Israel - Palestine History

iMrApex

Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.

Mandatory Palestine was an entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of Mandatory Palestine and formed Transjordan. Both were under British rule.



The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition with Mandatory Palestine to follow the termination of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).

The Partition Plan was not realized in the days following the 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly. It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947–48 Civil War. The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

An eight-man gang from Jaffa, an Arab group, ambushed a bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. At other places, Arab snipers skirmished Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa. Both sides committed atrocities throughout the war. As the civil war progressed, the Jewish forces began to get an upper hand. At midnight on 14 May 1948, the British Mandate expired and Britain disengaged its forces. Earlier in the evening, the Jewish People's Council had gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation, declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the "State of Israel".

The 1948 Arab–Israeli War began with the invasion of, or intervention in, Palestine by the Arab States on 15 May 1948. Israeli forces were victorious and had gained all but the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The armistice lines were known afterwards as the "Green Line". The Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. The US along with the UK approved of this annexation.The territory under Israeli control was three-quarters of the prior British administered Mandate.

During those 19 years, 1948-1967, Jordan and Egypt never offered to surrender those lands to make up an independent state of "Palestine". The "Palestinians" never sought it. Nobody in the world ever suggested it, much less demanded it.

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister in 1967. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel.The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation. Israel expelled Egypt and Jordan from the West Bank and Gaza.



The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.

The 1973 Arab–Israeli War, was a war fought by the coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions. Israel repelled the attack.

Eventually, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process led to the Oslo Accords of 1993, allowing the PLO to relocate from Tunisia and take ground in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, establishing the Palestinian National Authority

wes

iMrApex wrote: »

Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.

It was a League of Nations Class A Mandate. A class A mandate, was essentially a state in waiting.

iMrApex wrote: »

There is no language known as Palestinian.

So? There is no such language as American either.

iMrApex wrote: »

There is no distinct Palestinian culture.

I think the Palestinians would beg to differ on that one.

iMrApex wrote: »

There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.

Again so what? You could have said similar about Ireland, before we became independent. People have a right to self determination.

iMrApex wrote: »

An eight-man gang from Jaffa, an Arab group, ambushed a bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. At other places, Arab snipers skirmished Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa.

So good of you to just mention one sides violence,

The Deir Yassin massacre occured in April 1948.

iMrApex wrote: »

At midnight on 14 May 1948, the British Mandate expired and Britain disengaged its forces. Earlier in the evening, the Jewish People's Council had gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation, declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the "State of Israel".
The 1948 Arab–Israeli War began with the invasion of, or intervention in, Palestine by the Arab States on 15 May 1948. Israeli forces were victorious and had gained all but the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The war had in reality been going long before that, what with there being a rather large massacre committed by Irgun terrorists, a month before.

iMrApex wrote: »

During those 19 years, 1948-1967, Jordan and Egypt never offered to surrender those lands to make up an independent state of "Palestine". The "Palestinians" never sought it. Nobody in the world ever suggested it, much less demanded it.

So? It takes time for a nationalist movement to form, from groups refugee fleeing an organized ethnic cleansing, that you oddly decide not to mention.......

Anyway, a far more accurate history can be found here (Video is from Jewish voices for Peace):
Israel and Palestine: An Animated Introduction

iMrApex

I'm trying to get across the point that Palestine was basically "created", it was never there. For example, France had West Francia, Germany had East Francia, Turkey had the Byzantine Empire, etc.

I did not only mention one side of the violence. "The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli’s Defence Minister in 1967" Wikepedia: "An eight-man gang from Jaffa, an Arab group, ambushed a bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. At other places, Arab snipers skirmished Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa". It is accepted as the first casualties of the civil war hence why I mentioned it.

wes wrote: »

So? It takes time for a nationalist movement to form, from groups refugee fleeing an organized ethnic cleansing, that you oddly decide not to mention

Jordan and Egypt were contempt with keeping the lands which they had gained from the war until the Six Day War when Israel launched an attack and succeeded in annexing the territories.

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

I'm trying to get across the point that Palestine was basically "created", it was never there. For example, France had West Francia, Germany had East Francia, Turkey had the Byzantine Empire, etc..

So whats your point? America was created, Ireland was created.....all of Africa was "created".

wes

iMrApex wrote: »

Jordan and Egypt were contempt with keeping the lands which they had gained from the war until the Six Day War when Israel launched an attack and succeeded in annexing the territories.

Israel has only annexed East Jerusalem, which is recognized by no one.

Secondly, again so what to the rest of it? The land is not Israels, it belong to the Palestinians. If the want the land, then they need to be prepared to give equal rights to Palestinians.

Simply put under international law the land is not theres, and I find it bizarre that some people seem to want to argue a point that Israel has some kind of right to the land. They don't simple as that, and there whole settlement enterprise will prevent any chance of peace.

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

So whats your point? America was created, Ireland was created.....all of Africa was "created".

My point is that both Israel and Palestine were "created" and have fought each other.

I forgot to mention that I watched that video, she says "Military occupations are meant to be temporary, but after 40 years this one looks permanent and entirely unjust." That does not make sense to me. How are military occupations meant to be temporary? The main goal of most wars is to annex land. Borders have constantly changed throughout history and still change. Israel and the Arab states have had wars, wars which have been started by both sides and which Israel has won.

wes

iMrApex wrote: »

My point is that both Israel and Palestine were "created" and have fought each other.

I forgot to mention that I watched that video, she says "Military occupations are meant to be temporary, but after 40 years this one looks permanent and entirely unjust." That does not make sense to me. How are military occupations meant to be temporary? The main goal of most wars is to annex land. Borders have constantly changed throughout history and still change. Israel and the Arab states have had wars, wars which have been started by both sides and which Israel has won.

Its based on international law. You see nowadays, you can't acquire land via conquest. So for example stuff like settlers are illegal, and as such Israel occupation is considered illegal, as putting settlers on the land shows that there military occupation is not one of defending themselves, but rather that the goal is colonization.

iMrApex

wes wrote: »

Israel has only annexed East Jerusalem, which is recognized by no one.

Secondly, again so what to the rest of it? The land is not Israels, it belong to the Palestinians. If the want the land, then they need to be prepared to give equal rights to Palestinians.

Simply put under international law the land is not theres, and I find it bizarre that some people seem to want to argue a point that Israel has some kind of right to the land. They don't simple as that, and there whole settlement enterprise will prevent any chance of peace.

Israel captured the Sinai (Egypt), the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Sinai was returned to the Egyptians two years later.

How can you say that land belongs to Palestine. Before WW1 that land belonged to the Ottoman Empire. After WW1 the land belonged to the British. They had planned for the land to be split between Arabs and Jews after WW2 which was not successful resulting in wars. The Arabs could have "won" and Israel could be in Palestine's position right now but that was not the case.

wes wrote: »

Its based on international law. You see nowadays, you can't acquire land via conquest. So for example stuff like settlers are illegal, and as such Israel occupation is considered illegal, as putting settlers on the land shows that there military occupation is not one of defending themselves, but rather that the goal is colonization.

We have those laws but that doesn't stop borders from changing due to conquest. Vietnam, East Pakistan, etc. I don't have a problem with either side coming "out on top" in these wars, Arabs or Jews. It just so happens that the Jewish people "won". Do you think if the Arabs had "won" we would even be talking about "Israel" right now?

wes

iMrApex wrote: »

How can you say that land belongs to Palestine. Before WW1 that land belonged to the Ottoman Empire. After WW1 the land belonged to the British. They had planned for the land to be split between Arabs and Jews after WW2 which was not successful resulting in wars. The Arabs could have "won" and Israel could be in Palestine's position right now but that was not the case.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

The land is there under UN resolution 242, and I find it hard to believe you are unaware of that simple fact.

Also, what if are entirely pointless. The land is not Israels, they are there illegally.

iMrApex wrote: »

We have those laws but that doesn't stop borders from changing due to conquest. Vietnam, East Pakistan, etc. I don't have a problem with either side coming "out on top" in these wars, Arabs or Jews. It just so happens that the Jewish people "won". Do you think if the Arabs had "won" we would even be talking about "Israel" right now?

You will find that the people of Vietnam and Bangladesh exercised there right for self determination, against occupying powers, and the Palestinians are trying to do the same and nothing more. The land is there's under International law. Now if you want to live in some sort of crazy pre-international law kind of world, that gave us 2 World Wars, then you are quite frankly welcome to do so alone.

I find it so strange that anyone other than the most crazed Zionists would argue against a 2 state solution in this day and age, but then the world is filled with all sorts.

BTW, what do you propose be done with the Palestinians then?

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

My point is that both Israel and Palestine were "created" and have fought each other.

I forgot to mention that I watched that video, she says "Military occupations are meant to be temporary, but after 40 years this one looks permanent and entirely unjust." That does not make sense to me. How are military occupations meant to be temporary? The main goal of most wars is to annex land. Borders have constantly changed throughout history and still change. Israel and the Arab states have had wars, wars which have been started by both sides and which Israel has won.

I'm none the clearer as to your meaning and I've not posted any video.

Israel is colonising certain areas. This is illegal. It's not a grey area.

feargale

iMrApex wrote: »

Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.

You could say all of that about County Roscommon. But did immigrants colonise Roscommon and herd the natives into a tiny reservation in Elphin, telling them to stay there or feck off to some other country?

iMrApex wrote: »

Mandatory Palestine was an entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of Mandatory Palestine and formed Transjordan. Both were
under British rule.

Yes, the French and the British in particular created woeful mischief in that region at that time, drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to keep the locals weak.

iMrApex wrote: »

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition with Mandatory Palestine to follow the termination of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).

And hey presto, Europe washed its hands of its guilt for the appalling treatment of the Jews in the years immediately preceding, and the manner in which most European nations, including Ireland, looked the other way. The guilt was fobbed off on the Arabs. And guess who were still the majority population in 1948, and who got all the juicy bits?

iMrApex

wes wrote: »

The land is there under UN resolution 242, and I find it hard to believe you are unaware of that simple fact.

Also, what if are entirely pointless. The land is not Israels, they are there illegally.



You will find that the people of Vietnam and Bangladesh exercised there right for self determination, against occupying powers, and the Palestinians are trying to do the same and nothing more. The land is there's under International law. Now if you want to live in some sort of crazy pre-international law kind of world, that gave us 2 World Wars, then you are quite frankly welcome to do so alone.

I find it so strange that anyone other than the most crazed Zionists would argue against a 2 state solution in this day and age, but then the world is filled with all sorts.

BTW, what do you propose be done with the Palestinians then?

On 15 May 1948, Iraq and the neighbouring Arab states, Egypt, Jordan (Transjordan) and Syria, marched over 20,000 troops into what was British Mandate territory and immediately began to attack Jewish settlements. Do you think their intentions was to create two states? This means that the Arab states were the aggressors. Israel removed them from the British Mandate territory with the exception of The Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) which were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. In 1967 Israel launched an offensive and removed them from this land. Could you tell me what do you expect Israel to do?

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

On 15 May 1948, Iraq and the neighbouring Arab states, Egypt, Jordan (Transjordan) and Syria, marched over 20,000 troops into what was British Mandate territory and immediately began to attack Jewish settlements. Do you think their intentions was to create two states? This means that the Arab states were the aggressors. Israel removed them from the British Mandate territory with the exception of The Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) which were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. In 1967 Israel launched an offensive and removed them from this land. Could you tell me what do you expect Israel to do?

Respect its borders and not colonise those areas.

Lockstep

iMrApex wrote: »

On 15 May 1948, Iraq and the neighbouring Arab states, Egypt, Jordan (Transjordan) and Syria, marched over 20,000 troops into what was British Mandate territory and immediately began to attack Jewish settlements. Do you think their intentions was to create two states? This means that the Arab states were the aggressors. Israel removed them from the British Mandate territory with the exception of The Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) which were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. In 1967 Israel launched an offensive and removed them from this land. Could you tell me what do you expect Israel to do?

Defeat the Arab states (as they did) and not annex their territory. It's fairly simple stuff.
Keep in mind that Egypt and Jordan now recognise Israel's right to exist, hell even Fatah do.

wes

iMrApex wrote: »

On 15 May 1948, Iraq and the neighbouring Arab states, Egypt, Jordan (Transjordan) and Syria, marched over 20,000 troops into what was British Mandate territory and immediately began to attack Jewish settlements. Do you think their intentions was to create two states?
This means that the Arab states were the aggressors.

Except that before the other Arabs states invaded, the Israelis were already ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. The conflict started long before any other Arab states invaded, so saying that Arabs states were aggressors is laughable. Zionists were planning to cleanse the Palestinians as far back as Theodre Herzl coming up with the whole notion in the first place.

iMrApex wrote: »

Israel removed them from the British Mandate territory with the exception of The Gaza Strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) which were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. In 1967 Israel launched an offensive and removed them from this land. Could you tell me what do you expect Israel to do?

Oh please, Zionists were European colonists, using an extremist interpretation of the Bible to grab land. What the Zionists did back in 1948, isn't all that different to what ISIS are doing in Iraq now.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the past, UN resolution 242, clearly shows that the land is not theres, end of story. Now you can choose to ignore this fact and go on and on, with a one sided version of history, but the fact is that right now, Israel has no right to East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, and the fact that there grabbing land will just keep the conflict going.

I expect the Israeli's to return to there own borders and bring the conflict to an end, there is a peace offer from the entire Arab league on the table since 2002 that Israel has ignored. This whole mess could have been sorted over a decade ago at this point, but Israel has chosen time and again to expand outside her borders.

BTW, I asked you a question earlier which you have decided not to answer:

wes wrote: »

BTW, what do you propose be done with the Palestinians then?

I have done you the courtesy of answering your question, so I expect the same in return.

iMrApex

wes wrote: »

Except that before the other Arabs states invaded, the Israelis were already ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. The conflict started long before any other Arab states invaded, so saying that Arabs states were aggressors is laughable. Zionists were planning to cleanse the Palestinians as far back as Theodre Herzl coming up with the whole notion in the first place.

The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force" [All taken from Wikipedia]

The Arabs were originally winning at the start of the civil war hence that statement, they were confident they could win. I can't understand your mindset. Do you think Palestine wasn't going to do everything they could do to prevent Israel from being created and vica-versa? According to Wikipedia, there was 2,000 Jewish people killed and 1,000 Palestinian Arabs. Both sides committed atrocities.

When it was clear the Arabs no longer had the upper hand the state of Israel was proclaimed. The Arab states then marched 20,000 troops into Israel and was repelled. Gaza and the West Bank were annexed by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship [Wikipedia]. Why don't you blame Egypt and Jordan for occupying "Palestinian land" for 20 odds years? I think they were more than content with keeping that land until the Six Day war in 1967 when Israel removed them.

The 1973 Arab–Israeli War, was a war fought by the coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions. Israel repelled the attack.

What do I think should be done with Palestinians? They are free to do what they want. Continue to live under Israeli rule, move to Jordan / Egypt, etc.

wes

iMrApex wrote: »

The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force" [All taken from Wikipedia]

Yes, yes, some people said this or that in 1947. Theodor Herzl whole idea of Zionism predates any of the above btw:

As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

So from the start Zionism was about removed the people already living there. Why shouldn't the Palestinians resist? When, it came down to it, the tactics used were actually violent, but then it was never going to be any other way, as no people would just up and leave on they say of a colonists.

Here are some quote from Ben Gurion:

Ben-Gurion hailed Lord Peel's recommendations: "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had ... during the days of the First and Second Temples ... an opportunity which we never dared to dream in our wildest imaginings." In August 1937 he told the emergency 20th Zionist Congress, convened in Zurich: "We do not want to dispossess, [but piecemeal] transfer of population [through Jewish purchase and the removal of Arab tenant farmers] occurred previously, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon and in other places ... Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out ... Transfer is what will make possible a comprehensive [Jewish] settlement programme. Thankfully, the Arab people have vast empty areas [in Transjordan and Iraq]. Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale."

So, the Palestinians were fighting not be thrown of there country by Zionist colonists, and the Arab states were trying to prevent Zionists from doing so.

iMrApex wrote: »

The Arabs were originally winning at the start of the civil war hence that statement, they were confident they could win. I can't understand your mindset. Do you think Palestine wasn't going to do everything they could do to prevent Israel from being created and vica-versa? According to Wikipedia, there was 2,000 Jewish people killed and 1,000 Palestinian Arabs. Both sides committed atrocities.

Yes, and 1 side were invading European colonists, using the an extremist take on the Bible to justify taking land that wasn't there, which is exactly what is happening to day. What the Palestinians did when the Zionist colonists arrived is no different than what Native Americans were doing, when European colonist arrived.

iMrApex wrote: »

When it was clear the Arabs no longer had the upper hand the state of Israel was proclaimed. The Arab states then marched 20,000 troops into Israel and was repelled.

Again leaving out the whole ethnic cleansing thing, which you continue to fail to acknowledge for some strange reason...

iMrApex wrote: »

Gaza and the West Bank were annexed by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship [Wikipedia]. Why don't you blame Egypt and Jordan for occupying "Palestinian land" for 20 odds years? I think they were more than content with keeping that land until the Six Day war in 1967 when Israel removed them.

There not occupying it anymore, so kind of irrelevant, and a peculiar obsession of apologist for Israel current settler enterprise.

iMrApex wrote: »

In 1973, the Yom Kippur War, they tried to regain the land which they lost to Israel by launching an attack on Israel.

The Palestinians didn't launch that war, you seem to conflate Palestinians with other nations when it suits.

iMrApex wrote: »

What do I think should be done with Palestinians? They are free to do what they want. Continue to live under Israeli rule, move to Jordan / Egypt, etc.

There not free to do what they want, they can't just move to Jordan or Egypt, what with most being made stateless by Zionists.

I take your against a 2 state solution, seeing as you continue to ignore UN Resolution 242 for some reason, and will just go on and on with a bizarre one sided history, that doesn't change the simple fact, the land is not Israels now (East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza), the rights or wrongs of the past, are neither here nor there.

IMHO, Israel should have never been created, but its there now and homes to millions of people, but at the same time, the Palestinians are not going anywhere, and at a bare minimum, they deserve a state of there own, both morally (they got unfairly screwed over, when Western states decided to give there country away) and legally as well.

iMrApex

wes wrote: »

Yes, yes, some people said this or that in 1947.
Yes, and 1 side were invading European colonists, using the an extremist take on the Bible to justify taking land that wasn't there, which is exactly what is happening to day. What the Palestinians did when the Zionist colonists arrived is no different than what Native Americans were doing, when European colonist arrived.

There was a Jewish population in British Mandate before the civil war. The UN had planned to allocate these people land after WW2 but as we know this didn't turn out as planned.

wes wrote: »

There not occupying it anymore, so kind of irrelevant, and a peculiar obsession of apologist for Israel current settler enterprise

The only reason why the people living there are not Jordanian citizens any more is because Israel removed Jordanian presence. Both the US and UK approved of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Certain member of the Arab league wanted to expel Jordan as they were more than content with keeping that land for themselves. What I said is not irrelevant.

wes wrote: »

Yes, yes, some people said this or that in 1947.
The Palestinians didn't launch that war, you seem to conflate Palestinians with other nations when it suits.

It wasn't "some people". It was The Arab Higher Committee who was "central political organ of the Arab community [Wikipedia]" How could "They" mean Palestine as it didn't exist? They meant Egypt, Jordan, etc.

I'm starting to get a sense of anti-Semitism from you. Do you not understand that two sides had wars? Two being started by the Arab coalition and one being started by Israel. Israel came out on top, it could have been the other way around and I would defend the Arab coalition in that case like I am defending Israel now. Let's say Arabs in the British Mandate were victorious. They prevented the creation of Israel and created Palestine. I would defend them. Have another read of my first post.

wes

iMrApex wrote: »

There was a Jewish population in British Mandate before the civil war. The UN had planned to allocate these people land after WW2 but as we know this didn't turn out as planned.

The Jewish population made up one third, most of whom were recent arrived, and they were given 55% of the land, without any consultation with the people who already lived there. The partition plan was a recipe for disaster from the get go.

The fact however remains there was no provisions in the UN resolution for removal of Palestinians, which was the intent of Zionists from the start.

iMrApex wrote: »

The only reason why the people living there are not Jordanian citizens any more is because Israel removed Jordanian presence. Both the US and UK approved of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Certain member of the Arab league wanted to expel Jordan as they were more than content with keeping that land for themselves. What I said is not irrelevant.

It is irrelevant, as they no longer occupy the land, and it doesn't change anything in regards to present day Palestinians claims, as Jordan doesn't make any claims on the West Bank and East Jerusalem anymore.

iMrApex wrote: »

It wasn't "some people". It was The Arab Higher Committee who was "central political organ of the Arab community [Wikipedia]" How could "They" mean Palestine as it didn't exist? They meant Egypt, Jordan, etc.

So what? Long before that Zionists were planning on ethnic cleansing, which you refuse to acknowledge time and time again.

iMrApex wrote: »

I'm starting to get a sense of anti-Semitism from you.

I am starting to get the sense, that you know you losing the argument are now using the old Anti-semite smear. That is a bit rich from someone who refuses to acknowledge the clear intent of Zionist to remove Palestinians from there land, long before any conflict had even begun. One could even insinuate, that such denial is defacto approval, and as such racist. You see I can play that game just fine too.

iMrApex wrote: »

Do you not understand that two sides had wars? Two being started by the Arab coalition and one being started by Israel.

2 wars were started by Zionists, the first conflict was due to European colonists arriving in Palestine with the intent of removing the people already living there, most people consider such things an act of war. Why you continue this clearly expressed intent that pre-date the start of the conflict is beyond me.

iMrApex wrote: »

Israel came out on top, it could have been the other way around and I would defend the Arab coalition in that case like I am defending Israel now. Let's say Arabs in the British Mandate were victorious. They prevented the creation of Israel and created Palestine. I would defend them. Have another read of my first post.

Again, we don't live in that kind of world anymore. That world went away at the end of World War 2. The entire notion of acquiring land by force, is old hat. Think about what you saying for 1 second, why shouldn't the Palestinians fight forever until they get there land back then? If we are to, accept taking land by force, then it can always be taken back? That is just a recipe for disaster the world over.

So once more, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the past UN resolution 242 gives Palestinians rights to a state on there territories. You seem to be against this notion, on the basis of might makes right, and seem to want some sort of eternal war, where people will constantly be fighting to take land from one another.

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

.,................
What do I think should be done with Palestinians? They are free to do what they want. Continue to live under Israeli rule, move to Jordan / Egypt, etc.

So you support ethnic cleansing and colonialism. Great stuff.

iMrApex

wes wrote: »

2 wars were started by Zionists, the first conflict was due to European colonists arriving in Palestine with the intent of removing the people already living there, most people consider such things an act of war. Why you continue this clearly expressed intent that pre-date the start of the conflict is beyond me.

The first shots of the civil war were fired by Arabs though both sides can be to blame for starting the civil war. Answer me this, if the Arabs in the British Mandate had "won", with the help of the Arab Coalition, and created a Palestinian state in British Mandate terrirtory what would be your stance now?

Nodin wrote: »

So you support ethnic cleansing and colonialism. Great stuff.

Not once did I say that.

wes wrote: »

It is irrelevant, as they no longer occupy the land, and it doesn't change anything in regards to present day Palestinians claims, as Jordan doesn't make any claims on the West Bank and East Jerusalem anymore.

Also, this is extremely relevant. The US along with the UK approved of the annexation of "Palestinian land" into Jordan. What's changed? Why can Jordan annex it and Israel can't?

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

Not once did I say that.

"What do I think should be done with Palestinians? They are free to do what they want. Continue to live under Israeli rule, move to Jordan / Egypt, etc."

Then do please offer an alternative reading of the above.

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

"What do I think should be done with Palestinians? They are free to do what they want. Continue to live under Israeli rule, move to Jordan / Egypt, etc."

Then do please offer an alternative reading of the above.

How in any way does what I said translate to ethnic cleansing. "They are free to do what they want".

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

How in any way does what I said translate to ethnic cleansing. "They are free to do what they want".

Selective quoting is never good, but its at its worst when it pertains to a quote on the same page of the same thread.

"They are free to do what they want. Continue to live under Israeli rule, move to Jordan / Egypt, etc."

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

Selective quoting is never good, but its at its worst when it pertains to a quote on the same page of the same thread.

"They are free to do what they want. Continue to live under Israeli rule, move to Jordan / Egypt, etc."

To me, none of what you're saying is logical. They can do whatever they want. Stay in Israel, move to Jordan, apply for a visa to Ireland, train to become astronauts and go to the International Space Station, etc.

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

To me, none of what you're saying is logical. They can do whatever they want. Stay in Israel, move to Jordan, apply for a visa to Ireland, train to become astronauts and go to the International Space Station, etc.

We aren't talking about Palestinians inside Israels recognised borders.

What about - mad idea - self determination and a state of their own?

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

We aren't talking about Palestinians inside Israels recognised borders.

What about - mad idea - self determination and a state of their own?

What about the self determination of the Jewish people in British Mandate? The Arabs tried to prevent the creation of a Jewish state. What about self determination of the West Bank when Jordan annexed it, what about Gaza when Egypt annexed it, etc.

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

What about the self determination of the Jewish people in British Mandate? The Arabs tried to prevent the creation of a Jewish state. What about self determination of the West Bank when Jordan annexed it, what about Gaza when Egypt annexed it, etc.

There is an Israeli state, so I'm not sure what you're on about there. Can you answer the question now?

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

There is an Israeli state, so I'm not sure what you're on about there. Can you answer the question now?

It's hard to have self determination when: "In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel."

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

It's hard to have self determination when: "In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel."

It is? How? Why? And why are you constantly quoting historical references that have virtually no relevance?

It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

It is? How? Why? And why are you constantly quoting historical references that have virtually no relevance?

It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

No relevance? The PLO was created on the basis that is wanted to see the destruction Israel. If the roles were reversed do you think the Palestinians would offer Israelis self determination?

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

No relevance? The PLO was created on the basis that is wanted to see the destruction Israel. If the roles were reversed do you think the Palestinians would offer Israelis self determination?

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/08/world/arafat-says-plo-accepted-israel.html

You seem to be avoiding the questions put to you.

"if the roles were reversed" is about as useful as "if hitler won the war" or "if Stalin had conqured western Europe" outside the premise for a video game.

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding the questions put to you.

"if the roles were reversed" is about as useful as "if hitler won the war" or "if Stalin had conqured western Europe" outside the premise for a video game.

The PLO was considered a terrorist organisation. In their original charter they wanted a Palestinian state in all of previous British Mandate meaning an Israel state couldn't exist. The question I asked is valid, think about what if the roles were reversed. It's nothing like "What if Hitler won the war".

sheesh

iMrApex wrote: »

Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.
........

well, that clears that up I don't know what those Palestinian boys are on about I think we can all agree that it must be another case of antisemitism.

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

The PLO was considered a terrorist organisation.
".

So was the IRA, PIRA, ANC, Irgun, etc. Irrelevant.

iMrApex wrote: »

In their original charter they wanted a Palestinian state in all of previous British Mandate meaning an Israel state couldn't exist. ".

That charter is defunct, as shown above, so again, irrelevant.

iMrApex wrote: »

The question I asked is valid, think about what if the roles were reversed. It's nothing like "What if Hitler won the war".

Speculation about alternative history is not conducive to healthy political discussion. Now

It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

So was the IRA, PIRA, ANC, Irgun, etc. Irrelevant.


That charter is defunct, as shown above, so again, irrelevant.



Speculation about alternative history is not conducive to healthy political discussion. Now

It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?

Israelis are free to build what they please on land which they obtained from aggressors, those being Egypt and Jordan

sheesh

iMrApex wrote: »

Israelis are free to build what they please on land which they obtained from aggressors, those being Egypt and Jordan

they have no right to force people from their land, hand it over to jewish settlers and then demand to be accepted as members of the civilised world. If you take over land from another country the original denizens of that land have rights. Don't they?

iMrApex

sheesh wrote: »

they have no right to force people from their land, hand it over to jewish settlers and then demand to be accepted as members of the civilised world. If you take over land from another country the original denizens of that land have rights. Don't they?

We can't condone how Israel is treating Arabs, we can't condone how either side has treated each other.

sheesh

iMrApex wrote: »

We can't condone how Israel is treating Arabs, we can't condone how either side has treated each other.

the Arabs administration are not a particularly nice group of people but neither are the israeli government talk about being separated for over 2 thousand years and still cut from the same cloth!

the cynical stealing of land is going to get peoples backs up and without recourse to some sort of binding arbitration where the Original owners get their land back with compensation this conflict will continue.

the problem for israel is this, as i see it, All it takes is a technological change for them to be landed in trouble. at the moment they have the upper hand, this will change, I do not see the state of israel surviving the next 200 years if the current situation continues. they cannot kill all the Arabs. they are already at the very limits of what they can get away with and still be regarded as a western country.

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

Israelis are free to build what they please on land which they obtained from aggressors, those being Egypt and Jordan

No, they are not. That's why you have the security council resolution mentioned earlier.

iMrApex wrote: »

We can't condone how Israel is treating Arabs,............

Palestinians, and that's what you seem to be doing.

Again -
It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing? Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

No, they are not. That's why you have the security council resolution mentioned earlier.


Palestinians, and that's what you seem to be doing.

Again -
It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing? Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.

Neither Arabs of Israelis appear to care about that resolution considering they've had three wars. Arabs in the British Mandate would have been content with winning the civil war and having all the land, Jordan was content on keeping the land they had gained, Egypt was, Israel was, etc.

I have already said Israel is free to build what they wish in their land, likewise Jordan was free to build what they wanted in the West Bank and Egypt was free to build what they want in Gaza before Israel removed them in the Six Day war.

Ethnic cleansing? The Israelis aren't rounding up Arabs and forcing them to leave, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

feargale

iMrApex wrote: »

I'm starting to get a sense of anti-Semitism from you.

That's the dirtiest little trick in the book, equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It's the blood libel in reverse.

iMrApex wrote: »

Do you not understand that two sides had wars? Two being started by the Arab coalition and one being started by Israel. Israel came out on top, it could have been the other way around and I would defend the Arab coalition in that case like I am defending Israel now. Let's say Arabs in the British Mandate were victorious. They prevented the creation of Israel and created Palestine. I would defend them. Have another read of my first post.

Your whole contribution here is the classic apologia for old style imperialism. Might is right. It's ok to bully defenceless people out of their land. Ah yes, " if the shoe were on the other foot we would accept it. " Some chance!

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

Neither Arabs of Israelis appear to care about that resolution considering they've had three wars. .

What three wars? Why mention them in relation to the resolution?

iMrApex wrote: »

...........have already said Israel is free to build what they wish in their land,
.

It is not Israeli land, as pointed out earlier. It is outside Israels borders.

iMrApex wrote: »

Ethnic cleansing? The Israelis aren't rounding up Arabs and forcing them to leave, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

More vague waffle that doesn't answer the question asked. You are the one whose statement seems to support ethnic cleansing.

To repeat -

It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing? Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.

iMrApex

feargale wrote: »

That's the dirtiest little trick in the book, equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It's the blood libel in reverse.

Your whole contribution here is the classic apologia for old style imperialism. Might is right. It's ok to bully defenceless people out of their land. Ah yes, " if the shoe were on the other foot we would accept it. " Some chance!

As I've said before, I can't simplify this any more. Both sides refused to accept the UN resolution and since then there has been three wars. The first we can say was both parties, the second was the Arab states and the third was Israel. Israel has been victorious in the three, they have every right to that land.

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

What three wars? Why mention them in relation to the resolution?

Before posting you should read all posts within a thread. The 1948 war, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War.

feargale

iMrApex wrote: »

As I've said before, I can't simplify this any more. Both sides refused to accept the UN resolution and since then there has been three wars. The first we can say was both parties, the second was the Arab states and the third was Israel. Israel has been victorious in the three, they have every right to that land.

Might is right. Yes?

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

As I've said before, I can't simplify this any more. Both sides refused to accept the UN resolution and since then there has been three wars. The first we can say was both parties, the second was the Arab states and the third was Israel. Israel has been victorious in the three, they have every right to that land.

You seem to be confused about resolutions.


There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confused about resolutions.


There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?

You seem to be the one who is confused. Resolution 181(II), the partition of the British Mandate territory. Neither side accepted it resulting in Wars. Did you read my original thread explaining the history?

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

Before posting you should read all posts within a thread.

As you keep posting irrelevant material, its hard to see what point you're at.

The fact is that the colonies in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, the Golan are illegal. Israel has no right to the territory, and that UN resolution 242 cites the fact that territorial expansion by military means is illegal.

Nodin

iMrApex wrote: »

You seem to be the one who is confused. Resolution 181(II), the partition of the British Mandate territory. Neither side accepted it results in wars.

Again, more irrelevant nonsense. We are talking about the present day and the building of colonies and the matters pertaining to that.

Again -

There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?

It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing? Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.

iMrApex

Nodin wrote: »

Again, more irrelevant nonsense. We are talking about the present day and the building of colonies and the matters pertaining to that.

Again -

There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?

It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing? Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.

According to you the past is irrelevant nonsense, in that case isn't resolution 242 irrelevant? Israel can build what they wish where they wish in land which they have annexed from Jordan and Egypt. Please read the original post explaining the history of the situation again.