quote: In 2000, Israel turned over south Lebanon to terrorists. The terror threat grew larger. In 2005, Israel turned over the Gaza Strip to terrorists, including Al-qaeda. The terror threat grew larger still. Now, Israel proposes to turn over nearly all the West Bank to our terrorists enemies. Albert Einstein defined insanity as, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We cannot afford any more of this insanity.
Albert Einstein also refused the position of Prime Minister of Israel.
What. A. Coinkidink.
Because he did not feel qualified to fill a political position (which was most likely true). Einstein however was VERY supportive of the creation of the Jewish nation of Israel.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curious about opinions here... mostly from the "palistinians want peace as much as Israelis" camp...
Will it change your mind if the palistinians have a referrendum and decide they don't want the state of Israel to exist? That they shouldn't recognize the jewish state?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Curious about opinions here... mostly from the "palistinians want peace as much as Israelis" camp...
Will it change your mind if the palistinians have a referrendum and decide they don't want the state of Israel to exist? That they shouldn't recognize the jewish state?
I will be very disappointed if the Palestinians by majority, vote to not recognize the state of Israel.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But haven't they in effect done that already, by electing Hamas, which has precisely that for a declared aim?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So did Fatah. No different from electing them. Those were pretty much their only two choices, and both have the destruction of Israel in their charters.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's really a six of one half dozen of the other argument KoM. The only reason Hamas wasn't elected in the last election was because they specifically stayed out of the election by choice.
And yes Pix, I'll be very disappointed if they decide not to recognize the state of Israel. It would, I have to imagine, change my opinion about the entire situation.
I still wouldn't join Lisa's crazed "ship em all to Jordan (sorry, the OTHER half of Palestine)" plan, but I'd be a lot less supportive of anything at all that involved Israeli concessions for Palestinian gains.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And yes Pix, I'll be very disappointed if they decide not to recognize the state of Israel. It would, I have to imagine, change my opinion about the entire situation.
I don't believe that for an instant. You don't think it'll happen, so you feel free to make such a statement. If it happens, you won't change your view in the slightest.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still wouldn't join Lisa's crazed "ship em all to Jordan (sorry, the OTHER half of Palestine)" plan, but I'd be a lot less supportive of anything at all that involved Israeli concessions for Palestinian gains.
Yeah, right. And you can be sarcastic, but the fact of the matter is that the area called Palestine included Jordan as well. And it's a helluva lot more than just half of it. The Arabs endorsed the idea that Jordan is Palestine for years, until it became clear that doing so made their claims on Israel look utterly infantile.
quote:"Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate," Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.
quote:Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."
quote:"There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people," according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave the statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977.
quote:On August 23,1959, the Prime Minister of Jordan stated, "We are the Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine."
quote:"Let us not forget the East Bank of the (River) Jordan, where seventy per cent of the inhabitants belong to the Palestinian nation."
- George Habash, leader of the PFLP section of the PLO, writing in the PLO publication Sha-un Falastinia, February 1970
quote:"With all respect to King Hussein, I suggest that the Emirate of Transjordan was created from oil cloth by Great Britain, which for this purpose cut up ancient Palestine. To this desert territory to the bast of the Jordan (River)., it gave the name Transjordan. But there is nothing in history which carries this name. While since our earliest time there was Palestine and Palestinians. I maintain that the matter of Transjordan is an artificial one, and that Palestine is the basic problem. King Hussein should submit to the wishes of the people, in accordance with the principles of democracy and self-determination, so as-to avoid the fate of his grandfather, Abdullah, or of his cousin, Feisal, both of whom were assassinated."
- Past President Bourguiba of Tunisia, in a public statement, July 1973
quote:"Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine but, rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations, both day and night. Though we are all Arabs and our point of departure is that we are all members of the same people, the Palestinian-Jordanian nation is one and unique, and different from those of the other Arab states."
- Marwan al Hamoud, member of the Jordanian National Consultative Council and former Minister of Agriculture, quoted by Al Rai, Amman, 24th September 1980
posted
Umm... I am not going to argue every last word that was written in this thread (which I can probably do), but rather state my opinion.
Bob, you stated "[...I] have come away with the firm conclusion that Israel's government sucks". This is perfectly true, but I doubt you could say the old government sucked specifically because of their acts in the summer of 2005.
The bottom line is that ALL settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal to some extent. So "they aren't illegal. The very few that are illegal by Israeli law are a drop in the bucket. We're talking about established cities. Not even towns, but cities" is both a false statement, and a tactless one. City or no, it's ILLEGAL. Those lands were NOT annexed (nor was East Jerusalem, by the way), and therefore any intrusion by other people (not previous locals) without immigration to the PA are technically trespassers.
Oh, and as for the moving-to-the-East-bank claim - "the fact that they're calling it Jordan these days doesn't make it any less the area known as Palestine. Why is it that the Jews have to give up their homeland" - it was NEVER Jewish homeland! Read the book of Numbers, for crying out loud! It was NOT promised to the tribes, and it was the decision of two of them to take hold of that land because it was conquered. No divine promise whatsoever.
Still on the topic of religion, "Israel respects the holy sites of others" does not quite follow the burning down Al-Aqsa in 1969? The security forces didn't even intervene! Oh, right! And I forgot all about that %#$^ Goldstein! And as for "particularly when those "holy sites" were built atop the single most holy site in the world for Jews", why the Hell is everyone so obsessed with what the Jews should be grateful was destroyed? Read Maimonides. The Temple was destroyed so we could get closer to God in prayer from the heart without all these ritual sacrifices.
Now, how did the basic theory of trespassing in the West Bank work for the past 39 years? Very simple: some guy, whose religious/political (I wonder how come those two words together make it seem like a theocracy... What about you?) ideology can be classified into the term "Religious Zionism", implements this term by going and building ILLEGALLY a caravan over on some hill. That hill is part of a grove or orchard that belongs to some poor farming family over on the other hill. Now, when that family complains to the authorities about the invasion of their territory, what does the authority (mostly soldiers) do? Request the papers that show ownership of the land.
If the poor guy still has his great-grandfather's papers from the beginning of the century (because with WWI, WWII, the Independence War, the Six Day War and the Intifada in 1987, not to mention the more recent one, who knows what might've happened to some old document) - why, they are in Turkish. And is there anyone in the area who can speak Turkish? Obviously not! So the soldiers disregard the paper, make some lousy promise that a translator will come by, and bugger off. The next day, a new and much rougher soldier comes in to supervise over the area, and he really don't give a #@%$ what happened last week.
From one caravan of this trespasser, that has now been "legalised", more come about. Within a short while the entire hamlet cannot rely on their own capabilities and request the authorities for construction of utilities. When these are provided, the people have a little village that is connected to the next one via a road that Arabs (or Palestinians, I can't remember the soldiers' criteria) may not travel upon. Those who violate this "law" could be shot in the head for reasons of "security", as those people might be riding their donkeys into Israel to blow up! So, of course, we shoot before thinking. One year later, the next hilltop is taken over in the same fashion. You think I'm bullshitting you? Well, see for yourselves. Chayim Yavin made a 6-episode documentary about this, and it might have been translated, though I'm uncertain. Akiva Eldar, however, in his book "Lords of the Land" (hopefully translated), also covers this issue.
Right. There is an issue of security and "who started it" is not much of an issue (and that's ignoring the way they settled Hebron. A few people wanted to celebrate the Sedder there, and were invited for a few days. They still haven't left, even after 39 years; and that is because when the mayor told them after a week or so to get the hell out of his land unless they pay for hotels - the "celebrators" brought SOLDIERS in), something is truly buggered-up if a 12 y.o. girl is walking off to school in the Gaza Strip about 200 metres away from the military station (not even walking towards it, just along the road ike every day) and Major R. decides - for whatever reason - that she is dangerous.
So he emptied two magazines into her.
Sure, the papers had HUGE headings, and big pictures (in the case of our daily comic strip - Ma'ariv), but a short while later the charges were dropped. Why? Because the military police decided that they've more important tasks at hand than being in court trying to justify this case.
Israeli law permits you under Emergency Regulations to be taken away and imprisoned for 48 hours before you are charged. If after those 48 hours you are still have no charges brought against you, you must be released. Well, what about all those Palestinians who have been in prison for what - 8 years - without any criminal cases brought against them? How can it be that the system is exploited by a judge signing some oblique paper and the guy can stay in for another five reasons - STILL WITHOUT CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM?!
And who allows the army, when they take-over private homes in Hebron for tactical "security" reasons (and legally I think they may not be in for more than 24 hours, and must not take away from the family anything or harm their liberty of movement, nor can they sleep on the family beds - and there are more limitations too), to lock the family (say, 8 people?) up in some tiny room, allow them no food, no water, no toilet-access and on occasion no place to sleep? These things can be around for 5 days, on occasion, and when a neighbour inquires they might shoot the neighbour, and also rape some of the locked-up family's daughters, maybe shoot one or two of the brothers, and then vanish like nothing happened. Oh, did I mention they consume half the cellar too?
Army-dictated policies. I don't know, sounds reminiscent to me of Italian fascism, but that's probably a matter of POV. Although my brother himself was involved - as part of the military police during his service - with some of the legal status that stemmed up from the case where in Nablus a guy was trying to get back home from the city to the village where he lives. The soldiers decided that he's dangerous, tied him up in the hot summer sun, and told him "not to move a $#@%ing inch", then told him they'd be back in a few minutes with water. They went off to drink, and came back a few hours later pissed to the root of their noggins. The guy meanwhile tried to get out of the chains as he was heavily dehydrating, and the soldiers mowed him down with their machine guns. I think they went into military prison for about 3 months.
***
The Disengagement Plan was one that aimed to get the damn IDF policies and manpower out of the territories. The aim was to finally show the world Israel is going away from its classic policies whose effects I slightly described above - the effects of the governmental under-the-table-plan to occupy the territories but NOT annex them, thus keeping over 3 million Palestinians from voting. However, it was done pathetically.
The moment you stick that sick, bigoted religious ideology (dubbed "religious Zionism") into the business (and I would rather not state all the swearwords I have to say about those who unify religion and state), you can excuse anything; if you rely on a deity alone to justify anything (such as Rabbi Aviner who pretty much supports murdering anyone who's ethnically Arab) - you can do whatever the hell you want. What Israel ought have done was let the people who're to be evacuated choose one or two options:
Leave out of will on time, and not wait to be dragged out. In such a case the nation ought have given full support in exchange for all that was lost, and done so in an organised fashion with a deadline of - say - a year before the date of evacuation. This was, of course, not done properly at all, but that's another matter.
If a person refuses to leave, on whatever grounds, allow that person to stay under the new authorities taking over after Israel leaves. That way, if any @#$%-brained hog decides that this pseudo-justified-by-"religion" bigoted ideology is too important, fair enough. Let the bugger stay and rot there out of his/her own will.
I think this entire nation is overly obsessed with the army. Sure, there are enemies, but there's enough propaganda for joining the army so that there'll be no need for conscription. The budget is overly high and some people just don't want this whole guns-in-our-hands business.
***
But the main problem I have with ads like that is the complete stupidity, shallowness and populist nonsense that underlies what they say. For a start, the borders are inaccurate and represent a complete failure to understand the history of the Israeli territorial movements after 1967.
Israel conceded around 66% percent of its territories inbetween 1975 and 1979 for a peace treaty with Egypt. In 2000 Israel retreated from territories it occupied in Lebanon since 1982 in belief that it will cause less deaths. It changed little, if at all; it was time to reduce the expenses and retreat. Right move, wrong method: Israel retreated with its tail inbetween its knees. The retreat was from the Hizballah's attacks, and had NOTHING to do with Gaza, in spite of stickers that were around two summers ago.
The Disengagement Plan was to the PA, and the fact that Hammas won was merely because Israel screwed the Palestinians over for 39 years so that they preferred choosing the people who actually give them food and medical support rather than the old party. Whether Hammas will last or not is a tough question, because now they're out of funds and not doing to well with supporting everybody. HOWEVER, it's about time Israel got its act together and left the West Bank after all the atrocities that the army's committed in Bil'in, the taking over of more territories with the construction of the wall and the settlements' tactic. For the record, Ariel Sharon, after promising to remove illegal settlements in 2003 (I think), only encouraged the putting-up of more.
Plus, I can't stand all this shitty termionology such as "the terror threat grew larger". Terror is NOT the same as terrorism! Plus, who are these ignorant people who siddenly assume they know what the situation of fear is like in Israel? Who're they to say that it's scarier to gew on a bus than it was 5 years ago? And who the hell are they to be so shallow as to call the various concessions as "the same thing"? Oh, and by the way, Al-qaeda had nothing to do with the Disengagement plan, thank you very much. They are incidentally Muslims, but they have little to do with Summer 2005, nothing for than incidental connections via 3rd and 4th parties. Oh, and who's "our terrorists enemies"? The PA? I thought they're forcing Hammas to recognise Israel...
Lisa, I do, however, understand your comparison of people to Nazi Germany entities ("I compared your use of the big lie technique to the German use of that same technique during WWII"). I, frankly, always found the Israeli military police (yes, my brother served there. I know pretty much what it is like) very reminiscent of the Gestapo.
"The whole damned state is "disputed". People aren't supposed to live their lives?" - not if it comes at the expense of others'. Please, just don't give me this whole "peacefully living their lives" bullshit that people like you, whose politics are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun's, have been telling me since 2004. If you call Goldstein "one who lives his life", then I'm sorry, but you're living in a bubble. The same happened in 1969 when after a soldier was killed, at his funeral in Hebron his fellow friends started pillaging the city. Dr Menachem Lorberboim stated in a conference I was in that the first word that came into his mind was "pogrom".
"New immigrants get special terms" - Ha! Right, that's why they were all sent to places like Yeroham and Dimona in the 50s, right? And that's why the "blacks" (!!!) are living in the slums on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right? Some of those came in the early 2000s too. "you get better terms than if you buy in a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv" - yeah, such as no air-conditioning when you live in a damned metal caravan in the desert, right?
And as for your POV of the Israeli papers, HaAretz is NOT extreme-left. It's is rather moderate left, except that this whole nation of Israel has its "centre" way too far towards the fascist right. The Jerusalem Post is a pathetic newspaper that my English teacher goes over every weekend and marks all the spelling and grammar mistakes (and if they can't even write, why expect them to know journalism?!) and my father won't even read. At the best you've got someone like Golinkin paid good money to blurt in a word.
"Brothers... Cain and Abel... Time to GIVE IT UP!" Ha! The conclusion of a conference I went to concerning these subjects (all by top-league scholars like Rev. Michael McGarry and Dr Lorberboim I mentioned above) when I posted my troubles about solving it through the educational system was "I don't know". Forget it, it's not going to work like that anytime soon, and it will come after a lot of bloodshed.
"Hidden in Israel is a highly skilled war machine that can and will tear Iran, Syria and any collection of Arab States apart. However in order to unleash this war machine backed as it is by the United States she needs a provocation of the first order" - this is bullshit. Who told you that, the NSA after they left new messages on your answering machine?! If anything, Saudi Arabia with their 5 AWACS are more like that.
"... the Arab Nations are separate from Iran and do not trust it, but they have all traditionally agreed on the goal of the destruction of Israel" - yeah, like Egypt, which is regarded as a new Zionist power in the Middle-East by Syria and ex-Iraq? And your capitalisation of "nations" is really inappropriate here. You make it seem like OSC's Muslim League.
"But haven't they in effect done that already, by electing Hamas, which has precisely that for a declared aim?" - no. hammas was elected because they supply food and medicine to those who don't have it. Also, research in 2004 showed that most actually wanted peace. Right, I know, statistics. But it can definitely be achieved once all the fascists lose their religious zeal or end up like the SA.
"Let live in peace" - Shlomo Artzi. Jonny
[ May 27, 2006, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe that for an instant. You don't think it'll happen, so you feel free to make such a statement. If it happens, you won't change your view in the slightest.
While you're being psychic, could you let me know the winning lotto numbers for the next drawing?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And yes Pix, I'll be very disappointed if they decide not to recognize the state of Israel. It would, I have to imagine, change my opinion about the entire situation.
I don't believe that for an instant. You don't think it'll happen, so you feel free to make such a statement. If it happens, you won't change your view in the slightest.
Perhaps this is one of the fundamental differences between the two of us. I'm willing and perfectly able to change my mind as new information presents itself. I believe, at the moment, that the mainstream Palestinian thought, that is, a majority of those people, want peace, know and accept that Israel is there to stay and simple want to settle the matter and move on with their lives.
No, I don't think that the Palestinians will vote to not recognize Israel, but if that is the case, then my opinion and position on the matter will change. If it happens, I'll stand by what I said. If it does not, well, I'll certainly be interested in seeing what you have to say.
Quite frankly, I don't see how you can even make such a statement as you made above. You know almost nothing about me, other than what appear to be chance meetings in threads such as this. I'm not a zealot like you (sorry if you aren't but advocating the things you've advocated certainly makes you sound like one). And I don't see how you can basically accuse me of being a liar, based on absolutely nothing other than what I have to imagine is a serious amount of antipathy towards me.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still wouldn't join Lisa's crazed "ship em all to Jordan (sorry, the OTHER half of Palestine)" plan, but I'd be a lot less supportive of anything at all that involved Israeli concessions for Palestinian gains.
Yeah, right. And you can be sarcastic, but the fact of the matter is that the area called Palestine included Jordan as well. And it's a helluva lot more than just half of it. The Arabs endorsed the idea that Jordan is Palestine for years, until it became clear that doing so made their claims on Israel look utterly infantile.
If someone took over Michigan's lower peninsula, claimed it as their own, for whatever reason, and then sent me packing to the UP, and wouldn't let me back in, I'd be just as pissed as those people are. Just because I'm still in Michigan doesn't mean it's all just the same thing, which seems to be the basic claim you keep trying to make with Palestine and Jordan.
Regardless of where Palestine is, or was, there are still more than a million people displaced from a home their families have occupied for generations, and I mean actual physical occupation, not just a spiritual connection from a long time ago. Uprooting millions of people and sending them to Jordan just because it used to be called Palestine is just as silly as uprooting the Mitten (Lower Peninsula) and sending them all to the UP (Upper Peninsula).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: there are still more than a million people displaced from a home their families have occupied for generations, and I mean actual physical occupation, not just a spiritual connection from a long time ago
There are now... For the same reason there are so many Irish in America, only the Irish became Americans, the Arab States would never let the Palestinians displaced, who numbered only thousands, ever be anything but refugees. They are the victims of Islam for the utility they provide. (Arab Palestinians Displaced approx. 394,900)
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless of where Palestine is, or was, there are still more than a million people displaced from a home their families have occupied for generations, and I mean actual physical occupation, not just a spiritual connection from a long time ago.
There are no "million people displaced". That's completely untrue. As is the part about families occupying the land for generations. They were mostly nomads, and there are very, very few Arabs who lived anywhere in Palestine "for generations".
Nor did they have any right to take up residence there in the first place. We never gave them permission.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are no "million people displaced". That's completely untrue.
What do you mean by "completely untrue". Would it be "completely untrue" if it were in fact only 900 000 people displaced? 800 000? Such rhetoric is dangerously close to what the holocaust deniers use when they insist that it is "completely untrue" that the Nazis killed 6 million jews if an objective analysis could confirm only 5.9 million.
quote:Nor did they have any right to take up residence there in the first place. We never gave them permission.
Lovely. Sorry, Lisa. I generally like you, but I think your arguments on this issue do more damage to Israel's reputation (and the reputation of its defenders) than any other single element at Hatrack.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually, if we keep the gringos busy, the jews will probably loose to the arabs and the Chinese shall inherit the earth.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Do you mind keeping this thread serious? Some of us actually deal with these things at a personal level, you know? Not all of us jest about these things. I personally like to think I didn't spend 3 days writing my megalopost just for these things to come up afterwords.
I'm no angel, true. I did these things in the past. But puh-lease learn from my mistakes. Please?
quote: The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) administers the only registration system for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA records, however, only include those refugees displaced in 1948 (and their descendents) in need of assistance and located in UNRWA areas of operation - West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Estimates of the refugee and displaced population may also be derived from statistics maintained by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); census data from host countries and Israel; and, population growth projections.
It is estimated that there were more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons at the beginning of 2003. This includes Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and registered for assistance with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (3.97 million); Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 but not registered for assistance (1.54 million); Palestinian refugees displaced for the first time in 1967 (753,000); 1948 internally displaced Palestinians (274,000); and, 1967 internally displaced Palestinians (150,000).
Now you're going to tell me that the UN is wrong, and probably biased right?
And damn, they REALLY should have gotten the written permission of every two thousand year descendent of the Israelites before they moved in right? Give me a break.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The bottom line is that ALL settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal to some extent.
I can't believe I'm going to argue this with a high school student, but fine.
In Israel, Jonathan, something is legal if it's legal by Israeli law. Period. You may feel good being a rebel, but don't tell me that Maaleh Adumim and Efrat and Ariel and the like are "illegal to some extent". That's factually wrong. It suits your particular political agenda, but it is not true.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: So "they aren't illegal. The very few that are illegal by Israeli law are a drop in the bucket. We're talking about established cities. Not even towns, but cities" is both a false statement, and a tactless one. City or no, it's ILLEGAL. Those lands were NOT annexed (nor was East Jerusalem, by the way),
East Jerusalem was, in fact, annexed. The Golan Heights were semi-annexed. It's a matter of dispute whether extending Israeli law to the Heights counted as annexation. No such dispute exists with regards to East Jerusalem.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: and therefore any intrusion by other people (not previous locals) without immigration to the PA are technically trespassers.
Not at all. The PA has only existed since 1994. Furthermore, it is not the government of those areas, so one cannot "immigrate to the PA".
Judea and Samaria were, just like the rest of Israel, Jordan, and the Gaza Strip, parts of the British Mandate for Palestine. Fact. Up until WWI, de facto ownership of that land was in the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Within that political entity, a percentage of the land was owned by absentee Arab landlords, a percentage was owned by Jews, and the greatest part lay fallow.
After WWI, the League of Nations started cutting up the Middle East and creating countries. They created Iraq. They created Syria, which eventually had to be partitioned into Syria and Lebanon, because the Muslims and Christians couldn't get along. And they gave Palestine to the British, for the creation of a Jewish homeland.
In 1922, the British unilaterally gave 78% of the Mandate to the Emir Abdullah. What was left was, still, made up of land owned by absentee Arab landlords and land owned by Jews, though the percentages had been changing, because the Jews had been buying as much land as they could from those absentee landlords. You'd probably consider that "illegal", because the Arabs who were living on those parcels didn't have a say in it. But whoever gave tenants a say on a landlord's choice to sell?
Meanwhile, Arabs who had not lived in Western Palestine started moving there. Why? Because the Jews who had moved back to our land were creating jobs. And in a poverty stricken region like this one, that was very attractive.
So both the Jewish and Arab population was increasing by leaps and bounds. And there was a lot of tension and antagonism. Eventually, the British threw up their hands and gave the Mandate back to the UN (which had replaced the League of Nations after WWII). No political entity existed in that area yet.
In 1947, the UN decided to split Western Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jews accepted this. The Arabs rejected it. And in 1948, the Jews declared a state on their half. The Arabs, as you know, Jonathan, tried to obliterate that state. They didn't declare a state in their half, because that would be acknowledging that the Jews got half. It's pretty much the same reason that the Arabs haven't declared a state in Gaza.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Oh, and as for the moving-to-the-East-bank claim - "the fact that they're calling it Jordan these days doesn't make it any less the area known as Palestine. Why is it that the Jews have to give up their homeland" - it was NEVER Jewish homeland! Read the book of Numbers, for crying out loud! It was NOT promised to the tribes, and it was the decision of two of them to take hold of that land because it was conquered. No divine promise whatsoever.
Irrelevant. Do you want to do this on the basis of religion or on the basis of politics and ownership? You're mixing the two, and you're doing it in a fairly dishonest way. If you're coming from a religious point of view, there are several concentric boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. There are different laws that pertain to each one. Do you want to discuss that, Jonathan?
But if we're talking about law and history, the Palestinian Mandate absolutely did include Jordan.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Still on the topic of religion, "Israel respects the holy sites of others" does not quite follow the burning down Al-Aqsa in 1969?
Are you talking about this this? An Australian Christian who burned down the mosque to hasten the Christian second coming? How lovely. A Jewish teenager is so nihilistic that he's engaging in the kind of anti-Israel propaganda that's going to end with him in a refugee camp. What is it, Jonathan? More trouble with your teachers? Your parents didn't buy you a pony?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The security forces didn't even intervene! Oh, right! And I forgot all about that %#$^ Goldstein! And as for "particularly when those "holy sites" were built atop the single most holy site in the world for Jews", why the Hell is everyone so obsessed with what the Jews should be grateful was destroyed?
So. A Jewish kid who hates his own religion so much that he's happy the Temple was destroyed, and blames his own country for the acts of a crazed Christian fanatic. Thanks, Jonny. You write cogently, for the most part, and it's nice that you've at least made it clear where you're really coming from.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Read Maimonides. The Temple was destroyed so we could get closer to God in prayer from the heart without all these ritual sacrifices.
He wrote nothing of the sort. In the Yad, he makes it clear that the sacrifices are still binding, and will be performed when the Temple is rebuilt. In the Moreh, he suggested that one reason for the sacrifices may have been in order to help us get away from the dominant form of worship at the time the Torah was given. He nowhere suggests that this was the only reason. That's tripe.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Now, how did the basic theory of trespassing in the West Bank work for the past 39 years?
It wasn't trespassing. Trespassing requires an owner who objects. In terms of global politics, that land was owned by the Ottoman Turks. Then by the League of Nations, which became the United Nations. Then it was offered to the Arabs, but they rejected it. No ownership was transferred. In the resulting war, the Jordanians captured Judea and Samaria and annexed it. Only two countries in the entire world recognized that illegal action: Britain and Pakistan. Even the other Arab countries refused to recognize it.
Notice that there were numerous Jewish towns and cities in those areas which existed even before the UN came up with their partition plan. Like Gush Etzion. Which the Arabs destroyed in 1948, and which we rebuilt in 1967. Those are the kinds of "illegal settlements" you're going on about. Land that we bought from the legal owners, and which was conquered from us in war and retaken in war, both wars launched by the Arabs.
Then, in 1967, Jordan tried to wipe Israel off the map, and we took Judea and Samaria back from them.
Did we make a mistake by not immediately annexing it? Sure. But while we chose only to occupy it, we weren't occupying a sovereign nation. That's what "occupation" means in every other case. It means that you roll in and take over someone else's country. That's what happened in 1992, when Saddam occupied Kuwait. Kuwait existed. There was no nation in Judea and Samaria. It was part of the Palestinian Mandate that Jordan had been occupying since 1948.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Very simple: some guy, whose religious/political (I wonder how come those two words together make it seem like a theocracy... What about you?) ideology can be classified into the term "Religious Zionism", implements this term by going and building ILLEGALLY a caravan over on some hill.
I gave a link above that discusses the creation of Gush Etzion. When I lived in Efrat, incidentally, there was a vineyard in the middle of the town that belonged to some local Arab. Despite the constant violence from the Arabs in the area, this guy was allowed to come in every day and work his land. It would have been extremely easy to simply eminent domain it. But we didn't.
You're talking about current hilltop settlement. But that's not who Olmert is talking about evicting from their homes. And if you believe he is, then you're foolish even for a high school kid.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: That hill is part of a grove or orchard that belongs to some poor farming family over on the other hill. Now, when that family complains to the authorities about the invasion of their territory, what does the authority (mostly soldiers) do? Request the papers that show ownership of the land.
Absolutely. These Arabs want to claim that they've held title to the land. We know that a very large percentage of them simply moved in and took possession. Very much like the hilltop settlers you're so hot about. Why does their settlement activity have more validity than ours? If they can't demonstrate ownership, they have no more right to the land than anyone else.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: If the poor guy
"Poor guy". You've already decided that the Arabs are, a priori, innocent and in the right, and that the Jews are, a priori, guilty and in the wrong. Teen angst is a bummer, Jonny, but when it turns into support of a terrorist nation against your own people, you should really consider therapy.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: still has his great-grandfather's papers from the beginning of the century (because with WWI, WWII, the Independence War, the Six Day War and the Intifada in 1987, not to mention the more recent one, who knows what might've happened to some old document) - why, they are in Turkish. And is there anyone in the area who can speak Turkish? Obviously not!
Wrong. I worked at Bank Yerushalayim, a mortgage bank. Most old documents from the Ottoman period were written in Arabic. Not Turkish. Now you're being intentionally dishonest. Tell the people the truth, Jonny.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Right. There is an issue of security and "who started it" is not much of an issue (and that's ignoring the way they settled Hebron. A few people wanted to celebrate the Sedder there, and were invited for a few days. They still haven't left, even after 39 years;
You're ignoring the Jews who lived very peacefully in Hebron until the Arabs massacred the lot of them in 1929. Did Jews find a way to get back to Hebron? Yes. Should we have had to? No. And we're talking 1929, Jonny. Not 2000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Israeli law permits you under Emergency Regulations to be taken away and imprisoned for 48 hours before you are charged.
Actually, it allows you to be put away for 6 months or more under Administrative Detention. Something which has been used against both Jews and Arabs.
Why is that law on the books, incidentally? Oh, right. It's a British Mandatory law that was never taken off the books.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The moment you stick that sick, bigoted religious ideology (dubbed "religious Zionism") into the business (and I would rather not state all the swearwords I have to say about those who unify religion and state),
Then leave Israel, nihilist Jonny. Leave like all your Shenken-type friends will leave. Your self-hatred is a little pathetic and a lot tragic, but don't think that you'll be allowed to harm other Jews just because you've swallowed the kind of sick propaganda you posted above.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I think this entire nation is overly obsessed with the army. Sure, there are enemies, but there's enough propaganda for joining the army so that there'll be no need for conscription. The budget is overly high and some people just don't want this whole guns-in-our-hands business.
Yefeh nefesh. All I can say is, "Wahhhh!"
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Plus, I can't stand all this shitty termionology such as "the terror threat grew larger". Terror is NOT the same as terrorism!
You attach no meaning to your words.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Oh, and by the way, Al-qaeda had nothing to do with the Disengagement plan, thank you very much.
No one said they did. But they're there in Gaza now. That's what the ad was talking about. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your crazed attitude resulted in your not listening carefully enough. The alternative would be that you are intentionally misrepresenting what the ad said.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: They are incidentally Muslims, but they have little to do with Summer 2005, nothing for than incidental connections via 3rd and 4th parties. Oh, and who's "our terrorists enemies"? The PA? I thought they're forcing Hammas to recognise Israel...
Right. I'll believe that when I see it. They were the ones who voted for Hamas in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Lisa, I do, however, understand your comparison of people to Nazi Germany entities ("I compared your use of the big lie technique to the German use of that same technique during WWII").
It's really a shame that the people most strongly associated with the invention that that odious technique also engaged in genocide. Now you can't associate anyone with them on one point without it being taken as being connected to the other.
I'm careful with my words. I used "Germans" rather than "Nazis" specifically in order to point to Lyrhawn's use of propaganda and the big lie, rather than genocide. Though I do admit, Jonny, that Lyrhawn is purely outclassed by you. That's probably because he lacks your adolescent hatred.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: "New immigrants get special terms" - Ha! Right, that's why they were all sent to places like Yeroham and Dimona in the 50s, right? And that's why the "blacks" (!!!) are living in the slums on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right? Some of those came in the early 2000s too. "you get better terms than if you buy in a city like Jerusalem or Tel Aviv" - yeah, such as no air-conditioning when you live in a damned metal caravan in the desert, right?
Which one of us dealt with new immigrant rights, Jonny? Don't speak of something you know nothing about. The filthy leftists dealt with the Sephardim the way they did for the same reasons that you hate settlers. They were "enlightened" -- as you are. They hated Judaism -- as you do. They were embarrassed as all get out at Jews who actually cared about being Jews -- as you are. The Sephardim, the Yemenites, the Jews from Arab countries... they all took it for granted that they were Jews, first and foremost.
So the Histadrut stole their children. They cut off their peyot. They refused to give people jobs unless they agreed to send their children to Histadrut controlled socialist/secular schools.
And they treated them like second class citizens. That's why yefei nefesh like yourself are so incensed. Now there are believing Jews who you can't separate off on the basis of skin color or accent. So you have to spread the net a little more widely.
I lived in Talpiot. I lived in Kiryat Yovel. I know what these places are like. I also know that your pretense of caring about the people who were so mistreated by those with whom you identify is irrelevant to the facts that I stated. Did new immigrants in the 1950s receive the kind of zechuyot/rights that immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s did? I don't know. I wasn't born yet. But I know for a fact the way it worked in those later decades. For a fact, nihilist Jonny. I'm the one who sat in the bank and actually dealt with it. Not you.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: And as for your POV of the Israeli papers, HaAretz is NOT extreme-left. It's is rather moderate left, except that this whole nation of Israel has its "centre" way too far towards the fascist right.
Oh, yawn. And I think Arutz 7 is rather moderate right, except that the whole state of Israel has its center way too far towards the socialist/secularist/anti-religious/anti-national left.
The difference, nihilist Jonny, is that I'm aware that there are other views. So rather than present Arutz 7 as slightly right of center and the Jerusalem Post as pretty left of center, and HaAretz as virtually Stalinist, I thought I'd present things in a slightly more conciliatory fashion. But you're a high school kid. One who hates everything about his own culture and society. One who wishes he wasn't Jewish or Israeli. So of course you're not going to do that. You probably would have thought of Davar as only slightly left of center.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: The Jerusalem Post is a pathetic newspaper that my English teacher goes over every weekend and marks all the spelling and grammar mistakes (and if they can't even write, why expect them to know journalism?!)
<blink> Wow. That's... cogent. Typos in English mean that the journalism is bad. Can I quote you on that, nihilist Jonny?
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: and my father won't even read. At the best you've got someone like Golinkin paid good money to blurt in a word.
I'd love to spend some time dwelling on the irony of this paragraph, with its ungrammatical sentences and weird constructs like "blurt in", but it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I think Lisa should spend 10 years living with the Satmer Hassidic cult.
Nothing personal, just political.
Jonny, we get it. You hate Judaism. Wait a couple of years until the adolescent angst and nihilism passes. One day, you'll come across your posts here, and you are going to be so embarrassed.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Palestinians would give up all claims to any land west of the Jordan in exchange for a massive aid package, technical assistance, and homesteading in Jordan, it really would solve a lot.
The only problems I see with this are that there are so many of them who have lived West of the Jordan for so many years...generations even...that the benefits of moving to Jordan would have to be incredibly huge.
There's also the problem of some holy sites that do exist West of the Jordan -- various wells, tombs and, of course, the holy structures. I think there'd be resistance to Jewish control of those even though some of the sites are equally (if not colosally more) important to faithful Jews. Take the temple mount, for example. It's importance goes all the way back to Abraham, there's a historic mosque on it, but it is THE SITE of the temple built by Solomon. It's importance to faithful Jews is beyond that of any of the other people who worship there or honor that site. Despite the value it now has to Muslims, and the value to all who trace their ancestry to Abraham.
There are other places too. Tombs of the patriarchs. Wells that were dug by the Patriarchs and have been sites of miracles important to Muslims and to all semitic people.
There are going to be attachments to those places and areas that go deeper than just the prospect of having a nice home and a good life inside of Jordan.
Then, there are some historic towns and roots that people have put there. Hebron is not just a place with a single intersection out in the desert. It's a major town that has roots going back millennia. It's not like people are just likely to walk away from that.
Personally, I'd like to see Jordan become a garden spot and productive beyond anyone's imagination. I think the kingdom there is fairly liberal and enlightened (in the best senses of those words) and, I also think there's a reasonable shot at democracy spreading in a place like that.
But, again, something would have to convince the Palestinians living West of the Jordan that it'd be in their best interest to move there and live in peace.
I don't see the carrot.
Just the stick.
And while Palestinians are warm and friendly people, in my experience, I also know them to be quite stubborn. Making life uncomfortable for the general population hasn't really succeeded in encouraging a mass migration out of the area. I suspect it will not be successful in the future if it is tried.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) administers the only registration system for Palestinian refugees. UNRWA records, however, only include those refugees displaced in 1948 (and their descendents) in need of assistance and located in UNRWA areas of operation - West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Estimates of the refugee and displaced population may also be derived from statistics maintained by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); census data from host countries and Israel; and, population growth projections.
It is estimated that there were more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons at the beginning of 2003. This includes Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and registered for assistance with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (3.97 million); Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 but not registered for assistance (1.54 million); Palestinian refugees displaced for the first time in 1967 (753,000); 1948 internally displaced Palestinians (274,000); and, 1967 internally displaced Palestinians (150,000).
Now you're going to tell me that the UN is wrong, and probably biased right?
Wow. Well done, Lyrhawn. Now if I point out that UNRWA is an extremely biased and anti-Israel organization, you'll have already poo-pooed that idea, without a shred of evidence.
And I'll add, again, that most of the Arabs who did live in that area before 1948 did not own the land they lived on. They were tenants, many of whom got screwed by their landlords when the landlords sold the land to Jews. But that's not a political issue. That's simply the way it works. You don't all of a sudden become the owner of someone else's land because you've been living on it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If the Palestinians would give up all claims to any land west of the Jordan in exchange for a massive aid package, technical assistance, and homesteading in Jordan, it really would solve a lot.
The only problems I see with this are that there are so many of them who have lived West of the Jordan for so many years...generations even...that the benefits of moving to Jordan would have to be incredibly huge.
Suppose we were to take the budget of all the UN groups that exist exclusively to deal with the Palestinians and give that to them. They could all live in villas. Suppose all of the money that has been given to the Palestinian Authority to use for the betterment of their people actually got to their people? They'd be an incredibly wealthy nation.
Explosives aren't cheap, you know. Suppose they spent their money on butter, rather than on guns?
Bottom line, unfortunately, is that they aren't interested in such things. Their goal isn't do improve things for themselves. It's to destroy Israel. It always has been.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There's also the problem of some holy sites that do exist West of the Jordan -- various wells, tombs and, of course, the holy structures. I think there'd be resistance to Jewish control of those even though some of the sites are equally (if not colosally more) important to faithful Jews. Take the temple mount, for example. It's importance goes all the way back to Abraham, there's a historic mosque on it, but it is THE SITE of the temple built by Solomon. It's importance to faithful Jews is beyond that of any of the other people who worship there or honor that site. Despite the value it now has to Muslims, and the value to all who trace their ancestry to Abraham.
It could be moved. Like London Bridge. Piece by piece, it could be moved to Jordan or Arabia. Put it in Mecca.
There's never going to be a solution here that makes everyone happy. Our Temple Mount is our Temple Mount. We can't help it that they built a shrine atop it.
But other than that, and other than the fact that they turned the burial cave of our ancestors (not theirs) into a mosque, we have a track record of taking good care of other people's holy places. They have a track record of using our tombstones to line urinals.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There are other places too. Tombs of the patriarchs. Wells that were dug by the Patriarchs and have been sites of miracles important to Muslims and to all semitic people.
They don't claim descent from Isaac and Rebecca, or Jacob and Rachel and Leah. Or Sarah.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But, again, something would have to convince the Palestinians living West of the Jordan that it'd be in their best interest to move there and live in peace.
I don't see the carrot.
Just the stick.
There is no carrot that they would see as a carrot. All we have is a stick.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And while Palestinians are warm and friendly people, in my experience, I also know them to be quite stubborn. Making life uncomfortable for the general population hasn't really succeeded in encouraging a mass migration out of the area. I suspect it will not be successful in the future if it is tried.
It hasn't been tried.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: I think Lisa should spend 10 years living with the Satmer Hassidic cult.
Nothing personal, just political.
Jonny, we get it. You hate Judaism. Wait a couple of years until the adolescent angst and nihilism passes. One day, you'll come across your posts here, and you are going to be so embarrassed.
I expect most of us will come across posts we've made here that embarrass us, Jonathan included.
When that happens, he'll have the very good and common excuse that his were posted during adolescence. What will be your excuse for bullying a teenager with sentences such as these:
quote:What is it, Jonathan? More trouble with your teachers? Your parents didn't buy you a pony?
We're never going to agree on this for one very basic reason. I have known Palestinian Arabs as friends and I cannot connect them with the people you describe. As near as I can tell, the people you describe are a minority, if they exist at all, among the general population of Palestinian people.
I've met some people who are very angry with Israel, but their gripes aren't things like "Israel shouldn't exist" their gripes are things about land grabs, forced evictions, demolition of houses, closing borders, bankrupting businesses by virtue of closing borders, answering rock throwing with bullets (albeit rubber ones) and the like. And yes, before you say it, I know that the actions of some Palestinians have been atrocious and that there are specific things that Israelis should be VERY angry with Palestinians about. Yes, I know it. (not that this will forestall you providing a litany) -- I'm just hoping that you'll see the larger point here -- that Palestinians aren't generally anything but typical human beings.
You say Israel hasn't tried making life uncomfortable for Palestinians. I think Israel has, and it hasn't worked. It just makes more people hate Israel. Sure, things could be made worse. Israel could choose to salt the fields, poison the grazing lands, firebomb the towns and sell infected blankets to the natives.
I believe that the essentially humanity of Jews would stop that sort of thing. I met a great number of Israeli Jews when I visited there. You know what? They're warm and generous people too. They are also very stubborn.
The question isn't who will win this, but whether a solution will be found before one side, the other, or both are wiped out.
I personally think that any such solution would be bad for all parties involved, even the winner (if that term could be used here without the universe just choking on it).
Imagine a modern Jewish state that exists in peace merely because it had accomplished genocide. Do you believe the world would accept or tolerate that state? Would trade with the outside world be feasible? Would support for the State of Israel continue?
Forced deportation of Palestinians and militarization of Israel's borders is nearly as bad a scenario.
Seems pretty short sighted to me, really.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Imagine a modern Jewish state that exists in peace merely because it had accomplished genocide. Do you believe the world would accept or tolerate that state? Would trade with the outside world be feasible? Would support for the State of Israel continue?
Forced deportation of Palestinians and militarization of Israel's borders is nearly as bad a scenario.
That statement shows a complete lack of perspective.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
