NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:15 pm

Is this REALLY the whole of the 'peace proposals' that Condi Rice and Blair and all the others have been working on for years?

The Palestinians give up all the land occupied by Israel since 1967, and all claims to Jerusalem, in exchange for an area of useless, waterless desert and a road linking the West Bank and Gaza? AND agree to do without armed forces.......?

(Excerpts)

"The Olmert government has proposed a peace deal whereby Israel would keep West Bank settlement blocks and the Palestinians get Negev land in compensation.

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is trying to hammer out an accord before he leaves office, presented Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas with his ideas this week, Haaretz reported Tuesday.

"Under the proposal, which was leaked to the newspaper, Israel would keep West Bank settlement blocs, turning the security fence into a border and evacuating settlers east of it. For what would be, effectively, an annexation of 7 percent of West Bank land, Israel would allow for a parcel of Negev land to be annexed to the Gaza Strip.

"The Negev land would be equivalent to 5.5 percent of West Bank land but the shortfall would be made up for by a road connecting Gaza and the West Bank, allowing for free Palestinian passage between the territories.

---------------

"Both sides want sovereignty in Jerusalem, which Israel has vowed to keep as its undivided capital. According to Haaretz, Olmert and Abbas agreed to defer the Jerusalem issue to future negotiations.

--------------

"Israel has also demanded that the future Palestinian state be demilitarized, while the Palestinians want an armed force capable of defending against "outside threats," Haaretz reported."


http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/109885.html

What utterly-pathetic proposals. The proverbial 'snowball in Hell' had a much better chance of survival than this incredibly-stupid nonsense has.......

Is this the best that the various parties can come up with, after all the years of conflict and bloodshed? It has zero chance of solving the problem.

[Edited 2008-08-12 06:16:34]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth.

Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:18 pm

Your problem is, you're taking this at face value. Aren't you the fellow who keeps telling everyone that the Hamas program: "kill all the Jews and bulldoze them into the sea!" isn't to be taken literally?
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:26 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 1):
Aren't you the fellow who keeps telling everyone that the Hamas program: "kill all the Jews and bulldoze them into the sea!" isn't to be taken literally?

Don't recall ever saying anything like that, Dougloid. I have no higher opinion of Hamas than I used to have of the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

Mind you, I heard about the Zionist terror groups first. As a small child, hearing that a neighbour of mine couldn't come out to play because he had to go to the memorial service for his elder brother, who'd been killed in the King David Hotel.......

[Edited 2008-08-12 06:27:27]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:31 pm

Doug- with all due respect for your comment-but this proposal values the life-conditions of Palestinians like less than a piece of dog-shit for the Israelis ..
They are a "quantité négligeable" and basically a nuisance -like rats-that should be treated alike.
Even if it is a "proposal" ,it set's the venue for the talks.
Who seeds wind will earn storm-that is an old saying but is still valid today.
Decent living conditions,an economic roadmap that is genuingly opening the road for self-determination without constantly depending on help from abroad,acces to water and infrastructures like airport and harbour..anything less will re-comfort Hamas in their ultimate requests and hate-propaganda.
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:04 pm

You guys are confusing posturing with reality. Don't make bricks without straw, fellows.

One need only attend a marketplace in the middle east or anywhere else to see what haggling is all about. (Of course you don't get to do this in the average supermarket these days and the auto dealers would like to do away with it as well, but when the market is as it is today you can sure haggle for a pickup) You start by making outrageous demands that nobody in their right mind would agree to. The idea is that you arrive at the mean workable solution through horse trading.

I guess it worked on you.

Consider the Cherokee nation, driven out of their homes and hounded across the country to a piece of land in Oklahoma that nobody could possibly want, right? Except that it sat on some of the largest oil reserves anyone had seen up to that time.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:20 pm

Good point, Beaucaire.

About 'reaping the whirlwind,' interesting where the quotation comes from. As it happens, it's the Old Testament (Hosea); the very same source that the Zionists claim their inspiration from:-

"8:3 Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him.
8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
8:5 Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off; mine anger is kindled against them: how long will it be ere they attain to innocency?
8:6 For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
8:7 For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein is no pleasure."


http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/hosea/

"...the workman made it; therefore it is not God:"

Wise Jesuit teacher of mine once said, "You can 'prove' almost anything from the Bible. But, by the same token, just by reading on, you can just as easily DISPROVE it!'

The above quotation seems to underline his point........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:24 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 4):
The idea is that you arrive at the mean workable solution through horse trading.

Cheers, Dougloid, getting down to brass tacks. We've both made a living out of 'negotiating on behalf of clients' in our time.

If the Palestinians were your client, and they'd received an offer like this - how would you advise them to respond?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:39 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 6):
If the Palestinians were your client, and they'd received an offer like this - how would you advise them to respond?

I'd have them leave unmarked knapsacks with oranges in them all over Israel and fill their Kasaams with hard candies and party favors. Spread consternation and all that.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:52 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 7):
I'd have them leave unmarked knapsacks with oranges in them all over Israel and fill their Kasaams with hard candies and party favors.

That worries me a little, Dougloid.

I 'know' you well enough to realise that you don't lack compassion, nor are you incapable of 'lateral thinking.'

Do you REALLY not give a damn about what happens to the Palestinians?

A few facts in this whole monumental mess stand out. The Palestinians were 'rescued' from a Turkish dictatorship by the British in 1917 - thereafter, they spent twenty-plus years under a British-administered League of Nations 'Mandate.'

Following that, they were dispossessed of all their property rights, and driven out of their homes, by Israeli military force and the intervention of the United Nations ( a body that had no legal significance whatever at the time).

We're both, in our way, 'creatures of the law.' And therefore we both know that the foundation of the law is 'equity.'

Can you possibly believe, in equity, that the Jewish race has a more valid claim to the territory of Palestine than the people who have lived in and cultivated the place for well over 1,000 years?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:03 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
Can you possibly believe, in equity, that the Jewish race has a more valid claim to the territory of Palestine than the people who have lived in and cultivated the place for well over 1,000 years?

1. Judaism is a religion, not a race.
2. Yes, both peoples have an eqal claim to the land.
3. "Cultivated" for 1,000 years? That is a bit of a stretch.

Interesting we've gone almost two weeks without a mid-east conflict thread.
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:07 pm



Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 9):
. Yes, both peoples have an eqal claim to the land.

What evidence do you base that claim on, Dtwclipper?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:28 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 4):
Consider the Cherokee nation, driven out of their homes and hounded across the country to a piece of land in Oklahoma that nobody could possibly want, right? Except that it sat on some of the largest oil reserves anyone had seen up to that time.

Nice diversion, now tell me how many of the Cherokee got beneficial ownership of that oil. Are we also to assume that you think that the Palestinians will have the Georgia - Missouri - Arkansas - Oklahoma stages, presumably with two or three still to come? It also might presage another "run" might it not?

And just in case anyone thinks that the Negev will contain oil, there is a small oilfield in the south of the Egyptian part, but drilling suggests there will be no oil found further north.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:44 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
Do you REALLY not give a damn about what happens to the Palestinians?

Oh, I do, but they're their own worst enemies for the most part and they probably do not think a westerner much less a bitter old fart of a yanqui and a broken down mechanic and wordsmith has much to offer that they'd want to hear.

I'm thinking if people in the region spent more time on the useful arts and less on fighting their fathers' and grandfather's interminable religious wars the world be a better place for all of us.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:41 am



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 12):
I'm thinking if people in the region spent more time on the useful arts and less on fighting their fathers' and grandfather's interminable religious wars the world be a better place for all of us.

Most of us can drink to that, although I am not 100% sure you know exactly what you have suggested there???????????
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:20 pm

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 9):
1. Judaism is a religion, not a race.

That makes things worse, not better, Dtwclipper. The whole Zionist creed is that (according to what whoever wrote the Book of Moses said God said to Abraham) God granted the 'Jews' and their descendants sole rights of residence in the Holy Land. Are you now saying that a Russian or an American who happens to convert to Judaism is immediately entitled to live in Israel; whereas a Palestinian whose family lived in the place for 2,000 years, and owns property there, does not?

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 9):
2. Yes, both peoples have an eqal claim to the land.

See above. The whole Zionist claim is based on a few lines (of dubious provenance) in the Old Testament. The one most often quoted is attributed to the Almighty, and reads, "And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee." The mere fact that the word 'Philistine' (derived from 'Philistia,' the name that the Romans gave to the area after they captured it in about 67BC) is used pretty well proves that the passage was written not in Biblical times but between say 67BC and 50AD at the earliest.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 9):
3. "Cultivated" for 1,000 years? That is a bit of a stretch.

I think that maybe a lot of people still think that, until 1918, 'Arabs' were just nomadic guys in flowing robes who rode camels around in the desert. I fancy that that's the mental picture that Balfour had. And maybe the UN in the 1940s as well; which made it easy for them to give away the Palestinians' land to the Zionists. But in fact, the Palestinians were fishermen and farmers all through. The Old Testament alone largely proves that the true 'nomads' - the desert-hardened 'Children of Israel') invaded them and made every effort to drive them out of their ancestral homeland in the first place.

All because 'God' (or rather Moses) told them that that was what He wanted them to do.....

Sorry mate, the most cursory examination of the 'evidence' - not that there's much of it - proves that the whole Zionist 'Biblical claim' stuff is the purest nonsense.

[Edited 2008-08-14 05:22:44]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Tr

Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:52 pm

NAV20- it's a relative useless exercise to try to convince the un-convincables- the Jewish historical claim is so very much cemented in the sub-conciousness of their believers, that they just never ever will accept the slightest idea that somebody else dared to cultivate land in Palestine before they arrived.
I'm 100% non-religious but accept the importance of the religious impact.I don't give more rights to any religion over another one,because it's all subjective manipulation geared to justify power,land,money and -most important of all- superiority over another inferior race.
All Middle East conflicts are tied to religion ( not even oil..) and the resulting territorial claims,with a vague justification in the Bible,Coran or Torah rolls have and still will cost the lives of millions.

[Edited 2008-08-14 06:00:08]
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:44 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):
Most of us can drink to that, although I am not 100% sure you know exactly what you have suggested there???????????

I'm quite serious. When my son went off to war in A-stan, I told him that I was very proud of him because the world had an oversupply of gunslingers but not nearly enough people engaged in the useful arts, the highest of which is healing. When the young people tell their fathers in the words of Phil Ochs "I ain't marchin' any more" and turn their attention away from warfare to perfecting useful arts-to become garage mechanics, masons, carpenters, farmers, waitresses, nurses, electricians, well drillers, shopkeepers, and engineers-then we will have peace.

It is said that idle hands are the devil's workshop and it has never been more true than on the mean streets of Gaza. How that came to be and who's to blame is a sucker's game, akin to pin the tail on the donkey. Blame doesn't repair or build anything-it merely allows the blamer to say "fuck it-I'm justified in sitting on my ass." Blame is a cop-out, as we used to say in the sixties. It's also cheaper than crack and far more addictive.

It's no mystery that Christ was first a healer of the sick and a woodworker.....parenthetically, one is used to seeing hideous representations of Himself in numerous and diverse houses of worship, but by far the best representation of Christ I ever saw was in the church in Rochester New York where my grandson was baptised. It was a simple wooden sculpture of Christ with the tools of his carpentry trade-a mallet and a chisel.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:10 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):
Most of us can drink to that, although I am not 100% sure you know exactly what you have suggested there???????????

I'm quite serious. When my son went off to war in A-stan, I told him that I was very proud of him because the world had an oversupply of gunslingers but not nearly enough people engaged in the useful arts, the highest of which is healing.

Just that while I am sure if left to their own devices, the Palestinians would have had a goodly few squabbles, the main game there is as Nav just explained in reply 14 a quarrel between groups, now marked by religion more than original ethnicity.

Although there is another caveat in that as has been discussed on a.net before, just how much pre Roman DNA is in the Zionists who moved back in during the 20th century is, at best, a mystery.

Given the distribution of the DNA of Genghis Khan, it could even be there is more of his DNA in modern Israel than of pre Roman Israel there.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
And maybe the UN in the 1940s as well; which made it easy for them to give away the Palestinians' land to the Zionists.

To be fair to them, Nav, their committee did make a recommendation that differs "a bit" from the Olmert effort!!
http://mideastweb.org/un_palestine_partition_map_1947.htm
But, yes, it seems to have been very easy to give away the land that belonged to Palestinians and had done for generations.
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:29 pm

Now the Israelis have decided to install a major crack-down on - - - Arabic Harry Potter books..
Since they have been printed in Syria and de-facto Israel and Syria are still in a state of war-no arab books from Syria..
While serious talks between both countries take place in Turkey,they can't even decide on allowing children's books being imported ..

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibXKUh2EIux3bSS6Y00PZvUcQ-0Q
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
avi
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 1:27 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:30 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
Can you possibly believe, in equity, that the Jewish race has a more valid claim to the territory of Palestine than the people who have lived in and cultivated the place for well over 1,000 years?

Our history in general and in this area in particular goes far more than 1,000 years back (try 5,000 years).

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
What evidence do you base that claim on, Dtwclipper?

How about history or archeology (forget the bible, I'm not saying a word about it)?
Did you ever read a history book about this area that didn't start describing things that happened here only since 1,000-1,500 years ago but "a little bit" further back?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
The whole Zionist claim is based on a few lines (of dubious provenance) in the Old Testament...

What a sad nonsense.
Long live the B747
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:19 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 1):
Your problem is, you're taking this at face value.

This isn't a few cryptic lines in a holy book, this is a proposal for a peace settlement. What, exactly, are we supposed to see it as?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 4):
You guys are confusing posturing with reality. Don't make bricks without straw, fellows.

Posturing? The Israelis are yet, in 60 years, to do more than "posture". They are dead serious about this deal.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 4):
One need only attend a marketplace in the middle east or anywhere else to see what haggling is all about. (Of course you don't get to do this in the average supermarket these days and the auto dealers would like to do away with it as well, but when the market is as it is today you can sure haggle for a pickup)

This isn't an old pickup. This is the future of a population, determining the resources available to them, and ensuring that they get the deal that they deserve under international law. Giving us what is pretty much a desert state riddled with Israeli settlements is not haggling, it is exactly what the Israelis want. As if what they took from us in 1948 isn't enough, they won't even leave us the little land we have left.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 4):
You start by making outrageous demands that nobody in their right mind would agree to. The idea is that you arrive at the mean workable solution through horse trading.

I guess it worked on you.

With the kind of posturing you talk about, you move forward, not backwards. In 60 years, we are still yet to see a single realistic deal from the Israelis. The Palestinains have outlined their demands: a state on 1967 borders, East Jerusalem and a solution for the 6 million Palestinian refugees still in refugee camps 60 years on.

Each time, we get a worse deal than the last. This latest one is still just as pathetic as the rest.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 9):
2. Yes, both peoples have an eqal claim to the land.

Really? A European immigrant whose ancestors had been living in Europe for hundreds of year and who came to Palestine in the 1930s has more of a claim than someone who, like his ancestors for over a thousand years, had actually been living there?

Many populations have histories in lands different from where they live today. Just because they lived there 2,000 years ago does not give them even the slightest right to the land.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 9):
3. "Cultivated" for 1,000 years? That is a bit of a stretch.

No, it isn't. There have always traditionally been urban, bedouin and peasant Arabs. The urban Arabs lived in Jaffa, Acre, Tiberias, Nablus, Jerusalem, Gaza, etc, cities which have existed for over a thousand years. The peasants lived in the hundreds of villages that dot Palestine, and cultivated the land there - hundreds of these villages were destroyed in '48. The bedouin inhabited the Naqab desert of southern Palestine.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 12):
Oh, I do, but they're their own worst enemies for the most part and they probably do not think a westerner much less a bitter old fart of a yanqui and a broken down mechanic and wordsmith has much to offer that they'd want to hear.

I'm thinking if people in the region spent more time on the useful arts and less on fighting their fathers' and grandfather's interminable religious wars the world be a better place for all of us.

First of all, yes, there is inter-fighting, but the Palestinians are hardly "their own worst enemies". The population as a whole is not divided, be it on political, religious, or racial lines.

Secondly, no, they probably wouldn't give a damn about what you have to say. That's not because your a Westerner - it is because you have no way of knowing the hardships of their daily lives and the hell they have to go through. Until you have actually experienced that, then you are in no position to offer them and kind of opinion on what they should and shouldn't do.

Thirdly, your last statement shows how disconnected you are from the reality of this conflict. This is not a religious war. This has fuck all to do with us being Muslim and them being Jewish. This has everything to do with deals such as the one above, denying Palestinians the right to live as human beings, and forcing Palestinians in the territories to live like animals.

This is not our fathers' and grandfathers' conflict. This is our conflict through and through. For Palestinians outside Palestine like me, it is our conflict because we have been denied the right to grow up in our own country, and we are the only ones who can do anything to help the millions of Palestinian refugees still sitting in refugee camps with no hope through charity and continually reminding a world that has forgotten them that they still exist.

As for Palestinians living in the territories, I don't think I need to explain much about why this is their and not their father's conflict. As long as they do not have their own state and the IDF is still outside their own house, it is 100% their conlfict. As long as they have to pass through the 200+ checkpoints in the West Bank to get anywhere and be humiliated and intimidated there, this is their conflict. As long as what is left of their country is stolen to make way for settlements, this is their goddamn conflict.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
and turn their attention away from warfare to perfecting useful arts-to become garage mechanics, masons, carpenters, farmers, waitresses, nurses, electricians, well drillers, shopkeepers, and engineers-then we will have peace.

Fair point... except that unemployment in the territories is huge. There is no economy, and as a result no jobs - which means they have no opportunities to do what you have written above. This however refers to Palestinians. Arabs as a whole are all quite involved with "useful arts".

Also, Palestinians hardly receive a good education thanks to Israel - universities and schools are closed for extended periods without any good reason, and when you spend half the year either under curfew or with your university shut down, it is hard to get a proper education which would allow you to undertake activities such as those you listed.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
It is said that idle hands are the devil's workshop and it has never been more true than on the mean streets of Gaza. How that came to be and who's to blame is a sucker's game, akin to pin the tail on the donkey. Blame doesn't repair or build anything-it merely allows the blamer to say "fuck it-I'm justified in sitting on my ass." Blame is a cop-out, as we used to say in the sixties. It's also cheaper than crack and far more addictive.

See above.

Quoting Avi (Reply 19):
Our history in general and in this area in particular goes far more than 1,000 years back (try 5,000 years).

And? You haven't been there for how long now? How does you having a 5,000 year history justify a thing?

Quoting Avi (Reply 19):
How about history or archeology (forget the bible, I'm not saying a word about it)?
Did you ever read a history book about this area that didn't start describing things that happened here only since 1,000-1,500 years ago but "a little bit" further back?

Again, that is completely irrelevant. What happened 5,000 years ago doesn't matter - because if it did, countries such as Australia, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, etc would have no basis for existing.

Your argument is one that is flawed and one which many Zionists love to use. And it is bullshit.

Quoting Avi (Reply 19):
What a sad nonsense.

The ideology of Zionism is what is nonsense. Thinking you have a right to a land and the right to uproot and ethnically cleanse its people because your ancestors were there 2,000 years ago is what is nonsense. What is nonsense is treating Palestinians like they are animals 60 years on, and denying them the little land they have left.

But, it is not surprising at all. Land grab characterised Israel from the moment it was created - it was the basis of its creation, it was the basis of taking the Golan Heights, the basis of taking Jerusalem and riddling the occupied territories with settlements, and obviously continues to be the basis of Israel's foreign policy today. It is the reason 800,000 were removed from Palestine in 1948, either directly or through fear and intimidation.

If Israel actually gave a damn about human life and had respect for international law, its short history would be very different. As would its stance today.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:29 pm



Quoting QR332 (Reply 20):
First of all, yes, there is inter-fighting, but the Palestinians are hardly "their own worst enemies".

Why am I so not surprised that you'd take this line? Of course they're their own worst enemies. What the fuck have they managed to accomplish in the last fifty years besides lose a number of wars and destroy any semblance of an economy and a working state? If that's a model of probity, endeavor and success, I'm Michael Jackson.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 20):
Quoting Avi (Reply 19):
Our history in general and in this area in particular goes far more than 1,000 years back (try 5,000 years).

And? You haven't been there for how long now? How does you having a 5,000 year history justify a thing?

You seem to think that your territorial claims should be based on tenure. You live by that sword and you die by it.

If you think that the claims of the Jews are worthless and of no consequence, remove the stones of their temple from underneath your mosque, and erase Masada if you can.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:42 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
Why am I so not surprised that you'd take this line? Of course they're their own worst enemies. What the fuck have they managed to accomplish in the last fifty years besides lose a number of wars and destroy any semblance of an economy and a working state? If that's a model of probity, endeavor and success, I'm Michael Jackson.

You have got to be fucking kidding me! It is a bit difficult to build an economy when you have a foreign country occupying you for 60 years, believe it or not. And it is difficult to win a war when you have no army and when your enemy is backed by the world's most powerful countries. You have just proved to me that you know nothing about the situation of the Palestinians, which is why you can't even begin to grasp the situation as a whole.

It is useless trying to explain anything to you as to why the Palestinians are in this situation today. But thank you for proving that you really are living in a bubble.

And if you seriously think that the Palestinians are in the situation they are in today because of their own actions, then my God your detached from reality...

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
You seem to think that your territorial claims should be based on tenure. You live by that sword and you die by it.

If you think that the claims of the Jews are worthless and of no consequence, remove the stones of their temple from underneath your mosque, and erase Masada if you can.

Our territorial claims are based on the fact that we've been there for over a thousand years and the fact that 800,000 Palestinians were removed to make space for a bunch of immigrants. They are not religious, have nothing to do with a holy book or a 2,000 year old temple, they are very real.

It doesn't matter if they were there 2,000 years ago. And like I said, if you are such a supporter of a people living in a land that was there thousands of years ago, pack your bags and get the hell out of America. Your ancestors certainly weren't there 2,000 years ago.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13072
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:20 pm

Personally, I believe the Jews and Arabs in Palestine should sit together and, instead of going their separate ways in a successful treaty, join forces to make Palestine a better place for everyone. The Holy Land is holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians. Why not set any differences aside to make this union possible?

My proposal would be to install what I'd call the Federal Republic of Palestine. A loose federal union of the regions administered by Israel and the Palestine Authority, which means that those regions can make determinations on their own, but remain united in things such as foreign and overall domestic policy. It would have to be a form of government like in Germany, parliamentary, with regional having their own say in domestic regional matters, but still united in what concerns everyone living in Palestine, and with everyone sharing the resources of the region and even it's big tourist potential in areas such as the holocaust memorial of Yad Vashem, the Dead Sea, the Church of Nativity, Jerusalem with landmarks such as the Wailing Wall and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, etc.

That being said, I know my proposal is a pipedream, because most of the Israelis in power will insist on the Zionist principal that this is the land for the chosen people, while the Arabs, feeling captured by the Israelis, will continue to fight against these principles of Zionism trying to drive them away, even if it means supporting terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. A settlement needs to come, and it needs to come now, and we also need to get the big Arab countries, along with the Western countries involved, because this conflict concerns everyone, not just those living there. The damage is unfortunately done, so what a true settlement would do is basically also set the basis for reconciliation between Jews and Arabs, but I doubt that the people in the Knesset will take the necessary measures to set those basis. It's sad that Yitzak Rabin was murdered, because he was the person who actually brought peace to the region, who actually got the job done in his second term, but once he was killed, everything went downhill again.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:15 am



Quoting Avi (Reply 19):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 14):
The whole Zionist claim is based on a few lines (of dubious provenance) in the Old Testament...

What a sad nonsense.

Avi, in the first place, if there is other evidence of the Zionist belief - that God promised the Jews exclusive possession of the Holy Land - then please provide some information on it.

And while you're at it, please settle this ethnicity issue once and for all. Did the Almighty give the land to ethnic Jews (presumably descended from the original inhabitants) or to anyone who happens to have had a Jewish grandmother in the last couple of generations?

Quoting Avi (Reply 19):
What a sad nonsense.

Personally, yes I think so too. But this crazy (and, to my mind, utterly-implausible) Zionist dream is still costing lives, and causing untold misery.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:34 am



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 23):
My proposal would be to install what I'd call the Federal Republic of Palestine. A loose federal union of the regions administered by Israel and the Palestine Authority, which means that those regions can make determinations on their own, but remain united in things such as foreign and overall domestic policy.

Agree, LTU932. That was exactly what the UN approved in 1948, together with an International Zone covering Jerusalem. Among other things, for precisely the reason Dougloid raised (the need to build an economy) the Palestinian state was to include Jaffa, to give them a port.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

Trouble was, the minute the British Army moved out, the Jewish terror gangs grabbed a whole lot more territory and their leaders announced a separate Jewish state. 'Israel' therefore tore up UN Resolution 181 within minutes of it taking effect.

I still think that something along those lines - a federated state with freedom of religion and equality before the law - would be the only practical solution. As set down by the UN back in 1948:-

"Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.

"No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.

"All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.

"The family law and personal status of the various minorities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:06 am



Quoting QR332 (Reply 22):
t doesn't matter if they were there 2,000 years ago. And like I said, if you are such a supporter of a people living in a land that was there thousands of years ago, pack your bags and get the hell out of America. Your ancestors certainly weren't there 2,000 years ago.

You're so busy listening to the static between your ears you aren't listening, friend.

What I said was if you are using tenure to determine ownership you'll never defeat the claim of people who were there before you. That applies to me, and it applies to you as well.

It does not matter who you are or where you are, unless maybe you're an aborigine in Australia or maybe a Maori in New Zealand...then you can lay claim to being first.

You've just said "it matters if we were there a thousand years ago but not if they were there two thousand years ago."

That outlines for all the world to see that you've got one standard for yourself and quite another for people you don't agree with.

And, be it remembered, the proof is in the monuments and the geology that I identified as well as in the historical record of the Romans.

They WERE there before you were.

So think twice before you stake your claim on tenure or insist that your rights are better than all others.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:03 am



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 26):
What I said was if you are using tenure to determine ownership you'll never defeat the claim of people who were there before you. That applies to me, and it applies to you as well.

Don't you have the doctrine of 'adverse possession' in the USA, Dougloid? Basically it says that if you have occupied land openly for a substantial period (around ten years in most states here) the 'owner' has lost it for good. Pleased to say that I recently helped 'see off'' a developer in Western Australia who reckoned that he 'owned' half my son's pool and barbecue area......

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/adverse_possession.html

Trouble with Palestine, of course, is that neither the Turks nor the 'British Mandate' did much in the way of 'registering titles.' Nor were there any proper courts in which the dispossessed Palestinians could have fought their cases. And the Israelis are making the laws now.

But the situation in terms of 'equity' is quite clear. No-one should be able to convert to Judaism and then move in from the USA or Russia or Europe and take over other people's land.

Still remember seeing a TV news report a couple of years ago - showing a Palestinian farmer weeping uncontrollably as he watched the Israelis bulldozing his hundred-year-old olive groves to make room for that absurd 'Wall'............
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:30 am



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 26):
You've just said "it matters if we were there a thousand years ago but not if they were there two thousand years ago."

I think he was saying that continuous occupation for over a thousand years was different to not having been there for over two thousand years.

You appear to agree with this proposition in some parts of your posts Dougloid.

Aside from anything else, there would be a qualitative difference in being sure of the "archaeological" origins of the any given person.
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:21 am



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 26):
You're so busy listening to the static between your ears you aren't listening, friend.

What I said was if you are using tenure to determine ownership you'll never defeat the claim of people who were there before you. That applies to me, and it applies to you as well.

It does not matter who you are or where you are, unless maybe you're an aborigine in Australia or maybe a Maori in New Zealand...then you can lay claim to being first.

You've just said "it matters if we were there a thousand years ago but not if they were there two thousand years ago."

That outlines for all the world to see that you've got one standard for yourself and quite another for people you don't agree with.

And, be it remembered, the proof is in the monuments and the geology that I identified as well as in the historical record of the Romans.

They WERE there before you were.

So think twice before you stake your claim on tenure or insist that your rights are better than all others.

I'm the one with static between my ears?

They were there 2,000 years ago but they stopped living in Palestine - Jews mainly inhabited Europe for the last 1000 years ago. Arabs, on the other hand, have been there for over a thousand years and we never left. We still live there today.

Your the one whose stuck on who was there when argument. It really doesn't matter to me. My point is that we've been there SINCE over a thousand years ago, not that we WERE there a thousand years ago. That makes it irrelevant who was there first.

That is what justifies our claim. It is absolutely ludicrous to justify Israel's "right to exist" on historical grounds, as this was not a barren piece of desert land which was completely uninhabited that they just happened to move to. The whole point of our claim is that us Palestinians have been there for a long time, and 800,000 of us had to be removed in order to make space for Israel. Although from what i've heard from you so far i'm sure that means nothing to you.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:52 pm

I keep asking admirers of present-day Israel for the evidence on which they base their claim that the land is Israel's. Personally, as I've said, all I've found are a few fragmentary passages that suggest that God (of all people  Smile) advocated a policy of naked aggression and military conquest, the Jews driving out the original inhabitants by force of arms. To quote a bit more of the OT:-

"23.27 I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.
23.28 And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.
23.29 I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee.
23.30 By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.
23.31 And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
23.31 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
23.32 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.'


So there it is - the Almighty apparently encouraging a minor religion - which STILL only has about 12 million adherents worldwide - to ".......drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite......" - and to '..make no covenant with them..."

Don't know what sort of God would countenance that. Certainly not the one I believe in.......

I think the truth was (as the OT confirms) that Moses was a killer on the run from a murder charge:-

"2.11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
2.12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
2.13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?
2.14 And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known."


So he knew that there were witnesses to the murder that he had committed - and ran away. After a few hard years in the wilderness, he returned and gathered up a band of followers; motivating them in the traditional way - that he would lead them to a place that they could capture by force and keep, '"..a land flowing with milk and honey...". And, whenever his authority was challenged, he told them that the ideas he was spouting came from God, not him......

Not at all unusual for 'political leaders' to encourage people to believe that 'God is on their side.' Moses was among the first in a long line.....

Baroque, you'll certainly appreciate how I got in a bit of trouble with the nuns at my nursery school for putting 'GOTT MIT UNS' - "God Is With Us' - in a picture I drew. Not my fault - all the Germans from the local prison camp (nice guys, mostly ex-Afrika Korps, who used to talk to us and give us little toys that they'd carved from wood on our way to and from school) had that on their belt-buckles. The belts being, of course, about head-high to me at the time......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
jm017
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:36 pm



Quoting QR332 (Reply 20):

But, it is not surprising at all. Land grab characterised Israel from the moment it was created - it was the basis of its creation, it was the basis of taking the Golan Heights, the basis of taking Jerusalem and riddling the occupied territories with settlements, and obviously continues to be the basis of Israel's foreign policy today. It is the reason 800,000 were removed from Palestine in 1948, either directly or through fear and intimidation.

And the fact that Arabs rejected partition, all efforts for peace, and started three wars in subsequent years makes no never mind to you?

It is misleading to say 800,000 people were removed. Another piece of propaganda. Most refugees left voluntarily. I am sure many feared for their lives, but it's a fact that they were encouraged to leave not by the Jews, but by their own leaders, who anticipated a quick victory. But before I am slammed, I also realise that the Jewish forces did expel Arabs, particularly those that posed a threat to certain Jewish settlements, vital routes connecting major towns. They also encouraged many (most?) to stay. They chose not to.


The truth is both are victims. I know it's considered fashionable to blame the Zionist for the misfortunes, but the root cause for the founding of Israel is European anti-semitism before, during and after World War II and the Holocaust. Forgive me for understanding that, in that climate, the Jewish diaspora would be a little skittish about their very existence and would want to return to a land they lived for thousands of years.

Zionism itself and the founding of Israel was the root cause of Palestinian Nationalism. Palestinian identity did not exist before this. (In fact the middle east is linguistically and ethnically homogeneous). It exploded because, unlike the nation of Israel who accepted all comers, the Arab nations bordering Israel decided to NOT accept Arab refugees from Palestine. Instead, they were kept in camps for decades (as a propaganda tool). A humanitarian tragedy that rarely is acknowledged.

Having said that, in the least Israel really should withdraw from the entire West Bank [to the original 1949 armistice lines (Green Line)]. I know how much a prize Jerusalem is, but there will never be peace without compromise. That means giving up East Jerusalem. Of course the last time this was proposed, Arafat rejected it (probably figuring his life would be cut violently short if he did) and Rabin was assassinated. That tells you a lot about the people in question. War seems preferable to peace and compromise is not to be tolerated. Right wing Zionist lay claim to "Judea and Sammaria" which is rubbish while Muslim extremists would deny the Jews an inch of the land.

I tend to look at the actions of the Arabs and Israelis separately, and I am sorry, the Arabs are their own worst enemies. Specifically, the LEADERS of certain Arab countries.

Finally, the land in question was 10% percent of the original Palestinian Mandate. That's the compromise the UN floated to the world. 80% of the original mandate was parceled off as Transjordan. The rest was relabeled the Palestinian Mandate.
"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:15 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):
Baroque, you'll certainly appreciate how I got in a bit of trouble with the nuns at my nursery school for putting 'GOTT MIT UNS' - "God Is With Us' - in a picture I drew.

If he/she was as wise as is supposed, he would send down another ****** tablet with I DO NOT TAKE SIDES, clearly written in as many languages as he/she happens to know!!

Bring back the Hittites I say, they seem to have been there earlier.
 
jm017
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:43 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 32):
If he/she was as wise as is supposed, he would send down another ****** tablet with I DO NOT TAKE SIDES, clearly written in as many languages as he/she happens to know!!

That would have solved everything. S/He is probably so distressed at the incredible number of people throughout history who claim to speak in His or Her name.
"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:53 pm



Quoting JM017 (Reply 31):
And the fact that Arabs rejected partition, all efforts for peace, and started three wars in subsequent years makes no never mind to you?

Why in the world would the Arabs accept partition? What population in its right mind would agree to giving half of its land away to immigrants who had arrived there in a space of 30 years? People act so shocked that the partition was rejected and blame us for the 1948 war because we didn't accept it - why would we? Would the US agree to give a single inch of its land to an immigrant population? Would the UK? Would any country? Also, the 1947 plan said nothing about what would happen to Arab populations in Jewish territory. History has now shown us the answer to that question.

And how have Arabs rejected all efforts for peace? The Arabs have for ages now stated they would normalize relations with Israel if a Palestinian state on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital was created. That is in no way an outrageous demand.

As for starting 3 wars, please, spare me. The 1948 war was a necessary one, regardless of its outcome - a population of immigrants declared a nation in over half of our homeland. If that isn't reason to start a war, I don't know what is.

As for the 1967 war, Israel started that war. Egyptian forces were concentrated on the Israeli border because Israel had been conducting strikes on Syria for a number of months, and Egypt threatened the Israelis that if they were to strike at the Syrians again, there would be consequences. It was a gesture more than anything; many historical analysts agree Nasser was not ready for war. The only difference is that Israel's PR machine is much more well oiled than the Arab one.

Now, you seem to be ready to mention wars "started by Arabs" - what about the Suez crisis, in which Israel was so eager to take part? The invasion of Lebanon? The land grab of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and Sinai? The occupation of Southern Lebanon until 2000? does that all deserve no mention?

Quoting JM017 (Reply 31):
It is misleading to say 800,000 people were removed. Another piece of propaganda. Most refugees left voluntarily. I am sure many feared for their lives, but it's a fact that they were encouraged to leave not by the Jews, but by their own leaders, who anticipated a quick victory. But before I am slammed, I also realise that the Jewish forces did expel Arabs, particularly those that posed a threat to certain Jewish settlements, vital routes connecting major towns. They also encouraged many (most?) to stay. They chose not to.

How is it misleading? Yes, not everyone was removed directly, but they were removed indirectly through scare tactics. Would you not move out of your home if you heard about massacres occurring throughout the country in order to depopulate Palestinian villages, towns and cities? Would you seriously stay and put your family at risk of being butchered alive?

It is a fallacy to suggest the Arabs were the cause of the Palestinians leaving. What did they have to gain in removing the Palestinians from Palestine? The Arab armies did encourage people to move to safety until the conflict was over, but how is that at all unreasonable? Do you suggest it would have been more humane to leave people in the line of fire?

And how the hell did the Jews encourage most to stay? Especially when Ben Gurion explicitly stated in the past that transfer was the only solution to the Palestinian problem? When the evidence screams of the forced transfer, whether directly or indirectly, of the Palestinian population, how can you seriously claim the opposite?

Lets suppose for a second what you say is true - the Jews tried to convince the Arabs to stay. Then why did they not let them go back to their homes after the war ended, and instead they decided to give Arab homes to Jewish immigrants or to wipe the villages off the face of the Earth? Bit contradictory, don't you think?

Quoting JM017 (Reply 31):
The truth is both are victims. I know it's considered fashionable to blame the Zionist for the misfortunes, but the root cause for the founding of Israel is European anti-semitism before, during and after World War II and the Holocaust. Forgive me for understanding that, in that climate, the Jewish diaspora would be a little skittish about their very existence and would want to return to a land they lived for thousands of years.

Forgive me for stating that the fate of the Jews during the Second World War had absolutely nothing to do with us. We were not the ones who committed the holocaust, nor were we the ones (and in this I am referring to the West as a whole) who had a centuries-long history of violent antisemitism. In pre-WWII Europe, the Germans weren't the only ones with raging antisemitism - the same applied to many places in Europe.

What justification is there in giving the Jews land occupied by another population for over a thousand years which their only link to is religious, unlike the population who were living there at the time who, well, actually LIVED there? Why did the West not deal with its own mess on its own, by carving up a part of Germany or absorbing the Jewish diaspora, as they suggest the Arabs should do with the Palestinians?

Quoting JM017 (Reply 31):
Zionism itself and the founding of Israel was the root cause of Palestinian Nationalism. Palestinian identity did not exist before this. (In fact the middle east is linguistically and ethnically homogeneous). It exploded because, unlike the nation of Israel who accepted all comers, the Arab nations bordering Israel decided to NOT accept Arab refugees from Palestine. Instead, they were kept in camps for decades (as a propaganda tool). A humanitarian tragedy that rarely is acknowledged.

The Middle East is linguistically homogeneous, but just look at the different dialects to see the differences from country to country. I speak Palestinian Arabic, and I struggle to understand Gulf Arabic. I have no understanding whatsoever of Algerian or Moroccan Arabic. The Palestinians have a distinct culture to next door Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

The difference is that prior to Zionism, the Palestinians had no need to scream out their identity. Arab nationalism at a whole - and not just Palestinian - was for the Arab world as a whole and not each individual country. And that is because the West came in and carved up the Middle East to suit their needs. Nationalism to individual countries in the Arab world as a whole is of comparitavely recent origin.

However, this justifies nothing. Just because the Palestinians didn't have strong nationalistic feelings until they actually had a need to doesn't mean they didn't still live on the land for thousands of years, and that we don't have our own culture and heritage. My culture as a Palestinian is immensely different to other Arabs such as Saudis, Emiratis, Egyptians, etc.

And who says that Arab countries did not accept Palestinian refugees? I am currently typing this from Jordan, which I am a citizen of, and my family have been Jordanian citizens for decades. 60% of Jordan is Palestinian - and they all carry Jordanian citizenship. That is not to say Palestinian refugees as a whole are at an advantaged position - they live very difficult lives, but the Arab states surrounding Palestine do not have the economic ability to absorb the Palestinian refugees.

Quoting JM017 (Reply 31):
Having said that, in the least Israel really should withdraw from the entire West Bank [to the original 1949 armistice lines (Green Line)]. I know how much a prize Jerusalem is, but there will never be peace without compromise. That means giving up East Jerusalem. Of course the last time this was proposed, Arafat rejected it (probably figuring his life would be cut violently short if he did) and Rabin was assassinated. That tells you a lot about the people in question. War seems preferable to peace and compromise is not to be tolerated. Right wing Zionist lay claim to "Judea and Sammaria" which is rubbish while Muslim extremists would deny the Jews an inch of the land.

Giving up East Jerusalem? So its not enough that they took most of our country in 1948, and the rest of it in 1967, we're supposed to give up the economic centre of what is left of our country, and the political, cultural and religious centre of our people, to "compromise"? Why should we "compromise"? Its not like we're demanding Jerusalem as a whole - compromise is accepting to take West Jerusalem and give us East Jerusalem. It is not giving up the Jerusalem issue as a whole.

And no Palestinian would ever compromise on this. No Westerner could understand the significance of this city to us, and what giving it up completely would mean for us.

Quoting JM017 (Reply 31):
I tend to look at the actions of the Arabs and Israelis separately, and I am sorry, the Arabs are their own worst enemies. Specifically, the LEADERS of certain Arab countries.

Nobody denies that the leaders of certain Arab countries are their own worst enemies - but take a wild, wild guess at who funds the said leaders.

Quoting JM017 (Reply 31):
Finally, the land in question was 10% percent of the original Palestinian Mandate. That's the compromise the UN floated to the world. 80% of the original mandate was parceled off as Transjordan. The rest was relabeled the Palestinian Mandate.

The Palestine mandate only included Transjordan and Palestine together for a few short years. Transjordan and Palestine are two very different entities - Jordan is a mostly a desert, while this is not the case in Palestine. Jordan has a very different originally bedouin population, to the more urban and agriculture-centered Palestinians. The two mandates were slit for a reason - they had no business being part of the same mandate other than bordering each other.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:41 am



Quoting QR332 (Reply 34):
Why in the world would the Arabs accept partition? What population in its right mind would agree to giving half of its land away to immigrants who had arrived there in a space of 30 years?



Quoting QR332 (Reply 34):
The Arabs have for ages now stated they would normalize relations with Israel if a Palestinian state on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital was created. That is in no way an outrageous demand.

Are these not one and the same thing, if it was unacceptable in 1948 what has changed to make it acceptable today? Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait a fair majority of the current countries in the Middle East were created/ borders drawn etc. by the British and some UN mandates, what makes tolerance of those "land grabs" more palatable?

If the Arab countries are willing to accept a 1967 border how does this line up with your statement that since Palestinians lived there for 1,000 years consistently it is their land? If anyone on either side of the equation believe in the 1967 option they have to leave behind the tenure claims whether 1,000 years or beyond and move on, the two positions are not compatible. If the negotiators share the same belief it's no wonder that progress on the political level cannot be accomplished.

I'll add something to the ideas since I'm contributing to the thread. Hard decisions will have to be made, for me the Gaza strip is not sustainable as a part of the Palestinian nation, no country in the world currently physically seperates portions of a single nation, the last that came close was Bangladesh and Pakistan, the result was two nations. The Gaza srtip should be traded for like size territory beside the West Bank making a contigious state, I cannot see any physical link between the Gaza strip and the West Bank working when two states are created, the climate between the two peoples would make such a corridor too complicated and restricted for years to come.
 
a380us
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:31 am

DONT GIVE ME THIS SH*T

Just so you know when they were first offered the land the palestinians didnt want it and all the Jews were really offered was swamp land and took it and turned into something.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
Mind you, I heard about the Zionist terror groups first. As a small child, hearing that a neighbour of mine couldn't come out to play because he had to go to the memorial service for his elder brother, who'd been killed in the King David Hotel.......

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you referring to the bombing on the King David in 1946 because if you are you should really read up on what happened

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
A few facts in this whole monumental mess stand out. The Palestinians were 'rescued' from a Turkish dictatorship by the British in 1917 - thereafter, they spent twenty-plus years under a British-administered League of Nations 'Mandate.'

Following that, they were dispossessed of all their property rights, and driven out of their homes, by Israeli military force and the intervention of the United Nations ( a body that had no legal significance whatever at the time).

And do I need to tell you what happened to the Jews in the 30's and 40's?
www.JandACosmetics.com
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:24 am



Quoting Par13del (Reply 35):
Are these not one and the same thing, if it was unacceptable in 1948 what has changed to make it acceptable today?

The fact that 60 years have passed and generations of Israelis have been born in Israel today? It would be entirely unrealistic to actually demand Palestine in full today, and I think very few people are delusional enough to think that would happen. The foundation of Israel is something I will always oppose, but Israel is not going anywhere, and the situation today is very different to 60 years ago. Peace should be our first priority, and there will never be peace if we don't compromise on different issues.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 35):
Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait a fair majority of the current countries in the Middle East were created/ borders drawn etc. by the British and some UN mandates, what makes tolerance of those "land grabs" more palatable?

The fact that the populations that lived there at the time - gee, I don't know? - weren't expelled? And the land was given to the Arab population actually living there rather than being promised to a population with a religious claim in Europe?

Quoting Par13del (Reply 35):
If the Arab countries are willing to accept a 1967 border how does this line up with your statement that since Palestinians lived there for 1,000 years consistently it is their land? If anyone on either side of the equation believe in the 1967 option they have to leave behind the tenure claims whether 1,000 years or beyond and move on, the two positions are not compatible. If the negotiators share the same belief it's no wonder that progress on the political level cannot be accomplished.

The 1,000 years argument is still very relevant today for one reason - the refugees. There are still 6 million Palestinian refugees waiting for a solution to their plight. The question of the refugees must be addressed and solved once and for all.

And like I said above, our history is not going to be forgotten simply because Israel was created. Even if a Palestinian state is created on 1967 lines, as far as we're concerned Palestine to us will always refer to historical Palestine, and not just the West Bank and Gaza. That is because the majority of Palestinians have their origins in what is Israel today - whether in Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, Nazareth, Safad, or wherever. Do you think that all that is just going to be wiped clean from the minds of Palestinians?

Quoting Par13del (Reply 35):
The Gaza srtip should be traded for like size territory beside the West Bank making a contigious state, I cannot see any physical link between the Gaza strip and the West Bank working when two states are created, the climate between the two peoples would make such a corridor too complicated and restricted for years to come.

And what do you suggest should be done with the 1.5 million+ residents of Gaza, and all the refugees there? Also, Israel agreed for a road linking the two territories together to be made on its territory, so there will at least be a physical link.

Also, you've obviously not seen past peace proposals, such as the Camp David 2000 proposal, which actually split the West Bank into three "islands", surrounded by Israeli settlements.

Quoting A380US (Reply 36):
DONT GIVE ME THIS SH*T

Cry me a river.

Quoting A380US (Reply 36):
Just so you know when they were first offered the land the palestinians didnt want it and all the Jews were really offered was swamp land and took it and turned into something.

You don't catch on very quick, do you? Read above. My advice is actually read a thread before ranting, because your "point" has already been answered.

Quoting A380US (Reply 36):
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you referring to the bombing on the King David in 1946 because if you are you should really read up on what happened

I'm sure the kool aid tastes good but i'll pass.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:24 pm



Quoting QR332 (Reply 37):
Also, you've obviously not seen past peace proposals, such as the Camp David 2000 proposal, which actually split the West Bank into three "islands", surrounded by Israeli settlements

Everyone knows that those proposals will never be taken, why have a discussion on something we both know will not happen, what could be speculated about is how the landscape would be today if it was.

The Camp David accords offered more land than any other, biggest problem as you say were the settlements and their placements, would be interesting to see what type of final documents would have been proposed, such as whether acceptance eliminated all claims to the rest of the West Bank etc. or if more land would be ceeded i a specified time frame.

As for the Gaza Strip, we are talking about people, the land does not care who inhabits it. The residents could leave for one nation and stay in another, I think you know that is what I am proposing. Israel agreed to a corridor, how many restrictions exits on the route, can a/c fly over, what are the security concerns, like I said I don't think in the current climate it's a workable solution.

Right of return is similar to the West Bank issue, the quickest way to destory the nation of Israel is by right of return. If that is allowed, the nation of Israel ceases to exist overnight, think about it, those Palestinians who return will be the majority, there will be elections in short order and who wil they be voting for, what laws will they pass etc. etc. etc. Just as the 1967 option, right of return has to dropped in support of compensation, after all, none of the refugees want to be a part of the nation of Israel.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:25 pm

A380US, I see from your profile that you live in New York. Assuming that that's New York City, the British owned New York until 1783, and the Dutch before that, and the Indians before that...........

So since they were most definitely 'there' before you, is it OK if they just move back in - and you go and live in Buffalo or somewhere?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
a380us
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:23 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 38):


A380US, I see from your profile that you live in New York. Assuming that that's New York City, the British owned New York until 1783, and the Dutch before that, and the Indians before that...........

So since they were most definitely 'there' before you, is it OK if they just move back in - and you go and live in Buffalo or somewhere?

Did I bring in that problem???

Quoting QR332 (Reply 37):

I'm sure the kool aid tastes good but i'll pass.

Well just for those who do read this and want to know what happened.

Just a small outline

The Irgun which was a Militant Zionist group set up a few bombs in the King David Hotel which at the time was used as a British military headquarters.
The Irgun called to warn, the King David switchboard, the French consulate, and the Palestine post. After the call to the French they believed the wanring but the British general said that they dont take orders from Jews and threatened to shoot anyone wanting to leave. Also the Jews didnt want any civilians near so they blew to small bombs out side the hotel so civilians wouldnt be near by.
Now if ythis is called terrioism what do you call whats going on in Sderot?
www.JandACosmetics.com
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:50 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 39):
The Camp David accords offered more land than any other, biggest problem as you say were the settlements and their placements, would be interesting to see what type of final documents would have been proposed, such as whether acceptance eliminated all claims to the rest of the West Bank etc. or if more land would be ceeded i a specified time frame.

My point is that if the Israelis seriously want to make peace, they would make a serious offer - not a one-sided offer which completely excludes two of the biggest issues relating to the Palestinians - Jerusalem and the right of return. Even if the solution to the right of return is financial or other to the refugees actually physically returning to their homes, it needs to be addressed because it is one of the main issues of the conflict.

Offering us islands of land with no control over our own borders and a huge maze of settlements ripping the West Bank apart, while continuing to deny us Jerusalem, is not a real proposal. The fact that it offered more land than any other proposal speaks more about Israel and its policies than anything.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 39):
As for the Gaza Strip, we are talking about people, the land does not care who inhabits it. The residents could leave for one nation and stay in another, I think you know that is what I am proposing. Israel agreed to a corridor, how many restrictions exits on the route, can a/c fly over, what are the security concerns, like I said I don't think in the current climate it's a workable solution.

No, the land doesn't, and i'm sure that many of the Gaza refugees would love to leave. However, the West Bank can't handle another influx of refugees, nor is there funding to support building homes and infrastructure on a scale that large.

Also, Gaza is Palestine's only access point to the Mediterranean, making it strategically very important. It also means that the Palestinian state will have borders with Egypt. That is not to mention that Gaza historically is an important Palestinian city, regardless of what state it is in today. I think that what you propose is as unrealistic as thinking that two separate pieces of land will exist with no problems.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 39):
Right of return is similar to the West Bank issue, the quickest way to destory the nation of Israel is by right of return. If that is allowed, the nation of Israel ceases to exist overnight, think about it, those Palestinians who return will be the majority, there will be elections in short order and who wil they be voting for, what laws will they pass etc. etc. etc. Just as the 1967 option, right of return has to dropped in support of compensation, after all, none of the refugees want to be a part of the nation of Israel.

So what your saying is that 7 million Israelis take precedent over 6 million Palestinian refugees? Because when you deny the Palestinians the right of return, you condemn 6 million Palestinians to a future away from their home and to a life of poverty. A deal needs to be worked out that is fair to both populations and which places equal respect for both sides - not one which values one population over the other because they have a different religion.

Quoting A380US (Reply 40):
The Irgun which was a Militant Zionist group set up a few bombs in the King David Hotel which at the time was used as a British military headquarters.
The Irgun called to warn, the King David switchboard, the French consulate, and the Palestine post. After the call to the French they believed the wanring but the British general said that they dont take orders from Jews and threatened to shoot anyone wanting to leave. Also the Jews didnt want any civilians near so they blew to small bombs out side the hotel so civilians wouldnt be near by.
Now if ythis is called terrioism what do you call whats going on in Sderot?

If what is going on in Sderot is terrorism, then what is going on in Gaza is genocide.

I don't think any of us need history lessons from someone with such blatant prejudices and such little understanding of the situation and its history.

And calling in to evacuate the building justifies nothing. There were innocents killed around the hotel, not just inside, and the bombing was pure intimidation, the classic tactic of Israel and its armed forces which has continued until today. That is not to mention that the whole Irgun story is heavily disputed by the British.

Also, if you'd like, there are many, many other examples of acts of Jewish terrorism during and leading up to the 1948 war which are worse than anything the Palestinians have ever done.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
a380us
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:06 pm



Quoting QR332 (Reply 41):

If what is going on in Sderot is terrorism, then what is going on in Gaza is genocide.

Only by the sides in Gaza not the jews.
The jews kill civilians there because thats the only way to stop Hamas who hides behind civilians for that specific reason

Quoting QR332 (Reply 41):

Also, if you'd like, there are many, many other examples of acts of Jewish terrorism during and leading up to the 1948 war which are worse than anything the Palestinians have ever done.

Pleas explain some
worst than Enttebe? Munich 1972? or any of the hundreds of suicide bombs?
These were all on jewish civilians who were unarmed and didnt do anything wrong so please explain what the Jews did!
www.JandACosmetics.com
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:08 pm



Quoting A380US (Reply 42):
Only by the sides in Gaza not the jews.
The jews kill civilians there because thats the only way to stop Hamas who hides behind civilians for that specific reason

Go tell that to the mother of the 3 month old baby who died only a few months back following the explosion of a shell opposite where she lived. Go tell that to the families of the thousands of dead civilians who died only in the past 8 years - a third of which are children, by the way.

Have you not heard about the cutting off of water and electricity to Gaza at the beginning of the year? Or closing it off to all supplies? Or the strikes that take out 8 civilians along with every Hamas target?

And what do you mean they hide behind them? They LIVE in Gaza, which means that wherever in Gaza they are there will be civilians around. Try taking a person out anywhere in any densely populated city in the world with a missile and see what will happen.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep better at night.

Quoting A380US (Reply 42):
Pleas explain some
worst than Enttebe? Munich 1972? or any of the hundreds of suicide bombs?

I can name one incident with much more casualties than Entebbe and Munich combined - Deyr Yassin in 1948, a villiage in which 107-120 innocent unarmed civilians were slaughtered by your beloved Irgun.

Then there is the Lydd masscare in 1948, in which 426 men, women and children were massacred - 176 of which were massacred in the city's main mosque.

There is the al Tantura massacre in 1948, in which dozens of unarmed prisoners of war were executed in 1948.

And to move on from the 1948 war...

There is the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982, in which, according to Red Crecent estimates, over 2,000 Palestinians were slaughtered by the Christian Phalangist militias while the IDF surrounded the camp to ensure nobody got out.

There is the Qibya massacre of 1957, in which the IDF killed 69 Palestinians.

There is the Qana massacre in 1996, in which 106 civilians (including many children) were killed when the IAF bombed the UN camp.

There is the 2006 Lebanon war, in which at least 1,200 civilians were killed and 4,500 injured.

That enough for you? Because there are many, many more examples of Israeli aggression that I can give you.
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
jm017
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:47 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:37 am



Quoting QR332 (Reply 34):
Now, you seem to be ready to mention wars "started by Arabs" - what about the Suez crisis, in which Israel was so eager to take part? The invasion of Lebanon? The land grab of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and Sinai? The occupation of Southern Lebanon until 2000? does that all deserve no mention?

You're right about the Suez Crisis. Ishould point out that I am not defending these actions. But the 1967 war was justified by Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 34):
The Middle East is linguistically homogeneous, but just look at the different dialects to see the differences from country to country. I speak Palestinian Arabic, and I struggle to understand Gulf Arabic. I have no understanding whatsoever of Algerian or Moroccan Arabic. The Palestinians have a distinct culture to next door Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

I know this. By way of comparison, An American will have difficulty with Jamaican English. It's still English. And can you deny that an Israeli Jew would have greater difficulty adjusting to life in Syria than, say an Arab from Jordan? The presence of Arabic dialects does not change the fact that they are linguistically homogenous, and except for groups such as the Kurds, ethnically homogenous as well.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 34):
It is a fallacy to suggest the Arabs were the cause of the Palestinians leaving. What did they have to gain in removing the Palestinians from Palestine? The Arab armies did encourage people to move to safety until the conflict was over, but how is that at all unreasonable?



Quoting QR332 (Reply 34):
What population in its right mind would agree to giving half of its land away to immigrants who had arrived there in a space of 30 years? People act so shocked that the partition was rejected and blame us for the 1948 war because we didn't accept it - why would we?

Jews had been living in Palestine for thousands of years. Emigration to Palestine did inflate their numbers, yes I'll grant you that (and that's why I say a lot of the blame lies at the feet of European Anti-Semitism). Secondly, wasn't it the Arabs who rejected partition and INVADED the day after Israel came into being? Israel did not invade its neighboring countries. These countries invaded Israel. This was the root cause of the war. Are you suggesting otherwise? If you want to emphasize Israel attacking Egypt first in 1967 and THAT causing the Six Day War, then conversely the Arab invasions in 1948 led to the 1948-9 war. You simply cannot have it both ways. I could reasonably argue that Israel was defending itself both times.

Look at it this way: wouldn't there be a Palestine state if the Palestinians had accepted partition? Pride goeth before a fall. Or as my grandmother used to say part of something is better than all of nothing.
"It's okay to cheat, if you just really don't like to lose."
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:01 am

Quoting A380US (Reply 42):
Pleas explain some
worst than Enttebe? Munich 1972? or any of the hundreds of suicide bombs?

With 91 killed and 40 seriously injured, the King David ranks as high (or, rather, as low) as any of those. Many of the dead were civilans frequenting the hotel, and government staff (including a number of Jewish civilians).

Nor was it the only incident of Zionist terrorism - The Irgun and the Stern Gang had been kidnapping and murdering people even DURING WW2, and redoubled their efforts as soon as the War ended. I once met one of the sappers (Royal Engineers) who had to fight their way through stone-throwing Jewish mobs to start the rescue work.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Kingdavid.htm

Ironically his most most memorable piece of 'rescue work' up till then had come the year before, when he was part of the British 11th. Armoured Division which fought its way from Normandy to Germany, liberated Belsen, and then worked night and day for weeks to save as many lives as they could............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/4445811.stm

Other instances can be researched here, if you like - many of the files have only recently been released under the 'Fifty-Year Rule':-

"Stern Group (KV 5/29-32) This collection of reconstituted files on the activities of the Stern Group (or Stern Gang) records the Security Service´s interest in this group´s activities from 1941 to 1951.

"KV 5/29(1941-1946) covers the death of the Group´s leader, Abraham Stern, in February 1942, and also the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo in November 1944. Government actions to try to counter the Group in the aftermath of the assassination are covered in this file and in KV 5/30 (1946). The murder of UN negotiator Count Bernadotte in Paris in October 1948 is covered in KV 5/31 (1946-1948), which includes evidence that the assassins received assistance from the Czech authorities. This file also includes photographs of damage to government houses in Jaffa caused by Stern Group actions..."

"Irgun (KV 5/34-41) This collection of files documents the Security Service´s monitoring of the activities of Irgun, the Jewish organisation involved or implicated in numerous acts of terrorism in the closing years of the British mandate in Palestine. The file covering the pre-war and Second World War period (KV 5/34, 1938-1946) is largely concerned with tracking the changes to the leadership of Irgun, its relationship with Revisionist groups, and assessing the strength of Irgun. The file includes reports of Irgun terrorist activities, which were suspended for most of the war (Irgun leader David Raziel served with the allies and was killed in action in 1941) but resumed in 1944, around the time that Menachem Begin assumed the leadership. The file includes an Irgun propaganda leaflet which addressed Palestine´s Arab neighbours (serial 33a) and shows that Teddy Kollek, the future mayor of Jerusalem, was in contact with the Defence Security Officer in Palestine (e.g serials 57c, 63zc and 67ab).

"Subsequent files chiefly focus on Irgun´s post-war terrorist activities. KV 5/35 (1946) includes reports on attacks on trains and the kidnapping of British servicemen. The attack on the King David Hotel, including discussion on the conflicting claims as to whether or not a warning was given, is covered in KV 5/36."


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2006/march/jewish.htm

The most notable thing about Zionist terrorist acts in the 1940s, though, is that they were the very FIRST such incidents. Organisations like the Irgun and the Stern Gang can literally be said to have invented the whole concept of 'modern terrorism.' In that sense, people like the Provisional IRA and Al Queda and Jemaa Ismalia were just so many 'copycats'........

[Edited 2008-08-17 22:04:03]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:07 am



Quoting A380US (Reply 40):
Just a small outline

Perhaps now you have revised the King David atrocity to your satisfaction, you will present your version of the hanging of the sergeants (do not forget to explain the booby traps on the bodies).

You might also like to explain how the Irgun revolt differed from the various Intifadas.
 
qr332
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:16 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:31 pm

Quoting JM017 (Reply 44):
You're right about the Suez Crisis. Ishould point out that I am not defending these actions. But the 1967 war was justified by Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran.

Again, Egypt's actions were in response to constant Israeli incursions into Syrian territory. Like I said, the Egyptians were not ready for a full-scale war, and what they were trying to do was to deter the Israelis. This was because in 1966, the Egyptians and the Syrians signed a defensive pact.

Just read the following, and then tell me that Israel was defending itself:

''Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy,'' General Dayan told Mr. Tal in 1976. ''You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.''

According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, ''But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . ''

General Dayan interrupted: ''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...61958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Quoting JM017 (Reply 44):
I know this. By way of comparison, An American will have difficulty with Jamaican English. It's still English. And can you deny that an Israeli Jew would have greater difficulty adjusting to life in Syria than, say an Arab from Jordan? The presence of Arabic dialects does not change the fact that they are linguistically homogenous, and except for groups such as the Kurds, ethnically homogenous as well.

I never denied we are still pretty much the same people in terms of ethnicity. However, following this logic, do you think Canadians would consent to giving away half of their country because they could move to America, which is also majority white and English speaking?

Just like every English-speaking country has its distinct culture, so do we.

Quoting JM017 (Reply 44):
Jews had been living in Palestine for thousands of years. Emigration to Palestine did inflate their numbers, yes I'll grant you that (and that's why I say a lot of the blame lies at the feet of European Anti-Semitism).

They didn't just inflate the numbers, you actually have to see the figures to get an idea of just how huge immigration was during this period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jewish_population_comparisons

I know its Wikipedia, etc, but if you look at the figures, in 1900 Jews formed 12% of the population of Palestine. In 2000, they formed 68%.

The following was a document made for the United Nations by the British Mandate, and you can see the sheer number of immigrants that came to Palestine from 1920 onwards. It accounts for both Arab and Jewish immigration:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/images/Immigration_1.jpg

Source: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html

And before anyone bashes me for the source the picture itself is sourced in the link above to the survey from which it is taken, prepared by the British Mandate.

Quoting JM017 (Reply 44):
Secondly, wasn't it the Arabs who rejected partition and INVADED the day after Israel came into being? Israel did not invade its neighboring countries. These countries invaded Israel. This was the root cause of the war. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Yes, I am. You have to look at the reasons why the Arabs went to war. Firstly, there is the issue of the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes - the expulsions started way before May 1948, and that in itself was a good enough reason to declare war on Israel.

Secondly, there is the huge unjustness of a nation declaring itself on territory that its only links to are religious and being there 2,000 years ago. Pictures speak louder than words, so just have a look at these two maps:

http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Maps/New/Map4_Population.gif

http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Maps/New/Map5_OwnerShip.gif

Now, compare these two with the partition plan, bearing in mind the fact that the majority of Jews in Palestine at the time emigrated there from Europe in a space of 30 years, along with the fact that expulsions were occurring left and right, and tell me that the Arabs did not have a real cause for war.

Quoting JM017 (Reply 44):
If you want to emphasize Israel attacking Egypt first in 1967 and THAT causing the Six Day War, then conversely the Arab invasions in 1948 led to the 1948-9 war. You simply cannot have it both ways. I could reasonably argue that Israel was defending itself both times.

I am not saying that because Israel attacked first they automatically were the cause of war. If it really was a pre-emptive strike then yes, it would be Egypt's fault. However, you have to look at the war in context of what was going on at the time - the defensive pact, Israel's incursions into Syria, etc. That is what convinces me Israel started - and wanted - that war through and through, not solely the fact that they attacked first.

Quoting JM017 (Reply 44):
Look at it this way: wouldn't there be a Palestine state if the Palestinians had accepted partition? Pride goeth before a fall. Or as my grandmother used to say part of something is better than all of nothing.

I completely agree. However, it is very easy to say that with hindsight; it was impossible to predict this outcome at the time. Also, I am convinced that should the same occur today to any country in the West, i.e. an immigrant population displacing the native population and declaring an independent state, not a single Western country would support that.

[Edited 2008-08-18 06:37:05]
"The greatest threat to knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:21 pm



Quoting QR332 (Reply 47):
Also, I am convinced that should the same occur today to any country in the West, i.e. an immigrant population displacing the native population and declaring an independent state, not a single Western country would support that.

The nearest analogies are probably East Timor and West Papua except that the population movements were part of the Transmigrasi policies from government in Java.

It did not work in E Timor.

The jury is probably still out for W Papua even if GoAus has agreed to shut up about that situation.

Ironically, if Jakarta had not run Transmigrasi and had put the effort into schooling, the contrast with PNG might have made a form of autonomy a success for W Papua.

But the western attitudes to these attempts to take over populations certainly tend to support your contention QR332.
 
NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Middle-East Peace Settlement - The Pathetic Truth

Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:38 pm



Quoting QR332 (Reply 47):
Also, I am convinced that should the same occur today to any country in the West, i.e. an immigrant population displacing the native population and declaring an independent state, not a single Western country would support that.

In my opinion, you've got it dead rght, QR332.

Also IMO, the problem only arises because there are enough Jewish voters in New York State, California, and Florida to 'swing' any election. IF they vote the 'Zionist' line............

I still enjoy the privilege of being in touch with a couple of Jewish friends from my time living in Manhattan. For what it's worth, both of them assure me that they wouldn't vote for a Republican candidate even if he promised the "Second Coming' tomorrow.

As one of them puts it, "BUT, If the Second Coming ever happened, the first thing that would happen is that the Dow would dive. The SECOND thing that would happen is that all reiligious-based stocks would dive even further The only thing you could do would be to get all humble and await the inevitable. EXCEPT for changing everything into dollar bills, putting them into a fireproof box, and buying yourself a gun..........."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests