Why do you oppose Israel?

[crimzonsol]

I am starting this thread so I can get clear, Coherent and intelligent reasons for peoples opposition of Israel. I would also like you to state your bias in the matter.

So far I have yet to see anybody give a clear arguement against Israel. I want to know so I can understand why people oppose Israel.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Israel was founded by importing a population with the goal of taking the land from the native population, those of which who weren't Jews anyway.

Control of territory shifts naturally. If the native Jewish population became dominant simply over time that's different, although the creation of a "Jewish" state, with its ethnic and religious dimensions, would be discriminatory, it's not colonized and forcibly taken.

There is also a key difference between Israel and the united states (and, as patrick may point out, Hawaii). Israel controls a territory where the native population that was conquered and, in many cases expelled, is still alive. To attempt to put it into context, the older baby boomers were alive when Israel was founded. It is not simply an unfortunate relic of the past, and that's due to the survival of parts of the original population. And, even if they were all dead, the presence of massive refugee camps, located outside of Israel, and laws banning the return of those refugees to Israel (as opposed to modern day Indian reservations) as well as equal representation to non Jews, would make it still an ongoing issue. There is nothing preventing Native Americans from reclaiming dominance of the U.S., if their numbers allowed it. The same is not true in Israel.

The importation of massive amounts of European Jews is the sole reason Israel was able to exist as a viable state, and the primary reason for the massive immigration was because of the promise of a Jewish state, or later on the existence of it. It was not simply an accident that the new population allowed.

The population as it is, Israel still exists as a state that denies equal rights to many of its citizens. Israel (or whatever the name) as one state, where non Jewish Palestinians and Jews are given equal rights, with representation equivalent to their numbers, should be the goal. This would allow either population to be dominant not due to laws, but simply due to the democratic process.

Now the merging of Palestine and Israel would essentially spell the end of the a Jewish state. The end of a discriminatory government in Israel, with a coexisting Palestinian state, given current population trends, would also eventually achieve the same result, just not at the present time. Calling for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, in this context anyway, is not about ending a Jewish state, or depriving Jews of their homeland. Jews would have just as much right to remain there as anyone else. Instead it is about giving displaced people opportunity to return to their native lands. This isn't about saying "Palestinians lived here before so you must leave". It's about saying "Palestinians can return and live on equal footing as Jews". If a Jew, or any Israeli, wants to sell their property then anyone, Jew, Muslims etc., has an equal right to buy that land, and an equal right to citizenship if they are current citizens or if they would have been if not for the expulsion of Palestinians.

The only instance where Jews would be forcibly removed from land would be with a two state solution, where Israel returned to the pre-1967 borders and all settlements were removed. If Israel and Palestine were merged into one state then no such expulsion would be needed, as the land would now be open to all anyway.

Now there is something to be said about protecting Jews from events such as the holocaust. The problem is there simply was no available land for a Jewish homeland, and there certainly was none in modern day Israel. You can't evict the current population because another recently traumatized population wants the land. And the population there owed nothing to the Jewish people, as they were not the ones that evicted them from that land in the first place.

[Anti-Racism]

Israel was founded by importing a population with the goal of taking the land from the native population, those of which who weren't Jews anyway.


The point behind Israel is to have a Jewish ethnic state so the Jewish people is preserved. It was a response to the Holocaust that built on the work of earlier Zionists, like Theodor Herzl, who wanted to simply buy Israel from Palestinians and have a 100% Jewish ethnic state.

This is necessary for the preservation of the Jewish people and I think it is still valid today.

[tony mitra]

Jewish people wanted a land for their own for various reasons. My knowledge of the development of the idea, going back to nineteenth century Europe, is not too detailed. However, we all know about the persecution of Jews in Europe, and not just at the hands of the Nazis during WWII.

However, Israel was created primarily out of guild feeling by Europeans. Europe in general and England in particular pushed for it, supported by the US at the UN vote count.

But, to be fair, Europeans should have addressed the guilt feeling by addressing the injustice in the right way. The best way was to first remove their suspicion and hatred of the Jews, and to love them and allow exactly the same care and benefits as any other citizen of their countries. A man born in France, for example, should be a French man, even if he was a Jew. He should be as much a French man as a Catholic French man, for example.

Had Europeans dealt with it that way, there would have been no cause for a creation of Israel.

IF Europe was unable to do that, and felt compelled to let the Jews have a land of their own, then the next right thing would have been to grand them a land within Europe, and let the rest of the Christians and others vacate the land, as a repayment for all the injustice done to the Jews in Europe.

But Europe did neither. It simply pushed the Jews onto Palestine, although Palestine had done nothing wrong to the Jews up to that point. But Palestinians themselves had to give up their land for Israel.

To me, the Jewish people are not to be blamed for wanting a homeland for themselves. They had suffered enough.

I blame the injustice directly on Europe, and particularly on England for pushing it, and also on USA for supporting it. It was simply not fair to the Palestinian people, no matter how the west would like to twist the story.


The point behind Israel is to have a Jewish ethnic state so the Jewish people is preserved.


To me, there is no such thing as Jewish enthnic state, because there is no such thing as ethnically Jew. A jew can be an European, or a middle eastern, or an Euthyopean, Chinese, Indian, black yellow or polka dotted, from any and all ethnic, linguistic, cultural and racial groups of the world. What makes Jewish people unique is their religion and not ethnicity.

And if preservation of the Religion is a concern, all democratic, secular, freedom loving nations should offer the Jewish people exactly the same right as it offeres to anybody else.

As far as I know, there is no Buddhist state, although Buddhism is alive and well. There is no Hindu state either, and neither is there, as far as I know, any CHristian state. Only there are a handful of Islamic states. So, one does not really require a single-religion state, to preverse a religion. Religious freedom is guaranteed on a number of secular democratic nations.

Having said that, I can understand the wish of the Jewish people to have a land of their own. I just do not believe Palestine had to be the sacrifical lamb. Europe passed the burden of guilt to the middle east because they could get away with it. Why USA supported it, and strong armed various undecided nations to vote in favor of it, I shall never fathom. USA has a lot of land. If Europe did not want to part with land for the creation of Israel, USA could surely spare some. How come they did not think of that ?

There are a lot of unanswered questions, but my questions are directed at Europe and USA, and not particularly at the Jewish people of Europe at the end of WWII.

Anyhow that is how I feel.

[jafar00]

I think Zo pretty much said it all for me. I would like to add that the local population that already existed there have been forcibly removed at the point of a gun or bombed to pieces so the land could be grabbed. This land grab continues to this day.

[moses2792796]

They are an extension of western influence. This needs to be stopped at all costs.

[Cobra]

I don't oppose Israel.

[ECW]

I think Zo pretty much said it all for me. I would like to add that the local population that already existed there have been forcibly removed at the point of a gun or bombed to pieces so the land could be grabbed. This land grab continues to this day.


All done in the context of warfare. The declared determination of Arab states, Arab movements, Islamic clerics, etc. to drive Israel into the sea perpetrates their hardship because the hardliners use this hostility to keep Israel at war with their neighbors and their neighbors are not able to defeat Israel militarily because of US support. That is the reality on the ground.

Until peace can be achieved between the warring parties any resolution of land disputes, destruction of Palestinian homes, and the murders of innocents will continue because the war will be the justification.

I support Israel to live in peace with her neighbors and once there is peace then the redress of grievances ought to be taken up in earnest.

[jafar00]

[quote=jafar00]
I think Zo pretty much said it all for me. I would like to add that the local population that already existed there have been forcibly removed at the point of a gun or bombed to pieces so the land could be grabbed. This land grab continues to this day.



All done in the context of warfare.


Warfare created by the invasion of people into a land in which they had no legitimate claim to.


The declared determination of Arab states, Arab movements, Islamic clerics, etc. to drive Israel into the sea perpetrates their hardship because the hardliners use this hostility to keep Israel at war with their neighbors and their neighbors are not able to defeat Israel militarily because of US support. That is the reality on the ground.


Gaza or what is left of it appears to be the only thing being pushed into the sea. In fact the Israelis are the only ones to do any sea pushing.

LITERALLY

http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Jaffa/Jaffa/Picture1252.jpg


Until peace can be achieved between the warring parties any resolution of land disputes, destruction of Palestinian homes, and the murders of innocents will continue because the war will be the justification.


That's a given.


I support Israel to live in peace with her neighbors and once there is peace then the redress of grievances ought to be taken up in earnest.


As do I. If Israel would lift the crippling blockade on the Palestinians, return stolen land and at least pull back behind pre 1967 borders, destrouing apartheid walls as they go, there might be a chance.
In fact, previous peace efforts hinged on Israel pulling back to the only internationally recognised border, but they have refused.

[Elrathin]

I am against the reason Israel was created. I don't think it is right, nor do I think it was valid.

However, I must ask those that are against Israel. What now? I mean you cannot simply just ask millions of people to leave. They won't. The Palestinians will not leave either.

So the choice of coexistance is the ONLY one. Now when neither side is willing to stop the fighting, what are you left with.

And please don't give me that Israel tried. Yes, I understand on the cease fire that there was an attack on Israel by a suicide bomber. So basically Israel went back to war over ONE person. That is ludicrous.

[Truth_and_Power]

I oppose israel expanding its borders for "security reasons". I have never heard a rational argument as to how the settlements increase israeli security.

[Stoner]

In America it's mostly the libs that oppose Israel. The funny thing is most libs don't even know why they oppose Israel...they just oppose it because it's a lib talking point.

[Buck Laser]

In America it's mostly the libs that oppose Israel. The funny thing is most libs don't even know why they oppose Israel...they just oppose it because it's a lib talking point.

Wrong, wrong and wrong, Stoner. Most of us are pretty damned clear about why we oppose Israel's national policy. I'll bet that if you thought of it, you could figure it out, too. Try to stretch your mind, if it's got any elasticity left.

I oppose Israel's policies with respect to the Palestinians and the surrounding Islamic nations. They've had any number of opportunities to make peace, but they've passed them all up in order to expand their borders into Palestinian territories. Despite attempts to turn opposition to this expansionism into antisemitism, it just won't work. I'm opposed to many of the activities of AIPAC, just as I'm opposed to many of the activities of CAIR. Try to see if you can fit THAT into your tight little ideological framework. :blah:

[AlonzoMourning23]

Until peace can be achieved between the warring parties any resolution of land disputes, destruction of Palestinian homes, and the murders of innocents will continue because the war will be the justification.

Until there is a resolution, or close to it, of disputes there won't be peace.

[tony mitra]

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51200oHCMiL._SS500_.jpg

I had read this book sometime last year. The name of the book, mentioning apartheid, was a surprise, coming from a religious man such as Jimmy Carter. But then, he explains why he uses that word. Palestinians, according to him, have been disenfranchised and human rights denied to them, which, to him, is not much different from how the black people were denied rights in South Africa during the apartheid regime.

One of his achievements was the Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt, which survives more or less till today. I found a few powerful arguments he made in that book. One of them is, the politicians among the Muslims, Christians and Jews were more willing to compromise and reach out in private, than they were in public.

Another powerful observation he made was that the public itself, from all sectors including Muslims and Jews, were more keen for peace, than their respective politicians.

Anyhow, this is one more book that explains the sad situation that is going on in the holy land.

My previous post on the subject covered only the issues leading up to the creation of Israel, which in itself has been a very controversial issue in the minds of many.

But that was sixty years ago. Since then, a lot more has happened. According to President Carter, Israel bears the brunt of responsibility, for essentially operating a doctrine of apartheid.

I wonder why the public, if they love peace more than their politicians, do not toss those hardliner politicians out, and install those that are genuinely interested to find equal justice, and peace!

[Truth_and_Power]

In America it's mostly the libs that oppose Israel. The funny thing is most libs don't even know why they oppose Israel...they just oppose it because it's a lib talking point.


Wow read the post directly above yours.

[Elrathin]

In America it's mostly the libs that oppose Israel. The funny thing is most libs don't even know why they oppose Israel...they just oppose it because it's a lib talking point.


The comment you made is nothing more than a conservative talking point. Many liberals have said why they are against it. As you admitted earlier in many posts before, you don't bother reading "liberal" posts so how the hell would you know anyway?

[AlonzoMourning23]

In America it's mostly the libs that oppose Israel. The funny thing is most libs don't even know why they oppose Israel...they just oppose it because it's a lib talking point.


Wasn't a lib the only one to go into any detail in this thread?

[ECW]

Drive by posting at it's best, Zo.


I oppose israel expanding its borders for "security reasons". I have never heard a rational argument as to how the settlements increase israeli security.


Settlements are intended to surround the heartland of Israel and the settlers are intended to act as a first line of defense in case of another attack. They are pretty well armored and most of the settlers have a "take no prisoners" approach to defending the land they have settled on (rightly or wrongly). Putting homes out there makes people want to defend them even more so because they created them from nothing in most cases.

There is plenty of blame to go around here. Neither side is innocent and only when the people talking peace get tired of all the bloodshed will they act upon their urges to stop the insanity. You can lead a horse to water...

[davo]

I think there's arguments from both sides of politics, of people who either praise or criticise Israel. Those on the 'Left' tend to point to colonialism and human rights and UN violations when they criticise it, but point to surviving 'racism', anti-semitism and the Holocaust as reasons to support it. Those on the 'right' tend to either support it for it's military successes as a strong country, various religious reasons, and for holding values closer to our own as opposed to other parts of the Middle East. Its critics on the right point toward it's hypocrisy on issues of ethnic/religious survival, its pursuit of WMD's beyond what we can control, and because lobbyists and big financial interests in the United States skew our foreign policy interests to favour Israel when we could otherwise support the Arab states and get all their oil.

The state of Israel was originally created by the British as an extension of the mandate for Palestine. I've heard conspiracy theories that the British victory in WW1 came at a heavy price. The Rothschilds, Warburgs and Schiffs would stop funding the central powers (they funded them to weaken the Tsar of Russia), drag the United States into the war through the newly established Federal Reserve system, and grant extensive loans to the British. The price the British would pay was commitment to establishing the state of Israel and an international 'league of nations'.

I don't know whether the above is true or not, but when the British won WW1, they probably intended the mandate of Palestine to be a part of the Empire.

I'm still pretty open-minded about whether to support or oppose Israel. Basically I support its right to exist, but not to have WMD's or skew US foreign policy away from common sense. It should be held to the same standards as other Middle Eastern countries.

[ECW]

Basically I support its right to exist, but not to have WMD's or skew US foreign policy away from common sense. It should be held to the same standards as other Middle Eastern countries.


Well, then they fit right in. Their human rights record is shaky at best with detentions for suspects lasting months and people being condemned without due process. It's SOP in Arab ME countries.

They are a democracy, a Wild West sort of place. The same cannot be said for the rest of the ME. But what Israel does better than anyone is fight fire with fire. I give them props for that. Unreasonable demands made by their opponents under the guise of "negotiation" has made them realize that none of the other Arab states will be satisfied until they are dead and gone, an unlikely prospect.

The history, at this point, is irrelevant because the Israelis are not going anywhere. It's a fact that you have to deal with. The return to the 1967 borders ain't happening either because those were used merely to launch attacks on Israel (see: Golan Heights). Had other Arab countries wanted an independent Palestine in their midst, Jordan and Egypt could have freed the West Bank and Gaza respectively after the creation of Israel in 1948. They did not. 20 years went by before even the prospect of an independent Palestine was seriously broached and then only as a wedge issue to use against Israel.

So, here we are now, going back and forth accusing each other of atrocities, of unconscionable behavior, of negotiating in bad faith, of land grabs, etc., but those are all things that occur when there is a war going on. The Israelis are at war with the Palestinians and the Palestinians are at war with the Israelis. No peace treaty has been signed. No negotiations are underway to resolve this conflict. This is what you get when there is a war going on.

When the representatives of the Palestinian people get sooooooo tired of having their asses handed to them on a daily basis and want relief form the war, they will sit down and seriously consider making peace. It is clear they are not tired yet and they still want to fight about every little slight and infraction without looking at the big picture about what to do about making peace.

[crimzonsol]

What would you do if you had the power to decide the policy of the Israeli government with everything that has happened as of sept 21?

This is to stall you while I write my responses which I will try to post by the end of weekend.

[davo]

They are a democracy, a Wild West sort of place. The same cannot be said for the rest of the ME.


What about the Turks?


When the representatives of the Palestinian people get sooooooo tired of having their asses handed to them on a daily basis and want relief form the war, they will sit down and seriously consider making peace. It is clear they are not tired yet and they still want to fight about every little slight and infraction without looking at the big picture about what to do about making peace.


This attitude is exactly why people hate Israel. One side has F-16's and nuclear bombs. The other side has rocks and kitchen improvised explosives. It is not possible for them to make peace because they would still have a burning resentment for Israel.

[ECW]

They are a democracy, a Wild West sort of place. The same cannot be said for the rest of the ME.


What about the Turks?

I don't recall the Turks ever fighting in any of the Arab-Israeli wars or calling for the destruction of Israel. I wouldn't call them a ME country but rather a European country.


When the representatives of the Palestinian people get sooooooo tired of having their asses handed to them on a daily basis and want relief form the war, they will sit down and seriously consider making peace. It is clear they are not tired yet and they still want to fight about every little slight and infraction without looking at the big picture about what to do about making peace.


This attitude is exactly why people hate Israel. One side has F-16's and nuclear bombs. The other side has rocks and kitchen improvised explosives. It is not possible for them to make peace because they would still have a burning resentment for Israel.


Hell, brother. They are going to have a burning resentment for Israel no matter what. There are always firebrands who will not let the past be the past and hold grudges for hundreds of years. We got them in the States as well. You just move past them and leave them in the past to fester and burn. Like every fire, it eventually burns itself out. It's much easier to start a fight than to finish one.

[davo]

Good point, but it's like watching someone beat a defenceless person repeatedly with a tyre wrench, gets the occasional kick in the shins, which he then uses as an excuse to beat him more. If it's going to be stopped, you have to restrain the guy with the tyre wrench, not the one in the pool of blood trying in vein to fight back.

As for Turkey I meant it's a democracy and in the Middle East (although Istanbul does span two continents).

[ECW]

Good point, but it's like watching someone beat a defenceless person repeatedly with a tyre wrench, gets the occasional kick in the shins, which he then uses as an excuse to beat him more. If it's going to be stopped, you have to restrain the guy with the tyre wrench, not the one in the pool of blood trying in vein to fight back.

As for Turkey I meant it's a democracy and in the Middle East (although Istanbul does span two continents).


Agreed. As I have claimed here, Israel is no angel in this matter either but you have to wonder how many times the PA is going to get stomped down before they say, "Let's make peace." Egypt learned the lesson 30 years ago. No one else has.

Given that Turkey has stayed out of direct conflict with any of the parties and their intent on joining the EU, I don't place them as a participant in the ME. But that's just me.

[crimzonsol]

Agreed. As I have claimed here, Israel is no angel in this matter either but you have to wonder how many times the PA is going to get stomped down before they say, "Let's make peace." Egypt learned the lesson 30 years ago. No one else has.


The reason they aren't learning any lessons is that Israel is now on a leash while before it wasn't so it could actually do something to hurt egypt, while it can't touch the PA with out six countries threatening war.

[tony mitra]

The subject here was Israel, and why one might support or oppose Israel. It has somehow veered to nations like Turkey and Egypt.

As to Israel surviving against the backdrop of a hostile neighborhood, they have done that through a doctrine of overwhelming military advantage and following a policy of disproportionate retaliation to counter every attack, infringement or insurgency they faced so far. However, if their national goal is to discourage opposition by intimidation, the policy seems to be failing, after an initial success in the second half of last century. Israel's problems have not diminished, is spite of neutralizing Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq for now. All those three nations are far from being stable democracies with pro-western outlook. All three are going to morph, and the ultimate shape, whatever it might be, is unlikely to be friendly towards Israel as long it appears to be a proxy extension of US power.

Israel is the only nation in that region, or indeed the entire planet, that enjoys unquestioned and undebated support of the US Government.

It is fair to say that USA had damaged its world position and its own long term interest due to this lack of even-handedness concerning Israel. Ultimately, when US financial clout and influence is matched by China and the new rising powers from the third word, this is going to hurt Israel as much as it will lower the position of USA.

None of the new players are beholden to Israel any more than they are beholden to Islamic fundamentalism or an American hegemony.

IN short, Israel is betting its survival on a single horse, and that horse is going to pull out of the race eventually, the way it looks now.

Cheers.

[jafar00]

Agreed. As I have claimed here, Israel is no angel in this matter either but you have to wonder how many times the PA is going to get stomped down before they say, "Let's make peace." Egypt learned the lesson 30 years ago. No one else has.


The lesson that Egypt learned was, make "peace" with Israel, and the US will give you over $100 billion in aid. Same thing with Jordan, just less money was involved.

You just can't find good tinpot dictators these days. They can be bought off too easily. ;)

[ECW]

Agreed. As I have claimed here, Israel is no angel in this matter either but you have to wonder how many times the PA is going to get stomped down before they say, "Let's make peace." Egypt learned the lesson 30 years ago. No one else has.


The reason they aren't learning any lessons is that Israel is now on a leash while before it wasn't so it could actually do something to hurt egypt, while it can't touch the PA with out six countries threatening war.


I kind of doubt they are an any kind of leash given what they did to Southern Lebanon last year and how they are pounding the bejeesus out of Gaza right now. They are actually supporting Fatah on the West Bank against the more militant Hamas located in Gaza. Israel has shut Gaza off from the rest of the world and the Egyptians are helping only a little through their border crossing.

Gaza is slowly losing its life but Hamas would rather die than make peace. Israel will accomodate them to the best of their ability.

[Pogo]

I kind of doubt they are an any kind of leash given what they did to Southern Lebanon last year and how they are pounding the bejeesus out of Gaza right now. They are actually supporting Fatah on the West Bank against the more militant Hamas located in Gaza. Israel has shut Gaza off from the rest of the world and the Egyptians are helping only a little through their border crossing.

Gaza is slowly losing its life but Hamas would rather die than make peace. Israel will accomodate them to the best of their ability.

How can you make peace with an entity that refuses to acknowledge it is the aggressor? "Submission" is the proper word, IMO, not "peace".

[ECW]

I kind of doubt they are an any kind of leash given what they did to Southern Lebanon last year and how they are pounding the bejeesus out of Gaza right now. They are actually supporting Fatah on the West Bank against the more militant Hamas located in Gaza. Israel has shut Gaza off from the rest of the world and the Egyptians are helping only a little through their border crossing.

Gaza is slowly losing its life but Hamas would rather die than make peace. Israel will accomodate them to the best of their ability.

How can you make peace with an entity that refuses to acknowledge it is the aggressor? "Submission" is the proper word, IMO, not "peace".


How can you make peace with an entity that refuses to acknowledge you exist and employs every means to kill everyone of you? That is the position Israel finds itself in.

Thru out recent history, the Palestinians/Arabs have been the aggressor and wound up getting their asses handed back to them by the Israelis. Then the Israelis took land as punishment. The Golan Heights, then the West Bank and Gaza as well as the Sinai. They gave the Sinai back as part of their peace treaty with Egypt but only gave the West Bank/Gaza back in hopes of achieving peace. It was not to be. Nothing satisfied the PLO/PA. They wanted it all. They wound up with nothing. When will they wise up?

[Pogo]

How can you make peace with an entity that refuses to acknowledge it is the aggressor? "Submission" is the proper word, IMO, not "peace".


How can you make peace with an entity that refuses to acknowledge you exist and employs every means to kill everyone of you? That is the position Israel finds itself in.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Israelis demand their right to exist in Palestine be recognized, while at the same time they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have an equal right? Why should Israelis have special rights?


Thru out recent history, the Palestinians/Arabs have been the aggressor and wound up getting their asses handed back to them by the Israelis. Then the Israelis took land as punishment. The Golan Heights, then the West Bank and Gaza as well as the Sinai. They gave the Sinai back as part of their peace treaty with Egypt but only gave the West Bank/Gaza back in hopes of achieving peace. It was not to be. Nothing satisfied the PLO/PA. They wanted it all. They wound up with nothing. When will they wise up?


In only one instance were Arabs the Aggressors, 1975, I believe. In all other cases Israel initiated hostilities, including 1948. The IDF's own records acknowledge that Jewish military and paramilitary forces initiated hostilities and that these actions were the primary reason for the Arab exodus.

Hell, Begin himself stated that without the terrorist massacre at Deir Yassin, in which he participated, there would be no Israel.

[crimzonsol]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Israelis demand their right to exist in Palestine be recognized, while at the same time they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have an equal right? Why should Israelis have special rights?


The Israelis do recognize Palestines right to exist, they just don't want it to be sending suicide bombers and missles over the borders, maybe thats not justifiable.


In only one instance were Arabs the Aggressors, 1975, I believe. In all other cases Israel initiated hostilities, including 1948. The IDF's own records acknowledge that Jewish military and paramilitary forces initiated hostilities and that these actions were the primary reason for the Arab exodus.


Well there is aggressors and then they are aggressors, if a country starts building up its military instalations along your borders what are you supposed to. In most cases everyone knew that there was going to be a war, why not start it on your terms?

[Pogo]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the Israelis demand their right to exist in Palestine be recognized, while at the same time they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have an equal right? Why should Israelis have special rights?


The Israelis do recognize Palestines right to exist, they just don't want it to be sending suicide bombers and missles over the borders, maybe thats not justifiable.

I'm not aware of any formal acknowledgement of the Palestinians right to exist in Palestine.




In only one instance were Arabs the Aggressors, 1975, I believe. In all other cases Israel initiated hostilities, including 1948. The IDF's own records acknowledge that Jewish military and paramilitary forces initiated hostilities and that these actions were the primary reason for the Arab exodus.


Well there is aggressors and then they are aggressors, if a country starts building up its military instalations along your borders what are you supposed to. In most cases everyone knew that there was going to be a war, why not start it on your terms?

But wasn't the Arab military buildup a response to the ethnic cleansing of a significant portion of Palestine?

[crimzonsol]

I'm not aware of any formal acknowledgement of the Palestinians right to exist in Palestine.


Its more of a consensus of the people, its like Israels nukes officially they don't exist, but everyone knows they have them. Also they did offer Palestinians citzenship, but they refused because they did not want to lose their Identity.


But wasn't the Arab military buildup a response to the ethnic cleansing of a significant portion of Palestine?


The military build up started after Israel won independence. After that alot of this history is FUBAR because everbody said that everybody else did something so we can not tell the real reason for the millitary build up. As to the ethnic cleansing, I personally believe that there were atempts on both side to ethnically cleanse Palestine, but none of them were organized in to some vast conspiracy or policy.

[Pogo]

I'm not aware of any formal acknowledgement of the Palestinians right to exist in Palestine.


Its more of a consensus of the people, its like Israels nukes officially they don't exist, but everyone knows they have them. Also they did offer Palestinians citzenship, but they refused because they did not want to lose their Identity.

Would you provide a source, please?




But wasn't the Arab military buildup a response to the ethnic cleansing of a significant portion of Palestine?


The military build up started after Israel won independence. After that alot of this history is FUBAR because everbody said that everybody else did something so we can not tell the real reason for the millitary build up. As to the ethnic cleansing, I personally believe that there were atempts on both side to ethnically cleanse Palestine, but none of them were organized in to some vast conspiracy or policy.

This quote of David Ben-Gurion gives the distinct impression that ethnic cleansing was indeed part of the overall military plan:

"During the assault we must be ready to strike the decisive blow; that is, either to destroy the towns or expel its inhabitants so our people can replace them."

Flapan, Simha. 1987. The Birth of Israel: Myths and Reality, pg. 90

You should also be aware of the IDF Intelligence document entitled The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 - 1/6/1948, which concedes that most of the Arab exodus was a result, either directly or indirectly, of Jewish military and paramilitary operations.

[crimzonsol]

You should also be aware of the IDF Intelligence document entitled The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 - 1/6/1948, which concedes that most of the Arab exodus was a result, either directly or indirectly, of Jewish military and paramilitary operations


Um, you do know that people generally don't like to live in the middle of a warzone?


This quote of David Ben-Gurion gives the distinct impression that ethnic cleansing was indeed part of the overall military plan:

"During the assault we must be ready to strike the decisive blow; that is, either to destroy the towns or expel its inhabitants so our people can replace them."

Flapan, Simha. 1987. The Birth of Israel: Myths and Reality, pg. 90


Without context quotes are meaningless. What towns was he talking about? Does he mention killing them? What assualt? What Time is it? Was it generaly accepted policy? If you can give the anwser to these questions then you may be on to something, but unless it can be collaberated then it is meaningless.


Would you provide a source, please?


For what statement?
Just to make it clear they offered citizenship to those who where within their borders after the War of Independence, I don't know about those other than the Golan hieghts were they were off handedly offered citizenship.

[Pogo]

You should also be aware of the IDF Intelligence document entitled The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 - 1/6/1948, which concedes that most of the Arab exodus was a result, either directly or indirectly, of Jewish military and paramilitary operations


Um, you do know that people generally don't like to live in the middle of a warzone?
Even moreso when the war is being waged against the civilian population.





This quote of David Ben-Gurion gives the distinct impression that ethnic cleansing was indeed part of the overall military plan:

"During the assault we must be ready to strike the decisive blow; that is, either to destroy the towns or expel its inhabitants so our people can replace them."

Flapan, Simha. 1987. The Birth of Israel: Myths and Reality, pg. 90


Without context quotes are meaningless. What towns was he talking about? Does he mention killing them? What assualt? What Time is it? Was it generaly accepted policy? If you can give the anwser to these questions then you may be on to something, but unless it can be collaberated then it is meaningless.

I have a much better idea: you come up with a list of towns where you think that sort of policy would be acceptable.

All the context in the world isn't going to make that quote other than what it is, but feel free to try to show otherwise by explaining why some towns deserved to be destroyed or ethnically cleansed. Hey, why don't you start with Deir Yassin? :grrrr:




Would you provide a source, please?



For what statement?
Just to make it clear they offered citizenship to those who where within their borders after the War of Independence, I don't know about those other than the Golan hieghts were they were off handedly offered citizenship.

Let's not be coy, as it makes one look silly, OK?

[crimzonsol]

Even moreso when the war is being waged against the civilian population.


Funny I thought the Jews stayed there. Who else was there to fight, neither side had an army.


I have a much better idea: you come up with a list of towns where you think that sort of policy would be acceptable.


I'm guess your new to debating, usually a person has to say something before you can challenge them on it.
We are debating wether or not there was a unified effort to ethinically sleanse Palestine. I was attacking your claim that your quote proved that people were being killed in a genocide, I was saying that you are wrong, but you are taking my words under the context that you are right and that I am wrong. Which means that this debate is futile because I can not present my case fairly when you assume you are right, so change your attitude towards debating.


Let's not be coy, as it makes one look silly, OK?


I said i don't know enought to prove my opinion, what silly about that, the fact I am telling the Truth?

[underdawg]

I think if Israel wanted a homeland they should have bought land in a place somewhere like South America. The idea of moving them back to ancient homelands was just causing more trouble than it was worth.

[AlonzoMourning23]

South America, lots of natives there too.

We should just sell them Texas.

[underdawg]

Yeah, but instead of taking land they can just purchase it. Maybe they don't need a homeland just lots of plane tickets to visit the folks.

[Pogo]

Even moreso when the war is being waged against the civilian population.


Funny I thought the Jews stayed there. Who else was there to fight, neither side had an army.
Never heard of Irgun or the Stern Gang?



I have a much better idea: you come up with a list of towns where you think that sort of policy would be acceptable.


I'm guess your new to debating, usually a person has to say something before you can challenge them on it.
We are debating wether or not there was a unified effort to ethinically sleanse Palestine. I was attacking your claim that your quote proved that people were being killed in a genocide, I was saying that you are wrong, but you are taking my words under the context that you are right and that I am wrong. Which means that this debate is futile because I can not present my case fairly when you assume you are right, so change your attitude towards debating.

I'm challenging your statement that the quote is meaningless without context. Do you really think that any amount of context is going to fundamentally change the nature of Ben-Gurion's statement?

Furthermore, I don't equate transfer with genocide. They are certainly in vicinity to one another but they aren't one and the same.

And what about Deir Yassin? Isn't that a perfect reflection of Ben-Gurion's statement?

I'll ask again, at what point does destruction of towns and removal of inhabitants become morally acceptable?

[crimzonsol]

Never heard of Irgun or the Stern Gang?

Both of whom were illegal and not a standing army, but rather a last defense.


I'll ask again, at what point does destruction of towns and removal of inhabitants become morally acceptable?

It doesn't I never claimed it did. But when it comes to survival morals take the back seat.


I'm challenging your statement that the quote is meaningless without context. Do you really think that any amount of context is going to fundamentally change the nature of Ben-Gurion's statement?


I should clarify my point. I was saying that in regards to the "policy" of ethnic cleansing it is meaningless.

And what about Deir Yassin? Isn't that a perfect reflection of Ben-Gurion's statement?


No, Deir Yassin was an act of cowardly brutality.

[Pogo]

Never heard of Irgun or the Stern Gang?

Both of whom were illegal and not a standing army, but rather a last defense.

Would you be willing to characterize suicide bombing as an acceptable last defense?





I'll ask again, at what point does destruction of towns and removal of inhabitants become morally acceptable?

It doesn't I never claimed it did. But when it comes to survival morals take the back seat.

The problem with that position is that while the physical person may survive, humanity doesn't, and therein is the moral challenge that life poses, IMO: is it the flesh that is paramount, or the soul?





I'm challenging your statement that the quote is meaningless without context. Do you really think that any amount of context is going to fundamentally change the nature of Ben-Gurion's statement?


I should clarify my point. I was saying that in regards to the "policy" of ethnic cleansing it is meaningless.

Herzl himself speaks quite candidly on the subject of transfer, no?

I recall words to the effect that "the penniless population must be spirited across the border...". Am I mistaken?

Anyway, would you care to explain how there could even be a Jewish state without transfer of most of the indigenous population? Seems to me that racialism under such conditions would necessitate transfer.





And what about Deir Yassin? Isn't that a perfect reflection of Ben-Gurion's statement?


No, Deir Yassin was an act of cowardly brutality.

But it is just that sort of brutality that Ben-Gurion is speaking of. I know the reality isn't very pretty, but it nevertheless seems to me to be the reality, or am I missing something?

[crimzonsol]

Pogo I am saying my opinion on the matter, most of these issues you bring up I can't anwser because they require to much specific research that does not show you the big picture, plus I am too tired to really think right now. what with school and all, I hope I can anwser your questions but right now I don't think I can honestly anwser them.

[Pogo]

Pogo I am saying my opinion on the matter, most of these issues you bring up I can't anwser because they require to much specific research that does not show you the big picture, plus I am too tired to really think right now. what with school and all, I hope I can anwser your questions but right now I don't think I can honestly anwser them.

I would say that these sorts of questions have to get answered if we're to be able to see something approximating the big picture.

Take as much time as necessary -- no rush as far as I'm concerned.

[Trish]

It strikes me as strange that so many people are opposed to Israel because of the Palestinians being driven from their ancestral lands by the Jews. I am rather curious as to just when these Palestinians were in control of the land to begin with. The history I have studied tells me that this land has been ruled by the Canaanites, Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Turks, and Britain - not to mention all the Arab countries that warred over the land from time to time and occupied the land for a few years here and there, well before the modern Israel was established. The Canaanites ruled the land for about 1,000 years after arriving from somewhere else - so they were occupiers as well, the Israelites ruled the land for over 600 years, then came a number of other occupations by other countries and peoples (including another 100 year rule by Israelites) until the Ottoman Empire ruled the land for 400 years until 1917 when the Brits took over and then for the past almost 60 years by modern Israel. So "Palestine" has not really existed as a nation for thousands of years. All through the tumultuous history of the region there has been at least a token Jewish population in these lands and the second longest period of continuous occupation was by Israelites. So - if we're going by ancestral lands, it would appear to me that the Jews have as much right to that land as anyone else, with the possible exception of the Canaanites - and I don't really recall there being many of them running around these days.

Since man appeared on this planet, territories occupied by one people have been occupied and taken over by others, and others still. When does that land become the ancestral "home" of a people? How many hundreds or thousands of years is required before a people are entitled to call a chunk of real estate home? Is there a nation on the face of this modern planet that can say that the people currently there are the only people to ever have occupied that land, that their ancestors were THE first and only inhabitants?

Do we maintain that Britain must be returned to the Celts? That Scotland must be returned to the Picts? Do we return Italy to the Iapygian? How about returning Greece to the Pelasgians? At what point does occupation of a land turn that land from occupied territory into home?

I submit that the only reason there is a debate about Israel's right to call their land home is because the latest chapter of occupation has happened in our time. That is the only difference in the occupation of "Palestine" now and the occupation of every other chunk of land on the Earth. If we're going to start calling for lands to be returned to the ancestral inhabitants, it's pretty hypocritical to start and stop with Israel.

[jafar00]

I think if Israel wanted a homeland they should have bought land in a place somewhere like South America. The idea of moving them back to ancient homelands was just causing more trouble than it was worth.


Or, alternatively, leave them to live where they were instead of forcing people in another country, who had nothing to do with it out of their homes and off their land in order to accommodate them?

The creation of the Zionist State was the single worst decision anyone has ever made in all history and nothing will eclipse the stupidity of the morons who made it happen.

[Pogo]

I submit that the only reason there is a debate about Israel's right to call their land home is because the latest chapter of occupation has happened in our time. That is the only difference in the occupation of "Palestine" now and the occupation of every other chunk of land on the Earth. If we're going to start calling for lands to be returned to the ancestral inhabitants, it's pretty hypocritical to start and stop with Israel.

You seem to be missing the fact that the Palestinians have maintained their claim and therefore remain refugees. This is an ongoing dispute that has yet to be resolved.

[Truth_and_Power]

Drive by posting at it's best, Zo.


I oppose israel expanding its borders for "security reasons". I have never heard a rational argument as to how the settlements increase israeli security.


Settlements are intended to surround the heartland of Israel and the settlers are intended to act as a first line of defense in case of another attack. They are pretty well armored and most of the settlers have a "take no prisoners" approach to defending the land they have settled on (rightly or wrongly). Putting homes out there makes people want to defend them even more so because they created them from nothing in most cases.


So israel is safer now thanks to the settlements?

[December]

Israel is illegal state.

Besides, there is NO historical evidence of any kind which can prove that Israel ever existed. The Bible is a not a history book.

The only reason why that "country" is still there is because the Jews made European people feel guilty for the deaths of the Jews during the WWII.
But! During that war many other peoples died too.
So how come they don't chase Germans with their stories?...
Isreal was set up by the Rothschilds to run illegal businesses, so the creation of Isreal HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

Israel is a Rothschild's playground.

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com

Iran's Ahmadinejad on Holocaust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

[Scorpion]

Israel is illegal state.

Besides, there is NO historical evidence of any kind which can prove that Israel ever existed. The Bible is a not a history book.

The only reason why that "country" is still there is because the Jews made European people feel guilty for the deaths of the Jews during the WWII.
But! During that war many other peoples died too.
So how come they don't chase Germans with their stories?...
Isreal was set up by the Rothschilds to run illegal businesses, so the creation of Isreal HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

Israel is a Rothschild's playground.

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com



I take it that you don't believe that the holocaust occured.

The link you provided is as much a load of nonsense as your claim that the Rothschild's created Israel. And once again someone wheels out a youtube of one of the world's biggest rascist and hate mongers, Ahmadinejad.

[December]

I take it that you don't believe that the holocaust occured.

The link you provided is as much a load of nonsense as your claim that the Rothschild's created Israel. And once again someone wheels out a youtube of one of the world's biggest rascist and hate mongers, Ahmadinejad.


Scorpion, you can take it any way you please. OK?

Let me tell you something - the world is sick and tired of all this stuff.
There is only one "nation" or better to say religious group of people in the world that screams at the top of their lungs about their problem. They annoy everyone with that holocaust thing.... And people don't like it and they just want to stay away from the Jews...

And by the way, it's not just boring to answer your posts but it is also boring to read them.

Next time use more BUZZ-WORDS like Nazi, Hitler, rasist or Jew hater to make it more colorfull.
OK?... :D


http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com

[crimzonsol]

Besides, there is NO historical evidence of any kind which can prove that Israel ever existed.


Besides the Western wall, Dead Sea Scrolls Islamic history, Roman History, Christian History, Summarian History, Egyption history, Assyrian History, Ethiopian History, Babalonyian History. So I guess your right and over several billion people are wrong, not including todays history.


The only reason why that "country" is still there is because the Jews made European people feel guilty for the deaths of the Jews during the WWII.


I thought it was because they won the war of Independence against 5-6 other Armies, thank you December for letting me know that it wasn't because of Israel winning a war against people bent on its destruction, it was because the european people felt guilty that it still exists.


But! During that war many other peoples died too.


Did you figure that out yourself? Because I always just assumed that people died in wars. I think it was when I saw everybody shooting at each other and the bombs going off that made me think that maybe just maybe people die in wars.



So how come they don't chase Germans with their stories?...


Read:

But! During that war many other peoples died too.


I think it might have to do with the fact that they are dead, but I could be wrong.


Isreal was set up by the Rothschilds to run illegal businesses


So Rothschild decided to create a state that is completely anal about security and tracking money to hide Illegal bussinesses in place of a country that had basically no laws or law enforcement to speak of.


so the creation of Isreal HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEWISH PEOPLE.


I'm not even going to reply to that pathetic atempt to validate your beliefs.


Israel is a Rothschild's playground.


What? I thought Isreal was rothchild's playground.
---------------------------------------------
Funny you did not even mention the suffering of the Palestinian people. I guess that blows your cover of caring about non-whites.
You are just like every other Nationalist Socialist out there, you believe that the Jews are responsable for your faults. Did you ever just think that hey maybe I should take responsability for my own actions? Probably not because that would require thinking. Something you have yet to do in your life, as proven by the fact that you post other peoples words.

[ECW]

South America, lots of natives there too.

We should just sell them Texas.


I don't think they would want it, to tell you the truth.

[Scorpion]

I take it that you don't believe that the holocaust occured.

The link you provided is as much a load of nonsense as your claim that the Rothschild's created Israel. And once again someone wheels out a youtube of one of the world's biggest rascist and hate mongers, Ahmadinejad.


Scorpion, you can take it any way you please. OK?

Let me tell you something - the world is sick and tired of all this stuff.
There is only one "nation" or better to say religious group of people in the world that screams at the top of their lungs about their problem. They annoy everyone with that holocaust thing.... And people don't like it and they just want to stay away from the Jews...

And by the way, it's not just boring to answer your posts but it is also boring to read them.

Next time use more BUZZ-WORDS like Nazi, Hitler, rasist or Jew hater to make it more colorfull.
OK?... :D

You're right, the world is sick and tired of those who follow the path of hatred and deny the foul history of Jewish persecution.

I'll leave the catchy "buzzwords" to you. I prefer to trade in realism and intelligent discussion.

Sorry if I bored you my friend.


http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com

[Trish]

Pogo -

You know, there was more to "Palestine" than simply the land that is now called Israel. Jordan was once a part of the historical Palestine lands. And before you trot out how it was Britain that separated the land, I would point out that the Ottoman Empire was the first to separate Palestine in the late 1800's - not the British. When the British divided the land, the overwhelmingly largest portion went to guess who - The "Palestinians" - it's now called Jordan. The people we commonly refer to as Palestinians are not and have never been a distinct nation, or a separate culture. The land that is referred to as Palestine was ruled for thousands of years by a succession of countries and people - the Canaanites, the Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans (a Jewish subsect), Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks, the British, and finally the Jews and Jordanians. That is a continuous history since roughly 70 B.C. to present. So where are the Palestinians? Who are the Palestinians?

The idea of the "Palestinian people" and a Palestinian nation came into being after 1948. Saying that the Israelis are responsible for turning Palestinians into refugees is ignoring thousands of years of history of the area. The Palestinians of today may still maintain a claim - but it is a claim that is not supported by thousands of years of history of the area.

[AlanC]

December Wrote:
Israel is illegal state.

I'm curious here. To be an "illegal state" Israel would have to have been in violation of some law, found to be in violation by a court of law or some other over riding legal authority.

Could you tell me what court or legal authority has determined that Israel, as a state, is "illegal"?

Your dislike for someone is hardly proof of illegality.

[Pogo]

Pogo -

You know, there was more to "Palestine" than simply the land that is now called Israel. Jordan was once a part of the historical Palestine lands. And before you trot out how it was Britain that separated the land, I would point out that the Ottoman Empire was the first to separate Palestine in the late 1800's - not the British. When the British divided the land, the overwhelmingly largest portion went to guess who - The "Palestinians" - it's now called Jordan. The people we commonly refer to as Palestinians are not and have never been a distinct nation, or a separate culture. The land that is referred to as Palestine was ruled for thousands of years by a succession of countries and people - the Canaanites, the Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans (a Jewish subsect), Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks, the British, and finally the Jews and Jordanians. That is a continuous history since roughly 70 B.C. to present. So where are the Palestinians? Who are the Palestinians?

The idea of the "Palestinian people" and a Palestinian nation came into being after 1948. Saying that the Israelis are responsible for turning Palestinians into refugees is ignoring thousands of years of history of the area. The Palestinians of today may still maintain a claim - but it is a claim that is not supported by thousands of years of history of the area.


Contrary to what you assert, the fellahin of Palestine, so far as I'm aware, are the descendents of the Canaanites, so I would say that there is at the least hundreds of years of residence, which is more than sufficient for establishing a legitimate claim.

[Truth_and_Power]

Pogo -

You know, there was more to "Palestine" than simply the land that is now called Israel. Jordan was once a part of the historical Palestine lands. And before you trot out how it was Britain that separated the land, I would point out that the Ottoman Empire was the first to separate Palestine in the late 1800's - not the British. When the British divided the land, the overwhelmingly largest portion went to guess who - The "Palestinians" - it's now called Jordan. The people we commonly refer to as Palestinians are not and have never been a distinct nation, or a separate culture. The land that is referred to as Palestine was ruled for thousands of years by a succession of countries and people - the Canaanites, the Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans (a Jewish subsect), Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks, the British, and finally the Jews and Jordanians. That is a continuous history since roughly 70 B.C. to present. So where are the Palestinians? Who are the Palestinians?

The idea of the "Palestinian people" and a Palestinian nation came into being after 1948. Saying that the Israelis are responsible for turning Palestinians into refugees is ignoring thousands of years of history of the area. The Palestinians of today may still maintain a claim - but it is a claim that is not supported by thousands of years of history of the area.


Contrary to what you assert, the fellahin of Palestine, so far as I'm aware, are the descendents of the Canaanites, so I would say that there is at the least hundreds of years of residence, which is more than sufficient for establishing a legitimate claim.


And as for the native americans? I guess you're moving back to ireland?

[Pogo]

And as for the native americans? I guess you're moving back to ireland?

Could you clarify?

[December]

So I guess your right and over several billion people are wrong, not including todays history.

Hello, Crimzonsol.

Your sarcasm doesn't help you to prove your point, and I am not the only one who knows that several billion people could be wrong.

As you might know, just a few hundred years ago several billion people believed in... flat Earth. :)
Yes, people CAN be wrong especially when it come to religion - believe in Jesus Christ/Bible/your "holy father" or else...


Dead Sea Scrolls Islamic history, Roman History, Christian History, Summarian History, Egyption history, Assyrian History, Ethiopian History, Babalonyian History.

Give me the FACTS.
What, where, when and who wrote about Israel.

By the way, what do you mean by Egyption history? Where does it say about Israel in any Egyptian writings?
If you read the Deuteronomy in the Old Testament then you will see how funny your statement sounds actually. :)

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/images/jnztitle.jpg

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org


I will answer about the Western wall in my next post.

[crimzonsol]

I added Egyption history by accident, but if you really need me to show you about who wrote about Israel in each of those time periods, then that shows me just how much you know about History and the position of which you are in to be telling other about what happened.

I also noticed how you choose to attack my point that would require me to do research and give you an opening to prove me wrong. You are going to have to do better than that to convince anybody of your statements.

[Trish]

Contrary to what you assert, the fellahin of Palestine, so far as I'm aware, are the descendents of the Canaanites, so I would say that there is at the least hundreds of years of residence, which is more than sufficient for establishing a legitimate claim.


Well, since the Canannites weren't the original occupants of that land either, having arrived in "Palestine" somewhere around 2500 BC. When they arrived there were already people living in the area dating back to around 600,000 BC. If we are to follow your formula of establishing legitimate claim to a land, then the Canaanites/Palestinians are out of luck since there were people living on the land for approximately 597,000 years before the Canaanites showed up and took over! I submit that hundreds of thousands of years of residence trumps hundreds and the only people entitled to call the land their ancestral home are the descendants of those original inhabitants.

[tony mitra]

Well, since the Canannites weren't the original occupants of that land either, having arrived in "Palestine" somewhere around 2500 BC. When they arrived there were already people living in the area dating back to around 600,000 BC. If we are to follow your formula of establishing legitimate claim to a land, then the Canaanites/Palestinians are out of luck since there were people living on the land for approximately 597,000 years before the Canaanites showed up and took over!

Well Trish,

If you use that argument, the land should be given back to dinosaurs, or to monkeys. No, I am not kidding. I dispute your claim that Palestine was inhabited by people back around 600,000 BC. That statement attempts to redefine what is “people”.

Scholars claim that proto-humans, or our immediate ancestors, scientifically often refered to as hominids, left East Africa a number of times, directly stepping onto what would be the land you are talking about.

The first such wave likely took place about 1.8 million years ago, and not 600,000 years ago. The “people” that did that, are often called Homo Erectus. Some folks are giving them different names these days, such as Homo Ergaster. Either way, they are not identified as anatomically modern humans, or specifically, Homo Sapiens Sapiens (the species of humans living today).

Then, there is this issue of the Neanderthal man (Homo Spaiens Neanderthalensis). They too are considered not exactly todays humans. So, there might have been ancestors to later Neanderthals in Palestine 600,000 years ago. But their claim is cold, because Neanderthals are perceived to have completely died out, gone extict, and not morphed into modern humans.

Modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) also originated in East Africa, and spread out of there, stepping on to Middle East and likely Palestine no earlier than say 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. In the process, they made the earlier inhabitants of the place, the Neanderthal man, extinct.

Therefore, Cananites or not, early modern human ancestry that still survives today can only be traced as far back as about 150,000 years, and not 600,000 years.

There is of course the assumption that all the Neanderthals did not die out, and a single strain of it somehow could have passed on the lineage all the way to today. Had that been true, I would vote for Mr. George Bush to be the rightly claimant of Palestine, as the sole surviving Neanderthal, or Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Completelynuts or whatever name you prefer. OK, I was kidding.

But the rest is correct. No 600,000 year old landlord lineage possible, but 150,000 year old is possible.

But even a land claim of 150,000 years poses problems. Modern as the people were, and direct descendants of todays people too, those folks back then had a habit of not digging roots on any part of the landscape, and were strictly nomads. They constantly moved about, looking for food in the trees, on the ground, on the sea shore, lake bed, river bank, wherever they could forage. And when the season turned and the land became less friendly, they left, looking for a better place. That is precisely how, generation after generation, the modern human species gradually managed to span the earth.

Byt he time Mankind learned to plant corn and other cereals in enough quantity so that they could dig roots and stay put on a specific piece of land, happened much later, around say 30,000 years or so ago. It is not certain if the surviving Neanderthals (some of them survived in Europe till 35,000 years ago or so) actually planted crop or not, but the modern humans that were predominant, were certainly learning to do that around the Middle east and well watered plains of Asia already.

Sooo, the "landlord" theory might have to be narrowed down to say 30,000 years or so, and neither 600,000 years, nor 150,000 years, in my honest opinion.

And in the final analysis, ethnic Arabic people of the land should be considered Palestinians, convert to any religion (Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, Athiest, fire worshipper, snake charmer of whatever). Immigrants from Europe, on the other hand, of any belief system whatsoever, should be considered later immigrants, and have a lesser claim to the land.

Now look at some photographs of the people and politicians of Palestine and Israel, and decide for yourself based on their appearance and not religion, who came where first.

Cheers.

[Pogo]

Contrary to what you assert, the fellahin of Palestine, so far as I'm aware, are the descendents of the Canaanites, so I would say that there is at the least hundreds of years of residence, which is more than sufficient for establishing a legitimate claim.


Well, since the Canannites weren't the original occupants of that land either, having arrived in "Palestine" somewhere around 2500 BC. When they arrived there were already people living in the area dating back to around 600,000 BC. If we are to follow your formula of establishing legitimate claim to a land, then the Canaanites/Palestinians are out of luck since there were people living on the land for approximately 597,000 years before the Canaanites showed up and took over! I submit that hundreds of thousands of years of residence trumps hundreds and the only people entitled to call the land their ancestral home are the descendants of those original inhabitants.

What you refer to as "my formula" is merely a response to your assertion that that are no Palestinians; furthermore, you conveniently leave out that the palestinians haven't quit their claim, much to Israel's consternation. They are still very much there, as has been the case for numerous generations, and it is for this reason alone, IMO, that we are having this discussion. Were it not the case, the matter would for all intents and purposes be resolved.

[AlanC]

Obfuscation is your friend.

There are two ways to make a claim for land. Ancestral inheritance or legal transfer.

I can wave a piece of paper all I want to claim that my grand dad once camped on the piece of ground your home sits on. That doesn't mean you have to leave and give it to me.

Legal transfer trumps historical legacy. As to someone's "right" to a state of their own - What you can build you can keep. No one is entitled to a "state" that never was.

Another way to tansfer land is by way of military conquest. Sometimes messy but it is an old and well used method.

Territorial governance over the territory of Israel was granted by the British to the Jews with the sanction of the United Nations. That is the legality. Nothing was taken from the inhabitants as the right to govern wasn't theirs to begin with.

Ancestral claims are available to both sides. There are Jews who have been native to the area just as long as the various arab peoples have. So we are left with the legalities.

[Pogo]

Obfuscation is your friend.

There are two ways to make a claim for land. Ancestral inheritance or legal transfer.

I can wave a piece of paper all I want to claim that my grand dad once camped on the piece of ground your home sits on. That doesn't mean you have to leave and give it to me.

Legal transfer trumps historical legacy. As to someone's "right" to a state of their own - What you can build you can keep. No one is entitled to a "state" that never was.

Another way to tansfer land is by way of military conquest. Sometimes messy but it is an old and well used method.

Territorial governance over the territory of Israel was granted by the British to the Jews with the sanction of the United Nations. That is the legality. Nothing was taken from the inhabitants as the right to govern wasn't theirs to begin with.

Ancestral claims are available to both sides. There are Jews who have been native to the area just as long as the various arab peoples have. So we are left with the legalities.


And I can assure you that international law is not the friend of the Israelis, which is precisely why they flout it, with near impunity thanks to their "special" relationship with the US. All the value that Israel has added to the land in question does not negate the fact that the Palestinians are refugees.

As for territorial governance, you might as well be arguing that ethnic cleansing is legal, which is only true in a defacto sense if one happens to be powerful enough to get away with it. With respect to Israel, I would say that it is yet to be determined whether or not it will get away with it, but assuming that you feel Israel is entitled to get away with ethnic cleansing, do you honestly feel that is a good precedent for modern humanity?

Seems to me that such a precedent is morally repugnant and should be relegated to the past, and any who embrace such an evil should be considered pariahs.

[Trish]

I dispute your claim that Palestine was inhabited by people back around 600,000 BC. That statement attempts to redefine what is “people”.

...
Therefore, Cananites or not, early modern human ancestry that still survives today can only be traced as far back as about 150,000 years, and not 600,000 years.

...
Now look at some photographs of the people and politicians of Palestine and Israel, and decide for yourself based on their appearance and not religion, who came where first.

Cheers.


You are certainly welcome to dispute what you will. The claim however is not mine. I did not make such a statement without having some knowledge of the subject or without checking to make sure that what I remembered from prior reading and studying was accurate.

The Lower Paleolithic period is generally agreed to be from about 1.5 to 1 million BCE to approximately 120,000 BCE. The exact dates are of course debated from source to source, but this is the general time frame agreed upon.

The earliest "human" remains in the Palestinian area have been dated to 600,000 BCE. (Some sources put the date at "somewhere" between 500,000 and 600,000.) These remains are known as "The Palestine Man" and were discovered in 1925 in Zuttiyeh Cave in Wadi Al-Amud near Safad (Shahin, M. 2005, Palestine: A Guide, 2nd Ed., Northhampton, MA: Interlink Publishers.

I based my statement on the term "human" versus hominid definition as well as the following:

"Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other" (Foley, 2004, Hominid Species, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html).

It is the overlapping of time lines, with varying interpretations of when what "species" of human appeared where, that led me to use the earliest defined appearance of "human" habitation in Palestine, rather than my attempt to redefine what constitutes a human as you assert.

It would seem that your reference to the 150,000 year timeline for human occupation of the area refers to the discovery and subsequent dating of The Galilee Man to approximately 120,000 years ago and was noted to have a "human" cranium (Rask, W., 1992, Through the ages in Palestinian archaelogy: An introductory handbook, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group). However, please note that since the Canaanites did not arrive in the area until somewhere between 3,000 and 2,000 BCE, this in no way discredits my original statements, as this "modern" human still predated the occupation of the area by the descendants of the Canannites.

[AlanC]

Pogo-

I was wrong. Obfuscation is your way of communicating.

What goes into the legal establishment of a state says nothing about ethnic cleasining either pro or con. Nor does it say anything else about the actions of that state.

[Trish]

As for territorial governance, you might as well be arguing that ethnic cleansing is legal, which is only true in a defacto sense if one happens to be powerful enough to get away with it. With respect to Israel, I would say that it is yet to be determined whether or not it will get away with it, but assuming that you feel Israel is entitled to get away with ethnic cleansing, do you honestly feel that is a good precedent for modern humanity?

Seems to me that such a precedent is morally repugnant and should be relegated to the past, and any who embrace such an evil should be considered pariahs.


I protest your use of such a blatant logical fallacy in an attempt to discredit the post of another. The use of such tactics are intellectually dishonest.

If you don't agree with the man, fine - disagree with him. However, introducing an completely irrelevant tangent to what was posted in an effort to invalidate his post is simply not acceptable form of debate.

[Pogo]

Pogo-

I was wrong. Obfuscation is your way of communicating.

What goes into the legal establishment of a state says nothing about ethnic cleasining either pro or con. Nor does it say anything else about the actions of that state.

Am I hiding behind obfuscation, or is that your domain?

Nothing was taken from the inhabitants as the right to govern wasn't theirs to begin with.


Seems to me that you're implying that people who are deemed to not be self-governing are fair game for ethnic cleansing. If I'm mistaken then clarify.

[AlanC]

Am I hiding behind obfuscation, or is that your domain?

Yes, you are and no, it isn't.

Seems to me that you're implying that people who aren't self-governing are fair game for ethnic cleansing. If I'm mistaken then clarify

Okay, maybe if I make the words smaller. Germany was a legitmate state. The actions they took in ethnic cleansing were wrong. The two are entirely seperate issues. One implies nothing at all as to the other. I made a statement about the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Nothing more, nothing less. I implied nothing with respect to ethnic cleansing as a practice or an issue.

[Pogo]

Am I hiding behind obfuscation, or is that your domain?

Yes, you are and no, it isn't.

Seems to me that you're implying that people who aren't self-governing are fair game for ethnic cleansing. If I'm mistaken then clarify

Okay, maybe if I make the words smaller. Germany was a legitmate state. The actions they took in ethnic cleansing were wrong. The two are entirely seperate issues. One implies nothing at all as to the other. I made a statement about the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Nothing more, nothing less. I implied nothing with respect to ethnic cleansing as a practice or an issue.

Again, you claim that nothing was taken from the Palestinians because they had no right to govern but the historical record is quite clear that many of them were displaced by Jewish military and paramilitary operations. The IDF's own records acknowledge this. How can that be seen as anything other than ethnic cleansing?

[tony mitra]

Trish,

I have no trouble accepting most of what you say, excepting minor points. But I have a disagreement on what appears to be your implied meaning regarding Israel and Palestine on a political platform of legitimacy.

On an anthropological side, I disagree that archaic humans of a different and now extinct species should be considered same as todays “human”. I am happy to consider them as our ancestors, or in the case of dead ends where the species completely died out without leaving discendants, as our distant uncles and aunts, but not exactly humans and not our direct ancestors. This is not bigotry, just a scientific slant influencing my thinking.

Neanderthals, along with the Java Man and the Peking man and the rest, died out, living no descendants, and were replaced by the anatomically modern man, or Homo Sapien Sapien, to replace them, everywhere.

And in the context of a political debate, who should own the Palestinian lands, it would be pointless to talk about creatures that lived there but left no descendants, human or otherwise.

Therefore, as far as living descendants go, we need to focus on modern Homo Sapiens only, and leave the Neanderthals aside for now.

My next comment is also genuine, and I feel, quite valid. As long as humans were nomadic and moved from spot to spot searching for food, sometimes returning to the same spot later and sometimes never returning to a given spot again, it would be hard to consider them as legitimate and sole owners of the land, especially if we allow comparison with later people that settled the land, cultivated crops, built villages and left property for the next generation.

I know I am treading on grounds were Kyi Yo would disagree, since American Indians to some extent were also hunter gatherers and nomadic, and lived the land for a very long time, before European settlers arrived on the scene. They not only lost out their hunting grounds, they lost their very lifestyle, and eventually, are threatened with extinction. But what happened in North Ameica is a recent phenomena going 500 years. What happened in the near east goes a long long time into the past.

Nonetheless, in the context of Palestine, if we include the hunter gatherer class, then perhaps the land should go to any remaning nomads of the desert lands.

There is also a well proven theory that the early migration of various kinds of people, modern and archaic, came out of east Africa and they looked more closely to todays Africans than either todays Arabs, or Europeans, or Asian, Chinese or what have you.

From that angle, the land of Palestine, and indeed Egypt, Somalia and most of the middle east might be claimed by Africans.

As far as settlements go, Mausterian Neanderthals cave sites and other signs of their habitation has been traced as far back archaeologically as perhaps 200,000 BCE, followed by anatomically modern humans such as Kebarans, anywhere between 70,000 years to 20,000 years ago, depending on which exact spot you search, and what archaeological finds have been made where. These modern types apparently co-existed with the Neanderthals, often competing with each other, and gaining or losing ground off and on, till the Neanderthals more or less vanished from the scene in phases and were almost completely gone from the near east by 45,000 or so years ago, leaving the land to the modern humans.

What happened to the Kebarans or their descendants? I do not know, and if anybody does, I’d like to learn from him/her.

As early as 9th millennium BC, or 11,000 years ago, there are talks of early travelers out of a pottery making culture from southern Anatolia (today’s Turkey) might have come to the Syro-Palestinian coast. So, perhaps Turkey could claim the land as well.

There are also talks by scholars of paleoanthropology indicating there were later people like Natufians around 12,000 years or so ago, making the first permanent settlement in the area. These people built homes with stone walls and packed earth and pebbles, in the Mesolithic era. Did they leave identifiable descendants? Again, I do not know.

The point I am making here is like this: There may be academic and historical data supporting the fact that the ancestors of present day Palestinians (or even ethnic Arabs) might not have been either the first or the only inhabitants of the land, but using that information to somehow legitimize Israel controlled by predominantly ethnic European Jews is even more wrong. You seem to imply that thousands of years of history proves that Palestinians of today have no claim to that land, and by default, Israel should have a better claim.

Palestinians, no matter what you called them pre 1948, lived in that land continuously for a thousand and more years. Some Jews did too, but not the Europeans that wanted a land of their own in the middle east.

If, however, you do not propose that todays primarily European blood Israeli citizens have a better claim than todays Palestinian people, then I have no cause to have a debate.

I shall end here with a letter Gandhi wrote in 1938, more than ten years before Israel got created. Gandhi was fighting his own multiple front battle with the British for the freedom of India on one side, and with high caste Hindus (he himself was a high caste Hindu) against ill treatment to the lower class and other minorities in India on the other side, non-violently. He was already pretty well known from his time in South Africa. He had a lot of Jewish friends and they pestered him to speak out openly in support of creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Gandhi did not have any personal Palestinian friends, and yet, he strongly disagreed on moral grounds. Here is his public letter on the issue. This greatly disappointed his Jewish friends, but Gandhi stood by his convictions.

This letter was written before the second world war, and before the holocaust.


My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

...And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart.... (November 1938)


Anyhow, it was nice discussing with you, and look forward to your future posts.

Cheers.

[Pogo]

As for territorial governance, you might as well be arguing that ethnic cleansing is legal, which is only true in a defacto sense if one happens to be powerful enough to get away with it. With respect to Israel, I would say that it is yet to be determined whether or not it will get away with it, but assuming that you feel Israel is entitled to get away with ethnic cleansing, do you honestly feel that is a good precedent for modern humanity?

Seems to me that such a precedent is morally repugnant and should be relegated to the past, and any who embrace such an evil should be considered pariahs.


I protest your use of such a blatant logical fallacy in an attempt to discredit the post of another. The use of such tactics are intellectually dishonest.

If you don't agree with the man, fine - disagree with him. However, introducing an completely irrelevant tangent to what was posted in an effort to invalidate his post is simply not acceptable form of debate.

IMO, what I introduced is highly relevant and I'm more than happy to explain.


Territorial governance over the territory of Israel was granted by the British to the Jews with the sanction of the United Nations. That is the legality. Nothing was taken from the inhabitants as the right to govern wasn't theirs to begin with.


The man is clearly implying that ethnic cleansing is acceptable by virtue of the Palestinians not being duly recognized as a governing entity of palestine. I don't know what you call being driven off of land because you're ethnically unpalatable but in my estimation this is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.

I once again cite the IDF Intelligence report entitled The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 - 1/6/1948, which acknowledges that the bulk of the Palestinian exodus was a result of Jewish military and paramilitary operations. Credit to historian Benny Morris for first bringing this document to light.

Like it or not, we're indeed talking about ethnic cleansing.

[Trish]

You seem to imply that thousands of years of history proves that Palestinians of today have no claim to that land, and by default, Israel should have a better claim.



I am saying that if we are going to use "ancestral" claims to determine who has a right to the land, the Palestinians do not have a greater claim than does Israel. I am saying that basing one's opinion of who should have the greater right to that land based on an ancestral basis is faulty logic since both the Jews and the "Palestinians" have an ancestral basis for a legitimate claim. And my personal opinion, based upon the fact that only a small portion of what was called Palestine was apportioned to Israel while the overwhelmingly larger portion of the territory was apportioned to "Palestinians" in 1948 by the British and is now called Jordan, is that Israel has the greater claim to that little chunk of land.[hr]

The man is clearly implying that ethnic cleansing is acceptable by virtue of the Palestinians not being duly recognized as a governing entity of palestine. I don't know what you call being driven off of land because you're ethnically unpalatable but in my estimation this is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.

I once again cite the IDF Intelligence report entitled The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 - 1/6/1948, which acknowledges that the bulk of the Palestinian exodus was a result of Jewish military and paramilitary operations. Credit to historian Benny Morris for first bringing this document to light.

Like it or not, we're indeed talking about ethnic cleansing.


I now see your reasoning, however, I do not agree with your conclusion. AlanC is saying, in my opinion, that because the Palestinian territory had been OCCUPIED territory for thousands of years under the control and legal authority of just about everyone in the world EXCEPT Palestinians, when Britain handed over the governance of the territory that is now Israel to the Jews, those self-same Jews became the legal governing authority. AlanC was referring to the "right" to govern - nothing more. The Palestinians had had no legal governing rights in that area for a very long time before modern Israel entered the picture because it has been continuously occupied and under the legal control of other countries for a very, very long time.

[tony mitra]

Uhh huhh Trish,

I am saying that if we are going to use "ancestral" claims to determine who has a right to the land, the Palestinians do not have a greater claim than does Israel. I am saying that basing one's opinion of who should have the greater right to that land based on an ancestral basis is faulty logic since both the Jews and the "Palestinians" have an ancestral basis for a legitimate claim. And my personal opinion, based upon the fact that only a small portion of what was called Palestine was apportioned to Israel while the overwhelmingly larger portion of the territory was apportioned to "Palestinians" in 1948 by the British and is now called Jordan, is that Israel has the greater claim to that little chunk of land.

That appears to be circular logic, mixing ethnicity with religion to press a claim for a Jewish state of global reach.

What you are stating, looks to me to be this : because some Arab Jews had some claim to the land, therefore all Jews all over the world, including Europeans, have a claim to that land.

I could turn that argument in favor of the Muslims too, using your own logic : since some Arab Muslims have some claim to that land, therefore all Muslims all over the world should have a claim to that land.

Mind it, there are about 1.5 billiion Muslims around the world. I trust you understand the implication of your own logic applied to the other party.

What should have been an ethnic issue, that Arabs, both Muslims and Jews, should have lived in that land, it has been turned around to suit a mass migration of ethnic Europeans to colonize part of the Arab land, crowd out Muslim Arab settlers, all in the name of religion.

To me, this is ethnic and racial imperialism in the guise of religion and certainly not justice.

Again, thanks for a lively discussion, it is always educating.

Cheers.

[Pogo]

The man is clearly implying that ethnic cleansing is acceptable by virtue of the Palestinians not being duly recognized as a governing entity of palestine. I don't know what you call being driven off of land because you're ethnically unpalatable but in my estimation this is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.

I once again cite the IDF Intelligence report entitled The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 - 1/6/1948, which acknowledges that the bulk of the Palestinian exodus was a result of Jewish military and paramilitary operations. Credit to historian Benny Morris for first bringing this document to light.

Like it or not, we're indeed talking about ethnic cleansing.


I now see your reasoning, however, I do not agree with your conclusion. AlanC is saying, in my opinion, that because the Palestinian territory had been OCCUPIED territory for thousands of years under the control and legal authority of just about everyone in the world EXCEPT Palestinians, when Britain handed over the governance of the territory that is now Israel to the Jews, those self-same Jews became the legal governing authority.
Unless I'm mistaken, Briton left their mandate at the doorstep of the newly created UN, whose partition plan was never given an opportunity for implementation due to the Zionists' unilateral establishment of Israel. True, the Arabs opposed the UN plan but it's possible that that could have changed with time.



AlanC was referring to the "right" to govern - nothing more. The Palestinians had had no legal governing rights in that area for a very long time before modern Israel entered the picture because it has been continuously occupied and under the legal control of other countries for a very, very long time.

Not true because he claims that nothing was taken from the Palestinians, when the plain fact of the matter is that a goodly number of them were driven off the land upon which they had lived. I'm not aware of any law which states that people may be driven off of land simply because they are not self-governing; in fact, there is a chapter of the UN charter dedicated to such circumstances:


CHAPTER XI
DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;

c. to further international peace and security;

d. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and

e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.

Article 74
Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The Balfour Declaration is also quite clear on the matter:

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

http://www.israel.org/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Balfour%20Declaration
This document seems to say precisely the opposite of what AlanC asserted, that the Palestinians are due the exact same consideration as the Jews, and it seems pretty clear that this is precisely why the Zionists endeavored to drive out the British -- because they had no intention of respecting the civil rights of the Palestinians.

[December]

Dead Sea Scrolls Islamic history, Roman History, Christian History, Summarian History, Egyption history, Assyrian History, Ethiopian History, Babalonyian History.

Crimzonsol, I am still waiting...
I am waiting for you to give me the FACTS...

What, where, when and who wrote about Israel in Islamic history, Roman History, Christian History, Summarian History, Egyption history, Assyrian History, Ethiopian History and Babalonyian History?

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjnvQHWyLE

[crimzonsol]

k, I will give you the facts

Roman History
Read the articles yourself.
http://www.shalomdc.org/page.html?ArticleID=157795
http://www.unrv.com/provinces/judaea.php

Assyrian History
http://www.theology.edu/lec20.htm

Persian History
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/religion/jews/persians.htm

And I am too lazy to do the rest.

[Anti-Racism]

This document seems to say precisely the opposite of what AlanC asserted, that the Palestinians are due the exact same consideration as the Jews, and it seems pretty clear that this is precisely why the Zionists endeavored to drive out the British -- because they had no intention of respecting the civil rights of the Palestinians.


Q: How do two ethnicities coexist in the same space without assimilating each other?

A: They don't.

Israel needs to send the Palestinians back to their ethnic homeland, which is probably Syria or Jordan.

[Pogo]

This document seems to say precisely the opposite of what AlanC asserted, that the Palestinians are due the exact same consideration as the Jews, and it seems pretty clear that this is precisely why the Zionists endeavored to drive out the British -- because they had no intention of respecting the civil rights of the Palestinians.


Q: How do two ethnicities coexist in the same space without assimilating each other?

A: They don't.

Israel needs to send the Palestinians back to their ethnic homeland, which is probably Syria or Jordan.

They might want to think twice about such an option, as Israel has milked the "holocaust" for just about all that it's worth. I think there'd be a very nasty backlash.

You live by the sword...

[JohnnyAwake]

This document seems to say precisely the opposite of what AlanC asserted, that the Palestinians are due the exact same consideration as the Jews, and it seems pretty clear that this is precisely why the Zionists endeavored to drive out the British -- because they had no intention of respecting the civil rights of the Palestinians.


Q: How do two ethnicities coexist in the same space without assimilating each other?

A: They don't.

Israel needs to send the Palestinians back to their ethnic homeland, which is probably Syria or Jordan.

They might want to think twice about such an option, as Israel has milked the "holocaust" for just about all that it's worth. I think there'd be a very nasty backlash.

You live by the sword...


You are right on the money POGO. The Holocaust (or more specifically the EUSTON MANIFESTO) doesn't justify the immorality behind Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and the displacement of thousands. This "Modern Antisemitism" is a cynical ploy (borrowed from Tariq Ali) for a Middle-Eastern Power bloc..Much like September 11th doesn't obscure our irresponsibilities as a "model" Nation, nor does it legitimize our Geneva violations.

Here's a good place to sample the discontent of Israeli occupation..
The Revolution will not be televised (atleast not on Fox) (http://www.jsalloum.org/)

She's my crush.

[jafar00]

This document seems to say precisely the opposite of what AlanC asserted, that the Palestinians are due the exact same consideration as the Jews, and it seems pretty clear that this is precisely why the Zionists endeavored to drive out the British -- because they had no intention of respecting the civil rights of the Palestinians.


Q: How do two ethnicities coexist in the same space without assimilating each other?

A: They don't.

Israel needs to send the Palestinians back to their ethnic homeland, which is probably Syria or Jordan.


And the Israelis back to Europe? :p

[potter]

I am starting this thread so I can get clear, Coherent and intelligent reasons for peoples opposition of Israel. I would also like you to state your bias in the matter.

So far I have yet to see anybody give a clear arguement against Israel. I want to know so I can understand why people oppose Israel.


I don't oppose Israel. I do however resent that they have more influence in our government than the average taxpayer seems to have. But then so does most major industry.

[crimzonsol]

Israel needs to send the Palestinians back to their ethnic homeland, which is probably Syria or Jordan.


And the Israelis back to Europe? :p


China has to implement population control and you propose that we just leave Israel with nobody settled in it?

[Kevin67]

Long live Isreal! When you talk about a nation with guts regardless of politics, it's Isreal. If anyone will deal with Iran, it will be Isreal, thank god for that.

[preservanation]

Israel is very important friend to the US.
That's why they want it gone.

[crimzonsol]

Long live Isreal! When you talk about a nation with guts regardless of politics, it's Isreal. If anyone will deal with Iran, it will be Isreal, thank god for that.


You know this thread is about Israel, right? I have no idea where the country Isreal is, but they sound like my kind of country.

Welcome to DF Kevin67.

[preservanation]

Long live Isreal! When you talk about a nation with guts regardless of politics, it's Isreal. If anyone will deal with Iran, it will be Isreal, thank god for that.


You know this thread is about Israel, right? I have no idea where the country Isreal is, but they sound like my kind of country.

C'mon...
You misspell your own name.

It's crimzionsol.

[crimzonsol]

It's crimzionsol.

Shhhhhh you'll blow my cover. Now that you mention it I might change it, hmmm.... Forst I'll have to figure out how I change it.