of disincentives for waging war. Instead of resorting to diplomacy the Arabs resorted to violence immediately after the partition plan. Therefore they allocated the risk on their shoulders. The alternative is to let everyone wage war, lose and then come back with demands.
3. By invoking the Bible you are intentionally presenting the weak argumentation on the Israeli side. There are plenty of secular factual reasons for supporting Israel. This is akin to the claims that all Palestinians believe that they will get 72 virgins in heaven.
There is a lot more but time is a scarce commodity for me to write a whole book here. Suffice it to say that the ailments in the Arab world have litte to do with this small country which is used as a diversion from the real problems.
The article I posted was meant to be a humorous look, if that’s possible, at the situation in Palestine. So whether the Palestines started of with a 100% or 94% of the land is incidental, the main point is that over the years that Israel has occupied and colonized (settled) more and more Palestinian land.
Furthermore, I’m pretty sure that if you went to any country in the world and asked them to give up over half their land, they wouldn’t be to happy about it. So why should the Palestians will forced to do this?