Home | actually, Egyptians hate Israel but support Saddat's move to make peace in exchange of land. If Israel is no longer a nuisance to the Arab world, I'm sure normal relations will be possible, altough it will take a long time. France and germany overcame their differences, it took a lot of time but it was possible. If Germany would still occupy parts of France this would be totally impossible.Originally Posted by MGB8
You do not know what you are talking about.
Do you know takeo what Resolution 242 includes? Read carefully:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
You can say that again... I just read his point by point reply...despite not knowing the facts about Hezbollah shelling or operations with pal Arab terror groups, and the fact that the US does not use "Palestine" to refer to the WB and Gaza, although they do use the Palestinian Authority, since Israel helped create it with Oslo, and the fact that a huge number of Pal Arabs ARE from "western Palestine" - Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc, particularly Jordan and Egypt... not to mention the fact that until this century most Arabs DIDN'T HAVE NATIONALITIES (Remember, centuries of Ottoman rule, no nation states...)...
and what we get is guy who really has absolutely no clue about what he's talking about, and doesn't really care if what he says is at all factually acurate...
Here is a short history of the term Palestine.
The term "Palestine" came from the name that the conquering Roman Empire gave the ancient Land of Israel in an attempt to obliterate and de-legitimize the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The name "Palestine" was invented in the year 135 C.E. Before it was known as Judea, which was the southern kingdom of ancient Israel. The Roman Procurator in charge of the Judean-Israel territories was so angry at the Jews for revolting that he called for his historians and asked them who were the worst enemies of the Jews in their past history. The scribes said, "the Philistines." Thus, the Procurator declared that Land of Israel would from then forward be called "Philistia" [further bastardized into "Palaistina"] to dishonor the Jews and obliterate their history. Hence the name "Palestine."
One more thing. Very often one hears the revisionists and propagandists finding ancient historical links between the "Philistines" ("Invaders" in Hebrew) and the Arab "Palestinians." There is no truth to this claim! The Philistines were one of a number of Sea Peoples who reached the eastern Mediterranean region approximately 1250-1100 B.C.E. They were actually an amalgamation of various ethnic groups, primarily of Aegean and south-east European origin [Greece, Crete and Western Turkey] and they died out over 2500 years ago! Those Philistines were not Arab... and neither was Goliath! The Arabs of "Palestine" are just that... Arabs! And these Arabs of "Palestine" have about as much historical roots to the ancient Philistines as Yasser Arafat has to the Eskimos!
The ancient, indigenous inhabitants of Palestine are long perished from the earth. Canaanites, Phoencians, and then Philistines, all were dominated by the Israelites before 1060 B.C.E. Most of these cultural identities dissolved completely by the neo-Babylonian age, or, the 6th century B.C.E. Arabs weren’t even in Palestine until the mid-7th century C.E., over a thousand years later, after Palestine’s 1,300-year Jewish history. Arabs later living in Palestine never developed themselves or the land, but remained nomadic and quasi-primitive
Even the word "Palestine" has no meaning in Arabic - every word in Arabic has some meaning deriving from the Koran, but the word "Palestine" does not. If anything, the name "Palestine" was associated with Jews. In the years leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were nearly always referring to the region's Jewish residents. For example, the "Palestine Post" [forerunner of today's Jerusalem Post] newspaper and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra were all-Jewish. The "Palestine Brigade Regiment" was composed exclusively of Jewish volunteers in the British World War II Army. In fact, Arab leaders rejected the notion of a unique "Palestinian Arab" identity, insisting that Palestine was merely a part of "Greater Syria."
The Deep Roots of "Palestinian Cause"
[Quote From Library of Congress Country Study starts here] [15]
"In 1921, [first High Commissioner of Palestine Sir Herbert] Samuels appointed Hajj Amin al Husayni, an ardent anti-Zionist and a major figure behind the April 1920 riots, as mufti (chief Muslim religious jurist) of Jerusalem. In 1922 he augmented Hajj Amin's power by appointing him president of the newly constituted Supreme Muslim Council (SMC), which was given wide powers over the disbursement of funds from religious endowments, fees, and the like."
[Quote From Library of Congress Country Study ends here]
****
[Sachar Quote begins here]
"The Fatah leader's actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Rauf Arafat al-Qud *al-Husseini*. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the discredited ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini."
[Sachar Quote ends here]
It is of course true that nobody is responsible for the politics of their relatives. So in principle Arafat could be a tolerant man dedicated to peace with the Jews, even though his clan relative, the Mufti, was a top Nazi.
But the issue isn't merely blood ties. Arafat's Fatah, an organization even more radical than the millenarian terrorists in the original PLO, was founded by veterans of the Arab Higher Committee.
The Committee was the instrument of this violent genocidal terrorist, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who played a leading role in the Holocaust.
And Arafat is proud that he cut his teeth serving the Mufti.
****
[Excerpt from Interview starts here]
"Interviewer: 'I have heard voices from within the [Palestinian] Authority in the past few weeks, saying that the reforms are coordinated according to American whims...'
Arafat: "We are not Afghanistan?We are the Mighty People. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini? ... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops."
[Excerpt from Interview ends here]
So Arafat got his start as the Mufti?s lieutenant. Later, following the path blazed by the Mufti, Arafat's Fatah displaced its rivals and asserted its power by violently attacking Palestinian civilians and other Arabs who challenged it.[22] And according to Sachar, Fatah was also *Islamic fundamentalist* from the beginning (my emphasis):[23]
****
Minutes of the meeting with Hitler and Husseini.
Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D, Vol XIII, London, 1964, pp.881 ff.
German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini:
Zionism and the Arab Cause (November 28, 1941)
Haj Amin al-Husseini, the most influential leader of Palestinian Arabs, lived in Germany during the Second World War. He met Hitler, Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders on various occasions and attempted to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies in the Middle East.
Record of the Conversation between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin.
The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would be quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.
In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds, which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.
The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home.
The Deep Roots of "Palestinian Cause"
A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti's work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order form Berlin.
With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor.
The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries and, being themselves a nations of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1,700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Palestine.
France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because she had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933.
In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as he had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization for their aspirations; they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it.
The Fuhrer replied that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the functions of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.
Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism; actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle; on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England's power for their ends.
The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies, German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews.
The Mufti could not but be aware, however, that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs, would have to be done. Anything however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter how unpopular this move might be.
Germany was now engaged in very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply, which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle's influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer's declaration as an intention to break up France's colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France be understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer be available for the campaign in the east.
The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:
1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.
2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.
3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.
Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov; it would be also the beginning of the end of the British World Empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause, it would be better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs.
He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out.
The moment that Germany's tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.
The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard form the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible, secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.
The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.
The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause.
SCHMIDT
yeah so what? Westbank, Eastern Jerusalem and Gaza were occupied in the "recent conflict" in 1967. Enough said...After decades israel is still in violation of this particular resolution.
Israel is not in violation because the resolution, which is under a non-binding SC provision, btw, does not call for a withdrawal before peace, nor does it call for withdrawal from *all* of the territories.
The PLO having willfully refused to disarm is still in violation of Oslo.
See one can imagine our fine French friends here insisting on their own maximallist interpretation of the 'law' even after all the parties have already reached some other agreement on their own. I suppose when it's convenient they can pick up or drop treaties as they see fit. It's axiomatic.
Tell me takeo are you blind? It is clearly written: "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" not from all the territories. In addition, all the states in the region have to have "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Israel has none of these!
Do you know that at the last meeting Arafat-Barak, the Israelis offered all the territories in exchange of "termination of all claims"? The proposal was not accepted!
From territories occupied in the recent conflict, let's not be children, ok? It doesn't say all territories, nor does it say "on planet earth". If a law says that murder is illegal, it doesn't say "all" murder is illegal, if it says armed robbery is a crime, it doesn't say "all" armed robbery, since that's just obvious.
secure and recognised borders, another often abused terminology. Israeli borders ARE recognised, it is the green line, the borders israel had when it was recognised by the world in 1949. So yes israel should withdraw to recognised borders. And safe, it is not a question of territories, it's a question of good relations with your neighbours not attacking eachother or crossing eachothers border. I agree this last one hasn't been fulfilled by the palestinians either, but still it doesn't make israeli occupation any less illegal.
And I didn't yet mention the many resolutions condamning the settlements in occupied territory...
israel didn't offer all the territories, that's a lie. The Westbank settlements would continue to exist, Palestinians would not have safe borders since the israeli army would controll them, Eastern jerusalem and the refugee question was not properly arranged etc. in short palestinians, already suffering the israeli failures to live up to the oslo-agreements (expanded settlements, more closures, etc.) would have given israel peace with very little in return.
Um...the drafters of the resolution have stated that they intentionally did not include the word "all", for the express purpose of having the resolution not mean "all" the territories.
Wrong again.
And more lies by takeo...Israel did offer all the territories, which led to the infamous "3 no's". And secure and recognized borders was not intended to mean the green line.
Lie lie lie....is that all you do, takeo. Make stuff up, regardless of the truth, just like you said that Hamas was willing to co-exist with Israel and didn't seek to destroy it in some other thread (or maybe in this one), but are now denying you said (another lie,..... lying about a lie...wow, you take this to new heights!)
[QUOTE=MGB8]When and where did they say so, is this specified in the resolution?Um...the drafters of the resolution have stated that they intentionally did not include the word "all", for the express purpose of having the resolution not mean "all" the territories.
lies or ignorance, read the proposal please...And more lies by takeo...Israel did offer all the territories, which led to the infamous "3 no's". And secure and recognized borders was not intended to mean the green line.
I never said so and I asked you (or someone else) to demonstrate where I've said this...Lie lie lie....is that all you do, takeo. Make stuff up, regardless of the truth, just like you said that Hamas was willing to co-exist with Israel and didn't seek to destroy it in some other thread (or maybe in this one),
well then, prove where I said so, if you so sure I'm a lier it can't be so difficult, in case you can't YOU are the lier, as your beloved president. (who, of course, didn't lie, the poor guy was fooled by the CIAbut are now denying you said (another lie,..... lying about a lie...wow, you take this to new heights!))
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks