Viva Le France!

[A Squared]

QUOTE]Originally posted by gunfyter And also partied and danced in the streets after the WTC towers went down on September 11, 2001.[/QUOTE]

I am as disgusted by that as you. Don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to suggest that the Palestinians are pure as the driven snow. They are certainly not, and have committed a long list of inexcusable crimes. My point is that the Israelis have done some pretty heinous things, and share at least an equal measure of the blame for the way things are over there. You see there is a popular myth that the Israelis are peaceful band of people merely trying to defend their country. The reality is that they have aggressively expanded their territory through military might largely supplied by us, in violation of international law and in contravention with numerous UN resolutions. If you read the writings of the early Zionists, you will see that even back in the 19th century, the goal of Zionism was to displace the Palestinians from all of Israel by denying them land and denying them employment. Even in the middle of last century, their goal was to accept the UN partition as a means of getting a foot in the door, then as soon as they were able, push the Palestinians from the Palestinian partition. That was stated explicitly by the major leaders, including David Ben-Gurion The Israelis never had any intention of living peacefully with the Palestinians. The historical record is pretty clear on this


QUOTE]Originally posted by 100LL
Not this old lie again. It is real easy for closet anti-semites to believe, however, They really, really want to believe it. Thank the Germans and the French for the state of Israel if you are so opposed to it. Hate is always very ugly. Joseph Goebbels would love you. [/QUOTE]

Ahh, I see, so I am anti-Semitic, because I am critical of Israel ? Congratulations, you have just aligned yourself solidly with the type of idiots who claim you must be racist (or sexist) if you are critical of affirmative action, or that you must be anti-black if you point out that Farrakhan is a racist demagogue.

Perhaps you could specify which of my quoted statements is a lie: That the palestinians have been systematically displaced from lands that they have held since the days of Roman Empire? That my friend is pretty well grounded in fact, if you believe that it is a lie, then it is you who have bought into a lie, the Zionist Lie that Palestine was a "land without people, for a people without a land" The thing is, at the end of the first World War, Palestine had a population of 700,000 to 780,000 people. A little less than 10 % of that population was Jewish. Somewhere along the line, the Israelis wound up in control of and in possession virtually of all of Palestine. The Palestinians wound up in refugee camps, denied the right to return to their lands. I might ask, what exactly does "displaced" mean to you?

Perhaps you are suggesting the Israeli massacres of Palestinian civilians at Dier Yassim and other places are a lie. It’s possible, I am always willing to consider that I have been misled. Neither you nor I were there at Dier Yassim. All we know is what we’ve been told. I’ve read quite a bit about just that. Some accounts are obviously the product of violently anti-Semitic lunatics. Some are on the other extreme and deny that the Israelis did anything but protect themselves. Of course, the Holocaust has it’s deniers too. Anyway, the truth about Dier Yassim and other issues likely lies somewhere between those extremes. In my readings, I gave particular weight to accounts of Israeli misdeeds from Israeli journalists and historians. Presumably those individuals would have a bias toward *preserving* the myth of Israeli innocence and sanctity. What I have read, and considering the source in each case, has led me to believe that it is very likely that the Israeli forces did massacre Palestinian non-combatants at Dier Yassim and possibly other places, for the primary purpose of driving the Palestinians from their lands. Menachem Begin states in his memoirs that as the Israeli forces moved into Palestinian territory, " .......The Arabs began fleeing in panic, shouting Deir Yasin!" So certainly at the time the Palestinians believed there had been a massacre, and the Israelis made no secret that having the Palestinians believe there had been a massacre suited their purposes of getting them off the land Particularly revealing is a report of a "Shai" (Israeli intellegence) Commander Levy on 12 April, 1948 "The occupation of the village was carried with great cruelty. Whole families---women, old people, children---were killed, and there were piles of dead [in various places]. Some of the prisoners moved to places of incarceration, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors." In a report the following day, Levy added: "LHI [Stern Gang lead by Yitzhak Shamir] members tell of the barbaric behavior [Hitnahagut barbarit in Hebrew] of the IZL [Irgun gang lead by Menachem Begin] toward the prisoners and the dead. They also relate that the IZL men raped a number of [Palestinian] Arab girls and murdered them afterward (we don't know if this is true)." If this is what the Israeli intelligence officers at the time were saying about Deir Yassim , what do *you* think happened? Do you have credible sources which show that the Deir Yassim massacre is a Palestinian Lie? I’d certainly be willing to read that, and change my opinion if there was compelling evidence. I have to ask though, had you ever heard of Deir Yassim before you read my posts? If you have, you’re one of a very few in the US. Truth, or Lie, we just don’t seem to hear of these things here. What we do hear seems to have been carefully filtered.

Did you know that the Israelis assassinated the UN appointed arbitrator of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Swedish Count Bernodotte? Yep, Back in 1948 Five Israeli soldiers in uniform stopped the UN motorcade and strolled over the car in which Count Bernodotte was riding, (the last car in the convoy) stuck automatic weapons through the window and shot him and the other person in the back seat, then they got back in their jeep and left Executing UN officials, yeah, that’s the mark of a civilized people. See we never hear about that kind of stuff do we? What would be your response if armed men in the uniform of the Iraqi Army murdered Hans Blix? Yeah, we’d want blood, but somehow, when it’s the Israelis executing UN officials, we cover our eyes and cling to the notion that the Israelis are a peace loving, civilized people. The best the Israelis could do is blame it on the individual actions of Israeli terrorists who also were in the Israeli army .... But Wait!!!! The Israelis aren’t TERRORISTS!!!! Oh, but suddenly they DO have terrorists when they need someone to blame for a murder. Can you say Cognitive Dissonance? By the way, the terrorist group which to which the murder is attributed (variously called Stern, or LEHI) was led by Y’itzak Shamir, who was later an Israeli Prime Minister. Shamir admits openly that his group was responsible for the murder, but claims that he had no part in the planning ..... yeah, right.



As long as we’re on the subject of Israeli prime ministers, it is interesting to note that Menachem Begin openly admits in his memoirs that he himself planned the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem which killed 91 people. The British Army had their headquarters there. Tell me again about how the Palestinians are Evil Terrorists, but the Israelis are not .....I’m a little unclear on this. While you’re at it, explain how bombing the King David Hotel is fundamentally different that the terror bomb attack on the US marine barracks in Beirut.

As long as we’re talking about bombs, lets talk about the bomb that the Mossad placed in a Syrian library, killing civilians, whose only crime was being Syrian, and reading. Yep, the Palestinians are terrorists, but the Israelis are a peaceful people, forced to defend themselves (by putting bombs in libraries in other countries) Just keep telling yourself that pal.

Continued......

 

[A Squared]

We as Americans, have been raised on this fantasy of Israeli innocence and Palestinian evil. To be fair, the Palestinians haven’t helped. Everyone here over a certain age can picture the image of the hooded terrorist at the Munich Olympics. We all know who murdered the Israeli athletes. We all know about the Palestinian suicide bombers, but we see m completely clueless about the rest of the story. In our quest to reduce the world to simple black and white terms of Israeli virtue versus Palestinian evil, we have bought into a number of myths which make it fit our binary view


Myth # 1

The Jews had a greater right to Palestine than the Palestinians.

Reality: the Jews ruled that area for a period of 414 years, ending almost 2 Millennia ago with Roman conquest. By the 7th century AD, Jews were a small minority in Palestine.

Uhhh, folks, If you think that The Jews were entitled to Palestine, because they owned it for a couple of centuries, two thousand years ago, then we all better start packing because the Indians owned North America for tens of thousands of years, ending only about 350-400 years ago. Let’s not be hypocrites, OK?


Myth # 2 Palestine was an empty land, waiting to be settled. The Palestinians should have "shared" the land with the incoming Jews.

Reality: According to an official British estimate in the early 1920’s (when Jewish immigration really got rolling) There were 780,000 people in Palestine, about 10% were Jews. Folks, that’s more people than the present day population of Vermont, in a country smaller than Vermont. You think that Vermont is empty? Why don’t you zip over to Vermont and try to find a patch of unused land, enough to start your own farm, let alone enough land for farms for a few hundred thousand immigrants. If you work the math, you’ll find that before the Jews started immigrating en-masse, there was about 6.5 acres per person. That might sound like a lot to you city dwellers, but those of you who are from farming country know that it’s not much of a farm. That’s a chunk of land about 535 feet on a side. Bear in mind that Palestine was primarily an agricultural society back then.

Myth #3 The Zionists just wanted to live peacefully with the Palestinians.

Reality, their clearly stated intent was to push the Palestinians out. "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country" Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism . The Jewish National Fund was created to ".......... redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people." And in the words of David Ben-Gurion : "With compulsory transfer (of Palestinians) we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." You think that the Palestinians didn’t know what was going on? Oh yeah that’s right, the were just stupid violent anti-Semitic terrorists, of course they couldn’t read. When the Zionists were making no secret of their intent to throw the Palestinians out of Palestine, is it any wonder they resisted? Wouldn’t you? If you wouldn’t you don’t have a cajone to your name.

Myth #4 The Israelis were forced to occupy all of Palestine by Palestinian and Arab aggression.

Reality; In 1948, the UN partitioned Palestine into 2 roughly equal territories, one Jewish, one Palestinian. The Israelis had the stated intention of taking over all of Palestine in defiance of the UN Partition resolution (#181) In the words of David Ben-Gurion: "after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine" And according to Menachem Begin: "The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever." Hmmm, kinda puts a different spin on that "we were just defending ourselves crap, doesn’t it?????? It is certainly true that the neighboring Arab countries invaded the Palestinian partition, but what is conveniently forgotten is that they were invading because the Israelis were already invading Palestinian territory and driving the Palestinians off their land. Let’s look at it from a different angle, what if France was invading Canada, had already taken over most of it and had stated unequivocally that they intended to take over all of it and drive the Canadians into the United States. You suppose that we might "invade" Canada to stop the French? You think that Canada might *want* us to "invade" under those circumstances?


Myth #5
Israel was forced to take the Golan Heights from Syria because Syria was shelling Jewish settlements from there .

Reality: Israel had no such justification and in fact were the aggressors. Here are the words of Moshe Dayan You remember Moshe? The Guy with the Eye Patch? The Israeli Defense Minister when the Golan Heights were seized. This was published in the Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, and in The Washington Post on Dec. 24, 1999. Read what he had to say.

"I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights," he said, "As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time." The seizure went ahead, he added, not because Israel was threatened, but in response to pressure from Jews who coveted Syrian land, and from army commanders in northern Israel. "Of course [war with Syria] was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don't open aggression against an enemy because he's a bastard but because he's a threat." "After all, I know exactly how at least 80 percent of the incidents began. , Dayan continued. "We would send a tractor to plow some [disputed] area ... and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. This is what I did, and what Laskov and Tchera (chief of staff Zvi Tzur) also did, and what Yitzhak Rabin did as well. We thought then, and we continued to do so for a considerable while, that we could alter the armistice lines through military operations that would be just short of actual war. In other words, by seizing some land and holding it until the enemy would despair and let us keep it"

Well, now we have it right from the top what the *real* story of the Golan Heights was. You suppose they might have misrepresented the occupation of all the other occupied territories????? Nahhhh, surely they wouldn’t have done that.


Myth # 6

The Palestinians "abandoned’ their homes.

Reality: they fled their homes, there was a war going on. Of course they fled, they had reason to believe that if they remained in their homes they would be murdered by the advancing Israelis. It is a fundamental principle of international law that citizens who flee their homes in the face of battle are entitled to return to them when hostilities cease. For almost 60 years, they have not been allowed to do so. The United Nations passed resolution 194 III demanding that the displaced Palestinians be allowed to return to their homes. Israel ignored this resolution and is still in violation of it today.



Myth #7
The neighboring Arab countries wouldn’t take the Palestinian refugees in and give them a permanent home.


Reality: Oh wait, this one’s true, but it is always brought up to show how evil Israel’s neighbors are, how they were using the Palestinians as pawns to fight Israel. Well answer me this: Why the he11 should they give the Palestinians a permanent home? Let’s walk a few steps in their shoes for a moment. Suppose that Columbia had invaded Mexico and pushed most of the Mexicans out. Would we give them a permanent home? Oh sure, we’ll give them Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, what the he11, we’ll throw in So Cal too..... Maybe they can turn the Alamo into a nightclub .... !! No, I’m sure that we’d give them temporary safe haven, but I would hope that we’d also do what we could to get Columbia back out of Mexico, so the Mexicans could return home. If you let go of the "Israel is pure, Arabs are evil", myth for just a moment, you might be able to see that it’s no more realistic for the Arabs to absorb a million or so Palestinians than it is for us to take in all of Mexico.


Myth #8
Israel "owns" the occupied territories.

Reality: No it doesn’t. . Under accepted International law, a nation may not expand it’s boundaries by military force, even if attacked. If attacked, it may invade to neutralize a threat, but it may not permanently take over territory. On 11/22/1967 The UN passed resolution 242 demanding that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories. Later resolutions, the latest being resolution 1402, have echoed this demand. Israel has yet to comply. One might make the case that military occupation is necessary to counter the Palestinian threat .... but that wouldn’t explain why Israeli settlers are moving in, building homes and taking up residence. That’s not a military necessity, It’s a land grab.

The myths go on. I don’t have enough time and Mark doesn’t have enough bandwidth to address them all.

continued.....

 

[A Squared]

So what is the solution? I don’t know. I do know that solutions based on the "Israel-good, Palestine-bad" myth will fail, as they have been failing since this began. To arrive at a workable solution, one must start with the understanding that neither side holds the moral high ground. No doubt there are hard line Palestinians who will go to the grave believing that Israel should be wiped off the map, just like there are their Israeli counterparts who will never accept anything less than full and complete Jewish occupation of all the land, and total displacement of the Palestinians. You might take a second to note that the current situation is much closer to the Zionist extremist goal than the Palestinian extremist goal. Would requiring Israel to return to the 1948 partition boundaries work? Perhaps. Certainly, if the Palestinians refused to be satisfied with this, I would agree that nothing would ever satisfy them. The trouble is, Israel would never agree to this, they won’t even honor their existing agreements to pull out of occupied territories. There are no easy solutions when one faction of brutal, racist, hard liners is pitted against another faction of brutal, racist, hard-liners. I do know that we, as a country aren’t doing ourselves any favors by favoring one faction unquestioningly over the other. Our hypocrisy is transparent to the world



100LL. You owe me an apology for accusing me of anti-Semitism and likening me to Goebbels. I have spent a great deal of time and effort, reading and researching the Israel/Palestine issue. I have made a serious effort to separate the lies from the truth. I may not have been entirely successful in all cases, and I may have reached different conclusions than you would have if faced with the same information, but rest assured that my views are not grounded in hatred and anti-Semitism. If you are interested in understanding the situation beyond the level of "Israel-good, Palestine-bad" you might start with this link. http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html It is for a site maintained by Jews for Justice in the Middle east, and it is a good faith attempt to address what has really happened over there in the last century. It’s a good starting point, but only a starting point. Be warned, though, it will challenge your fairy tale. There was a time when I too, believed that fairy tale.

regards

 

[surplus1]

Re: Predictable outcome!

Surplus, you are one of the most intelligent and articulate individuals I have ever seen on any message board. I was very much influinced by your debates concerning the RJDC and other topics. But your comments about GW and the staff (you have every right to do so), I feel, were uncalled for. You have stated the standard rhetoric that the liberals state regardles of what is right or wrong. That tells me you are definitely pure and simple, against conservatives and you have a personal agenda. Yes I know you state you are in the middle and are not against any political entity, but your statments are proof. I just want you to know that the way you can master a subject and manipulate it to your intent is admirable. But! this also tells me that you are a pro at "spin!" and I feel that I have been duped. Please understand that I could care less of your political affiliation (or you of mine), but it should NOT be incorporated into your debates. You Sir (I thought) were well above that! I know you won't give up your campaign (not talking of the RJDC), but please keep out the politics to substanciate your points.

P.S. No hard feelings against anyone! Great debate, and keep it up! Thanks, Tim. (yes, I am well aware of the fact that I can't spell!)

Thanks for your comments. Though you may not believe me, they are appreciated. However, I do not agree with your assesment of my motives or my positions.

Perhaps you have noticed that ever since the shooting began, I have remained silent until now. I will try to continue to be silent. The reason is not because I have changed my mind or my positions. It is because I believe, that while our military forces are engaged in actual combat, I must support them. That support, as I see it, must include refraining from overt criticism of the government that placed them in harms way. While I do not agree with the actions of that government, which led to this war, as an American, I really have no choice but to support our men and women in uniform. I am not, nor will I ever become a Jane Fonda equivalent.

Your branding me as a left-wing liberal is not appreciated, but it is expected. By the same token, I would also not wish to be branded as a right-wing conservative. Neither one of those popular cliches have anything to do with my views. They are "media brand names" that have no true substance and no real meaning other than the propaganda "spin" that you accuse me of having. I am not "spinning" my beliefs. Please, don't confuse me with O'Reilly or any other spin doctor.

I am far from perfect and I have not found the "solution to the worlds problems". By the way, neither has Geroge W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, or any of the others. My views are not a pancea for anyone's ills, and believe me, no one knows that better than I do. I'm sorry, but I will not buy in to the cliches of conservatism nor those of liberalism. I am not accustomed to "following" and I can't be lead around by the nose, by either or any political group. I, like you, was born a free man and choose to exercise that God-given right by remaining equally free of both conservatism and liberalism, or for that matter, any other "ism".

Politics is the dirtiest and most despicable game on the face of the planet. In my opinion, it manifests and embodies mankind's greatest failings. War between nation states, is almost always the product of politics or the manifestation of greed. War is not the measure of our success as human beings, it is the measure of our failures and the consequence of those failures.

Those who make wars, seldom fight them. The young men and women of our armed forces, and those of the armed forces of other nations are no more than the victims of our failures. That is why I support our military, but not our politicians.

Partiotism is a natural quality. Blind partiotism is the equivalent of a crime. There IS a difference in the two. "My country, right or wrong" is no more than another catch phrase designed deliberately to influence and modify the thought processes of otherwise reasonable men. It is nonsense and should not be followed by intelligent men. It is the placebo of the masses, the narcotic of the politician.

Are some wars justified and necessary? Yes. That is only the case when the unjustified and evil politics of ONE (side) of the equation mandates a defense by the other side. I would categorize the Revolutionary War that created these United States as a "just and necessary" war. I would feel the same about a revolutianary war in Iraq, if one were begun by the people of Iraq.

That concept assumes that one of the two sides, is truly innocent of wrong doing; a condition that almost NEVER exists in reality. A study of the history of armed conflict appears to indictate that such "innocence" is often perceived or invented by one of the parties to the conflict as justifaction of its intent, but is almost never the case. Almost always, both are guilty. I will concede that sometimes, one side is less guilty than the other, but innocent?

You have stated that my remarks tell you that (I am) "against conservatives" .... "regardless of what is right or wrong" and further that I have a "personal agenda".

It would be helpful, to me, if you could tell me why you feel I am against conservatives. You see, I don't know what a "conservative" really is. In my opinion, conservatives come in a wide variety of colors, sizes, shapes, beliefs, etc. Who are they? What do they really believe? Liberals, by the way, come in the same colors, sizes, shapes, beliefs, etc. Who are they and what do they really believe? How do I tell one from the other? It strikes me they are both but opposite sides of the same coin.

Since you feel I am against conservatives, regardless of what is right or wrong, you seem to be telling me that conservatives are "right" and others are wrong. Is that so or do I misunderstand you? Maybe it would help if you told me .... what IS "right" and "wrong" and who says that it is so?

Finally, you feel I have a "personal agenda". I admit to having formed many personal opinions about many things. What do you feel my "personal agenda" is? I'd really like to know.

Again, I appreciate your comments and your views and, of course, I respect your right to voice those views. I think however, that you are trying to "brand" me with one of the cliches, i.e., liberalism (which means I disagree with what?). I don't brand easily and I resent all efforts to be branded and placed in to some neat little category that allegedly "justifies" those who disagree with what I may think. I prefer to have my views contradicted or changed by facts, not by labels.

As I said in the beginning, while our military is in combat, I will refrain from criticising my government. When the military conflict is over and the lives of innocent people are no longer in jeopardy, I will resume the expression of my views on how we got to where we are.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rghts, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Hapiness."

I urge you and others to read the remainder of that document in its entierty. If you elect to do so, there is no doubt that you will find a multitude of reasons to justify the replacement of the government of Iraq, by the people of Iraq. However, that right rests exclusively with the people of Iraq, not with the government of the United States of America.

I pray for minimal loss of life and injury for the people on both sides of this conflict and that the mahem will come to a speedy end.

 

[metrodriver]

A squared, all you said there was right on. European news media have shown this all along, and the support for the palestinians is a lot greater there. The thing we see here in the us are pretty much one-sided (because of the monetairy support of the US): whatever makes the palestinians look bad. So we see the suicide bombings, but we don't see the helicopter attacks, mortar fire and bulldozers wiping out entire palestinian villages. The Israelies continue their settlement plan. A what? Settlement plan? Yeah, sending a large group of people into somebody elses country under military guard to build a village. That's like the government from Mexico sending 1000 people to Texas to start a city (they actually did that some 100+ years ago). So now this settlement will be attacked, and it's area has to be increased to give a buffer zone. I don't know what the average Israeli thinks of this, but most of these settelers seem to be the variety with the long beards, black hightop hat and 1800's era clothes- the extremists who are so brainwashed they will do everything as long as the government mentions the word god in every other sentence.
Back to Iraq: conservatism: keeping the way things are. Liberalism: being free. So a conservative person wants to keep Iraq the way it is (under SH), a liberalist wants to make it free.
So folks think again what you say something about about right wing conservatists and left wing liberals......

 

[Indapool]

no clue

Yeah, sending a large group of people into somebody elses country under military guard to build a village

So now the palestinian territory is a country? With your obvious expertise on the issue perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us as to when that particular turn of events transpired. Perhaps I simply missed that memo.

 

[A Squared]

Indipool,

Yeah, you’re right, there is no Palestinian country. I can’t say whether metrodriver doesn’t know this, or just inadvertently chose the wrong words, but today, there is nothing that even resembles a Palestinian country. Even the areas which under agreements in the last decade , were supposed to have become Palestinian territories with Palestinian self rule are completely dominated by Israeli presence, with all the major roads being controlled by Israeli checkpoints. Palestinian self rule is just a bitter joke if the Israeli Army is everywhere, and you are unable to travel without showing an government ID showing your religion and race, at each highway intersection.

Yeah, there’s no Palestinian country and that’s a major element of the fundamental injustice of the situation. let’s take a quick look at the history of why there’s no Palestinian Country. At the turn of the century, most of that region was ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations mandated that the various territories within that region would be administered by France and Britain, until such time as they were capable of functioning as sovereign countries. France got Lebanon and Syria and Britain got Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq. Of these Mandated Territories, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq eventually emerged from under their mandates and became sovereign nations. Palestine was not allowed to achieve independent nation status, primarily because through the Balfour Declaration, Britain had committed itself to giving it to the Jews as their homeland.

Those of you who claim that the creation of Israel is justified because Palestine wasn’t a country, are partly right, but the reason it wasn’t a country, was because Britian *prevented* it from becoming a country for the express purpose of creating the "Jewish homeland"

That’s called circular reasoning: We won’t allow Palestine to become a country, because we want to fill it with Jews, and it’s OK to fill it with Jews, because it’s not a country. Can you see the hypocrisy there? Trust me, the rest of the world can.

The next step in Palestine *not* becoming a country was the UN partition resolution. In the years following WWII, Britain was still exercising it’s Mandate powers over Palestine ( quarter of a century later). Under that administration a large number of Jews had already immigrated to Palestine. In 1947 The UN passed a resolution which divided Palestine into 2 roughly equal portions, one Jewish, and one Palestinian. Jerusalem, because of it’s religious significance would remain the property of both. Both the Jewish partition and the Palestinian Partition would be allowed to establish their own respective governments. Sounds pretty fair, right? Half for each? Each gets it’s own government? Sure, and if we ignore the fact that before the British Mandate it was *ALL* Palestinian under the Ottoman Empire, it is fair. The thing is, the Zionists were not about to settle for Half of something they didn’t own to begin with, they wanted it all. You can see this in the quotes I provided in my previous post in this thread.
The UN mandate would take effect when the British were to withdraw May 15 of 1948. Even before the British withdrew, the Jews were already expanding into the Palestinian Partition with military force. We often hear the Myth that the Israelis were *forced* to take over the Palestinian partition because Jordan and Egypt invaded on the day the Partition took effect. What is conveniently neglected from that is that Israel had been actively expanding into the Palestinian Partition by force for more than a month by that time. The Dier Yassim massacre,. for example, took place on April 12, 1948. Even if you don’t accept that a massacre of civilians took place, we are still left with the undisputed fact that the Jewish forces took Dier Yassim by force and removed all the Palestinian residents. That’s an undisputed fact. The only part that is subject to debate is whether they removed them by driving them off, or removed them by killing them. The British theoretically should have been preventing the invasion of Palestinian territory, but from a practical standpoint they didn’t have the military resources to do that. By the day the UN partition took effect and Jordan and Egypt invaded, the Israelis now had occupied most of the major cities in Palestine. It should be noted that the Arabs waited until the official end of the British Mandate, as they believed that they were bound by the terms of that Mandate. The Jews, on the other hand observed no such restraint in invading the Palestinian partition. The Palestinians did not seize any territory within the Jewish partition

Yes, it is true, there is no country of Palestine, but it must be recognized that twice in the past century the Palestinians were granted a sovereign country by International Convention; once by the League of Nations following the first world war, and again in 1947, a much smaller country by the United Nations. In both cases, they were prevented from becoming a nation, first by Zionist political maneuvering, and next by Zionist military aggression.

But hey, the Palestinians don’t *deserve* a country, because they’re just stupid, brutal, racist savages, right?

Metrodriver misspoke when he uset the word "country" but if you substitute the word "territory" he is correct. That's exactly what the Israelis are doing, in territory which is Palestinian, both by UN partion, and by recent agreement with the Palestinians. Eighty years later, the Israelis are still displacing the Palestinians from what little territory they have left and "settling" it with Jews.

 

[metrodriver]

You're right, it was meant to be territory, not country (something it should be though). Fact is it's wrong to drive people out of their place to occupy it

 

[Ty Webb]

A Squared, I am surprised at you. Usually, your posts are more even-handed. You state some of the facts, but if you ask any Israeli, they will tell you a far different set of circumstances, and I believe their version would be equally factual.

Fact: There never was a "Palestine" in modern history, but in 1918 the British gave the area that name, and the people therein suddenly became "Palestinians".

Fact: Much of the land that belonged to the people now known as "Palestinians" is held by Jordan, which has about as much intention of giving them back that land as do the Israelis. Most of the Arabs actually treat the Palestinians little better than goats . . . . since it serves their purpose to point to the terrible circumstances of their "Arab brothers" at the "hands of the Israelis".

When you are a rich monarchy holding onto vast wealth, it is very convenient to get the locals all whipped up in a frenzy about the Israelis- it is much better than wondering about why you live in huge palaces and they are kept illiterate and living in squallor.

If itinerant Mexican laborers who believed we should give them back land which we appropriated in the 19th century, started blowing themselves up in the food courts at your local mall for two years running, you can **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** sure bet we'd be checking their papers, placing harsh restrictions on them . . . . and eventually begin making pre-emptive strikes into the barrios of Juarez. . . . thankfully, that is not the case.


Fact: Every Arab country in the region was poised to attack the new State of Israel at that time in 1948. When you are backed into a corner and preparing to fight for your very survival, sometimes you have to act first; or you won't get the opportunity to act second.

The Israelis have shown tremendous restraint. They have nuclear weapons and by far the most advanced military in the region . . . can you imagine the situation if it was Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran or the Palestinians instead? Would they show the same restraint? Of course not!

A Squared, cut the Israelis a break, for cryin' out loud. They were very close to giving the Palestinians nearly everything they wanted, until they started blowing up school children. Now the Israelis are saying "enough" and we would, too.

BTW, the Syrian bus we took out today with an F-15 was loaded with Palestinians who had volunteered to go fight for Saddam . . . . There is a reaosn we are not supporting them, and vice versa.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>A Squared, I am surprised at you. Usually, your posts are more even-handed.

I’m certainly not trying to project a bias. I think if you re-read my posts I make a point of acknowledging Palestinian misdeeds. I haven’t enumerated them extensively because we all know about them. That’s kind of the point, we are very familiar with all the various evils perpetrated by the Palestinians and by the Arab nations. We seem not to know much about the savagery, racism and violence of the Zionist movement, and as a result, we hold an extremely flawed view of Israel as a Solitary Bastion of Democracy and Humanity in a sea of Arab Evil. I am trying to illustrate that it ain’t true.




>>>>>>You state some of the facts, but if you ask any Israeli, they will tell you a far different set of circumstances, and I believe their version would be equally factual.

That would depend on which Israeli you ask, Israel is a nation whose people hold a wide spectrum of views. You will find everything from hard line Zionists extremists, to Israeli Jews who sincerely want peace and believe that Israel as a nation has a lot to answer for. Unfortunately, the more rational voices are having a hard time being heard with a swing recently toward the Zionist extremist position.


>>>>>Fact: There never was a "Palestine" in modern history, but in 1918 the British gave the area that name, and the people therein suddenly became "Palestinians".

It just ain’t true, Ty, you’ve been had by the revisionists. I thought you were a little better informed than that. The name Palestine is well documented throughout history. In the Roman times it was referred to as Palestinia, although at other times during the empire it was "Judea" There are countless documents from the 19’th century which refer to Palestine by the name Palestine, maps published in the 19’th century show that region as Palestine. Mark Twain, in "Innocents Abroad", published in 1867 tells of traveling in Palestine. Sorry Ty, you’re just repeating a lie. And what’s the point, anyway? Even if we believe that lie, even if we accept that Palestine was a term dredged out of antiquity by the British during the mandate period, what does that prove? What if we agree to delete the words Palestine and Palestinian from our collective memories? Let’s call that area of the planet Zwerbia and name the people there Golflibians. We’re still left with the fact that at the and of the first world war, before the influx of Jewish immigrants, Zwerbia, a very small land, was populated with about three quarters of a million Golflibians and a very small minority of Jews. That doesn’t change, no matter how hard we argue about the etymology or veracity of the word Palestine. It might be noted that Jordan didn’t exist as such either. During the Mandate period, that area was referred to as Transjordan but was renamed Jordan after it became independent.








>>>>>>Fact: Much of the land that belonged to the people now known as "Palestinians" is held by Jordan, which has about as much intention of giving them back that land as do the Israelis.

Perhaps, certainly establishing national borders in a region which has traditionally been dominated by a variety of empires is complicated. The issue of whether Jordan possess lands which should be included in a Palestinian nation is completely separate from the issue of Israel and Palestine. I think that you will find that the Jordanians did not displace the Palestinians who were living on those lands at the beginning of the mandate period..

>>>>>>>Most of the Arabs actually treat the Palestinians little better than goats . . . . since it serves their purpose to point to the terrible circumstances of their "Arab brothers" at the "hands of the Israelis". When you are a rich monarchy holding onto vast wealth, it is very convenient to get the locals all whipped up in a frenzy about the Israelis- it is much better than wondering about why you live in huge palaces and they are kept illiterate and living in squallor.

I think that you have good points, I never tried to suggest that the Arabs shared no blame or didn’t have ulterior motives.


Fact: Every Arab country in the region was poised to attack the new State of Israel at that time in 1948. When you are backed into a corner and preparing to fight for your very survival, sometimes you have to act first; or you won't get the opportunity to act second.

True, but bear in mind that the Israelis had made it abundantly clear that they had no intention of abiding by the Partition. As I pointed out previously, they were already cutting a wide swath through the Palestinian partition, even before the effective date of the partition. Had the Israelis agreed to honor the partition and prepared for a vigorous defense of their partition instead of preemptively invading the Palestinian partition, would the Arabs still have invaded? I don’t know. Popular opinion here says that they would have, but we’ll never know.



regards

 

[Dutch]

Y'all need to un-clench

Geez,
Just when I find an interesting thread where I can bash the French you guys get all serious.

"There are only two things I hate: those who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch."

Dutch

 

[surplus1]

A Squared

Excellent posts, sir. You are very well informed and obviously read beyond the popular hyperbole and into the historical detail both of the region and the Zionist movement.

One of the things that fascinates me is the apparent willingness of so many folks writing in these threads to simply accept whatever they find on some website (source and accuracy unverified) or listen to on one or more of the many propagandized media tools of assorted political entities (including governments) as "fact".

As a people we seem far too readily caught up in the rhetoric of the spin doctors, particularly those who appear to share our own prejudices. So much so that we fail to recognize that the purpose of their proclamations is often deliberately intended to obscure the truth.

The most dangerous aspect of this may well be our apparent desire to accept as reality what we are told by our own governments and politicians, while conveniently avoiding any real search for the truth. We believe, because we want to believe, and we follow like lemmings because we know that weare correct and everyone who differs is automatically wrong.

History is there for us to study, yet we focus on the "sound bites", and our own self-satisfying propaganda, avoid research and form "controlled opinions" without even realizing that we are doing so.

This TV mentality may well place the future of the Republic in jeopardy as we subjugate ourselves to unconscious thought control and lable those that disagree, right-wing conservatives, left-wing liberals, communists or "un-american".

 

[ACWild]

History is often written by the victor, therefore what's written in books is still questionable. I guess we're back to opinions and prejudices again.
Surplus, stop making sense. I really want to hate the French.

 

[Starcheck]

This headline says it all!!

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20030319-98566236.htm