Road Map to War [Archive]

David2004

02-15-2005, 11:01 PM

The first step to the Road Map to Peace is for the State of Israel to start to remove the Jewish Settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. With International peace keeping forces helping the Palestinian people establish the Rule of Law. The words of both sides have to be match by their deeds and actions as we move toward implementing the Peace Plan. One of the major problems of the Oslo Accords was what was being said at the negotiating table did not reflect the actions on the streets. During the Oslo Accords the size of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip nearly doubled. The mantra of both side has to change as it does the extremist on both side will become inflamed.

The State of Israel and the United States have to come to terms with the United Nations and the global community of nations. Realizing the only way the Road Map to Peace has a chance is on a multi-lateral platform. It is the make up of this platform that has to be decided and implemented. With NATO, United Nations, Arab Legion of Nations, Israel, and the United States developing a plan of action. With Egypt and Jordan having diplomatic connections with Israel they should be the founding members with this new group (MEP) with the United States being a supporting member.

minusthejihad

02-16-2005, 09:22 AM

minusthejihad

02-16-2005, 09:23 AM

Oh, ans what kind of international peace keeping force are you talking about? Like the one in the Congo?

Mediocrates

02-16-2005, 09:51 AM

The first step to the Road Map to Peace is for the State of Israel to start to remove the Jewish Settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Completely? Jew Free Palistan? I want to be clear on this

With International peace keeping forces helping the Palestinian people establish the Rule of Law.

Pretty words, what do they mean?

The words of both sides have to be match by their deeds and actions as we move toward implementing the Peace Plan.

Enforceable how?

One of the major problems of the Oslo Accords was what was being said at the negotiating table did not reflect the actions on the streets.

Such as what? Disarmament of terrorists perhaps? Is that what you meant?

During the Oslo Accords the size of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip nearly doubled.

So?

The mantra of both side has to change as it does the extremist on both side will become inflamed.

What does this mean?

The State of Israel and the United States have to come to terms with the United Nations and the global community of nations.

For what precisely? The community of nations in the middle east wants them all dead. They've said as much publically, officially? Is that what you meant?

Realizing the only way the Road Map to Peace has a chance is on a multi-lateral platform.

To do what? What does this mean?

It is the make up of this platform that has to be decided and implemented.

By who to do what?

With NATO, United Nations, Arab Legion of Nations, Israel, and the United States developing a plan of action.

To do what?

With Egypt and Jordan having diplomatic connections with Israel they should be the founding members with this new group (MEP) with the United States being a supporting member.

Lemme see if I get this straight, A new force made up of arabs, egyptians, all the other arab states and the UN with troops in Israel to enforce 'something'.

I think I got it, thanks.

MGB8

02-16-2005, 10:15 AM

The First StepS on the road map are clearly delineated - the dismatalling of the Terrorist groups and an end to terror, along with Israel stopping territorial expansion.

Everything else is someone making things up.

You could say - the first steps to a successful peace deal, in which case you would be stating an opinion, but by writing "the first step of the 'Road Map'" and then whatever you wrote...well, we call that at best being wrong/not knowing what you are talking about or, at worst, lying.

In order to have real discussions we need to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR on what is FACT and what is OPINION. Granted, we all make mistakes, and we'll all phrase things that blur the lines. However, the "road map" quote, probably meant to be an opinion, the way it is phrased is either flatly wrong or intentionally deceptive. It is very common for people, especially we have seen on this board from the pro-Arab writers, to deliberately state falsehoods (lie) in order to support their theories (so they can "win" the debate.) This comes in forms such as "The Baruch Goldstein incident led to the first Palestinian Suicide Bomber" or "Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist" or "Israel offered cantons at Camp David" etc. Such distortions don't get anyone anywhere - its just pathetic attempts of people to spread propaganda, often not because they have a stake in the propaganda, but because they want to "be right" - to justify their point of view, even if it is irrational or based on complete falsehoods.

David2004

02-16-2005, 12:23 PM

A new organization (MEP) Middle East Peace will be established from nations in the Middle East and the global community that are committed to peace and coexistences among their neighbors. The primary focus of the MEP will be network with other international organizations on implementing a regional master plan. The make up of the MEP board will be 1/3 Israeli, 1/3 Palestinian, and 1/3 International with half of them being Americans. Some of the same people that are on the Commission of the Old City of Jerusalem will also work for MEP.
All of the member nations of MEP agree to normalize relations with the State of Israel as a non-occupying country living within International Laws and regional treaties. Israel will normalize relations with the members of MEP. MEP will be the platform for regional issues and areas of disagreements between MEP members. The Primary Members will be counties from the Middle East Region and Supporting Members will be other nation from outside the Middle East region.
The Israeli government will agree to the following conditions with the United States guarantying the State of Israel security within their international recognized boarders.

Â· The Israelis will demilitarize their society and live within the conditions of the Middle East Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

Â· Israel will follow the guide lines (MEP) Middle East Peace

Â· The Israeli settlers must move back to Israel proper or apply for a Settlement Stay that will be consider on individual cases.

Â· The Jewish people migration to Israel will be limited to the number of Palestinian people Right to Return. In both cases the applicant will have to go before a review board.

Â· The State of Israel will agree to recognize the Old City of Jerusalem as an International City for the foreseeable future.

Â· Israel will revise their Property Laws and zoning within the State of Israel including the un-recognized Palestinian Villages.

Â· The State of Israel will help in the re-construction of the infrastructure Palestinian State.

Â· The State of Israel will leave the de-populated Israeli Settlements in tack as part of their contribution.

minusthejihad

02-16-2005, 12:26 PM

minusthejihad

02-16-2005, 12:28 PM

Seriously though, let's deal with reality instead of Arabist day dreams, which will never happen, over our dead bodies - I know, you'll have to try yet again. Good luck of course.

Before posting more inconsequential nonsense, can you go back and answer Mediocrates' questions to your first post please?

Mediocrates

02-16-2005, 12:35 PM

That's a pretty funny post.

MGB8

02-16-2005, 12:58 PM

Its funny in a sad sort of way.

Here we have a kid, presumably (a very weak presumption) Jewish, who, aside from stating as fact a utopian pipe dream, is perscribing that Israel unilaterally disarm while giving up its sovereignty, including limiting the number of Jews who are allowed to immigrate to Israel. Aside from being completely ridiculous do to the infringement of a state's right to control its own immigration, this idea would CHANGE the status quo, mind you, because since there are more Jews than Muslims in Israel, allowing only 1 Jew per 1 Muslim would increase the Muslim percentage, trying to hasten the demographic destruction of the Jewish state.

His proposal includes the expulsion of Jewish settlers from essentially all the settlements as defined by the Pal Arabs, expect as per a review board (gee, I wonder what would happen....)

Meanwhile, this defensless Israel would we must assume have to go back to the '67 "Auschawitz" lines, while also giving up sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Granted, none of this will ever happen because even "stupid Jews" aren't THAT stupid, but the sad part is, if this kid is indeed Jewish instead of some Arab propagandist or non-Jewish Arabist, we have another JEW thinking that for some mythical peace, Israel must yield its sovereignty (unlike any other state) and accept pretty much every one of the Arabs demands, and more.

Its sad. Can we excommunicate these people?

minusthejihad

02-16-2005, 01:34 PM

Only a faux-Jew would create a name like David2004. Its like if I joined a Muslim board and I pretended I was a Muslim, my username would be Mohammed or Abu.

Remember Yehudi?

Reffo

02-16-2005, 07:52 PM

David2004: You are very funny :D. Now that you told us all the evil that Israel has perpetrated against humanity and how they should repent to make it all up to their poor victims. Can you please let us know all the great things that the Palestinians have done to promote brotherly understanding and peace (in our time) on earth ?

David2004

02-16-2005, 08:07 PM

It is clear to most people in the world things must change ?big time?, but how the big question. Nowhere in the world is this more evident than the Middle East, especially the Palestine-Israeli Crisis and the role of the United States. It is clear to most people that the current Israel-Palestine policies are not working. Most people understand the importance of a Jewish state that is a homeland for the Jewish people and culture. It is the form of this Jewish State that the disagreements arise and the conflict begins. The State of Israel has lived in a state of war for most of its 54 years of existence. We all agree this must change so that the people of this region can live in peace together.

Looking at the problems of today with the State of Israel being the hand in control and the Palestinians needing a helping hand in resolving this conflict. Realizing that both sides must change the following is mostly going to deal with the hand in control. The current course of the State of Israel and Palestine is heading towards disaster for everyone in the world. This has been made clear by the amount of international attention it has received by the global community. One of the biggest and hardest parts of the problem to deal with is the State of Israel policy of; ?Not to recognize with what one does not agree with?. This is seen today with the State of Israel?s policies; with the Un-Recognized Arab Villages within Israel proper, the Dimona Nuclear Plant, United Nation?s Resolutions dealing with the conflict, Arafat, and the Occupied Territories, International National Criminal Court, and the United Nations.

Mediocrates

02-16-2005, 08:33 PM

And they murder puppies and eat babies.

Reffo

02-16-2005, 08:46 PM

The State of Israel has lived in a state of war for most of its 54 years of existence.David, do you think that the historical cause of this state of war has any relevance? Or do you belong to those clever class of people who thinks that history has no relevance and that we can learn nothing from history? I suppose you are one of those "can do' people who just wants to get in (boots and all) and fix the problems by listening to the majority voices like:

The Arab countries (400 Million)
The Muslim Countries (1.3 Billion)
The non aligned nations who are uncritical allies of Arabs and Muslims because of economic self interest.
The EU who are motivated the same way as the non aligned nations
The UN the ICJ and the rest of them who is controlled by all of the above

David, I don't suppose the possibility occured to you that we should look at the real root causes of the problems not just blame Israel ?

Reffo

02-16-2005, 09:03 PM

Alternatively, you may be one of those "hard nosed" rugged individuals who does not care about who is right or wrong. Do you just want to fix the problem, "hang the expense" ? If you are, I suppose you would not care if your solution will lead to a second holocaust for the Jews ? I suppose you would argue (like Chamberlain did just before WWII) that for "peace in our time" it is worth sacrificing the interests of small nations (like Checheslovakia was sacrificed to appease Hitler). I suppose, you would happily accept the demise of another 5 million Jews, just so long as you could have your peace ? If your thinking is like that, then just remember what happened after Checheslovakia was sacrificed ! World war II was not averted and about 50 million people died in spite of the sacrifice. Areyou sure the same thing won't happen if you scrifice Israel ?

Reffo

02-16-2005, 10:17 PM

Looking at the problems of today with the State of Israel being the hand in control and the Palestinians needing a helping hand in resolving this conflictOr are you one of those people who judges situations merely by superficially looking at outcomes rather than what are the causes of the conflict ? In this view, your analysis is simple:

Israel is winning
The poor Pals are losing

The solution to you is therefore obvious. Just even out the odds, let the Palestinians win and put the impertinent Israelis in their place, let them lose too just so that they can feel what it's like and be more reasonable. Am I right ? Is this what you advocate ? If you are, then I suppose you would have advocated a similar solution towards the end of World war 2 when the Americans and their allies were winning the War against Germany and Japan. Lucky you were not around then or we would be doing the Hitler slute now (those non Aryans who would be left alive) and we would worship the Japanese emperor !

Reffo

02-17-2005, 01:24 AM

The current course of the State of Israel and Palestine is heading towards disaster for everyone in the world. This has been made clear by the amount of international attention it has received by the global community.You are right in pointing out the inordinate amount of international attention towards this conflict. But have you asked yourself why this is so ? If you did, I think tht you would have to conclude that this is so because the Arabs chose to make this the world's number one agenda and the world has let them get away with it for far too long. The reality is that there are many other conflicts where the human suffering is as great or even much greater, for example:

In Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of black people are being killed by Arab militia
The conflict in Chechnia
There are a number of ongoing tribal conflicts in africa
The conflict in Nepal
Afghanistan
Iraq
Colombia

The list is not exhaustive. Here is a novel solution for you to resolve the ME conflict, try something different ! Why don't you start a campaign to convince the neutral nations to try a new voting pattern for a change. Instead regularly condemning Israel, as has been the reflex - 'knee jerk' reaction in the past, try to condemn Palestinian terrorist acts. I don't even want you to absolve Israel entirely. By all means, condemn them as well when it's really warranted. Just don't pull this consistent BS that it's always only Israel's fault! If you succeed with your campaign, you might be amazed with the results, you never know because it has never been tried before!

David2004

02-17-2005, 06:49 AM

For a secure and prosperous State of Israel she will have to change her ways and others will have to follow. For these changes, Israel relationship with her neighbors and the global community will change for the better making it a safer world for everyone. Israel economy currently is too depended on the military industrial complex to defend many of its illegitimate policies and the occupation of the Palestinian people. The safety and security of the State of Israel must be guaranteed without being a threat to her neighbors.

The evolution of the Old World will very among Israel?s Arab neighbors toward the New World and its ways. This is happening faster among Arab nations such as Jordan, Egypt Bahrain, and Qatar with many of the other Arab nations following at a slower rate of change and acceptance of the ways of the New World. The Jewish people as a culture are very divided where some Jewish people are left behind in the ways of the Old World remaining isolated from the changes of the New World. While other Jewish people remain in the forefront of the New World and it?s ways networking on a global level. It is the clash of these two cultures within Israel and her neighbors that are at the roots to many of the tensions of the world.

A major part of the root to the regional problems is a lack of common sense and the greed of a few blocking what is in the best interest of the masses. The perception and attitudes of the people will change ones the conditions on both sides improve. This will be greatly depended on a stronger regional economy that is more diverse raising the standard of living of the people on both sides. Tourism is the golden key to the prosperity of the people of this region.

MGB8

02-17-2005, 09:21 AM

David,

You are demonstrating the naivite of a teenager and absolutely zero understanding of the underlying causes of this conflcit, namely pan-Arab nationalism and pan-Muslim nationalism/imperialism. You ignore these causes, and base your predictions on "what will" or "what should" happen in the absence.
The thing is, if these causes did not exist, as you assume, there would have been peace decades ago. You are not that smart, David, to suggest that everyone else lacks common sense but you and other leftists (the term "military industrial complex" is usually a tip-off to marxist thought), in your smug arrogance, apparently can't see that.
Meanwhile, you also do not deal with the possibility "what if I'm wrong." You ask Israel to give up the one major thing that keeps the genocide of the Jews from occuring, Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, in return for papers that say "we promise not to attack you." Given that lefties cry all the time about the US's broken treaties with Native Americans, and given you maybe have some historical knowledge of other broken peace treaties in Europe and else-where....and maybe you even had a bit of knowledge as to the meaning of "hudna"....why would Israel risk the possiblity of inviting attack because its enemies know that it cannot hurt them seriously in response? Its moronic. Beyond moronic. Its sad, and either an Arabist or Arab/Muslim trying to put on Jew's clothing and spout stupidity and ignorance, or it is a really really stupid Jew.

David2004

02-17-2005, 10:46 AM

For over 1200 years the Muslims and Jewish people have lived together in peace for the most part. It has only been the last hundred years or so that large scale fighting between people of the two religions has broken out. As the Zionist movement gains strength creating the Jewish State of Israel the fighting and tensions increase between the two people. Today there is a chance for peace between the Arab, Palestinians and Jewish people if the governments and people on both sides sideline the extremists. People that are neutral and informed on an issue have an inherent instinct to what is fair and balanced. Too often, people in the middle of a conflict are polarized by the actions of the extremists on one side or the other.

All of the most modern weapon and technology have made the Jewish people of Israel no safer today than 57 years ago when they founded their state. There is an International Line of 1967 that is international agree to by most nations and people of any concern except for the governments of the United States and Israel. It is the United States unconditional support of the State of Israel policies and actions against the Palestinian people for the last 35+ years, that has deepen the global divide isolating us politically from the rest of the nations in the world. A new and evolving model for Palestine, Israel and the Holy City of Jerusalem must be implemented. Only by improving the balance in social, religious and human right with political and economic conditions will peace survive. Any nation or region with 40%-70% chronic unemployment will be dangerous and unsafe for those who are there.

The social engineering of a society is greatly influenced by the dominating force in the evolution of a nation of people. Less than 100 years ago most of the Middle East was under the Ottoman Empire for the previous 500 years with few to no recognized borders between nations of people. The rate people and nation evolve will vary greatly widening the gap between the ways of the people of the old world and the ways of the new world. With the State of Israel making great changes in her ways so too must the Arab nations with their relationship to their people. As the British Monarch system evolved over the last 100 years the Arab nation should following this model to varying degrees.

MGB8

02-17-2005, 10:54 AM

If most of the world agreed that Israel shouldn't exist, would that be right or okay? The majority of states during WWII either supported or didn't oppose the genocide of the Jews, so I guess that was allright, too.

Another blatant misrepresentation is that it is clear that UN R 242 does not require Israel to go back to the 1967 lines.

Meanwhile, Israel is MUCH safer today than it was 57 years ago or 40 years ago or 30 years ago, because of its weaponry. It is not only wrong, but utterly stupid or dishonest to assert the contrary. The fact that this war right now is a terrorist war and not a direct, conventional war, and that only about 1000 Israelis have died over 4 years is a testament to how much safer Israel is.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of poor and high unemployment rate nations that do not pose a major threat to their neighbors. David still ignores pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamic nationalism and imperialism (Jihadism). Doing so only shows either grave lack of understanding, willfull ignorance, or an agenda.

Can people really be that stupid?

Mediocrates

02-17-2005, 10:58 AM

For over 1200 years the Muslims and Jewish people have lived together in peace for the most part.

wrong, see dhimmi

It has only been the last hundred years or so that large scale fighting between people of the two religions has broken out.

wrong, see above

As the Zionist movement gains strength creating the Jewish State of Israel the fighting and tensions increase between the two people.

Wrong. There were plenty of massacres and pogroms in the 19th century and before.

All of the most modern weapon and technology have made the Jewish people of Israel no safer today than 57 years ago when they founded their state. [q/uote]

When Israel declared her independence it was invaded by the armies of 4 arab nations. As a result a little more than 2% of the entire population died and 11% were injured making it the bloodies percapita war in modern history.

[quote]
There is an International Line of 1967 that is international agree to by most nations and people of any concern except for the governments of the United States and Israel. It is the United States unconditional support of the State of Israel policies and actions against the Palestinian people for the last 35+ years, that has deepen the global divide isolating us politically from the rest of the nations in the world.

Wrong, countries pursue interests and agendas not ideologies. Israel could die tomorrow and other than you cheering we wouldn't hear any different from the arab world vis a vis the US.

A new and evolving model for Palestine, Israel and the Holy City of Jerusalem must be implemented. Only by improving the balance in social, religious and human right with political and economic conditions will peace survive. Any nation or region with 40%-70% chronic unemployment will be dangerous and unsafe for those who are there.

Did they teach you in Howard Zinn history 101 that most of the arab world has 40% unemployment? It does, look it up.

The social engineering of a society is greatly influenced by the dominating force in the evolution of a nation of people. Less than 100 years ago most of the Middle East was under the Ottoman Empire for the previous 500 years with few to no recognized borders between nations of people. The rate people and nation evolve will vary greatly widening the gap between the ways of the people of the old world and the ways of the new world. With the State of Israel making great changes in her ways so too must the Arab nations with their relationship to their people. As the British Monarch system evolved over the last 100 years the Arab nation should following this model to varying degrees.

We don't really care what the arabs do for themselves. And they certainly don't care if we are interested or not. Isn't your concern just the soft side of imperialism and occupation anyhow? they don't want us, they want our things.

David2004

02-17-2005, 11:18 AM

This message can be viewed in its entirity at:

www.capitolgrilling.com/cgi-bin/ ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/1/12376.html

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300032668&messageID=300401166

and

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15622.html

where David 2004 is doing the same post and run that he does here.

MGB8

02-17-2005, 12:04 PM

David,

Do you get a kick out of not answering other people's responses to your posts and posting the next article that was published in the World Socialist Weekly.

These are DISCUSSION boards. Your posts are not discussion, they are just you reading your own (very possibly not your own) writing.

People have pointed out various flaws in your logic as well as plain old errors in fact. You haven't responded, instead going on to your next point. That defeats the purpose of the board...this is not your own personal blog. Please stop this tactic and instead start discussing these issues, or just start your own blog but leave this forum to its intended purpose.

Canajew

02-17-2005, 12:31 PM

People that are neutral and informed on an issue have an inherent instinct to what is fair and balanced.
this is objectively not true at all. People who are objective tend to pay little attention to what actually happens and rely on the aminstream media for their limited knowledge. they also, unless the invest the time to educate themselves, tend to not understand the significance of particular proposals or positions for the parties. "Sure," the 'neutral' observer might say, "just give the old city of jerusalem to the Arabs and that will placate them and problem solved", but if you do not understand the significance of this for the Jews, or you do not understand the implications of this given past and likely future Arab behaviour, then the position of the "neutral observer" is not only biased and ill-informed, but also more or less useless.

It is when people have a true interest in achieving something that they can get together and arrive at a functional solution. Otherwise, you get Kosovo.

minusthejihad

02-17-2005, 01:28 PM

Reffo

02-17-2005, 01:29 PM

with her neighbors and the global community will change for the better making it a safer world for everyone. Israel economy currently is too depended on the military industrial complex to defend many of its illegitimate policies and the occupation of the Palestinian people.Oh No,,,,not the occupation mantra again.....Now, David listen carefully (or read my lips if you cannot listen):

There was no occupation of Arab land before or after 1948 and before 1967. Yet the Palestinians and Arabs still attacked the Jews and Israel. Gaza and the West Bank were under the jurisdiction of Egypt and Jordan respectively, prior to 1967. Yet, they did not create an independent Palestine, nor did the Palestinians demand this.

Now, I am not saying that the "Occupation" is not an issue. It does need to be resolved in a way that addresses both Israel's future security concerns and also provides satisfaction to ordinary Palestinians. But the occupation is definitely not the root cause of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The actual root cause is Arab nationalism, hatred and violence against Israel and the Israelis and Jews. The only solution that will avert a catastrophe is a change of mindset and a reversal of this hatred. So instead of you and your comrades pointing the finger of blame on Israel, you could be more helpful in starting a campaign to educate the Arabs that they have been misled by their demagogic leaders. I think that your campaign should be at least as pervasive as the so called "leftist progressives" vilification campign that has been waged against Israel over the last couple of decades.

David2004

02-17-2005, 11:19 PM

More often than not I do not respond directly to posters. Any of my posts I have written unless otherwise stated. I read many of response to my posts and in some case the debate by two who disagree. Often I write a new post trying to clarify the response on another post. I am trying to open the door to other possibilities for peace in the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis. Yes, I am making the best argument I can for the Palestinian people for they are today?s victims. I want to see a safe and secure Israel as well as a Palestine with the people coexisting in peace. The American people are well informed by the mass media of the undesirable terrorists actions of a few Palestinian people that are condemned by most people in the world. The synopsis to my vision of peace to the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis can be found at.

Peace Reform Initiative in the Middle East

www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2180

http://traprockpeace.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18

PS I will be responding to Reffo Oh No,,,,not the occupation mantra again.....Now, David listen carefully (or read my lips if you cannot listen):

?There was no occupation of Arab land before or after 1948 and before 1967?.

Mediocrates

02-18-2005, 04:14 AM

More often than not I do not respond directly to posters...

Lovely.

MGB8

02-18-2005, 05:52 AM

By not responding to posters you do several things:

(1) Show the weakness of your positions and opinions. If your positions cannot stand up to debate, then they are clearly flawed, at best, and flat wrong, more likely.

(2) Show your intelllectual cowardice.

(3) Most importantly, you defeat the purpose of a discussion boards. Unless you have something to DISCUSS, go spam somewhere else. If you do have something to discuss, you are welcome to discuss it. If you want to direct people to a web site or point of view, that is fine, but limit it, and cite the website, as you just did above.

Meanwhile, your posts have been demonstrated to be silly and wrong on the majority of your foundational facts and assumptions.

MGB8

02-18-2005, 05:57 AM

David,

Meanwhile, your ? is not a response. It isn't anything more than "I don't believe you." That's garbage, and certainly does not support your opinoin.

Meanwhile, the idea that its "just a few" Pal Arabs is an exageration, or a flat out LIE. A Majority of Pal Arabs support (or supported, it depends on the month's polls and how tired they are) terrorism against Israel. A LARGE number are involved in either direct attacks or direct support for attempted and succesful masss murder. The US people, frankly, have no idea as to the number of attacks or how often they occur, because most of the time they are unsuccesful and only reported within Israel, or, even better, reported as "Israel kills Palestinian" - when an armed Pal Arab is approaching an Israeli village looking to kill and is stopped.

In other words, David, everything that you have based your "opinion" on is either partly or wholy untrue. Does that bother you or give you any pause? Or is it another case of "I believe what I want to believe?"

Reffo

02-18-2005, 05:59 AM

David2004, I have been trying to work out where you are coming from but "The Penny just Dropped", I think I just worked it out.

You are a school student trying to do a project on the Middle East and you are just presenting ideas for feedback. Am I right ? If I am, just stick around, I am sure that people around here will be pleased to help you.

MGB8

02-18-2005, 06:03 AM

Finally, the Palestinian Arabs (please remember they are part of the Pal-Arab, Pan-Muslim ethinic identity, even Palestinian Arab Christians, who have been driven out of Bethlahem and suffer greatly) ARE NOT VICTIMS.

They are a people who have decided to go to war for real estate. Plain and simple. Not for "rights" - because they had more rights under Israel than they do under any other Arab state, with possibly the exception of Palestinian Arabs in Jordan (but Jordan doesn't want them). They had more MONEY than any other non-oil fed Arabs. They had more FREEDOM of speech and action than ANY other Arabs. This was not true under Arab rule, but only after the occupation started.

By starting a war, they caused the natural consequences of war, and far lesser consequences than what any nation other than Israel would cause onto them. That is not a victim, unless you mean that the term "you make your bed, you lie in it" - the bed maker is a victim of themselves.

There is a difference between a weak party and a victim. A weak party can still be an agressor, a want to be bully, and, frankly, for the greater part evil - a nation who's identity is based on the goal of ethnic cleansing (no Jews in the mideast, no Jewish state) and genocide of the same people.

Reffo

02-18-2005, 06:54 AM

David2004, Please read one of my earlier posts for some background information about how this conflict startedClick Here
Also, please read this one which is a suggestion to resolve the issue of the Palestinian refugees.Click HereYou may also want to read other posts on that thread.

These are also useful bits of background information for you:

This document shows other precedents where a population exchange took place between two ethnic groups in order to resolve their respective refugee problems :http://staff.bath.ac.uk/mlssaw/working-papers/ethniccleansing.pdf

This document accounts the early experiences, in 1948, and the perspective of one of many Palestinian Arabs who is now an Israeli citizen:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16457

David2004

02-18-2005, 10:30 AM

[QUOTE=Reffo]Oh No,,,,not the occupation mantra again.....Now, David listen carefully (or read my lips if you cannot listen):

There was no occupation of Arab land before or after 1948 and before 1967.

On November 30, 1947 United Nation Resolution 181 was passed creating two states out of one land. On Friday May 14, 1948 the State of Israel was born. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_israel_date.php

The 1947 United Nations Partition Map and the 1949 Rhode Armistice Map can be found here. http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1947-un-partition-plan-reso.html

The United Nations History of Palestine can be found here. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

It is ironic in Dennis Ross book ?The Missing Peace? in the very front of his book there are maps of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflicts. Starting with a map outlining the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan of UN Resolution 181 and the land the Israelis took over in the 1948 War creating the 1949 Armistice line. There other Maps included from Wye River and Camp David Accords. Yet Dennis Ross who was at these Accords stated that there were no official maps presents outlining the boarders at these Accords.

Fifty years plus before the birth of the State of Israel the Zionist movement was organizing for their fight for the Jewish State of Israel. The National Jewish Fund was founded their goal was to buy land in Palestine to be use by Jewish people only. The wealthy European and American Jewish people and temples have been financing the fight for the Greater Jewish State of Israel with little to no regard for the indigenous people of the land. The land they could not buy they took in war.

The Israelis the master of diplomacy saying one thing at the negotiation table while they continue doing what they planned all along on the ground. The State of Israel never lived within the spirit of UN Resolution 181 in their quest for the Greater State of Israel starting the 1948 War for control of more land.

In red we have an example of libelous Arab propaganda that is not only plainly untrue, a lie, but exposes "David" for what he is in repeating it. Arguing that Israel started the 48 war is like arguing the Holocaust didn't happen. Its not just a lie, it is one sprung almost exclusively by anti-semitism.

MGB8

02-18-2005, 11:08 AM

MANY factual and logical problems with the above post....!

According to "David", Jews are not allowed to purchase land for a national homeland, as he implies that this was wrong. If Quakers wanted to purchase land somewhere for a quaker community, "David" would also be upset.

Moreover, the Jewish purchasing of land apparently started the 1948 war. So if I buy a house in a black neighborhood and they don't want whitey in their midst, according to "david" they have the right to attempt to kill me and take the house that I purchased. Could it be that their hatred of whitey was the cause of their attempted murder, and not my purchase of the house?

Now, I expect David to say something like - oh, you have the right to stay (despite the tone in the previous message which condemned the creation and existence of the state of Israel), but not to take their houses.

The answer to that is I'd not only have the right to self defense, but also to sue for DAMAGES after the attack, and I would thus have the right to their money, which could include a right to their property if they had no money to pay with - in the context of a civilian attempted murder. In the context of the "Law of Nations" - ESPECIALLY at the time of 1948-49 (before "International Law" had come to be used by some to say that the "justness" of a war doesn't matter and land shouldn't be acquired by war at all) the state that is attacked DID have the right to keep the land from the attacking groups.

Meanwhile, Jordan and Egypt kept parts of land that was supposed to be a Pal Arab state. The "Palestinians" there never declared a state, not before or after Jordan and Egypt took control of that land. Why not? Maybe because they are ethnically the same as their pan-Arab brothers??

Moreover, David needs to learn about the definition of what is an "occupation." Technically, it needs to be land taken from another state! So there is no technical occupation. There is arguably an occupation of the Pal Arab people in the WB and Gaza, because, unlike the Arabs in Israel, they cannot vote for their sovereign government (like most of the other Arabs.) That is the ONLY sense in which there is an occupation of the WB, legally. In that sense, there can be no claim of occupation to pre '67 Israel, as the Arabs could vote - how can a citizen of the nation, one in which he votes for the government, be occupied by his own government?

Or are all non-majority ethnic groups in ethnic states occupied? Is it occupied Kurdistand in Iraq and Turkey and Iran? When Muslims have massive areas of france, is France "occupying" them? What about Jews before they were expelled from the Arab nations? Were they occupied? They couldn't even vote.

As for the completely baseless accusation of Zionist double talk....well, despite being libelous and unsupported (and exposing david for what he is), it is worth keeping in mind that the Zionist agreement with King Feisal, the Hashemite ruler of Saudi Arabia, agreed to give the Jews from the River to the Sea as their national homeland, and the UN partition took even more away from that understanding for the Arabs....

NewsGuy

02-18-2005, 12:17 PM

The Israelis the master of diplomacy saying one thing at the negotiation table while they continue doing what they planned all along on the ground...

It's bizarre that someone would blame Israel for defending itself against the Palestinians' radical Muslim terrorism. But I have seen many pseudo-humanists like David2004 make their argument that the war on terrorism amounts to "occupation," or Jews living in the Jewish homeland is "occupation."

I have never seen these pseudo-humanists ever complain to the Arabs about terrorism, tyranny, discrimination or genocide. It is always the victims of Muslim terrorism who are to blame.

Keeping this in mind, one has to take into account that David2004's (and his fellow pseudo-humanists') arguments about Israel causing wars are built on dishonesty and hypocrisy.

The facts are:

1) Muslims have brutally occupied the Jewish homeland for centuries, through terrorism and oppression.

2) The Arabs started 5 wars in the Middle East and have committed various genocides in any place they could, from Saudi Arabia to Darfur.

3) When the Jews resisted Arab terrorism, the Arabs marched on Israel with the goal of mass-murdering every man, woman and child, simply based on religious and ethnic hatred.

4) Luckily, the Arabs lost each of the wars they started, although the basic culture of racism and violence persists in Arab society till this very day, supported by radical Leftists and pseudo-humanists who believe that Israel has no right to defend itself militarily from Palestinian attacks.

Reffo

02-18-2005, 12:54 PM

It is ironic in Dennis Ross book ?The Missing Peace? in the very front of his book there are maps of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflicts. Starting with a map outlining the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan of UN Resolution 181 and the land the Israelis took over in the 1948 War creating the 1949 Armistice line.Even your own sources confirm that the UN voted for two states, Israel and Palestine and in 1948 Israel did not occupy any Palestinian or Arab land.

in their quest for the Greater State of Israel starting the 1948 War for control of more land.This is just a LIE. The 1948 war was clearly started by the Arabs and the Palestinians. This is what the BBC has to say about what happened after Israel declared it's independence in 1948
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/israel_founded.stm:

"Israel founded: Armistice
War broke out in 1948 when Britain withdrew, the Jews declared the state of Israel and troops from neighbouring Arab nations moved in. After eight months of fighting an armistice line was agreed, establishing the West Bank and Gaza Strip as distinct geographical units."
Your claim that Israel started the 1948 war is preposterous and counter intuitive. Do you really believe that the small newly formed Israel made up of a core group of native Jews and whose rank was swelled by Jewish refugees from the holocaust, would have dared to take on the might of the combined Arab armies ? Even if they thought that they could win, do you think that such people would have taken the risk to undertake this venture ? Not to mention that even if they would have been foolish enough to think of attacking, don't you think that they would have been deterred by the expected high rate of casualties ? In fact, just for the record, The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution. This is part of what it said:

"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight"

You are technically right that after 1948 Israel did end up with more land than was allocated by the UN in 1948 as did Jordan and Egypt (who ended up with the West Bank and Gaza respectively). However, since Israel was the aggrieved party which was attacked by the palestinians and the Arabs, had the right to hold on to the additional territory in order to guarantee it's security from future Arab attacks. Again, there are many historical precedents elsewhere where this principle was upheld (even putting aside security issues). For example, both Germany and Japn lost parts of their historical territories after World war 2. Just, for the record, California used to belong to Mexico but it became part of the USA after the Mexicans were defeated in a war between the two countries.

Reffo

02-18-2005, 02:58 PM

David2004: Just for the record, these were the enormous costs that the newly formed Israel had to bear, as a result of the 1948 Palestinian/Arab agression:

Many of its most productive fields lay gutted and mined
Its citrus groves, for decades the basis of the Yishuv's [Jewish community] economy, were largely destroyed
Military expenditures totaled approximately $500 million
6,373 Israelis were killed, nearly one percent of the Jewish population of 650,000.

Source:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html

This might explain to you why Israel was reluctant to return to the old vulnerable borders of the 1948 pre-armistice lines. Can you blame them ?

My comments on the earlier post still applies though: Israel certainly did not occupy ANY Arab land before the 1948 war. Also, after the 1948 war, Egypt and Jordan between them did occupy the Gaza and the West Bank yet they did not allow the creation of an independent Palestinian state in there, nor did the Palestinians demand this! Can you tell me why ?

Sumud

02-19-2005, 07:23 AM

David2004 isnâ€™t doing the most convincing job of making his point, but the responses show no shortage of their own assertions and selectivity, a real smorgasboard of â€˜believing what you want to believeâ€™.

Itâ€™s clear that Zionist leaders would have preferred to establish their state via peaceful means. Itâ€™s also perfectly clear that they knew that this was not possible. The King-Crane Commission laid out the rather obvious reasons for this, many years before.

The vast Arab army pitted against the tiny Jewish forces is another favourite myth. The Jewish forces were larger at every stage of the conflict, and were growing more quickly than the Arab forces. The end result was a function of the standard equation â€“ the stronger side wins.
Thereâ€™s a debate about â€˜who started itâ€™, but itâ€™s essentially meaningless, as there was no other possible outcome. Jewish forces were better prepared, having operational plans drawn up years before and the Arab forces riven by the usual internal rivalries. The other aspect to this is the usual claim that the Arab armies descended on Israel to wipe it out. This isnâ€™t quite true either. The fighting escalated throughout the first half of 1948. The main Arab armies didnâ€™t become involved until the Mandate expired in May, yet in April Jewish forces began attacking areas that were deep inside the territory allotted to the Arab state. Jewish forces also began an assault to take Jerusulem, which was not to be part of the Jewish state, several days before the British Mandate expired. Jordanian forces contented themselves with holding the Arab part of Palestine, rather trying to wipe Israel off the map.

MGB8

02-19-2005, 08:56 AM

And Sumud with the revisionism yet again!

Its true that in May of 48 Israel had 60,000 troops, but less than 20,000 were actually equipped. The Arabs were better equiped.

IDF Arabs
Tanks 1 w/o cannon 40
Armored cars (w/ cannon) 2 200
Armored cars (w/o cannon) 120 300
Artillery 5 140
AA and AT guns 24 220
Warplanes 0 74
Scout planes 28 57
Navy (armed ships) 3 12

To use wilkepedia, which contradicts itself by incorporating Arab/benny Morris revisionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Over the next few days, approximately 10,000 Lebanese, 60,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, 50,500 Egyptian, 60,000-90,000 Transjordanian troops and unknown number of Saudi and Yemenite troops invaded Israel. Together with the few thousand irregular Arab soldiers, they faced an Israeli Zionist army numbering 30,000-35,000. Both sides increased their manpower over the following months, but the Israeli advantage grew steadily

Note - that makes it about 200,000 Arab troops invading at the start of the war.

In fact, the Arab forces were vastly inferior to the IDF. By mid-May 1948 the IDF was fielding 65,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949. Of the Arab aircraft, only less than a dozen fighters and three to four bombers saw action, the rest were unserviceable. With only a dozen or so airplanes the IDF achieved air superiority by the fall of 1948. And the IDF had vast superiority in firepower and knowledgeable personnel, many of whom had seen action in WWII. Source: "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001", Benny Morris (2001), pp. 217-18.

David2004

02-19-2005, 11:32 AM

As the American society has done in the celebration of Thanksgiving the Israelis have done in the birth of the State of Israel. What is taught as fact to our children about what little history they study is often far from the real truth. When Evangelical TV preachers of war such as Jerry Farwell and Pat Roberson never come out and condemn a war that the United States government is involved. Yes the religious preachers of hate are on all side of war using their scriptures to defend their stories.

One person?s truth can be another person lie. Too often this is the case of recorded history in order for the winning party to save face. The fact of the matter is as a global nation of people we must solve problems of today for a better world tomorrow for our children. This is the strongest common denominator between people all over the world. Only by building bridge and not walls between people will we have the resources to build a foundation on peace. If 20% of what the world spend on the military industrial complex was spent in humanitarian programs around the world. The world would be a much different place.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Military

To all of those people who do not understand why there are so many people and leaders of nation upset with the policies of the United States and Israel.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/is/Top-Rankings
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Top-Rankings

If you can defend the top ranking of so many these categories of problems confronting the United States and Israel. I will only try to tell you there are a better ways.

Reffo

02-19-2005, 12:03 PM

Itâ€™s clear that Zionist leaders would have preferred to establish their state via peaceful means.Yes, and this is the crux of the matter

Itâ€™s also perfectly clear that they knew that this was not possible.Sadly, you are right. They did know and yes, unfortunately they knew they had to be prepared to defend themselves. Can one blame them? They were a people who already lost one third (6 million) of their brothers in the holocaust (only a few years earlier) - just think about it and apply this proportion to today's Arab population, 6 Million would be equivalent to 130 Million Arabs being killed (makes you think doesn't it? It is a horrendous figure). They were obviously not going to allow themselves to be that vulnerable ever again!

Thereâ€™s a debate about â€˜who started itâ€™, but itâ€™s essentially meaningless, as there was no other possible outcome. Jewish forces were better prepared, having operational plans drawn up years before and the Arab forces riven by the usual internal rivalries. The other aspect to this is the usual claim that the Arab armies descended on Israel to wipe it out.The debate is not essentially meaningless. Sumud, I am sure you heard the following saying:

"If it Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck and acts like a duck then it must be a duck"
Well, the Arabs/Palestinians in 1948 prepared for war (walked like a duck), they talked war (quacked like a duck), saying things like "....this will be a war of extermination.... jewish blood will drench the earth...etc" and the combined Arab armies did attack the newly formed Jewish state. Any self respecting history book will verify this fact (also see my earlier post about what the BBC says about this - and they are not generally known as avid supporters of Israel). The debate is not meaningless because as you know, I have been contending that the root cause of the ME problem is hate and violence - NOT "occupation". So, my contention is that the violence has to be stopped first, then we need to address the hate and the "occupation" probably in that order but perhaps even simultaneously.

The fighting escalated throughout the first half of 1948. The main Arab armies didnâ€™t become involved until the Mandate expired in May, yet in April Jewish forces began attacking areas that were deep inside the territory allotted to the Arab state.This is partially true, but you forgot to mention that these were "tit-for-tat" attacks in which Jews retaliated for Palestinian attacks and vice versa. Essentially, it was a rehearsal for the main event that the Arabs/Palestinians clearly wanted while the Jews hoped to avoid (as you admit) but they were realistic enough to know that they could not. However, even in these early skirmishes it is more correct to say that on the whole, the Palestinians were the initiators and the Jews responded albeit very vigorously at times.

Reffo

02-19-2005, 12:22 PM

If you can defend the top ranking of so many these categories of problems confronting the United States and Israel. I will only try to tell you there are a better waysDavid, your preachings are getting to be tiresome especially since you do not want to debate the issues. So, this is going to be my last response to you unless you are willing to debate. And part of my earlier response to SUMUD answers all the points that you are trying to raise with regards to Israel's spending on armaments.

Sadly, you are right. They did know and yes, unfortunately they knew they had to be prepared to defend themselves. Can one blame them? They were a people who already lost one third (6 million) of their brothers in the holocaust (only a few years earlier) - just think about it and apply this proportion to today's Arab population, 6 Million would be equivalent to 130 Million Arabs being killed (makes you think doesn't it? It is a horrendous figure). They were obviously not going to allow themselves to be that vulnerable ever again! Sadly, the above was true for Israel in 1948 and it is still true today.

MGB8

02-19-2005, 01:15 PM

More distortion and illogic.

First, the birth of the state of Israel was well recorded, being that the media was well developed at that time. The TRUTH is that 200,000+ Arab soldiers invaded Israel with as many planes and 40x the tanks etc. However, the Jews, who started at 60-65,000 soldiers, but less than 20K combat-equipped, and grew to about 115K soldiers, were fighting to prevent their own genocide, while the Arabs were fighting a war of conquest - so many arabs deserted and or fled.

Revisionists, including "post-zionist" (read: Anti-zionist) have tried to re-write history, just like Holocaust deniers. David here would say that we have done the same thing to the Holocaust as Americans romanticized early colonial days, as he is saying with the birth of Israel. While there is a degree of romanticization, there is a greater degree of sheer lying on david's part, and, frankly, anti-semitism, although maybe not intentional.

The rest of the post is giberish. He didn't actually make an argument, but he implied that Israel and the US military spending and economic success caused the hatred towards them. This is of course utter nonsense.

Israel HAS TO spend a large amount on military, because if it does not, its neighbors will succeed in the genocide that they have tried to committ over and over again for the last 50 years. That david refuses to acknowledge this is telling. He apparently doesn't believe the Jihadists when they say their goal is to exterminate the Jews and destroy Israel, nor does their popular support matter. In other words, the HATE causes the military spending, not the other way around. Nor was Israel first in the region all kinds of military spending..but the nations that were are not hated like Israel. What can david say to that? Nothing...because there is no correlation.

That Israel and the US are economic successes should not engender any hate. Maybe some envy, but, frankly, envy is a sin on the part of the envier, not the envied. And the Arab gulf states have tons of oil money - they really have every advantage. Its their own fault that they don't have their act together.

What a joke. A sad joke. Another moron leftist or jew hater or both. Get a clue.

As the American society has done in the celebration of Thanksgiving the Israelis have done in the birth of the State of Israel. What is taught as fact to our children about what little history they study is often far from the real truth. When Evangelical TV preachers of war such as Jerry Farwell and Pat Roberson never come out and condemn a war that the United States government is involved. Yes the religious preachers of hate are on all side of war using their scriptures to defend their stories.

One person?s truth can be another person lie. Too often this is the case of recorded history in order for the winning party to save face. The fact of the matter is as a global nation of people we must solve problems of today for a better world tomorrow for our children. This is the strongest common denominator between people all over the world. Only by building bridge and not walls between people will we have the resources to build a foundation on peace. If 20% of what the world spend on the military industrial complex was spent in humanitarian programs around the world. The world would be a much different place.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Military

To all of those people who do not understand why there are so many people and leaders of nation upset with the policies of the United States and Israel.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/is/Top-Rankings
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Top-Rankings

If you can defend the top ranking of so many these categories of problems confronting the United States and Israel. I will only try to tell you there are a better ways.

Sumud

02-19-2005, 06:56 PM

And Sumud with the revisionism yet again!

Its true that in May of 48 Israel had 60,000 troops, but less than 20,000 were actually equipped. The Arabs were better equiped.

IDF Arabs
Tanks 1 w/o cannon 40
Armored cars (w/ cannon) 2 200
Armored cars (w/o cannon) 120 300
Artillery 5 140
AA and AT guns 24 220
Warplanes 0 74
Scout planes 28 57
Navy (armed ships) 3 12

To use wilkepedia, which contradicts itself by incorporating Arab/benny Morris revisionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Over the next few days, approximately 10,000 Lebanese, 60,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, 50,500 Egyptian, 60,000-90,000 Transjordanian troops and unknown number of Saudi and Yemenite troops invaded Israel.

(MGB8's definition of 'revisionism' - historical acoounts encorporating new sources and materials previously unknown, that he finds incompatible with dearly held beliefs.)

You're quite right about a rather confused accounting on wilkpedia. I think the on-line encyclopedias have a long way to go to prove themselves as reliable sources.

The figures Morris cites are roughly correct. The earlier troop numbers cited by wikipedia (200,000!) are laughable.

On equipment, the numbers are roughly right, but as is later pointed out, much of this was unserviceable or very old. The 74 aircraft translated into 10 working spitfires and a couple of bombers. Arab force faced the other problem that there was quite a mixture of equipment which made it difficult to supply ammunition and parts reliably. In contrast, Jewish forces were equipped uniformly and much of it was new equipment from Checzhoslovakia. Most of this had arrived by April which then allowed them to go on the offensive, launching operations to capture major population centres outside the proposed Jewish state, such as Acre and Jaffa and then Jerusalem.

The Arab forces were hamstrung, as Jordan had ben put in overall command, but what the Arab league didn't know, was that Abdullah had been approached to carve up the area between himself and the Israelis. Despite pushing back Jewish forces from Jerusalem, Jordanian troops simply occupied the Old City area and made no effort to push further east and capture more territory. Abdullahs ambitions were not to 'throw the Jews into the sea', but his own territorial aggrandisement.

The tiny Jewish David against the mighty Arab Goliath is a nice bedtime story for children, but that's all.

Sumud

02-19-2005, 07:16 PM

Yes, and this is the crux of the matter
Not quite.

If I was determined take someone's house from them, it would be great if I could do it with without a fight, but I'd understand that this was very unlikely. Their refusal to give it to me, would hardly constitute 'the crux of the matter'.

Sadly, you are right. They did know and yes, unfortunately they knew they had to be prepared to defend themselves. Can one blame them?
And it had been known for a very long time. in fact the ealiest Zionist leaders at the turn of the century also were aware of this problem. It didn't suddenly emege in 1947. The US knew the problem by the time of the King-Crane commission and the British finally admitted it to themsleves, by the 1930's.

So can one blame them? Yes. Zionist leaders walked into this with their eyes wide open.

Well, the Arabs/Palestinians in 1948 prepared for war (walked like a duck), they talked war (quacked like a duck), saying things like "....this will be a war of extermination.... jewish blood will drench the earth...etc" and the combined Arab armies did attack the newly formed Jewish state. Any self respecting history book will verify this fact (also see my earlier post about what the BBC says about this - and they are not generally known as avid supporters of Israel).
As did the Zionists. Plan Dalet began to be drawn up in 1944. The early Zionist leaders talked about how the Yishuv needed a 'Great Power' ally to have any chance of success. The military component of achieving a Jewish state was always known, as was the local populations opposition to such a thing.

The debate is not meaningless because as you know, I have been contending that the root cause of the ME problem is hate and violence - NOT "occupation". So, my contention is that the violence has to be stopped first, then we need to address the hate and the "occupation" probably in that order but perhaps even simultaneously.

And my contention, well suported by the historical record, is that hatred and violence was created by imposing a fait accompli on the inhabiitants of the land without their approval or consultation. In fact it was done in absolute opposition to it, as was clealry recognised at the time. This is the origin of the conflict.
For their part, the Palestinians are saying, you have your state, now let us have ours on what remains of our land, without you taking any more.

If the 'Road Map' continues to allow for Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land and settlements in the West bank and 'Jews only' roads, it will indeed be a 'Road Map to War'.

MGB8

02-19-2005, 08:04 PM

The earlier figures are actually the correct ones. They were longstanding accounts taken at about the period during when the fighting began. The Benny Morris figures are the product of a self-declared "post-zionist" who's very purpose, until recently, was to discredit the creation and existence of Israel. Now, according to the accounts I have read, the Arab armies were struck with high degrees of desertion and flight once they realized that the Jews weren't going to die easily or run away, which brought the Arab numbers down significantly.

What's laughable is the Benny Morris account - to believe that all these Arab nations could only muster 40-50 thousands troops, and that these troops would be the basis of the well documented invasion and calls that there would be a bloodbath, etc. The lowest credible number, which only accounts for the regulars of the 5 major arab armies (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) is about 80,000, with British planes (4 of which were shot down) and tanks, as compared to Israel which had 60,000 troops, less than 20,000 decently armed and that same amount with combat experience, and no tanks or cannon, as well as fewer aircraft.

There is some truth to the issue of the Jordanian desire for territorial agrandizement, although Sumud's characterization is flawed, at best. Had Jordan been able to wipe Israel out easily, it would have. However, King Abdullah realized that it would not be so easy, and that he could face defeat, loss of life, humiliation and possibly loss of territory, and so, as I understand it, he cut a deal. Ben Gurion, on the other hand, didn't think that the Arabs would flee the west bank as they had much of what became Israel proper, and didn't want to be saddled with them - so he too cut a deal.

The "bedtime" story, in the end, is Benny Morris's version, made to make the Arabs feel better about themselves. So he takes a bunch of non-credible Arab sources, cites them as the truth, ignores the Arab statements to the contrary and all evidence that doesn't support his "post-Zionist" history, and sets out an illogical account of these many Arab nations including the locals, and after all, according to arab accounts they vastly outnumbered the Jews in the area, but somehow could only muster less troops than the Jews...and the numerical arms advantages are put aside and ignored - all to give the Arabs a nice bedtime story of their own.

Unfortunately for them, the reality is that the history that was accurately reported the first time around and for about 40 years or so is the truth, and the more recent revisionism the "laughable" stufff. Garbage.

And then we have "plan dalet." This is a "plan" which is offen exagerated in imporantance and twisted by Arabists. For the more on of the mythical plan Dalet, go here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm

More history...

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#Modern%20History

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_course.php

(here they just give the size of the militaries, not necessarily how much were sent into Israel.)

(MGB8's definition of 'revisionism' - historical acoounts encorporating new sources and materials previously unknown, that he finds incompatible with dearly held beliefs.)

You're quite right about a rather confused accounting on wilkpedia. I think the on-line encyclopedias have a long way to go to prove themselves as reliable sources.

The figures Morris cites are roughly correct. The earlier troop numbers cited by wikipedia (200,000!) are laughable.

On equipment, the numbers are roughly right, but as is later pointed out, much of this was unserviceable or very old. The 74 aircraft translated into 10 working spitfires and a couple of bombers. Arab force faced the other problem that there was quite a mixture of equipment which made it difficult to supply ammunition and parts reliably. In contrast, Jewish forces were equipped uniformly and much of it was new equipment from Checzhoslovakia. Most of this had arrived by April which then allowed them to go on the offensive, launching operations to capture major population centres outside the proposed Jewish state, such as Acre and Jaffa and then Jerusalem.

The Arab forces were hamstrung, as Jordan had ben put in overall command, but what the Arab league didn't know, was that Abdullah had been approached to carve up the area between himself and the Israelis. Despite pushing back Jewish forces from Jerusalem, Jordanian troops simply occupied the Old City area and made no effort to push further east and capture more territory. Abdullahs ambitions were not to 'throw the Jews into the sea', but his own territorial aggrandisement.

The tiny Jewish David against the mighty Arab Goliath is a nice bedtime story for children, but that's all.

Reffo

02-20-2005, 12:53 AM

Not quite.

If I was determined take someone's house from them, it would be great if I could do it with without a fight, but I'd understand that this was very unlikely. Their refusal to give it to me, would hardly constitute 'the crux of the matter'.I think we are going around in circles. What do you mean by saying "take someone's house from them" ? Do you mean that the newly formed Israel had no right to exist on the land allocated to it by the UN security council ?

And it had been known for a very long time.I don't understand how this negates my earlier comment:
Sadly, you are right. They did know and yes, unfortunately they knew they had to be prepared to defend themselves. Can one blame them? They were a people who already lost one third (6 million) of their brothers in the holocaust (only a few years earlier) - just think about it and apply this proportion to today's Arab population, 6 Million would be equivalent to 130 Million Arabs being killed (makes you think doesn't it? It is a horrendous figure). They were obviously not going to allow themselves to be that vulnerable ever again!

As did the Zionists. Plan Dalet began to be drawn up in 1944. The early Zionist leaders talked about how the Yishuv needed a 'Great Power' ally to have any chance of success. The military component of achieving a Jewish state was always known, as was the local populations opposition to such a thing. Sumud, my understanding of 'Plan Dalet' is that it was a contingency plan for defending a Jewish state from invasion even before the partition plan was approved in November 1947. I think what you are saying that it was a plan to take further land away from the Palestinians in addition to what was allocated to the Jews by the UN ? If so, how is this consistent with your earlier admission that "Itâ€™s clear that Zionist leaders would have preferred to establish their state via peaceful means."? Are you saying that the ferocious Jews were hoping to intimidate the Plestinians into conceding additional land by peaceful means ? Isn't that a bit far fetched ? Do you think the Jews are that stupid ? Why don't you just stick to your original story and don't concede that "Itâ€™s clear that Zionist leaders would have preferred to establish their state via peaceful means."?

Reffo

02-20-2005, 03:07 AM

Abdullahs ambitions were not to 'throw the Jews into the sea', but his own territorial aggrandisement.But by 'throwing the Jews into the sea' he would have had even greater aggrandisement. Are you saying that he was so altruistic that even though he could 'throw the jews into the sea', he did not? Are you saying that he liked the Jews so much that he took pity on them and gave up an opportunity of even greater aggrandisement ?
Sounds a bit 'sus' to me .....

MGB8

02-20-2005, 07:37 AM

What you are seeing, and what I researched a little last night, is the ARAB FAIRY TALE that they have told themselves to justify their attempted genocide. The leaps of logic that they make....

So, their rejection of the partition plan and establishment of Isael and subsequent invasion wasn't really about destroying Israel, as they said at the time - it was about just getting the WB & Gaza etc. (and preventing a Pal Arab state?), and the fact that they invaded right after the declaration of independence with 7 Arab armies (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq) plus the locals.... well, it was just about protecting from the Zionists plans for land grabs.

Moreover, the many millions of Arabs in the mostly several decade old Arab states could only muster 35,000 troops! Forget the "great majority" of Arabs that existed in Western Palestine - they didn't care enough to fight for their land and could only get a couple thousand soldiers and militia!

Because Ben Gurion had appraoched Abdullah to try to get him not to invade means that they had a deal to divide up Jerusalem, and the cease fire was for ISRAEL's benefit, because the outnumbered Arab troops were winning many victories against the "better armed and more vast" Zionists! It was an act of mercy! The Jews didn't press for Old Jerusalem not because their forces were strained from fighting on all sides or for the fear that the Arabs would bring in more of their army, but because the small Arab resistance was too fierce!

The "three no's" are meaningless, and the issue of desertion in the arab armies unimportant. And again, the goal of the invasion was just to stop Zionist expansion - which is why the Arabs unanimously rejected the Partition plan and invaded! Oh, and the Jewish recruitment wasn't motivated by desire to avoid genocide, and the Jews lack of tanks and 1/7 the number of planes (until later on) were irrelevant because they had industrial powerhouse CZECH arms smuggled in, as opposed to the garbage british goods like the 4 R.A.F. planes the Israeli's shot down.

THIS IS THE ARAB NARRATIVE.

It is re-inforced by post-zionists and other silly Jews (the guy from the Netherland, Martin Van whatever) taking Arab sources, which weren't present around the time of the war but popped up decades later when Arabs decided it was better to play the victim...as truth. So they rejected older accounts for "new documents" based on the reliablity of the new documents, as well as Israeli soldier bravado and arrogance, which unfortunately runs very high - they say some dumb things to puff themselves up, not realizing that since 67 the Arab have been fighting a very disciplined war for Public Opinoin and to establish their (false) narrative.

In all, what Sumud presents is the ARAB fairy tale, where the Arab rejections and aggressions are irrelevant - they are just victims, despite having the numbers, the arms, the political leverage (the 48 arms embargo), etc.

Note, also that Sumud still won't talk about pan Arabism and pan-Islamism and according pride issues, or Dar-al-Islam/Salaam vs. Dar Al-Harb, which is the real source of this conflict to begin with.

MGB8

02-20-2005, 07:42 AM

I think we are going around in circles. What do you mean by saying "take someone's house from them" ? Do you mean that the newly formed Israel had no right to exist on the land allocated to it by the UN security council ?

That is exactly what he is trying to say. He will then point to the Palestinian think tanks that "prove" that Arabs had a majority land ownership in all of Israel (except maybe Tel-Aviv), that discount state land to only a tiny fraction.

The fact that no Palestinian nation ever existed is irrelevant. The fact that Jews formed a majority (albeit small) in their partition areas is irrelevant. The fact that the Arabs talked about how they wanted to stop the handing of SOUTHERN SYRIA to the Jews is irrelevent.

NewsGuy

02-20-2005, 12:45 PM

Sumud,

Many people have different opinions that we welcome.

But if I see you posting any more outright lies and revisionism in the same vein as Holocaust-deniers, I will ban you faster this time.

The Israel Forum is a pro-Israel advocacy site, not a platform for the third-rate terrorism-supporting propaganda you are apparently accustomed to posting.

Reffo

02-20-2005, 01:34 PM

hatred and violence was created by imposing a fait accompli on the inhabiitants of the land without their approval or consultation. In fact it was done in absolute opposition to it, as was clealry recognised at the time. This is the origin of the conflict.Sumud, what exactly is your accusation ? Are you saying that it was somehow illegal for the Jews to purchase land ? Or are you saying that Jews illegally occupied lands owned by Arabs under the very noses of first the Ottoman and subsequently the British authorities ?

By the way, how does the massacre of 67 Jewish men, women and children, in Hebron, on the night of August 23, 1929 fit into your "neat explanations" ? These Jews were native Jews and not migrants. They were massacred as a result of incitement by the Mufti of Jerusalem. Such massacres, by incited Palestinian mobs, explain why the Jews too were arming themselves in order to defend themselves, NOT in order to take more land than allocated to them by the UN in 1948 !

MGB8

02-20-2005, 02:08 PM

I think what he was saying is that the locals wanted sovereignty over the area which they lived in (although that doesn't necesarily mean democracy, more ethnic sovereignty in terms of their many tribes being unified under a king or califf or other Muslim) and the Jews moving there and saying "we're going to start our own state in the area's which we have a majority/land ownership" - caused the hate.

While this is no doubt accurate, the question is the validity of the hate over real estate, and over sovereignty that they didn't have yet...well, its true that the Zionist movement was the POLITICAL aggressor, in that it was changing the Status quo. The Arabs had many options, including partial acceptance, full acceptance (the King Feisal plan), or absolute rejection. They sided with the Nazi's and Pan-Arabic/Pan-Islamic pride made them unable to be able to yield a very small amount of land for a people who had historical and religious ties to it. This didn't have to be the case - again, had the King Feisal understanding taken hold, and the Arabs been taught that Jews in fact did have a tie to the land, as is written in the Qu'ran, and that it was ok for them to return home...well, we'd have a much different last 50 years....

It was a choice of which mythology to accept and incorporate.

Reffo

02-20-2005, 03:44 PM

The Arabs had many options, including partial acceptance, full acceptance (the King Feisal plan), or absolute rejection. They sided with the Nazi's and Pan-Arabic/Pan-Islamic pride made them unable to be able to yield a very small amount of land for a people who had historical and religious ties to it. This didn't have to be the case - again, had the King Feisal understanding taken hold, and the Arabs been taught that Jews in fact did have a tie to the land, as is written in the Qu'ran, and that it was ok for them to return home...well, we'd have a much different last 50 years....Well Put

Reffo

02-20-2005, 05:13 PM

The modern equivalent of Sumud's mythologies about the establishment of Israel, is the claim that the 911 atrocity was not perpetrated by Arab terrorists! According to these bizare claims, 911 was carried out by one of the following:

The Mossad
The CIA
As a result of President Bush's bidding

Unfortunately, some Arabs and their apologists are very adept at promoting such preposterous theories to explain away any embarassing historical Arab/Palestinian mistakes. It really is sad because some of them are quite talented at weaving these complex explanations and make these almost believable. It is sad because if they put their talents to better use and educated the Arab masses to learn from their mistakes and learn to compromise, everyone would be better off.

Reffo

02-20-2005, 05:45 PM

It is sad because if they put their talents to better use and educated the Arab masses to learn from their mistakes and learn to compromise, everyone would be better off.And when I say "compromise", I don't mean that they needed to capitulate. Historically,most Jews (except for a very tiny minority of extremists) tended to be reasonable. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership was both inept and uncompromising, they always wanted everything 100% their way and consequently led the ordinary Palestinian masses from disaster to worse disasters. They were acting like addicted gamblers who go "Double Or Nothing" every time they lose a stake. Because of this mentality, the Palestinians have ended up in their current un-enviable predicament. Had they accepted the original UN resolution of granting a very modest amount of land to the Jews, the last 50 years would have been free of hate and violence... So, Sumud, I ask you, when will you and your people wake up ? When are you going to stop this cycle of stupidity and allow both your people and others to build a better Middle East ?

Reffo

02-20-2005, 06:54 PM

Historically,most Jews (except for a very tiny minority of extremists) tended to be reasonable.It has to be said though that with the passage of time, as a consequence of Palestinian intransigence and ongoing violence, the ranks of Jewish extremists, who are also less inclined to compromise, has also been increasing. Unfortunately, this situation will only grow worse unless the Pals undertake a complete paradigm shift.

Sumud

02-20-2005, 07:27 PM

I think we are going around in circles. What do you mean by saying "take someone's house from them" ? Do you mean that the newly formed Israel had no right to exist on the land allocated to it by the UN security council ?
Yes, we are a bit.

But, no thatâ€™s not what I meant. Simply that everyone probably wishes to get exactly what they want at no cost. That doesnâ€™t mean that itâ€™s at all realistic a thing to hope for.

I don't understand how this negates my earlier comment
I think we need to go back just a bit.

Your earlier contention was
â€œThere was no occupation of Arab land before or after 1948 and before 1967. Yet the Palestinians and Arabs still attacked the Jews and Israelâ€¦â€¦.
But the occupation is definitely not the root cause of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The actual root cause is Arab nationalism, hatred and violence against Israel and the Israelis and Jews.â€- post 31

Iâ€™ve no problem with the idea that â€™47 or â€™67 are not the root cause â€“ I agree 100%.

But your implication is that the Palestinians simply woke up one day and said â€“â€œHey, I hate Jewsâ€.

As Iâ€™ve argued, there are straight forward and well known reasons for Palestinians antagonism towards large-scale Jewish immigration. It requires no sudden emergence of anti-Semitism or the â€™67 occupation to explain it. It was well known to the early Zionist leaders who saw the need to make plans as to how to proceed to a goal that they new was impossible to achieve, without resorting to force of arms, because of the opposition of the local population.
I think it was Ben-Gurion who said, â€œPolitically, we are the aggressors, and it is they who defend themselvesâ€.

Talk of spontaneous Arab hatred and violence is just excuse-making

Sumud, my understanding of 'Plan Dalet' is that it was a contingency plan for defending a Jewish state from invasion even before the partition plan was approved in November 1947. I think what you are saying that it was a plan to take further land away from the Palestinians in addition to what was allocated to the Jews by the UN ? If so, how is this consistent with your earlier admission that "Itâ€™s clear that Zionist leaders would have preferred to establish their state via peaceful means."? Are you saying that the ferocious Jews were hoping to intimidate the Plestinians into conceding additional land by peaceful means ? Isn't that a bit far fetched ? Do you think the Jews are that stupid ? Why don't you just stick to your original story and don't concede that "Itâ€™s clear that Zionist leaders would have preferred to establish their state via peaceful means."?
The plan did set out to defend the land allocated to the Jewish state. But it had a few other aims as well. It was to secure Jewish population centres in the proposed Arab state, as well as securing a corridor to these centres. Not only that, it called for offensives against any Arab villages that where near these Jewish population centres or the corridors. This aspect was vaguely worded. There was no written orders to expel all residents from these areas, but that seems to be how is was often interpreted. Residents were moved out and their homes were dynamited.

On the â€˜peaceful meansâ€™ question, I think youâ€™re getting a bit overly complicated on this. It is extraordinarily simple. Of course they would have preferred peaceful means to achieve their goal, itâ€™s just that they new it was impossible. The reality doesnâ€™t erase the wish. Palestinians must have wished theyâ€™d all just go away, but that wasnâ€™t realistic either .

Reffo

02-20-2005, 08:34 PM

But your implication is that the Palestinians simply woke up one day and said â€“â€œHey, I hate Jewsâ€.C'mon Sumud, you know I would never imply that...What I actually did say was that the hate was initiated by irresponsible nationalistic leaders through incitement and intimidations (look it up, just go to this post Click here and click on the first "click here" reference item). I think that actually implies a gradual process which culminated in the pervasive hatred of today. The unfortunate thing is that the Arab hatred has led to more and more reciprocal hatred and I don't think that this is very healthy. Where will this all stop ?

It was well known to the early Zionist leaders who saw the need to make plans as to how to proceed to a goal that they new was impossible to achieve, without resorting to force of arms, because of the opposition of the local population.So ? Why would you expect the Zionists to give up their legitemate yearning to establish self determination for Jews, side by side with independent Arab states (including an Arab Palestinian state if they wished). Are you saying that the Jews should be the only people on earth who cannot have self determination, just because the Arabs hated the idea and did not wish to compromise ? I think that is as racist as the despicable "Zionism is Racism" resolution that was adopted in the UN some years ago due to the instigation of the Arab states and their allies. Thank goodness the UN has since rescinded this deplorble racist resolution!

The plan did set out to defend the land allocated to the Jewish state. But it had a few other aims as well. It was to secure Jewish population centres in the proposed Arab state, as well as securing a corridor to these centres.Undoubtedly and it is quite legitemate to say that all bets are off if the other party (in this case the Pals) decide on an unreasonable, belligerent and violent path! What would you expect, a sanitized gentleman's war from the Jews while their adversaries are unreasonable and fight a no holds barred war ?

MGB8

02-21-2005, 04:20 AM

Sumud actually has done us a service by exposing us more fully to the Arab narrative surrounding "the Nakba." I went and did a little more research as to Arab explanations and versions. If we don't know these versions, then it is difficult to effectively refute them.

Interestingly, he also asked, either in this thread or another, "Why can't the Pal Arabs maximalist demand be sovereignty over ALL OF ISRAEL with autonomy+ for the Jews, if the Jews can demand all of the WB and Gaza with autonomy+ for the Arabs?" I didn't fully answer his question, with only reference to International Law and the Status Quo.

What is interesting about his question is that this was THE EXACT DEMAND made by King Abdullah in 1948. Autonomy (not even Autonomy+) with Arab sovereignty over the area.

Now, why was this an acceptable maximalist demand then, but not now? Because of INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE STATUS QUO. Since the Jews didn't have any sovereignty, the Arabs weren't really asking to "take away"
anything. The Jews maximalist demand could be the same, because, like the Jews, the Arabs also didn't have sovereignty over any part of the Western Palestine Mandate. The Jews, notably, DID NOT make a maximalist demand, being more pragmatic.

Here, we have an example again of the Arabs INABILITY TO MOVE FROM THEIR MAXIMALIST DEMAND. Had the Arabs COMPROMISED, and accepted the Partition, instead of chosing the option of attempted genocide, they would have had sovereignty over a large part of the the W.Palestine Mandate. They chose war instead, and lost, so only gained sovereignty over a smaller portion of the W.P.M. - and chose NOT to have a Palestinian state, maybe because, as Abdullah said "Jordan is Palestine" (it is the large majority of the former Palestine Mandate) or maybe because they wanted to hold on to their maximalist demands.

Regardless, the Status Quo has changed. Sumud's suggestion is nonesense because it involves stripping sovereignty from a state that already has it, as opposed to the Israeli maximalist demand that doesn't TAKE AWAY anything from the Palestinians (except maybe idealized and unrealistic dreams) but just GIVES THEM LESS.

Sumud

02-21-2005, 05:51 AM

But by 'throwing the Jews into the sea' he would have had even greater aggrandisement. Are you saying that he was so altruistic that even though he could 'throw the jews into the sea', he did not? Are you saying that he liked the Jews so much that he took pity on them and gave up an opportunity of even greater aggrandisement ?
Sounds a bit 'sus' to me .....
No altruism, just a recognition of what was possible. Abdullah had a much more realistic appraisal of the strength of the Jewish forces than his incompetent allies. He made no effort to push further east as he didnâ€™t think it a good proposition. Sitting tight, in rough accordance to what had been suggested earlier, was a good proposition. No altruism here. Some suggest that Israeli forces could have easily taken the entire West Bank in the last stages of the war, but Ben-Gurion decided against this for fear of turning Abdullah into an enemy.

Sumud

02-21-2005, 05:54 AM

Sumud,

Many people have different opinions that we welcome.

But if I see you posting any more outright lies and revisionism in the same vein as Holocaust-deniers, I will ban you faster this time.

Lies? Tell us what they are.

And this revisionism thing -if you donâ€™t agree with a POV, just say so and why.
The positions I outlined, are roughly based on the well-researched work of Israeli historians. To equate this with â€˜holocaust-deniersâ€™ is a low tactic and hints at a pretty desperate state of denial.

Banning?
I suggest you take a pill and have a good lie down, while us adults continue to have a civil, rationale discussion, which will even include us having quite different opinions, without the need to resort to slander.

Sumud

02-21-2005, 05:56 AM

Sumud, what exactly is your accusation ? Are you saying that it was somehow illegal for the Jews to purchase land ? Or are you saying that Jews illegally occupied lands owned by Arabs under the very noses of first the Ottoman and subsequently the British authorities ?
Nope. If the owners wanted to sell and others to buy, how could this be illegal?
The fear of Palestinians was that the plan was to establish a Jewish state that would exclude them in their own land. While publicly, Zionist leaders denied this, the Arabs were right in their suspicions. Actions of organisations such as the Histradut, fuelled this by trying to exclude Arab labor and products.

By the way, how does the massacre of 67 Jewish men, women and children, in Hebron, on the night of August 23, 1929 fit into your "neat explanations" ? These Jews were native Jews and not migrants. They were massacred as a result of incitement by the Mufti of Jerusalem. Such massacres, by incited Palestinian mobs, explain why the Jews too were arming themselves in order to defend themselves, NOT in order to take more land than allocated to them by the UN in 1948 !
Problems had occurred way before 1929. Objections had been raised to large-scale immigration as far back as 1899. But by the 1920â€™s things were getting out of control and there was, regrettably, no distinction made between Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. The incendiary language used by some was unforgivable. On the other side of the coin, many Jewish residents of Hebron were also saved from the mob, by their Arab neighbours.

Some people in Hebron were immigrants. 7 of the dead were yeshiva students from the US. A total of 133 Jews were killed in the riots (and 116 Arabs).

danholo

02-21-2005, 06:03 AM

Jewish forces also began an assault to take Jerusulem, which was not to be part of the Jewish state, several days before the British Mandate expired.

You only pointed out in your post on what Israel did, but you didn't give any background information on why or where exactly. It is vitally important to mention the 100,000 Jews under siege in Jerusalem who Israeli forces tried to liberate when braking through the roads to Jerusalem. It was about protecting your own brethren, not about conquering land.

Without mentioning such a vital fact, the argument holds no ground because it is only speaking half the truth in order to give a false and distorted image of the situation.

MGB8

02-21-2005, 06:50 AM

Essentially, what Sumud is saying is that the Jews, by wanting to establish their own state, to have sovereignty over a part of the land, were the aggressors. He is right in a sense, that they were politically the agressors in trying to change the status quo.

But here is where he, and all the Arabs, are wrong - the Status Quo WAS NOT Arab sovereignty over the area. It was a British Mandate. So Palestinian Arabs were not objecting to Jews taking "THEIR" land...they were objecting to Jews taking land THEY CLAIMED. That's the big difference. The Arab positions assumes that it is right, regardles of the fact. Just like they now call the WB and Gaza "Palestinian land." It is NOT Palestinian land in the way that they claim. It is land that they CLAIM. It is only "Palestinian land' in terms of individual titles to plots of land, which does not necessarily have anything to do with SOVEREIGNTY!

Here Sumud ASSUMES that pre 48, the land in Western Palestine Mandate was Arab land, in terms of SOVEREIGNTY. He is wrong. It wasn't. The closest thing to a sovereign was the BRITISH, the Ottomans before them. Had the Ottomans wanted to carve out a Jewish state, they too would have had the right to do so. The Arabs had individual titles - a different thing altogether.

As for the siege of Jerusalem...of course you are going to get incomplete facts from the Arab side. They have to keep up the fairy tale. As I understand it, Ben Gurion's major reason for not pushing into the WB, besides the issue of drawing more Arab troops in, was the demographic issue - it wasn't worth trying to take over the WB with its large population of Arabs when the flight had stopped and they would form a "fifth column." In that sense, Ben Gurion was absolutely right. The conspiracy theory "deal" between Israel and Abdullah is just that. That said, historically, the Hashemites have had better relations with the Jews than most of their Arab brethren.

goliath

02-21-2005, 07:05 AM

[QUOTE=Sumud]Yes, we are a bit.
No ,you are a lot..

Your earlier contention was [indent]â€œThere was no occupation of Arab land before or after 1948 and before 1967. Yet the Palestinians and Arabs still attacked the Jews and Israelâ€¦â€¦.
Yes and people in the Kiibutz , women by night..

Iâ€™ve no problem with the idea that â€™47 or â€™67 are not the root cause â€“ I agree 100%.
Yes it's true ,the root cause is the hate of Arab people to the Jews ,it's not new ,centuries ago ,this is maybe the reason why you were in majority the Hitler's allies ?tell us (Jews).

But your implication is that the Palestinians simply woke up one day and said â€“â€œHey, I hate Jews "
And who were those Palestinians ? who do you call Palestinians ,bedouins,nomadic little tribes ? When that appellation was born,and where ?
An exemple : my great great grand father ,my great father ,father ,and I all of us were born in Palestina for five centuries ,under Turkish and British and before , how do you call us ? Ghosts ?

As Iâ€™ve argued, there are straight forward and well known reasons for Palestinians antagonism towards large-scale Jewish immigration. It requires no sudden emergence of anti-Semitism or the â€™67 occupation to explain it. It was well known to the early Zionist leaders who saw the need to make plans as to how to proceed to a goal that they new was impossible to achieve, without resorting to force of arms, because of the opposition of the local population
One of the major part of the misunderstanding ,if you let us forget for a while the endemic anti-Semitism from Arab people , the motivation is the difference of level of culture, which till now exist , but it's a strongly decreasing parameter for the Arab Israeli.

I think it was Ben-Gurion who said, â€œPolitically, we are the aggressors, and it is they who defend themselvesâ€.
If you really think that David Ben Gourion said so ,could you please tell us on what occasion ,and where did you pick that sentence?

It is extraordinarily simple.
Oh yes it is , destruction of the Israel State , and until now we have no reason to trust anyone of you.
If you can back up , for the dead Pt. David Ben Gourion the word you put in his mouth ,we will be very pleased.

MGB8

02-21-2005, 07:14 AM

I do believe the Ben Gurion quote is accurate. It was the Jewish immigration that was changing the status quo. But there is quite a difference between changing the status quo by people moving and other legal, non-violent means, with the goal of establishing a state, and changing the status quo by means of war with the goal not just of preventing the establishment of a state, but of genocide. The two goals are not comparable.

Meanwhile, I don't think it was just Jew hatred that caused the current situation. In fact, I think Jew hatred is tangential. I think it is more about Arab/Islamic pride and Dar Al-Harb/Dar al-Islam. The Arabs reacted similarly to the Crusades - granted, the Crusades had a much different purpose and methodology. Remember that they comapre Israel and Zionism to the Crusades. Its not so much Jews that they object to, but to ANYONE taking what they see as MUSLIM LAND. It doesn't really matter which Muslim is in charge, either...just that the sovereign is MUSLIM. Its a religious issue, more than a hatred issue, certainly much more than a nationalist, "Palestinian" issue. And it is one that could easily be gotten over with a mild change in mythology.

minusthejihad

02-21-2005, 08:18 AM

If 20% of what the world spend on the military industrial complex was spent in humanitarian programs around the world. The world would be a much different place.

Yay!!!! Puppies and cupcakes for everyone!!! Could we all have milk too Chairman Mao? How about we lock-up all those dumb old people too!

Guess what, it's spring break, is it a coincidence that the board filled up with first year college students?

goliath

02-21-2005, 10:37 AM

QUOTE=MGB8]
I do believe the Ben Gurion quote is accurate. It was the Jewish immigration that was changing the status quo. But there is quite a difference between changing the status quo by people moving and other legal, non-violent means, with the goal of establishing a state, and changing the status quo by means of war with the goal not just of preventing the establishment of a state, but of genocide. The two goals are not comparable
When a President in that kind of period and political position is so efficacious and strong ,facing several crucial problems, a lot of people are saying : Pt Ben Gourion ,was saying so , like a painting believed to be by.
Did the Arab new about the British will arrive to the point in dividing their "Palestine " and in which way?
Lord Balfour was the British who advocate for the Jews , the final decision was not decided by the UN.

Meanwhile, I don't think it was just Jew hatred that caused the current situation. In fact, I think Jew hatred is tangential. I think it is more about Arab/Islamic pride and Dar Al-Harb/Dar al-Islam. The Arabs reacted similarly to the Crusades - granted, the Crusades had a much different purpose and methodology. Remember that they comapre Israel and Zionism to the Crusades. Its not so much Jews that they object to, but to ANYONE taking what they see as MUSLIM LAND. It doesn't really matter which Muslim is in charge, either...just that the sovereign is MUSLIM. Its a religious issue, more than a hatred issue, certainly much more than a nationalist, "Palestinian" issue. And it is one that could easily be gotten over with a mild change in mythology.
It's kind of good hypothesis ,in favour of the Arab proudness ,and their attachment or affection to "their" land ,which is possible ,the overlaping of parameters ,drive those episod on such a level it is now very difficult to be positive.
Anyway ,the colonialism period has taken for about a century , a great part of the so call Arab land ,but in that time ,it doesn't existed a real union between the different major tribes or religious ruling their people , even the border were not defined , in ME, British are in charge with a large part of responsabilities,and when the oil appeared ,and became the major energy source ,all the geopolitic system has been totally overthrowed.
Oil began the new and major nerve of our economy,and the British have made all the borders in ME.

Reffo

02-21-2005, 11:07 AM

The Arab forces were hamstrung, as Jordan had ben put in overall command, but what the Arab league didn't know, was that Abdullah had been approached to carve up the area between himself and the Israelis. Despite pushing back Jewish forces from Jerusalem, Jordanian troops simply occupied the Old City area and made no effort to push further east and capture more territory. Abdullahs ambitions were not to 'throw the Jews into the sea', but his own territorial aggrandisement.
Then you said:

No altruism, just a recognition of what was possible. Abdullah had a much more realistic appraisal of the strength of the Jewish forces than his incompetent allies. He made no effort to push further east as he didnâ€™t think it a good proposition.I don't want to labour the point but your first post sounded like the Arab forces were betrayed (or at least hamstrung)by Abdullah because of a deal he made with the Israelis. The distinct implication is that without this deal the outcome for the Arabs would have been more positive. Your second post however indicates that far from betraying the Arab league, Abdullah was the competent commander who understood reality better than the other Arabs. So Sumud, could you please clarify to me which of the two explanations is closer to the truth in your opinion ?

Reffo

02-21-2005, 11:25 AM

Objections had been raised to large-scale immigration as far back as 1899Yes, you mentioned this already in another post on another thread. But what was not mentioned in your post is that in addition to Jewish migration there was also significant Arab migration from surrounding countries. So are you saying that one was legitemate and the other was not ? If yes, why not ? If no, then how was the resultant Arab hatred legitemate ? (Note, I am not denying the reality that hatred occured, I am questioning why the apologists legitemize and condone it).

Mira

02-21-2005, 12:42 PM

1917:

In February, Mark Sykes (1879-1919), adviser on Middle Eastern affairs to Britain's Prime Minister Lloyd George opens negotiations with the Zionist leaders that are to lead to the Balfour Declaration. The British want to protect their interests in the Suez Canal area by placing the whole Palestine under their control.

In April, the Turkish military authorities order the remaining Jews of Jaffa out of the city as they prepare for the British military offensive. The 9.000 Jews flee north, where they suffer from disease and starvation.

In July, the original draft of the Balfour Declaration includes three elements: (1) the reconstruction of Palestine as a whole as the Jewish national home; (2) unrestricted Jewish immigration rights; (3) internal Jewish autonomy. The text is later modified as a result of the opposition to Zionism of some British Jews led by Edwin Montagu (1879-1924), who is a member of the cabinet.

In August, the British announce the formation of a regiment of Jewish volunteers to fight in the war. Composed primarily of Jews from Britain and former members of the Zion Mule Corps, it is designated the 38th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers. The battalion will be transferred to Palestine in June 1918, where it will be joined by the 39th Battalion of Royal Fusiliers.

In October, Turkish authorities uncover the NILI espionage group led by Aaron Aaronsohn.

October 31: The British offensive in southern Palestine begins. The British capture Beer Sheva in a diversionary move.

November 2: The British Government issues the Balfour Declaration.

December 9: The British take control of Jerusalem. Two days later, General Allenby enters Jerusalem in a ceremonial victory march.

1919:

January 2: A meeting attended by 42 delegates from British-held territory in the Yishuv takes place in the office of the Zionist Organization in Jaffa. A representative body - the Provisional Committee - is elected.

May: The British permit the formation of a battalion of Jewish volunteers from Palestine. Formed into the 40th Battalion of Royal Fusiliers, it is trained and kept in reserve in Egypt. It will be sent to Palestine to join the 38th and 39th battalions in December, after the armistice with Turkey is signed.

Pinhas Rutenberg, David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi are among American Jewish volunteers who are formed into the 39th Battalion of Royal Fusiliers.

June 4: Chaim Weizmann meets Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, the leader of Arab nationalism, at Aqaba. Feisal pledges support of the Zionist aims in Palestine on condition that Arab nationalist aims are met in Syria and Iraq. Feisal fails to achieve support from the Allies on his aims. He considers himself released from his pledges to Weizmann.

January 4: Chaim Weizmann and Emir Faisal meet again and sign an agreement. The Jews are guaranteed free immigration and settlement on the land of Palestine. Arab tenant farmers will be safeguarded on their land and assisted in their economic development. Britain will arbitrate disputes. The agreement is conditioned on the Arabs obtaining independence in Syria.

In February, Chaim Weizmann heads the Zionist delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles, where he urges an international ratification of the Balfour Declaration.

In March, Emir Faisal writes to the American Jewish delegation in Paris that the Zionist proposals submitted at the conference were moderate and proper.

June: The first commission of inquiry arrives in Palestine - the King-Crane Commission - to assess the situation in the region and recommend future steps.

In July, Arab nationalists pass a resolution against the creation of a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine.
By midyear, Emir Faisal having failed to obtain Arab independence and Zionist assistance in his dispute with the French in Syria, terminates public meetings with Zionists. He becomes disillusioned with his Zionist connection and warns the Zionists to moderate their claims in Palestine and agree to consider Palestine as part of Greater Syria.

December: The situation in the north worsens. The Muslim Arabs oppose French rule and rebel.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline.html

Mira

02-21-2005, 12:46 PM

The Weizmann-Faisal Agreement
January 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ, AND Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following articles:

Article I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.

Article II

Immediately following the completion of deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Article III

In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Governmentâ€™s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration-SEH).

Article IV

All necessary measures will be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasants and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V

No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and expression of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall for ever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or religious rights.

Article VI

The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

Article VII

The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report on the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Article VIII

The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony in all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

Article IX

Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at LONDON, ENGLAND, the Third DAY OF January, one thousand Nine Hundred and Nineteen.

Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made. I shall not then be bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever.

FAISAL IBN HUSAIN

CHAIM WEIZMANN

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html

Mira

02-21-2005, 12:53 PM

Jewish vs. Arab Immigration
During World War I, the Jewish population declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population continued to grow exponentially even while that of the Jews stagnated.

In the mid-1920s, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased primarily because of anti-Jewish economic legislation in Poland and Washingtonâ€™s imposition of restrictive quotas.5

The record number of immigrants in 1935 (see table) was a response to the growing persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The British administration considered this number too large, however, so the Jewish Agency was informed that less than one-third of the quota it asked for would be approved in 1936.6

The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.

Jewish Immigrants to Palestine

1919 1,806
1920 8,223
1921 8,294
1922 8,685
1923 8,175
1924 13,892
1925 34,386
1926 13,855
1927 3,034
1928 2,178
1929 5,249
1930 4,944
1931 4,075
1932 12,533
1933 37,337
1934 45,267
1935 66,472
1936 29,595
1937 10,629
1938 14,675
1939 31,195
1940 10,643
1941 4,592

By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants.7

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html

NewsGuy

02-21-2005, 01:39 PM

I suggest you take a pill and have a good lie down, while us adults continue to have a civil, rationale discussion, which will even include us having quite different opinions, without the need to resort to slander.

I suggest that you be mindful that you are our guest here, and improve your manners immediately.

Consider this your last warning.

Sumud

02-21-2005, 02:22 PM

-- Sumud disagrees with the holocaust denier analogy. --

MGB8

02-21-2005, 03:01 PM

Sumud

02-21-2005, 04:23 PM

Sumud realizes that in an effort to save face he is pushing his luck with the owner and operator of IF (which, for the record, is not me) and thus drops the issue.

Sumud

02-21-2005, 04:33 PM

To assert that the Jews were the military aggressors in the war of independence is a lie or revision quite similar to holocaust denial. It is so completely false and fabricated that it can only be motivated by ill purpose. While you can fairly argue that the Jews were POLITICAL aggressors - in that they were trying to change the status quo, military aggressors is quite another thing. Moreover, after the partition resolution, that SHOULD have been the status quo, and the Arab invasion was meant to change that, and act not only on military but also political aggression.
Itâ€™s quite simple â€“ what Iâ€™ve presented is standard stuff from Israeli historians. If you can't deal with that without impling dark motives, that's your problem.

Just above (on Jordan etc) you were arguing that actions that didn't alter the status quo were legitimate.
You're now admitting that Zionists wanted to change the status quo - so Arab resistance to this must have been legitimate and therefore a perfectly reasonable and rationale cause for Arab resentment?

Which is it?

Sumud

02-21-2005, 04:39 PM

C'mon Sumud, you know I would never imply that...What I actually did say was that the hate was initiated by irresponsible nationalistic leaders through incitement and intimidations (look it up, just go to this post Click here and click on the first "click here" reference item). I think that actually implies a gradual process which culminated in the pervasive hatred of today. The unfortunate thing is that the Arab hatred has led to more and more reciprocal hatred and I don't think that this is very healthy. Where will this all stop ?

Which irresponsible nationalistic leaders? The Arab or the Zionist ones. I guess you refer to the former?

Where will it all stop? No idea. Iâ€™d like to think it will lead to a small Palestinian state next to Israel, but thatâ€™s not looking very likely.

So ? Why would you expect the Zionists to give up their legitimate yearning to establish self determination for Jews, side by side with independent Arab states (including an Arab Palestinian state if they wished). Are you saying that the Jews should be the only people on earth who cannot have self determination, just because the Arabs hated the idea and did not wish to compromise ?

Why should Palestinians give up their yearings now? MGB8 thinks they should only have some kind of autonomy.

Whatâ€™s this â€˜only nation of earthâ€ stuff? "Câ€™mon" Reffo, give us a break! Youâ€™re talking like itâ€™s 1900. The Jews already have self-determination. And have you ever heard of the Kurds?

Undoubtedly and it is quite legitimate to say that all bets are off if the other party (in this case the Pals) decide on an unreasonable, belligerent and violent path! What would you expect, a sanitized gentleman's war from the Jews while their adversaries are unreasonable and fight a no holds barred war?
The Zionists also didnâ€™t except that the UN Partition was the end of the matter. But when you have nothing, the right tactic is always to agree to any plan that improves your situation.
Ben-Gurion was quite clear that the Partition Plan was only to be a stepping off point for Zionist ambitions. While the Palestinians are demonized for their â€˜plan of stagesâ€™, they were guilty of plagiarism. Ben-Gurion referred to the UN Plan as simply the â€œfirst stageâ€™ in Zionist plans for a Jewish state. So while the Zionists accepted the plan they did not limit themselves to it at all. Does this mean that all bets were off and Arab opposition was quite legitimate?

Sumud

02-21-2005, 04:47 PM

Then you said:
I don't want to labour the point but your first post sounded like the Arab forces were betrayed (or at least hamstrung)by Abdullah because of a deal he made with the Israelis. The distinct implication is that without this deal the outcome for the Arabs would have been more positive. Your second post however indicates that far from betraying the Arab league, Abdullah was the competent commander who understood reality better than the other Arabs. So Sumud, could you please clarify to me which of the two explanations is closer to the truth in your opinion ?

They're both true. It's not as though they are mutually exclusive positions.

Arab forces were hamstrung becuase Abdullah decided, in the end, to pursue his own goals and not the plans that had been agreed upon with the other Arab forces. And since Abdullah had been put in charge of the whole show, it was a set-back. Would the final outcome have been different - who knows?

MGB8

02-21-2005, 05:42 PM

Just above (on Jordan etc) you were arguing that actions that didn't alter the status quo were legitimate.
You're now admitting that Zionists wanted to change the status quo - so Arab resistance to this must have been legitimate and therefore a perfectly reasonable and rationale cause for Arab resentment?

Which is it?

Now you mischarterize my argument (and also evade the majority, mostly because you can't answer to reality). First, the Arab "resistance" was not to maintain the status quo, because the status quo was BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY. They too wanted to CHANGE the status quo, only in their favor. Meanwhile, not all moves to maintain the status quo are legitimate. Would it have been legitimate for South Africa to continue Appartheid? Is it legitimate for Saudi Arabia to now allow the practice of the Jewish religion (or Christian) or of most (if not all) Arab nations to now allow Jews to purchase land (they may also have a law banning the practice of Judaism...I am only certain of the Saudi law)? Would it be legitimate, if the Pal Arabs weren't committing acts of violence, for Israel to expel them in order to maintain the status quo of Israeli control over the territories?

Second, you still conflate political aggression with violence. Maybe that's a problem with the Arab character?

The Arabs, essentially, had NO RIGHT to "resist" Jewish immigration through violence, because they were not sovereigns of the land. You can argue, and I would agree, that they had the right to POLITICALLY resist and aggressively politically pursue their own agenda - AND THEY DID. They succeeded in massively reducing the Area that would become a Jewish homeland, and also in massively limiting Jewish Immigration. They also aggressively immigrated many Arabs to the area, to counter and in fact exceed the Jewish growth. They even got the british to abstain on the UN resolution. That is POLITICAL aggression on the part of the Arabs, that is legitimate. It just failed to prevent get the Arabs ALL THEIR DEMANDS. Just as you demonstrate now, the Arabs seem to have an inability to accept anything less than %100 of what the can legitimately ask for, they apparently have no ability to compromise.

Meanwhile, you strain over and over again to justify the Arab rejection of the partition and subsequent attempted genocide. That's fine, but realize that other people see the forrest for the trees.

Israel inisde the 49 Armistace Lines is not up for debate. There is no valid Pal Arab claim to them. The Arabs inside the land can vote, so they are represented by a sovereign - there is no individual rights based claim. the land was not taken from any sovereign, so there is no competing national claim. Moreover, the land was taken in a clearly defensive war, where the Arabs were undeniably (unless you want to delve into the realm of holocaust deniers) the MILITARY aggressors. There is, at most, a race based ethnic claim...in which case you can bring Israeli claims to "greater Israel" to bare, and if we are going there you must factor in that the Arabs have 99% + of the WB.

On the other hand, the Pal Arabs DO have a valid claim as to the WB and Gaza. They have such a claim because the land is not annexed so they are not citizens of Israel - an Individual rights claim. Granted, if Israel was an Arab-esque dictatorship, that claim would be minimal, since the Arabs in the WB would be the same as the Jews in Tel Aviv in terms of rights. This is tempered by the fact that many nations have foreign citizen populations.

There is also UN resolution 242 which calls for Israeli withdrawal from "territories", but specifically not ALL the territories or even THE territories, gained in the 6 day war. Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai.

meanwhile, Israel has that same resolution, which does not say all, intentionally, and also the law of nations, which essentially says that a nation starts a war with another (Egypt with the blockade and peacekeeper expulsion or Jordan and Syria by firing first), that nation runs the risk of losing territory to the nation it attacks, the defending nation entitled to keep the lands it conqueres. Given that the WB was Jordanian, and Jordan fired first, and Jordan has renounced claim on the WB....Israel has a strong competing claim on the WB. Gaza is similar, though some will make a (bad) argument that the pre-emptive strike was not "defensive" - that would flout military and political understandings not to mention Egypts other acts of war, but some still choose to make the absurd argument. The UN resolution also says SECURE borders, I believe, and this is quite open to interpretation - many military minds, not only Israeli, say only the Jordan valley would be a secure border - and Pal Arab terrorism is making that case!

So that's where the Pal Arabs and Israel are left. Both have competing claims to the WB and Gaza. The most they can reasonably demand is that %100 of these valid claims are met. Both can demand all of the WB and Gaza. Assuming that Israel does not want to get into the foreign resident game, because it is more tenuous, you would still get a point where Israel could demand say, 30-40 of the WB and Gaza, annexing some small population of Arabs, while giving the rest their own states, along the size of other tiny states like Luxemburg or, heck, vatican city. The Arabs can, likewise, demadn 100% of Gaza and the WB.

So here the Arabs have to go against their historical leanings and learn how to compromise. How to take a slice which doesn't make you %100 happy, just as the Partition did not make Jews %100 happy, or, for that matter, getting out of Gaza right now, much less Hebron and other WB cities (and add in the security concerns, given past Palestinian Arab reactions). In this case the slice they are being asked to take is something like 95% of their demands - 100% of gaza and maybe 93% of the WB.... not so bad for a compromise.

Or the Arabs could choose not to compromise and continue the war. They have that right. Just don't complain about the consequences. If you are going to try to kill, prepare to be killed...don't cry like pathetic spoiled children.

MGB8

02-21-2005, 05:58 PM

A couple more problems with Sumuds' most recent points.

The Jews did accept the partion plan. Whether or not some of them wanted to or would have acted to expand after the fact is irrelevent. There is no indication that the Jews would have used violent means to expand Israel if the Arabs had accepted the partition. Moreover, there was no soveriegn entity that was giving them this state outside the UN/British, nor was it supposed to be a PEACE agreement. It would be quite different if, say, Jordan was giving this land to the Jews as part of a peace deal, and the Jews announced at the outset that this wouldn't be enough, that they were going to go get more, and they were (this later scenario is what Sumud is trying to justify now).

This is opposed to the Arabs. If the Arabs had accepted the Camp David or Taba offers, then we would let history judge whether they really were going to go forward with the "plan of phases." Future violence would be judged on its own merits. The Palestinian Arabs, however, have a proven history of resorting to violence, as a first option, not last. They are announcing that they would enter a PEACE agreement with a goal of killing more jews and violating that agreement.

Reffo

02-21-2005, 07:31 PM

Which irresponsible nationalistic leaders? The Arab or the Zionist ones. I guess you refer to the former?Obviously you know that I mean the Palestinians it was very clear from my post (especially if you clicked on the post links that I provided).

Iâ€™d like to think it will lead to a small Palestinian state next to Israel, but thatâ€™s not looking very likely.I think that most Israelis would go along with this if they see a genuine desire on the Palestinian side to make peace. If however, they feel that The Palestinians see the establishment of a small state only as a stepping stone towards their long cherished desire to destroy Israel, then the Israelis will naturally resist the establishment of an independent pal state (for whatever its worth, I am not sure whether their objections will make any difference, especially if the Pals are successful at misleading the powers to be). I guess, a lot depends on how things will unfold. If the intransigence, violence and incitements continue, I guess it will be a bad sign.

So ? Why would you expect the Zionists to give up their legitimate yearning to establish self determination for Jews, side by side with independent Arab states (including an Arab Palestinian state if they wished). Are you saying that the Jews should be the only people on earth who cannot have self determination, just because the Arabs hated the idea and did not wish to compromise ?

Why should Palestinians give up their yearings now? MGB8 thinks they should only have some kind of autonomy.

Whatâ€™s this â€˜only nation of earthâ€ stuff? "Câ€™mon" Reffo, give us a break! Youâ€™re talking like itâ€™s 1900. The Jews already have self-determination. And have you ever heard of the Kurds?My rhetorical question was put to counter your implication that the Palestinians were somehow justified in promoting violence since the Jews ignored this threat and continued to migrate to Palestine.

Your question on the other hand is open ended. My answer could be anything ranging from "No, they should not give up their yearning either" to "Yes they should (if they want to destroy Irael)". So, to help me answer your rhetorical question by telling me exactly the type of "yearning" that you have in mind.

The Zionists also didnâ€™t except that the UN Partition was the end of the matter. But when you have nothing, the right tactic is always to agree to any plan that improves your situation.If you are saying that they knew that they would be attacked by the Palestinians and Arabs after the partition, then I agree with your comment. If you are saying that they were going to attack the "peace loving" Palestinians who in turn had no intention to attack the Jews, then I would keep maintaining that your proposition is preposterous because as I said before it is counter intuitive and in conflict with the documented Pal hatred, violence and threats that you yourself admitted existed since the late 1800s. But even assuming the dubious claim that the Palestinians were "peace loving", a people who lost a third of their numbers in WWII just would not be willing to risk another major un-necessary war that they may or may not win. But even if they would have expected to win, they would not want to pay the enormous number of casualties that this would entail.

So, in summary, I am saying that: Yes, they were prepared to fight a war for self determination and self defence (to establish the partition plan of the UN -their own state). No, they were not prepared to risk their gains (ie their own state) and the expected casualties by attacking the Palestinians (without the Pals threatening and attacking them first).

MGB8

02-22-2005, 05:44 AM

Sumud also wrote something along the lines of "when you have nothing, it is always best to take something." Well, the Pal Arabs had nothing, but refused to take something. So Sumud more or less applauds the Jews for not being maximalists (at least says it was the strategic thing to do) but the Pal Arabs...different standard.

Meanwhile, he hasn't, and cannot, respond to the distinction between the "plan of phases" as a violent plan meant to violate a PEACE TREATY, as as a POLITICAL plan.

He also still doesn't recognize that there the Arabs DID NOT HAVE SOVEREIGNTY over the W.Pal.Mandate in 1948, so cannot be treated as sovereigns. The best argument that can be made is that the Arabs would have been the default once the British left, but the Jewish immigration changed the default, which I agree, hence the Jews were POLITICAL aggressors. However, the Arabs were also politically aggressive, with moves to limit Jewish immigration and an Arab immigration that under many accounts outpaced the Jewish.

He still does not distinguish violent acts from political but non-violent acts.

He still holds on to a completely absurd narrative of the war, an Arab fairy tale they tell themselves to save face...Arab pride...

His biggest ally is (surprise surprise) POST ZIONIST Jews who took Arab propaganda and documentation produced decades after the fact as truth, as opposed to the accounts of the time. Benny Morris, in particular, has suffered some discrediting rebuttals, although not everything he says is wrong, and he had a point, which he overstated, in that the "Jewish Fairy Tale" glossed over some things and wasn't accurate in many respects... He just crossed the line over into buying the Arab Fairy Tale as truth, because it was his alternate source.

Reffo

02-22-2005, 07:54 AM

They're both true. It's not as though they are mutually exclusive positions.

Arab forces were hamstrung becuase Abdullah decided, in the end, to pursue his own goals and not the plans that had been agreed upon with the other Arab forces. And since Abdullah had been put in charge of the whole show, it was a set-back. Would the final outcome have been different - who knows?Your neat little story about Abdullah being not only the most copetent (which he undoubtedly was) but also treasonous, would be credible if not for the creditable performance (in military terms) of the Jordanian forces. Just one example is Gush Etzion where they killed 240 men women and children and captured 260 others. This is not what one would have expected from Abdullah if he was wary of Israel's power and if he had an agreement with the Israelis.

David2004

02-22-2005, 09:01 AM

So many people are going backwards in the problems of the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis when we must look forward for the answers to solving this conflict. Today State of Israel is taking historical ground breaking actions that are a move towards peace. 500 Palestinian prisoners have been released from Israeli prison. Many of who were never charges with a crime. The Israeli government promising not to destroy any more Palestinian homes in retaliation for Palestinian acts of aggression. Prime Minister Sharon promising to pull out the Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip by July 2005. This is the first step in the right direction toward peace that has been made in a long time.

The Israelis are still planning on controlling the border around the Gaza Strip including between Egypt, the Mediterranean Sea as well as the air space. The international community of nations needs to help the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip create a viable independent state. The creation of jobs and a strong economy for the people in the Gaza Strip should be at the top of the list. Improving the condition of life of the people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank of Palestine will bring peace and security to the people of the Holy Land once the borders of a the two states are agreed upon by both parties. The border of the City of Jerusalem will be the big stumbling block between the two states coming to agreeable terms.

Take the debate forward looking for new and creative ideas to resolve this crisis. Stop rehashing the past and take it into the future focusing on how we can resolve the problems of today. Only by coming to term with the problems will we find the answers. The international community of nations must have a massive aid program immediately to help the Palestinian people reconstruct the infrastructure and economy of their state. The international community of nations cannot afford to let this situation deteriorate backwards neither can the State of Israel or the Palestinian people. The State Palestine as an act of good faith could offer residency to Peace Now Israelis as well as Israeli couples that are mix marriages of Jewish and Muslim people.

If the government of Israel and Palestine come to a bilateral peace agreement both side will greatly benefit from. The Jewish people for the first time will have a homeland in peace opening new doors with the international community of nations. The status of State of Israel will greatly improve among the nations of the world creating new opportunities for the people of Israel. New and stronger diplomatic ties will form with the people of Israel creating new bridges of understanding and trust between the people. With the State of Israel coming to agreeable terms Land for Peace the international community of nation will guarantee the security of Israel from any foreign attacks. Similar as any attack on any Eastern European nation is an attack on NATO.

Mediocrates

02-22-2005, 09:19 AM

The Israelis are still planning on controlling the border around the Gaza Strip including between Egypt, the Mediterranean Sea as well as the air space.

Last week the offer was to allow Egypt to patrol the entire Sinai border if the PLO would stop tunnel smuggling.

The international community of nations needs to help the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip create a viable independent state.

No not independent from the West Bank Palestinians, no. That would be a completely still born option. Gaza would be a permanent failure

With the State of Israel coming to agreeable terms Land for Peace the international community of nation will guarantee the security of Israel from any foreign attacks. Similar as any attack on any Eastern European nation is an attack on NATO

This will never happen. There is already talk of keeping NATO on life support by expanding its role in Iraq to the point that Iraq joins NATO. Once that occurs then the die will be cast and Israel will forever be cut off from NATO and the EU. A safe bet is that the only thing Israel can hope for is a cold peace (or cold war as the case may be) with its immediate neighbors and little if any support from anyone else especially the â€˜international communityâ€™ which is a polite way of saying â€˜genocidal murdering Arab states bent on the liquidation of the Jewsâ€™.

MGB8

02-22-2005, 09:50 AM

(1) The international community guaranteed Israel NOTHING in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Nixon was of aid in 73, but only in opposition to the Soviet threat, as part of a larger game. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

(2) David's statement as to Israel's plans for the borders is more or less unsupported. In fact, according to debka.com, Israel is planning to turn over the Philadelphia corridor. However, turning over the border w/ Egypt to Arabs who are still now smuggling weapons through tunnels under the border (just last week, during this "cease fire" a smuggler was killed in a tunnel collapse) so that they can freely smuggle w/out tunnells...while the Pal Arab police etc. have said they will not lift a finger to stop violence, only try to persuade, and in fact many Pal Arab police are again taking part in attacks on Israeli positions.... quite controversial and maybe stupid. It is not a given that this is something either the Arabs should expect right away (before they have proven they can handle it) or that Israel should give right away.

Reffo

02-22-2005, 01:07 PM

So many people are going backwards in the problems of the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis when we must look forward for the answers to solving this conflict.Yes, I am one of those people in this forum. David, have you heard the saying which goes something like this:

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes"
So while I agree that people need to move forward, they also need to learn from the past. This is valid for both parties of the conflict.

With the State of Israel coming to agreeable terms Land for Peace the international community of nation will guarantee the security of Israel from any foreign attacks.Any international guarantees would not be worth more than the paper that it would be written on. The only guarantees that Israel could trust is the deterrence power that they would hold. You see David, this is one of the lessons that we Jews learned from our history, when we are in trouble no one gives two hoots about what happensto us. Mind you, we are not unique in this regard. Just look at what happened to Cambodians, Rowandan Tutsis, the Kurds under Saddam (Halabja etc) and even today to the Blacks in Sudan at the hands of the Arab militia. I don't see anyone coming to their rescue.

David2004

02-24-2005, 07:25 PM

With the latest win fall of profits from the higher price of crude oil. The oil wealthy Arab nations should invest some of the surplus profits into the Gaza Strip Palestine. The lack of sweet water is a problem throughout the Middle East especially in heavily populated region such as the Gaza Strip. Many Arab nations are heavily depended on water desalination plants as their main means of obtaining new supplies of sweet water. This would make a great industry to develop in the Gaza Strip creating many new jobs. The water desalination operations using solar energy is a perfect fit for this region.

http://www.kfpe.ch/projects/suas/Niyazi2.html
http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00000263/

Building a factory to manufacture solar water desalination equipment and wind generators in the Gaza Strip would be a great benefit to the people of the region. By developing these jobs in the Gaza Strip that will bring more sweet water to the people of the world. The Arabs depend upon water treatment plants for their sweet water more than any other people in the world today. Tomorrow many more people around the world will depend upon water treatment plants for their drinking water. Let the Arabs people with all of their experience with water desalination operations invest some of their money into the Gaza Strip creating new jobs for the Palestinian people.

Only by the nations of the world coming together to help the Palestinian people does peace have a chance to win in this conflict. The Gaza Strip could become the solar water desalination capitol of the world this should be the goal. By improving the realities on the ground for the people in the Gaza Strip new things will become possible opening the door to peace. This window of opportunity that is here today and may be gone tomorrow if it is not acted upon immediately. The first step is to get some of these solar water desalination plants working producing more sweet water for the people of the Gaza Strip. If the children of the Gaza Strip and West Bank have a better day-to-day life today there will be peace in the Holy Land tomorrow.

MGB8

02-24-2005, 07:27 PM

That's a very nice idea. Are you ready for you cookies and milk?

Mediocrates

02-25-2005, 03:26 AM

It is a good idea. The KSA gets about 75% of their water this way. Problem is that it is extremely energy dependent. So energy dependent that one could conceivably build an atomic power plant to produce freshwater.

Sumud

03-05-2005, 06:41 AM

Sumud also wrote something along the lines of "when you have nothing, it is always best to take something." Well, the Pal Arabs had nothing, but refused to take something. So Sumud more or less applauds the Jews for not being maximalists (at least says it was the strategic thing to do) but the Pal Arabs...different standard.

Nothing? They had what they'd always had - their land, which they farmed and lived on. They were faced with the prospect of losing it.

Meanwhile, he hasn't, and cannot, respond to the distinction between the "plan of phases" as a violent plan meant to violate a PEACE TREATY, as as a POLITICAL plan.
.......
He still does not distinguish violent acts from political but non-violent acts.
This is a distinction many strive to make - that the Zionist enterprise was a peaceful one, and the violence was all on the Arab side.
As I mentioned previously, Zionist leaders were pretty up-front about the need for a protecting force that would allow them to achieve their aims.

If I point a gun at you and tell you you to do something, that is obviously a violent act. If I do the same thing unarmed, but my friend stands behind me wih a gun, it is no different. MGB8 thinks it is.

He also still doesn't recognize that there the Arabs DID NOT HAVE SOVEREIGNTY over the W.Pal.Mandate in 1948, so cannot be treated as sovereigns. The best argument that can be made is that the Arabs would have been the default once the British left, but the Jewish immigration changed the default, which I agree, hence the Jews were POLITICAL aggressors.

Just go and read the relevant League of Nations documents and you'll see how wrong you are.

Sumud

03-05-2005, 06:48 AM

Your neat little story about Abdullah being not only the most copetent (which he undoubtedly was) but also treasonous, would be credible if not for the creditable performance (in military terms) of the Jordanian forces. Just one example is Gush Etzion where they killed 240 men women and children and captured 260 others. This is not what one would have expected from Abdullah if he was wary of Israel's power and if he had an agreement with the Israelis.
I already said that they were the most competent(or credible if you like) forces. And this is exactly what you would expect - Abdullah expected his little slice and fought to get it.

I think it was July '48 when the ceasefire broke agian on the Egyptian front. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jordanian forces to attack on a second front if they wanted to 'destroy' Israel. They pretty much just sat there in the West Bank.
Since you agree that the were so credible, militarily, how do you explain their inaction when a good opportunity for simultaneous assualts on different fronts appeared?

MGB8

03-05-2005, 11:02 AM

Sumud, you still fail to distinguish Individual TITLE to land, like I have to my house here in the US, versus SOVEREIGNTY over the land. If the US were to cease to exist tomorrow, my TITLE over my house would most certainly be in question. If the US attacked say Canada, and Canada took over the land where my house was, and the cease fire lines put my house on their side, I would not have a realistic expectation of the maintaining that Title to the land, since the title was based on the US Sovereignty. That doesn't mean 100% that I wouldn't, there is politics to play, but I am being realistic. Now would I be upset? Certainly. Would I move on.... Yes. I wouldn't be a spoiled child who couldn't accept the consequences of my country's or my ethnic group's actions.

As for the League of Nations Mandate:

http://www.answers.com/topic/1922-text-league-of-nations-palestine-mandate

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1py960qlmn6gv?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=British+Mandate+of+Palestine&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a

The rest of your point is a false analogy, since it conveniently forgets that it was the Arabs who were the ones who necessitated the Jewish usage of force, because they would not keep the battle a political one. In other words, had the Arabs been willing to deal with the consequences of not resorting to violence and murder and genocide (meaning stick with politics, but ACCPET THAT YOU MIGHT NOT GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT), the Jews wouldn't have needed a defensive force - although eventually every nation needs a defensive force.

You try to say that the Jewish desire to stay alive is an act of violence. That is sick, but it is indicative of the twisted and perverse Arab narrative. You all just can't deal with any compromise, nor deal with the consequences of your actions. Its like little children. The Muslim Ummah and Arab nations needs to grow up badly. There's a reason the muslim nations are socially and politically centuries behind everyone else, and except the ones that got lucky with oil, are also that far behind economically. And it has lest to do with Mohammed and more to do with a culture of behaving like children.

Nothing? They had what they'd always had - their land, which they farmed and lived on. They were faced with the prospect of losing it.

This is a distinction many strive to make - that the Zionist enterprise was a peaceful one, and the violence was all on the Arab side.
As I mentioned previously, Zionist leaders were pretty up-front about the need for a protecting force that would allow them to achieve their aims.

If I point a gun at you and tell you you to do something, that is obviously a violent act. If I do the same thing unarmed, but my friend stands behind me wih a gun, it is no different. MGB8 thinks it is.

Just go and read the relevant League of Nations documents and you'll see how wrong you are.

Reffo

03-05-2005, 11:15 AM

Reffo

03-05-2005, 01:08 PM

I think it was July '48 when the ceasefire broke agian on the Egyptian front. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jordanian forces to attack on a second front if they wanted to 'destroy' Israel. They pretty much just sat there in the West Bank.
Since you agree that the were so credible, militarily, how do you explain their inaction when a good opportunity for simultaneous assualts on different fronts appeared?

Obviously he had his reasons, neither you or I are able to judge this (I will try to research this though).
Here is one description of what happened in Jerusalem in July 1948. According to this account, the Arab Legion (Abdullah's army) did attack but it was repulsed http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period5/5-1.html.

Fighting continues in Jerusalem and on other fronts following the July 17th cease-fire.

An Arab Legion attack in the Mandelbaum area is repulsed. The cease-fire is broken daily with shelling and sniper fire. Egyptian forces still threaten Jerusalem from their positions south of Bethlehem.

Between July 16th and 20th, 11 Jews are killed and 65 wounded.

Water supply lines passing Latrun are still turned off and United Nations' observers are unable to convince the Arab Legion to open the flow. Transjordan's refusal to allow pumping via the Latrun lines is a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement. Although under its control, the UN delays sending troops to protect the pumping station and Arabs blow up the pumps.

The Israeli military reports holding 5,000 Arab prisoners.
So after the Arab legion was repulsed, they felt that a seige of Jerusalem was more appropriate. One may agree or disagree with them but it does make sense.

Reffo

03-05-2005, 01:38 PM

Womble

03-05-2005, 02:30 PM

I think it was July '48 when the ceasefire broke agian on the Egyptian front. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jordanian forces to attack on a second front if they wanted to 'destroy' Israel. They pretty much just sat there in the West Bank.
Since you agree that the were so credible, militarily, how do you explain their inaction when a good opportunity for simultaneous assualts on different fronts appeared?
Abdullah's purpose in the war was not so much the destruction of Israel as grabbing the territory designated for a Palestinian state. He was assured by the British that it would not be a problem from the international community's viewpoint. If he did not attempt to grab the whole of Jerusalem, besieging the Jewish quarter, Israel would most likely have no beef whatsoever with Transjodan. The Arab Legion was the best army in the region, equipped and even over-equipped with the latest British weaponry, including the Churchill heavy tanks. Israel, whose soldiers at the time were armed for the most part with locally crafted weapons- Sten gun clones, Davidka mortars- and battle damaged Sherman tanks bought off the scrap yards all over Europe, did not need such a powerful adversary. I guess Abdullah grabbed as much as he could reliably hold and decided to not tempt fate any longer.

(Israel did buy better weapons later in the war from Czechoslovakia, and managed to smuggle in some illegaly bought American weapons- but at the beginning of the war they were very poorly equipped and the UN embargo on weapon sales to both sides in the war clearly benefitted the Arabs, who already had well-equipped armies)

Sumud

03-05-2005, 05:58 PM

Here is one description of what happened in Jerusalem in July 1948. According to this account, the Arab Legion (Abdullah's army) did attack but it was repulsed http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period5/5-1.html.

Womble's post briefly sums up the situation.

There was no signed agreement betwen them, but an understanding of each others ambitions. That left some room for disagreement over who was getting exactly what. Jewish forces had earlier tried to take the Old City, but they were pushed back.

Sumud

03-05-2005, 06:21 PM

Sumud, you still fail to distinguish Individual TITLE to land, like I have to my house here in the US, versus SOVEREIGNTY over the land. If the US were to cease to exist tomorrow, my TITLE over my house would most certainly be in question. If the US attacked say Canada, and Canada took over the land where my house was, and the cease fire lines put my house on their side, I would not have a realistic expectation of the maintaining that Title to the land, since the title was based on the US Sovereignty. That doesn't mean 100% that I wouldn't, there is politics to play, but I am being realistic. Now would I be upset? Certainly. Would I move on.... Yes. I wouldn't be a spoiled child who couldn't accept the consequences of my country's or my ethnic group's actions.

As for the League of Nations Mandate:

http://www.answers.com/topic/1922-text-league-of-nations-palestine-mandate

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1py960qlmn6gv?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=British+Mandate+of+Palestine&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a

A mostly irrelevant link.

The July 24 1924 document was just a confirmation of Article 22 which orignally defined the nature of the Mandates. To this end it laid out the specific repsonsibilities of the Mandatory Power.
You might also have noted that the confirmation documents never gave Britain sovereignity. There was a good reason this - it wasn't considerd to have it.
You should have read your own link more carefully - the articles specificaly stated that the already existing rights of the inhabitants were not to be adversly affected. So the land titles that poeple already had, were in no way affected by the Mandate.

This is what the orignal article (Article 22. June 28, 1919) stated,

"To those colonies and territories.... have ceased to be under the sovereignity of the States which formerly governed them..."
"..the tutelage of such people should be entrusted to advanced nations......this tuteluge should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League"
"Communites formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of developement where their existance as independant nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice ....until such time that they are able to stand alone.

There were other categories of Mandate where it was specifically spelt out that they were to be treated as part of the Mandatories own territory,
"There are...territores best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral parts of its territory."

Palestine was not one of these.

Leon

03-05-2005, 09:11 PM

Nothing? They had what they'd always had - their land, which they farmed and lived on. They were faced with the prospect of losing it.

on land which they farmed on whilst been employed by Jews? In situation where the majority of them moved from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt to get jobs and farm the very same land owned by Jews? Thats a funny way of claiming ownership to land.

This is a distinction many strive to make - that the Zionist enterprise was a peaceful one, and the violence was all on the Arab side.
As I mentioned previously, Zionist leaders were pretty up-front about the need for a protecting force that would allow them to achieve their aims.

To make a clear distinction - who wanted to throw whom into the sea?

Even the most hardened right-wingers among the Irgun thought that co-existence with the Arabs was possible.

Reffo

03-05-2005, 09:29 PM

Womble's post briefly sums up the situation.

There was no signed agreement betwen them, but an understanding of each others ambitions. That left some room for disagreement over who was getting exactly what. Jewish forces had earlier tried to take the Old City, but they were pushed back.

He was assured by the British that it would not be a problem from the international community's viewpoint. If he did not attempt to grab the whole of Jerusalem, besieging the Jewish quarter, Israel would most likely have no beef whatsoever with Transjodan.So Sumud, if you accept this then I would say that Abdullah just did his sums and he just decided that it was not a good idea to upset the Brits/International community and in any case as you previously said he had a healthy respect for the Israeli army right? If so, how can you say that he betrayed the rest of the Arabs (no signed agreement with Israel), are you saying that he was wrong and you are right that he should have pushed his luck further? Surely it was just a matter of judgement on his part and it was probably the right decision!

Womble

03-05-2005, 09:41 PM

A mostly irrelevant link.

The July 24 1924 document was just a confirmation of Article 22 which orignally defined the nature of the Mandates. To this end it laid out the specific repsonsibilities of the Mandatory Power.
You might also have noted that the confirmation documents never gave Britain sovereignity. There was a good reason this - it wasn't considerd to have it.
You should have read your own link more carefully - the articles specificaly stated that the already existing rights of the inhabitants were not to be adversly affected. So the land titles that poeple already had, were in no way affected by the Mandate.
The individual ownership on land wasn't. But no collective or national ownership on Palestine existed at that time except for that of the Ottoman empire- which was cancelled. And the Arabs didn't own most of the land in Palestine, contrary to the propaganda claims.

Sumud

03-06-2005, 05:45 AM

Womble, the vagaries of the land-title system under the Ottoman Empire are probably a little too-far 'off topic' to be pursued.

Sumud

03-06-2005, 06:03 AM

Sumud, I am still very keen to hear your response to my earlier post on this thread (post 77) Click Here. It was with regarding to your inconsistent attitude implying that on the one hand Jewish migration to their ancestral homeland (to join other Jews who already lived there for millenia) was somehow illegitemate, while migration of Arabs from surrounding Arab countries was OK ?

POST 77-Yes, you mentioned this already in another post on another thread. But what was not mentioned in your post is that in addition to Jewish migration there was also significant Arab migration from surrounding countries. So are you saying that one was legitemate and the other was not ? If yes, why not ? If no, then how was the resultant Arab hatred legitemate ? (Note, I am not denying the reality that hatred occured, I am questioning why the apologists legitemize and condone it).
Regional immigration (and emigration) was certainly a feature of the area over a long period. Just like much of the rest of the world.

Much of it was cyclical. There was significant influx of population during the late 1920's and early 30's, from areas to the north. This is, in part, the basis for the claim of a massive influx of Arab migrants that skewed population figures and the resulting claims of double standards on the issue of immigration.
Unfortunately, for the believers in this version, they only have half of the story. The other half is that following the same changing economic/climatic factors that brought them to Palestine, most returned to where they came from.

The particular Arab fear was that large scale Jewish immigration was about changing the nature of the region, the most commonly expression of this being that the Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state that would prejudice their rights.

Small scale Jewish immigration had been on the increase for a hundred years with relatively few problems.

Womble

03-06-2005, 01:49 PM

Womble, the vagaries of the land-title system under the Ottoman Empire are probably a little too-far 'off topic' to be pursued.
Not really. The said vagaries are essential to understanding one of the basic historical facts about Palestine: that the Arab population never actually owned the majority of land in Palestine. The State- whether the Chaliphate, the Ottoman empire or the British colonial administration, was always the dominant land owner, closely followed by the Christian churches. I've seen too many maps that show that the Jews owned a relatively small part of Palestine and alleging that the Arabs owned the rest- which is false. The state owned land, once the state ceased to exist, was lawful property of whatever new state established souvereignity over it. Which makes Israel a lawful owner of this land as far as legality is concerned.

Womble

03-06-2005, 01:55 PM

The particular Arab fear was that large scale Jewish immigration was about changing the nature of the region, the most commonly expression of this being that the Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state that would prejudice their rights.

Small scale Jewish immigration had been on the increase for a hundred years with relatively few problems.
Actually, there wasn't much fear of that. The Arab leadership had consented to the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab states as early as 1919 in the Weizmann-Feisal agreement signed during the Paris peace conference. If it wasn't for the Wahhabi influence, which succeeded in turning the Arab nationalism from a fairly tolerant Hashemite version of it to a racist and militant one represented by Haj Amin Al-Husseini, a Jewish state could have been created already in the late 20-s, with little to no opposition in the Arab world in general and in Palestine in particular.

Reffo

03-06-2005, 02:32 PM

There was significant influx of population during the late 1920's and early 30's, from areas to the north. This is, in part, the basis for the claim of a massive influx of Arab migrants that skewed population figures and the resulting claims of double standards on the issue of immigration.
Unfortunately, for the believers in this version, they only have half of the story. The other half is that following the same changing economic/climatic factors that brought them to Palestine, most returned to where they came from.Good, I am glad that you acknowledge Arab immigration as well. Now, could you please answer the second part of my previous question as well which was:

How do the apologists justify the legitemacy of Arab immigration to Palestine on the one hand and on the other hand claim that Jewish immigration was illegal ? Note, that for the purposes of our discussion, it does not matter whether the Arab immigrants decided to stay or not to stay in the longer term. Also note that I am not questioning the hate that Jewish immigration generated (hate is an emotional issue and certainly it was generted as a result of incitement by irresponsible Arab leaders like the Mufti of Jerusalem and others).

The particular Arab fear was that large scale Jewish immigration was about changing the nature of the region, the most commonly expression of this being that the Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state that would prejudice their rights. OK, I can understnd thi fear but it does not negate from the legitemacy of Jewish immigration and justifiable Jewish claims. In fact, most Jews also had fears but they still accepted that both peoples had rightful claims to the land. Consequently, the Jews did accept the UN partition of Palestine into two separate parts, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. The Arabs on the other hand did not, and that is the root cause of this conflict !

Small scale Jewish immigration had been on the increase for a hundred years with relatively few problems.Not entirely. Even in the early days there were incitements and consequently random acts of violence against Jews, but you are right tht such acts were on a smaller scale.

MGB8

03-06-2005, 04:36 PM

No, a mostly irrelevant argument, and a very michael-esque one. While it is true that the British did not have de juris sovereignty, no one else did either. The British were the closest thing to a sovereign authority, both in their legal authority to control immigration etc., powers of a sovereign, and on a de facto basis. The fact that the Brits, through the LON, basically said "we're not going to annex this land or colonize it for Britain" is irrelevant. The portions noted in the links, in that the powers that controlled the land, that had no full legal sovereign, but the LON had I guess sovereignty power and British had the powers of a sovereign, without the title (this is right after the age of imperialism) and were the defacto sovereign...well.

Meanwhile, even if the British were not full sovereigns, that does not mean that the Arabs living there and immigrating to the land were.

Its more not seeing the forrest for the trees. Or, like an analogy I used with michael, spotting a clearing and then arguing based thereon that the forrest doesn't exist. Its not just intellectually dishonest, not that I expect anything better, its a flat out ludicrous argument.

A mostly irrelevant link.

The July 24 1924 document was just a confirmation of Article 22 which orignally defined the nature of the Mandates. To this end it laid out the specific repsonsibilities of the Mandatory Power.
You might also have noted that the confirmation documents never gave Britain sovereignity. There was a good reason this - it wasn't considerd to have it.
You should have read your own link more carefully - the articles specificaly stated that the already existing rights of the inhabitants were not to be adversly affected. So the land titles that poeple already had, were in no way affected by the Mandate.

This is what the orignal article (Article 22. June 28, 1919) stated,

"To those colonies and territories.... have ceased to be under the sovereignity of the States which formerly governed them..."
"..the tutelage of such people should be entrusted to advanced nations......this tuteluge should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League"
"Communites formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of developement where their existance as independant nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice ....until such time that they are able to stand alone.

There were other categories of Mandate where it was specifically spelt out that they were to be treated as part of the Mandatories own territory,
"There are...territores best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral parts of its territory."

Palestine was not one of these.

MGB8

03-06-2005, 04:44 PM

While there is certainly historical basis to say that Jordan had limited ambitions, in terms of letters, etc., there is certainly as much historical basis to conlcude that the Jordanian army, if it could have without much problem, would have "finished the job," even with possible consequences from the British - remember that the Brits abstained from the partition resolution and many in the government thought Israel would not survive - there was no statement from the Brits to the extent of "Jordan, Arabs, if you destroy Israel we will punish you." The idea that Abdullah would not have pressed on if he could have with relative ease - ie., the Jews didn't fight so well in defense of their lives and their country and to prevent their genocide - I have little doubt that the Jordanian and other Arab armies would have continued towards the goal they announced to the world - destroying Israel in a sea of Jewish blood. Of course, the Arabs now try to sweep their statements under the rug, or say "we didn't really mean it." Children. Spoiled children who cannot accept responsibility for their actions.

Leon

03-07-2005, 12:27 PM

Womble

03-07-2005, 12:42 PM

Look up Haj Amin Al Hussieni to see what the common expression was.
"No more Monsieur, no more Mister. In Heaven Allah, on
earth Hitler", as they used to sing in the 30-s ;)

Sumud

03-16-2005, 06:27 AM

So Sumud, if you accept this then I would say that Abdullah just did his sums and he just decided that it was not a good idea to upset the Brits/International community and in any case as you previously said he had a healthy respect for the Israeli army right? If so, how can you say that he betrayed the rest of the Arabs (no signed agreement with Israel), are you saying that he was wrong and you are right that he should have pushed his luck further? Surely it was just a matter of judgement on his part and it was probably the right decision!
Jordan was meant to be acting in concert with the other Arab armies, but ended up only acting in their own interests, holding what they could on their own.

Their is some dispute about this. Some have argued that Israel could have taken all of the West Bank, the only obstacle being Ben-Gurions concern over potential Britian reaction, as Jordan and Britain had a defence treaty.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 06:31 AM

Not really. The said vagaries are essential to understanding one of the basic historical facts about Palestine: that the Arab population never actually owned the majority of land in Palestine. The State- whether the Chaliphate, the Ottoman empire or the British colonial administration, was always the dominant land owner, closely followed by the Christian churches. I've seen too many maps that show that the Jews owned a relatively small part of Palestine and alleging that the Arabs owned the rest- which is false. The state owned land, once the state ceased to exist, was lawful property of whatever new state established souvereignity over it. Which makes Israel a lawful owner of this land as far as legality is concerned.
If this is an example of your understanding of the "vagaries", then you need to do a bit more reading.
Ottoman land tenure was much more compicated than just a matter of the state owning the land.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 06:36 AM

Actually, there wasn't much fear of that. The Arab leadership had consented to the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab states as early as 1919 in the Weizmann-Feisal agreement signed during the Paris peace conference. If it wasn't for the Wahhabi influence, which succeeded in turning the Arab nationalism from a fairly tolerant Hashemite version of it to a racist and militant one represented by Haj Amin Al-Husseini, a Jewish state could have been created already in the late 20-s, with little to no opposition in the Arab world in general and in Palestine in particular.
This is incorrect.

There was widespread concern well before 1919. The most nteresting feature of th eperiod was the difference in opiion between the 'average' person and wealthy individuals. Popular opinion was usually much more antagonistic towards large-scale Jewish immigration.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 08:52 AM

Good, I am glad that you acknowledge Arab immigration as well. Now, could you please answer the second part of my previous question as well which was:

How do the apologists justify the legitemacy of Arab immigration to Palestine on the one hand and on the other hand claim that Jewish immigration was illegal ? Note, that for the purposes of our discussion, it does not matter whether the Arab immigrants decided to stay or not to stay in the longer term. Also note that I am not questioning the hate that Jewish immigration generated (hate is an emotional issue and certainly it was generted as a result of incitement by irresponsible Arab leaders like the Mufti of Jerusalem and others).

The issue of permanancy does matter a gret deal. It goes to the heart of Arab concerns that a Jewish state would prejudice their rights and their way of life. This is the difference between large-scale Jewish immigration and the smaller cyclical regional immigration. The latter worked was part of the status quo, while the former promised to change it significantly.
The centrality of permanance is obvious if you look at another example. Imagine if you lived in a country where tourism is common. Imagine now if all tourists had the right to settle permanently, rather than just visit. Would the 'tourists' now be viewed differentlyby the local population?
For example, in the Hebron area thoughout the 19th and early 20th C, Arab landowners had built houses specifically to rent out to yeshiva students visiting from the US and Europe.

OK, I can understnd thi fear but it does not negate from the legitemacy of Jewish immigration and justifiable Jewish claims. In fact, most Jews also had fears but they still accepted that both peoples had rightful claims to the land. Consequently, the Jews did accept the UN partition of Palestine into two separate parts, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. The Arabs on the other hand did not, and that is the root cause of this conflict !

I'm not sure it's quite the root of the problem. I think it came quite a bit before this development and it was that the Palestinians were faced with changes that they were neither consulted about nor for which they gave their consent.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 09:03 AM

MGB8

03-16-2005, 09:35 AM

being a lawyer, that language is far from clear, what does nation mean? who does that refer to (could be Jews too)? borders? especially given the other language re jewish national home? what does "provisional" mean?

Your point is meaningles because the langauge is (purposefully) vague, and because of the de facto authority of the british.

David2004

03-16-2005, 11:41 AM

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the United States is heading in the wrong direction on multi-level platforms that are inter-connected. From the War in Iraq to our high level consumption of the world crude oil to the spiraling Twin Deficits. The United States is trying to secure the international boarders of Iraq when they cannot secure their boarders at home. The hypocrisy in what the United States government says and what they do for short-term gains is costing us a lot in the long run with compounding interest and problems.

Today in America the intellectuals are sidelined as extremists while the Ivy League special interest lobbies write the government policies to serve their interest. The United States government regulatory commissions today are similar to the foxes guarding the chicken coops. The policies of the United States Federal government are out of control at home and abroad. As a tyrant the United States government will step on anyone or nation that get in the way of its self-interests.

The answers to the problems that face the United States will be painful to many Americans. Many promises that have been made by the government and corporations will not be able to be kept disrupting the lives of many Americans. If major corrections in American policies are not made before it hits the fan it will lead to chaos on the international streets going to America. Only by addressing the problems of the big picture can we find the answers over the long run. It is time for the American people to wake-up and take control of the Federal Government putting it back into its place. This is true on the state, local and international level where the United States Federal government has over step its bounds. As long as American remain complacent with our current path the problems will only get worst for our childrenâ€™s future. The United States government must regain its balance to its purpose and policies. The mismanagement by those in power is as good as treason to our country.

Reffo

03-16-2005, 11:49 AM

The issue of permanancy does matter a gret deal. It goes to the heart of Arab concerns that a Jewish state would prejudice their rights and their way of life. This is the difference between large-scale Jewish immigration and the smaller cyclical regional immigration. The latter worked was part of the status quo, while the former promised to change it significantly.
The centrality of permanance is obvious if you look at another example. Imagine if you lived in a country where tourism is common. Imagine now if all tourists had the right to settle permanently, rather than just visit. Would the 'tourists' now be viewed differentlyby the local population?
For example, in the Hebron area thoughout the 19th and early 20th C, Arab landowners had built houses specifically to rent out to yeshiva students visiting from the US and Europe.The fact is that when Arab immigrants entered, they did not announce whether they intended to stay permanently or not and many in fact did stay permanently. So, from a Jewish point of view, they had just as much right to be concerned about Arab immigration. Yet the Jews did not start riots to protest Arab immigration but you and other apologists imply that Jewish migration was somehow illegal but the Arab migration was OK and that betrays your bias. I cannot see the difference and since the Turks as the sovereign power did not object to either, both sets of migations were legal.

OK, I can understnd thi fear but it does not negate from the legitemacy of Jewish immigration and justifiable Jewish claims. In fact, most Jews also had fears but they still accepted that both peoples had rightful claims to the land. Consequently, the Jews did accept the UN partition of Palestine into two separate parts, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. The Arabs on the other hand did not, and that is the root cause of this conflict !

I'm not sure it's quite the root of the problem. I think it came quite a bit before this development and it was that the Palestinians were faced with changes that they were neither consulted about nor for which they gave their consent.The point I was trying to make is that you seem to only see things from the Palestinian perspective. You keep on talking only about THEIR FEARS, LACK OF CONSULTATION WITH THEM and THEIR LACK OF CONSENT. What about offering the same considerations for the Jewish population as well ? While I have no problems with your bias but I do have problems with your attempt to claim that their fears were somehow more legitemate and that therefore the Jewish presence in and migration to Palestine was somehow illegal.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 12:35 PM

being a lawyer, .

Bad lawyers are a dime-a-dozen :o

MGB8

03-16-2005, 12:45 PM

Too bad I'm a very good lawyer.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 12:45 PM

The fact is that when Arab immigrants entered, they did not announce whether they intended to stay permanently or not and many in fact did stay permanently. So, from a Jewish point of view, they had just as much right to be concerned about Arab immigration. Yet the Jews did not start riots to protest Arab immigration but you and other apologists imply that Jewish migration was somehow illegal but the Arab migration was OK and that betrays your bias. I cannot see the difference and since the Turks as the sovereign power did not object to either, both sets of migations were legal.
The British records indicatd that most did not stay.

Neither did they plan to change the character of the region nor prejudice the rights of the local population by constructing an ethnically pure state. If other migrants came in threatening to exclude the locals they would have recieved the same reception.

The point I was trying to make is that you seem to only see things from the Palestinian perspective. You keep on talking only about THEIR FEARS, LACK OF CONSULTATION WITH THEM and THEIR LACK OF CONSENT. What about offering the same considerations for the Jewish population as well ? While I have no problems with your bias but I do have problems with your attempt to claim that their fears were somehow more legitemate and that therefore the Jewish presence in and migration to Palestine was somehow illegal.

You have a problem here.

The original Jewish population of Palestine were predominatley ultra-orthodox and they were also opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.
So you see, opposition to large-scale Jewish immmigration was not about Jewishness per-se, but the effort to change the staus quo against the wishes of the existing population.

There is no bias or narrow perspective here at all.

MGB8

03-16-2005, 01:00 PM

But the local population was also heavily immigrant, and didn't have much legal right to have their wishes be law, and that is the point. They had the right to not want to change the status quo (and btw, since when is Israel ethnically pure, I mean, "Palestine" will be, be Judenraus, the Arab racists..., but Israel has Arab MPs and Druze and many other ethnicities and religions), and you have a HUGE problem, you are focusing on a couple of sentences to the exclusion of much more writing that contradicts your assertion, AND, the LON doc was well after the beginning of the Jewish immigration....

Your point is weak, flawed, and ultimately nonsense.

Reffo

03-16-2005, 01:31 PM

.....prejudice the rights of the local population by constructing an ethnically pure state. If other migrants came in threatening to exclude the locals they would have recieved the same reception.I am glad you brought up the isue of "ethnically pure state". The only ethnically pure state that was announced by the UN in 1947 was the Arab Palestinian state, the Jewish part included a significant number of Arabs as well and 1 million of them (20% of the total) are citizens to this day. On the other hand they did not include Jews in the Arab state because they knew full well that the Arabs would not have tolerated them and they would have been massacred.

You have a problem here.

The original Jewish population of Palestine were predominatley ultra-orthodox and they were also opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.No, you have the problem. The native Jewish population even though some of them were orthodox, welcomed the new Jewish migrants and they certainly did not oppose the idea of a Jewish state only a small minority of orthodox do.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 04:06 PM

But the local population was also heavily immigrant, and didn't have much legal right to have their wishes be law, and that is the point. They had the right to not want to change the status quo .....
Your point is weak, flawed, and ultimately nonsense.
What? - recent immigrants had not 'much legal right' regarding their wishes. Well that's the vast majority of the Jews pre-state.

You said it, and I won't disagree.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 04:16 PM

No, you have the problem. The native Jewish population even though some of them were orthodox, welcomed the new Jewish migrants and they certainly did not oppose the idea of a Jewish state only a small minority of orthodox do.
You need to read a bit more. New immigrants were welcomed - to live among the existing Jewish community as they lived. The majority pre-1900 were orthodox and very much opposed to talk of a Jewish state.

You wanted the views of people living in the area to be considered, but only when it suits you it seems. So the views of the local population on immigration matter in 1940, but not in 1899 or 1920.

Womble

03-16-2005, 04:55 PM

You need to read a bit more. New immigrants were welcomed - to live among the existing Jewish community as they lived. The majority pre-1900 were orthodox and very much opposed to talk of a Jewish state.

You wanted the views of people living in the area to be considered, but only when it suits you it seems. So the views of the local population on immigration matter in 1940, but not in 1899 or 1920.
Actually, the views of the local population weren't the way you described. The Palestinian Arabs were divided into pro- and anti- groups. Many (most, in fact, until more or less the early 30-s) eagerly cooperated with the Jewish immigrants and supported the Zionist drive for independence (the most famous example was the Abu Gosh village, almost the entire male population of which were LEHI (Stern group) members). It is only when the Wahhabi supported Al-Husseini clan, with British help and encouragement, began to prevail over the moderate Nashashibi clan as the dominant Palestinian political force, that the hostility to Zionism assumed a significantly large scale. This tendency was reinforced by the Nazi influences and the widespread Arab fascination with German and Italian fascism after Hitler took the power in Germany in 1933.

Sumud

03-16-2005, 05:15 PM

There was opposition from the 1890's.

Most Palestinian support was based on the idea, publicly espoused, that the only plan of the Zionists was for a homeland and that they wanted to live in peace with the Palestinians . They repeatedly denied that a Jewish state was their goal. The Histradut was particularly unhelpful in furthering this piece of PR. Their ban on Arab labour and products was a wake up call for those who had believed the gloss.

MGB8

03-16-2005, 05:45 PM

MGB8

03-16-2005, 05:48 PM

Links - who said that they didn't want a Jewish state? Certainly the Feisal-Weizman agreement was for a Jewish state.... Me thinks we have YET ANOTHER mischarecterization, mistake, or flat out lie. Your giving Takeo a run for his money?

There was opposition from the 1890's.

Most Palestinian support was based on the idea, publicly espoused, that the only plan of the Zionists was for a homeland and that they wanted to live in peace with the Palestinians . They repeatedly denied that a Jewish state was their goal. The Histradut was particularly unhelpful in furthering this piece of PR. Their ban on Arab labour and products was a wake up call for those who had believed the gloss.

Reffo

03-17-2005, 02:00 AM

The majority pre-1900 were orthodox and very much opposed to talk of a Jewish state.How do you know that it was the majority ? Was there a poll (you know that the answer is a definitive no!). The truth is that there were a variety of opinions both amongst Jews and Arabs, some were against Jewish emigration, some were for it, some were against a Jewish state, some were for it. Amongst the Jews, the ones who were against it were either fearful of a bloody backlash from their Arab neighbours, others may have been against it because the saviour (Mossiah) did not yet arrive. But you can definitely not say that the majority were against it.

Likewise amongst the Arabs, some were for Jewish emigration because they perceived economic benefits, others did not care and many who were againt it were either intimidated or were incited by nationalistic leaders. Again, in the initial stages there was no uniform consensus, that only happened later after the nationalists forced their agenda on the others often by violent assasinations which intimidated their opponents.

Mediocrates

03-17-2005, 05:14 AM

Sumud

03-17-2005, 06:36 AM

My fault for a badly worded sentence. The local population, in general, didn't have the legal right of a sovereign, just as they didn't have it under Ottoman rule. Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is that much of the Arab population, like much of the Jewish population, was also recently immigrated, and thus could under no circumstances claim greater right than the Jews.
Wrong.
If you're interested in the detials of Article 22, it's not at all difficult to find. It clearly states that Palestine was regarded as an independant nation on the verge of standing on its own. The Mandatory authority was simply there to help this process. Your contortions over 'sovereignity' are unnecessary.

The British Mandate records indicate that much of the Arab population was not made up of recent immigrants, only a fraction of it was, and these were mostly temporary residents.

It's no surprise that you strive to make this point as the implication you wish to make to the Arab population definitely applies to the majority of the Jewish population.

ither way, the native populations really didn't have much say one way or another.
You're 100% correct on this point.
The British said openly that they made no effort to consider the wishes of the local population.

Don't tell me you now finally understand that this is the basis of Arab resentment. It's a red letter day!

And the LON, with its mandate to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine...well, you really shouldn't look to it and the one vague sentence you pull out for support.

That's right a national home. Jewish leaders expressly made the point that they had no intention or desire for a state (a blatant lie). The Mandate expressly stated that the local population would not have their rights prejudiced at all, which is precisely what the British went about doing. At least initially, they then tried to correct some of their errors which made the Jewish community very unhappy.

Sumud

03-17-2005, 06:40 AM

Links - who said that they didn't want a Jewish state? Certainly the Feisal-Weizman agreement was for a Jewish state.... Me thinks we have YET ANOTHER mischarecterization, mistake, or flat out lie. Your giving Takeo a run for his money?

An agreement between 2 individuals. What is the relevance?

Faisal went into the agreement at the prompting of the British, because he wanted his own state and the Brits were about to give it to him.

He had no problems agreeing to anything regarding Palestine as he considered that had had absolutley no connection or authority over that area. He would have signed an agreement with a Martian about Palestine.

Sumud

03-17-2005, 06:51 AM

Every single one of his/her threads have the same theme. "I postulate that Jews are recent arrivees to the region ergo they have zero right to ever set foot here. This is arab land and so it shall be cleansed."
Now this is truly funny.

This is exactly the argument that I've been countering above - that much of the local Arab population were recent immigrants. And of course that is the logic that is meant to flow from this assertion - they therefore have no right to be put out by Jewish immigration.
Without missing a beat, some then go on to defend Jewish claims to the land by way of previous residence. This, of course, now does confer considerable right to the land!!

Mediocrates

03-17-2005, 06:53 AM

Prior history is irrlevant. Israel is a country now, today. Attempting to rhetorically de-invent it is a complete waste of everyone's time, even yours.

MGB8

03-17-2005, 07:28 AM

While it is a waste of time, I agree, Medio, it is also an issue of Sumud just being wrong: Here is the text of Article 22 that Sumud relies on is reprinted below, note that IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT HE ALLEGES (Sumud is wrong or lying, again):

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 June 1919

Article 22. To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the formance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

MGB8

03-17-2005, 07:34 AM

Oh, and his point about the distinction (without a difference) of a National Home as opposed to a State...if Feisal understood what the Jews meant, and given the violence some Arabs at least understood what the Jews meant (and, if they understood it, maybe the Arabs who didn't oppose also understood it - being an Arab does not equal being an Arabist) well...

Its a takeo-esque completely unsupported (and meaningless) allegation. So what does national home mean if not a state, Sumud? What is the plain meaning of the term? What is the most likely understanding of it?

Please. Your reliance on the LON is misplaced and actually WORKS AGAINST your point (which is probably why you didn't cite the text), Sovereignty DOES matter, the fact that the local Arabs, long time residents and/or immigrants, did not have any sovereignty, DOES MATTER.

All that you are doing, sumud, is trying desperately to rationalize and couch in legalism JIHADIST and PAN-ARABIST principles of Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb.

Reffo

03-17-2005, 12:08 PM

This is exactly the argument that I've been countering above - that much of the local Arab population were recent immigrants. And of course that is the logic that is meant to flow from this assertion - they therefore have no right to be put out by Jewish immigration.OK then Sumud, show me where and who said "much of the local Arab population were recent migrants". I bet ya can't show me...... I think that you will found that people said the following:

There were both Jews and Arabs living there for centuries
In the 1800s the population was not large and the country side was populated sparsely. Most people lived in towns
There was significant migration both by Arabs and Jews

That's not the same as saying that most of the Arabs were recent immigrants but some certainly came in the late 1800s and the early 20th century..

Sumud

03-17-2005, 02:35 PM

Prior history is irrlevant. Israel is a country now, today. Attempting to rhetorically de-invent it is a complete waste of everyone's time, even yours.

Or as some have put it - there are no solutions in the past.

I agree.

However, there are the usual suspects who are determined to show how underserving the Palestinians are becasue they are 'recent immigrants' blah, blah, blah, blah..........It's quite tedious to rebut them, but they never tire of posting the same old canards. Too much reading Joan Peters' 'From Time Immemorial'

I have no interest in de-inventing Israel. However, this is exactly the game of my debating partners - the Palestinians did this or failed to do that in the past, which now somehow legitimises Israeli control over the lives of the Palestinians and delegitimises the right of Palestinians to their own state.

Sumud

03-17-2005, 02:40 PM

Sumud

03-17-2005, 02:52 PM

Its a takeo-esque completely unsupported (and meaningless) allegation. So what does national home mean if not a state, Sumud? What is the plain meaning of the term? What is the most likely understanding of it?
If they mean the same thing, why did Zionist leaders tell the locals that this ddin't mean a Jewish state? Were they confused too?

All that you are doing, sumud, is trying desperately to rationalize and couch in legalism JIHADIST and PAN-ARABIST principles of Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb.
You'll have to give me the translation in plain English before I can comment on this.

Sumud

03-17-2005, 02:57 PM

OK then Sumud, show me where and who said "much of the local Arab population were recent migrants". I bet ya can't show me...... I think that you will found that people said the following:

There were both Jews and Arabs living there for centuries
In the 1800s the population was not large and the country side was populated sparsely. Most people lived in towns
There was significant migration both by Arabs and Jews

That's not the same as saying that most of the Arabs were recent immigrants but some certainly came in the late 1800s and the early 20th century..
This was one of the simpler challanges you've set me.

It was just 10 posts above yours.

Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is that much of the Arab population.............was also recently immigrated - MGB8, post 138

Now that you've lost your bet, what do I get?? :D

MGB8

03-17-2005, 03:01 PM

Nice attempt to change the subject. You can read something once, not recall anything more than the gist of it, and come back and look at it specifically later.

I was not relying on it to prove my point. You were. And it doesn't say what you said it did - it doesn't support your claim at all. So, while you can make a vain attempt to insult me, it is more telling that you come here and say "oh, read this, it supports my argument and establishes this and that", only, upon reading it, to realize that it says nothing of the sort.

As for the Pal Arabs "right to a state." Do the Kurds have a "right to a state." Do the Basque? Do the Turkomen? How about each ethnicity in Lebanon? Do the Black Sudanese have a right to secede from Sudan and fight for any land the Arabs have stolen (a lot).

In fact, what does a "right" mean. Did the Jews have a "right" to a state in the Palestine Mandate? Well, according to the LON and Balfour declarations they did, but outside of that...

They had claims. They had desires. But what is a "right?"

Here's the thing, a right is a legal construct. It actually is not a matter of power, but a matter of the recognition that someone else DOES NOT have the power to interfere. All that exists in life are free will, and power. A right is a part of a social contract where the parties agree to voluntarily give up their a set of choice/the power to impliment their will in certain areas. There is no "right" to free speech, for example... anyone can say anything they want. But the GOVERNMENT has agreed to not use ITS free will and power to react and stop free speech, and even this is not absolute.

So what is the claim that the Palestinians have a right to a state based on? The best you could say is the Partition plan, or maybe the UN resolutions, mainly 242. As to the Partition plan, the Palestinians, through their beligerance and Pan-Arab beligerence, FORFEITED the rights to a (eastern) Palestinian state, as noted by Arab Jordan's (Western Palestine's) and Egypt's acquisition of the lands slated to become this state, and the Pal Arabs acceptance of this.

I know that 242 does not say that Israel should with draw from "the territories" much less ALL the territories that it acquired in the 6 day war, and I don't recall if it mentions a Pal Arab state either!

So where is this right coming from? And lets not forget that the real issue isn't a Pal Arab state, but its SIZE and LOCATION. The Pal Arabs could try for a state on the Sinai, they'd be free from Israeli rule. They don't.

Are we talking the right to self-determination? Well, until Iraq, really none of the Arabs except those living in the West had any self determination, and I didn't see much railing against the despotisms, accept maybe arguments to replace one form of tyranny with another.

Rights? The Palestinian Arabs HAVE NO RIGHTS. They have CLAIMS. Some may be very logical and moral and good, but they are just claims. They are not absolute, and they can be counterbalanced, and they don't entitle anyone to anything. They may have property rights, a power derived from the SOVEREIGN, to certain plots (but soveriegnty trump this too - its called eminent domain), and, frankly, whatever power the sovereign yields it does have the power to take away, although this could violate the "social contract"/the governments constitution etc.

MGB8

03-17-2005, 03:03 PM

You are not a very good reader, sumud. I could tell with your LON reliance.

This was one of the simpler challanges you've set me.

It was just 10 posts above yours.

Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is that much of the Arab population.............was also recently immigrated - MGB8, post 138

Now that you've lost your bet, what do I get?? :D

"Much of" means "significant," NOT "majority." Its possible that it was the majority, but I haven't done the research to back that up. But I am very comfortable with saying "much of."

MGB8

03-17-2005, 03:07 PM

If they mean the same thing, why did Zionist leaders tell the locals that this ddin't mean a Jewish state? Were they confused too?

You'll have to give me the translation in plain English before I can comment on this.

To part one, back it up. Who told who what and when. I'm not aware of anything significant. Meanwhile, you avoided all the other points, and admission that you simply can't answer them. That would be check.

To part two - look up Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Salaam ("Land of Islam" or "land of peace" same or similar root in Arabic) and Dar al-Harb (Land of war.)

Its been discussed on this forum extensively, and, if you don't know what it means, you need to learn about it in order to be able to discuss this topic intelligently, as this concept underlies the entire issue.

Reffo

03-17-2005, 04:02 PM

This was one of the simpler challanges you've set me.

It was just 10 posts above yours.

Now that you've lost your bet, what do I get?? :D OK Sumud, you got me on this one. :o So what do you want to get ?

Sumud

03-17-2005, 04:33 PM

You are not a very good reader, sumud. I could tell with your LON reliance.

"Much of" means "significant," NOT "majority." Its possible that it was the majority, but I haven't done the research to back that up. But I am very comfortable with saying "much of."
Can't you read ?

Reffo wanted to know who had said "much of" as I claimed someone had, and all I've done is point out who it was. You can put your dictionary away.

You really are a lawyer aren't you?

Sumud

03-17-2005, 04:50 PM

I was not relying on it to prove my point. You were. And it doesn't say what you said it did - it doesn't support your claim at all. So, while you can make a vain attempt to insult me, it is more telling that you come here and say "oh, read this, it supports my argument and establishes this and that", only, upon reading it, to realize that it says nothing of the sort.
.
You seem to have totally lost the plot.

I posted this directly from Article 22

"To those colonies and territories.... have ceased to be under the sovereignity of the States which formerly governed them..."
"..the tutelage of such people should be entrusted to advanced nations......this tuteluge should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League"
"Communites formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of developement where their existance as independant nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice ....until such time that they are able to stand alone."

Which you simply confirmed by posting the entire document.

Now you claim that this "doesn't support your claim at all"
My claim was that the LON didn't give sovereignity over Palestine to the British.

Are you now saying that this document does this??

You seem quite confused.

Sumud

03-17-2005, 04:51 PM

OK Sumud, you got me on this one. :o So what do you want to get ?
Nothing. It was a pretty minor point.

However, I do appreciate your fair-minded attitude. It's something others could learn from.

MGB8

03-17-2005, 05:32 PM

More dishonesty on your part with selective posting:

Here is the entire portion, again:

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Specifically NOT "communities" but "certain communities." That means not everyone, sumud. Not only that, but it does not say WHICH communities, or even what a "community" is. Is there any doubt that they were NOT talking about the Arabs who later took the name Palestinian, given that states were made for Jordan (Eastern Palestine), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

Meanwhile, again you have to read this also in light of the provisions for Jews. Given the whole, it is more likely that, with regards to the land west of the Jordan river, the JEWS were "the community" that the LON was talking about.

Nor did I say that the British had absolute sovereignty. On the contrary, the British were DE FACTO sovereigns. They had most of the rights of the sovereign, but not all. They did not have the right to annex the land. However, given the fact that they divided up other parts of the middle east and africa and gave them to one group or another as sovereigns, surely they had the same rights with the Palestine mandate.

You again were being DISHONEST in stating your point and mine, yours which was not that the British didn't have sovereignty, but that the ARABS in the Palestine Mandate did, or did to a greater degree than the British. That, of course, is ABSOLUTE NONESENSE AND FALSITY (which I'm not surprised at, with your track record.) Now you try to weasel your way out by changing your point. My point was that while the British weren't full sovereigns, they were de facto sovereigns, and where within their rights to create the Jewish state - this is the point that you are trying to contest. Unless it isn't. Will you admit that the British were within their rights to create the Jewish state, just as they were within their rights to create Jordan, etc.?

You seem to have totally lost the plot.

I posted this directly from Article 22

"To those colonies and territories.... have ceased to be under the sovereignity of the States which formerly governed them..."
"..the tutelage of such people should be entrusted to advanced nations......this tuteluge should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League"
"Communites formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of developement where their existance as independant nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice ....until such time that they are able to stand alone."

Which you simply confirmed by posting the entire document.

Now you claim that this "doesn't support your claim at all"
My claim was that the LON didn't give sovereignity over Palestine to the British.

Are you now saying that this document does this??

You seem quite confused.

MGB8

03-17-2005, 05:33 PM

And you haven't answered post 155.

MGB8

03-17-2005, 05:38 PM

The guy was a "king" and the pre-eminent Arab leader at the time. Not an agreement between two individuals. An agreement between two leaders of their respective groups.

Feisal was a Hashemite, you know, the subsequent rulers of Jordan, and he had as much connection, historical and otherwise, with Western Palestine as many of the Arabs there did.

If you want to try and pretend that the Arabs were organizing themselves into nation states at the time, you can go ahead, but anyone who knows a little bit of history will know for the most part that is a big crock. Iraq, Jordan... inventions of Europe. Persia, Syria, Egypt and to a much lesser degree Lebanon, these had some actual ethnic ties. Maybe throw in Yemen.

The Arabs were so used to being under one Islamic empire or another...

An agreement between 2 individuals. What is the relevance?

Faisal went into the agreement at the prompting of the British, because he wanted his own state and the Brits were about to give it to him.

He had no problems agreeing to anything regarding Palestine as he considered that had had absolutley no connection or authority over that area. He would have signed an agreement with a Martian about Palestine.

Sumud

03-18-2005, 02:51 AM

To part one, back it up. Who told who what and when. I'm not aware of anything significant. Meanwhile, you avoided all the other points, and admission that you simply can't answer them. That would be check.

.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, Arab concerns were raised very early on that Zionist aims were to take over.

Herzl wrote a letter in 1899 to the former Mayor of Jerusalem to allay this very fear.

The Jews have no belligerent Power behind them, neither are they themselves of a warlike nature. They are a completely peaceful element, and very content if they are left in peace. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing to fear from their immigration.......
You see another difficulty, Excellency, in the existence of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. But who would think of sending them away?

At around this same time, Herzl wrote his famous comment about the desirability of "spiriting the penniless population (Arab) across the border".

SteveK

03-18-2005, 03:05 AM

As I've pointed out repeatedly, Arab concerns were raised very early on that Zionist aims were to take over.

Hi Sumud,

I would have assumed also that in order to create the sovereign State of Israel that the "Zionist aims were to take over". The Zionists would have had to take over. How else could the Jews truly enforce self-determination, and bring back our sovereign ancestral homeland for unlimited immigration for all the remaining millions of diaspora Jews now packing their bags to move here?

MGB8

03-18-2005, 07:06 AM

Another misplaced reliance, as the quote you have brought doesn't say anything about not establishing a Jewish state, not to mention that at the time Jordan was still part of Palestine, to my understanding. Of, and the little matter of the whole 15-20% of the Israeli population that is Arab...

As I've pointed out repeatedly, Arab concerns were raised very early on that Zionist aims were to take over.

Herzl wrote a letter in 1899 to the former Mayor of Jerusalem to allay this very fear.

The Jews have no belligerent Power behind them, neither are they themselves of a warlike nature. They are a completely peaceful element, and very content if they are left in peace. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing to fear from their immigration.......
You see another difficulty, Excellency, in the existence of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. But who would think of sending them away?

At around this same time, Herzl wrote his famous comment about the desirability of "spiriting the penniless population (Arab) across the border".

Mediocrates

03-18-2005, 07:35 AM

So basically the Palestinian PoV and the relative level of their political progress or any notion of how to solve anything hasn't moved in 106 years. I know it's quaint to say things like 'The arab mind has a very long memory' but that's pretty silly in this case. Look at Ireland. They wrested the Irish Free State out of the Brits hands only 80 years after the British landlord class engineered a genocidal famine that killed one sixth of Ireland. If only the Arabs could move at that kind of speed and get on with whatever made up identity mythology makes them happy.

Sumud

03-28-2005, 03:12 PM

More dishonesty on your part with selective posting:

Here is the entire portion, again:

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Specifically NOT "communities" but "certain communities." That means not everyone, sumud. Not only that, but it does not say WHICH communities, or even what a "community" is. Is there any doubt that they were NOT talking about the Arabs who later took the name Palestinian, given that states were made for Jordan (Eastern Palestine), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

Meanwhile, again you have to read this also in light of the provisions for Jews. Given the whole, it is more likely that, with regards to the land west of the Jordan river, the JEWS were "the community" that the LON was talking about.

Nor did I say that the British had absolute sovereignty. On the contrary, the British were DE FACTO sovereigns. They had most of the rights of the sovereign, but not all. They did not have the right to annex the land. However, given the fact that they divided up other parts of the middle east and africa and gave them to one group or another as sovereigns, surely they had the same rights with the Palestine mandate.

You again were being DISHONEST in stating your point and mine, yours which was not that the British didn't have sovereignty, but that the ARABS in the Palestine Mandate did, or did to a greater degree than the British. That, of course, is ABSOLUTE NONESENSE AND FALSITY (which I'm not surprised at, with your track record.) Now you try to weasel your way out by changing your point. My point was that while the British weren't full sovereigns, they were de facto sovereigns, and where within their rights to create the Jewish state - this is the point that you are trying to contest. Unless it isn't. Will you admit that the British were within their rights to create the Jewish state, just as they were within their rights to create Jordan, etc.?
De facto schmacto! The phrase in Article 22 charges the Mandatory to act "on behalf of" the LON. No amount of blah blah changes this.

Sumud

03-28-2005, 03:15 PM

And you haven't answered post 155.

It's gibberish. It may have some meaning on Planet Crazy, I wouldn't know.

Sumud

03-28-2005, 03:20 PM

Sumud

03-28-2005, 03:23 PM

Hi Sumud,

I would have assumed also that in order to create the sovereign State of Israel that the "Zionist aims were to take over". The Zionists would have had to take over. How else could the Jews truly enforce self-determination, and bring back our sovereign ancestral homeland for unlimited immigration for all the remaining millions of diaspora Jews now packing their bags to move here?

But this is exactly what early Zionist leaders where at pains to make clear they did not intend for Palestine. They spoke in vague terms of a Jewish homeland and co-operation with the local population to everyone's advantage, as Herzl wrote in his letter.

Sumud

03-28-2005, 03:32 PM

Another misplaced reliance, as the quote you have brought doesn't say anything about not establishing a Jewish state, not to mention that at the time Jordan was still part of Palestine, to my understanding. Of, and the little matter of the whole 15-20% of the Israeli population that is Arab...

The original letter (passed on to Herzl by a friend) expressed the concern that Zionist plans were to expel the local Arab population and take over.
Herzl's reply was typical - there were no plans for an aggressive immigration or of any attempt to displace or disadvantage Arabs. Exactly what was already being discussed by some as being highly desirable.

So the quote is perfectly relevant to the issue. A local Arab leader writes expressing his fears, and Herzl writes back to say there is no cause for concern -"there is absolutely nothing to fear from their immigration".

MGB8

03-28-2005, 06:26 PM

Weak arguments, falacies, and misstatements or manipulation of facts, Sumud. Laughable. Its not even a response. Its just "no, because I say it isn't."

Wha'-wha'-wha. More whining like spoiled brats.

Foul ball. try again.

Sumud

03-29-2005, 02:40 AM

You have an interesting technique MGB8 - an avalanch of words vaguely or not at all related to the point.

Someone once described this as "words falling on the facts like soft snow, obscuring their outline".

Do you think it really works?

Mediocrates

03-29-2005, 05:08 AM

Ach more insipid zionist deconstruction....."let me tell you what they were really thinking"......ridiculous nonsense. This isn't thinking, it's voodoo.

MGB8

03-29-2005, 06:39 AM

Whatever your allegations of my points, they fit the pattern of your arguments - LIES, MISTATEMENTS, MISREPRESENTATIONS. LIES, MISTATEMENTS, MISREPRESENTATIONS.

Throw in an utter disregard for basic precepts of logic and reading comprehension - and you have your argumentative style: who cares about facts and logics, you say, I, Sumud, will believe what I want!

SteveK

03-29-2005, 12:09 PM

But this is exactly what early Zionist leaders where at pains to make clear they did not intend for Palestine. They spoke in vague terms of a Jewish homeland and co-operation with the local population to everyone's advantage, as Herzl wrote in his letter.

Hi Sumud,

From what I read in the testimony of the 1947 UN Committee Proceedings
on "The Palestine Question" that "co-operation with the local population to everyone's advantage" was a decisive point made by David Ben Gurion, himself, in his testimony. Obviously, he carried forward with Dr. Herzl's intentions.

Why should The State of Israel been incapable to effect "co-operation with the local population to everyone's advantage", even with the "Zionists taking over"?

The Arabs didn't want to re-write history. Your leadership then made that point very clear in their testimony. Your brethern rejected all good will efforts of the Zionist leadership. Your family attacked the fledgling Jewish Nation for its total destruction in mind in 1948 before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence of The State of Israel.

Why?

Sumud

03-29-2005, 02:45 PM

Ach more insipid zionist deconstruction....."let me tell you what they were really thinking"......ridiculous nonsense. This isn't thinking, it's voodoo.
Zionist? - yuo really do have a one-track mind. It's just a well recognised propaganda technique.

Sumud

03-29-2005, 02:52 PM

Hi Sumud,

From what I read in the testimony of the 1947 UN Committee Proceedings
on "The Palestine Question" that "co-operation with the local population to everyone's advantage" was a decisive point made by David Ben Gurion, himself, in his testimony. Obviously, he carried forward with Dr. Herzl's intentions.

Why should The State of Israel been incapable to effect "co-operation with the local population to everyone's advantage", even with the "Zionists taking over"?

The Arabs didn't want to re-write history. Your leadership then made that point very clear in their testimony. Your brethern rejected all good will efforts of the Zionist leadership. Your family attacked the fledgling Jewish Nation for its total destruction in mind in 1948 before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence of The State of Israel.

Why?
Of course that was the public spin. That's the whole point, it was a facade. The Zionists knew that they had to maintain good relations with the British and manage Arab resentment.

While the talk of co-operation was standard, actual practice was the opposite. There was a Histradut ban on Arab labour and goods. The idea was to exclude Arabs from the developing economy. Jewish gangs at times went through the markets destrying Arab produce, and berating Jews who brought Arab goods.

There were also a number of genuine Jewish-Arab co-operatives, that were actually trying to do what the Zionist leaders proclaimed, but they were quite small ventures.