With friends like these . . . .

[stranger81]

The amount of support being shown for Israel these days is almost embarrassing. The parade of highly-placed foreign guests and the warm reception received by Israeli statesmen abroad have not been seen for quite some time. Who hasn't come to visit lately? From the German chancellor to the leading frontrunner for the American presidency. And the secretary-general of the United Nations is on his way. A visit to Israel has become de rigueur for foreign pols. If you haven't been here, you're nowhere.

The visitors are taken, of course, to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, the Western Wall and now to Sderot as well - the new national pilgrimage site. A few also pay a perfunctory visit to Ramallah; no one goes to the Gaza Strip, and they all have nothing but praise for Israel. Not a word of criticism on the occupation, on Israel's violent operations in the territories, on the siege and the starving - with the exception of a few vague remarks on the need for a solution. Israel squeezes the Sderot "informational" lemon for all it's worth.

**** snip ****

The world sees images from Gaza on television - in comparison, Sderot looks like a resort - and it draws its own conclusions. The natural sense of justice that dictates support for the freedom struggles of oppressed people such as the Tibetan dictates natural support for the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

****snip****

This blind friendship enables Israel to do whatever it wants. The days have passed in which every mobile home erected in the territories and every targeted assassination were carefully considered out of fear of international criticism. That time no longer exists. Israel has a carte blanche to kill, destroy and settle. The U.S. long ago gave up the role of honest broker, and Europe is now following in its footsteps. How depressing: With friends like these, Israel almost doesn't need enemies.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/967055.html

(edited to show breaks in excerpts)

[Boojatta]

1. Is the Palestinian struggle comparable to the Tibetan struggle?

The natural sense of justice that dictates support for the freedom struggles of oppressed people such as the Tibetan dictates natural support for the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

[aranthus]

2. Except they're very different.

1. Tibet never attacked China: The Palestinians have been attacking the Jews since the 1920's.
2. The Chinese occupied Tibet in a straight up conquest: Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza because the Palestinians
fomented a war between Israel and the Arab states that the Arabs lost, and Israel can not now withdraw without risking its
security.
3. The Chinese have no legitimate claim to Tibet: The land of Israel has been the Jewish national homeland for over three thousand
years.
4. The Chinese have forbidden the Tibetans from passing on their language, religion and culture: Israel has never done anything
comparable to the Palestinians
5. Tibet's idea of liberation is to let the Chinese have China and let the Tibetans have Tibet: The Palestinian idea of liberation
is to destroy Israel (even if it means killing all the Jews), and take all of Palestine for themselves.

[subsuelo]

3. Except this list is full of holes

1. Tibet never attacked China: The Palestinians have been attacking the Jews since the 1920's.

Both sides in the I/P conflict have been attacking each other from the start. Oops forgot that part did you?


2. The Chinese occupied Tibet in a straight up conquest: Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza because the Palestinians fomented a war between Israel and the Arab states that the Arabs lost, and Israel can not now withdraw without risking its
security.

Israel occupies Palestinian land in an ongoing conquest. There are no further qualifiers whatsoever.

Here are some relevant quotes from Israeli leaders themselves:

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
- David Ben Gurion, 1937

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
- Golda Meir, 1969.

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
- Yitzhak Rabin, 1979.

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
- Ariel Sharon, 1998.


3. The Chinese have no legitimate claim to Tibet: The land of Israel has been the Jewish national homeland for over three thousand years.

Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the land prior to Israel violently driving them out.


4. The Chinese have forbidden the Tibetans from passing on their language, religion and culture: Israel has never done anything comparable to the Palestinians

Through years of occupation, brutality, and Apartheid-like policies, Israel forbids the Palestinians from living decent lives and enjoying standard human rights as first class citizens.


5. Tibet's idea of liberation is to let the Chinese have China and let the Tibetans have Tibet: The Palestinian idea of liberation is to destroy Israel (even if it means killing all the Jews), and take all of Palestine for themselves.

Actually it is the Israeli goal to steal all of Palestine from the native population, an ongoing policy as demonstrated by the quotes above over the years from Israeli leaders. So while one can accuse Palestinians of anything they like, the statements themselves combined with the facts on the ground bear out the true reality: Destroy Palestine, take it all for Israel, leave nothing to the natives:

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
- Ariel Sharon, 1998.

[Vegasaurus]

5. Except that your hyperbole is ridiculous, as usual

Israel is not stealing all of Palestine from the native population. It left Gaza and wants nothing to do with that mess. If the goal was to destroy Palestine and take it all, Israel would still be in Gaza, and expanding there. It isn't.

And the Palestinians could have had decent lives had they not been hell bent on destroying the Jewish state and its inhabitants from day one. They chose war and violence and have lost. Had they made better choices they could have better lives. Even now, if they stopped trying to bomb Israelis, their lives could improve. Stupid choices make for bad lives.

[stranger81]

6. So if I chose not to lay down and give up in the event that you decided to move into my house,

kill the rest of my family and destroy my belongings, then I just get what I deserve because I made a bad "choice." It's just your innate right to take my home and kill my family.

What logic.

[Vegasaurus]

7. Choosing to make war and violence has been a bad choice

for the Palestinians. They have had nothing but loss as a result.

Do you deny that?

[stranger81]

8. So if I defend myself when you move into my house and kill my family,

I'm the one choosing violence and choosing to make war?!?!?!?

You can't actually believe this crap yourself. You wouldn't allow it for a second if it were done to you.

[kayecy]

20. You will not get an answer to this question.....

You will not get an answer to your question....It is much easier to to condemn terrorism, suicide bombers and Quassams than to ask what started the violence.....

[pelsar]

30. the actual violence....

in the 1920's by the arabs (riots)...they didnt like the jews buying land, moving and and working it.....

it was really horrible

[kayecy]

36. Yea....and who is stopping West Bank Arabs from "...buying land, moving and working it"?

Come on Pelsar - you can do better than that.....Would Israel accept West Bank Arabs crossing the Green line and "buying land, moving and working it.."?.......That was and still is really horrible, and all the Palestinians would be doing is returning to their villages ......not invading a foreign land!

[pelsar]

37. legal immigration...

immigrants that enter a country legally get to buy the land according to the laws at that time.....

so jews buying arab land was and still is really horrible

glad we cleared that up...how about christians buying arab land..is that ok?... how about a jew for jesus, is it horrible if they buy arab land?
________

so its just horrible if a jew buys arab land....did i get that right?

[kayecy]

41. Are you being illogical or am I missing something?

.... immigrants that enter a country legally get to buy the land according to the laws at that time.....

So according to your idea of fairness, Arab immigrants merely wanting to go back to their land which had been owned by their families for generations are “illegal immigrants” whereas modern day US immigrants to Palestine who are coming, not just to buy land but to squat on land owned by Palestinians and claim it as their own are “legal immigrants”......I suppose you will claim that the modern US immigrant is also in danger of an anti-semitic pogrom?

...glad we cleared that up...how about christians buying arab land..is that ok?... how about a jew for jesus, is it horrible if they buy arab land?... so its just horrible if a jew buys arab land....did i get that right?

What are you talking about?....Just look at what I wrote for goodness sake:
“Would Israel accept West Bank Arabs crossing the Green line and "buying land, moving and working it.."?.......That was and still is really horrible, and all the Palestinians would be doing is returning to their villages ......not invading a foreign land! ”

Let me spell it out for you – It was, and still is really horrible for Israelis to stop West Bank Arabs crossing the Green Line and returning to their villages.

You apparently disagree with me on this....I cannot understand how you can logically do this in view of your position that Palestinians did not have the right to stop alien Jewish immigrants entering their land....Are you being illogical or am I missing something?

[pelsar]

49. yes your missing something...its called israel...the country

the country, gets to decide who lives within its boundries and who doesnt....its a standard found all around the world in every single country all over the earth...and israel is no exception.

[kayecy]

60. And where exactly does this country called Israel claim its eastern border runs?

...the country, gets to decide who lives within its boundries and who doesnt....its a standard found all around the world in every single country all over the earth

Thank you for that explanation...And where exactly does Israel claim its border runs?....Through Jerusalem?...Beyond Ariel?....Round every tin-pot settlement?

The modern US immigrants seem to think it runs along Jordan’s border...They think they have a right to settle anywhere west of the Jordan....Do you agree with them?

......its a standard found all around the world in every single country all over the earth

Is that really so, every single country all over the earth?.....Tell me then, which other country does not make it clear what it claims is its border?....Many countries have disputed borders but only Israel confuses everyone by saying they have still to be negotiated!
.
.

[pelsar]

61. whats so confusing?

there are citizens of israel...there are non citizens...there is disputed territory and there is non disputed territory based on the cease fire lines of 67.

non citizens dont get to walk freely in the non disputed areas....and in the disputed areas there is an on going conflict

again..its the standard used by the WHOLE WORLD

[kayecy]

62. And is this just your opinion or is there some international document that you are quoting?

.....there are citizens of israel...there are non citizens...there is disputed territory and there is non disputed territory based on the cease fire lines of 67.

And is this just your opinion or can you point to where you have got the information from?.....Is there an internationally recognized document that states that your 'disputed territory' begins at the 1967 cease-fire line?....A UN document perhaps?......As far as I can see there is no official mention of 'disputed' or 'non-disputed' territory or borders .....except in Israeli propaganda of course!


Perhaps Israel thinks that its propaganda is "...the standard used by the Whole World"?

[Dick Dastardly]

63. UN Res 242-Here is what the drafters stated

Here is what the drafters stated

Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters



After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel prevented an attempt by surrounding Arab nations to destroy it militarily, the United Nations Security Council prepared a carefully-worded resolution to guide the parties. Since then, U.N. Resolution 242 has been invoked as the centerpiece for negotiation efforts, including the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords and the Road Map peace plan.

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

Sometimes, the misrepresentations are redressed, as was the case when the New York Times and others corrected errors about the resolution. In other cases, inaccurate characterizations still await formal correction, as is the case with Jimmy Carter’s repeated distortion of the resolution in his book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.

Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 – Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown – as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained.

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.


We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.






George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, commented:

I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories



Eugene V Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and one of the drafters of the resolutiondraws attention to the fact that the text proposed by the British had succeeded ahead of alternatives (in particular, a more explicit text proposed by the Soviet Union):

... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.<17>
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council.<18>
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.<19>
He also points out that attempts to explicitly widen the motion to include "the" or "all" territories were explicitly rejected

Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from ‘the’ territories or ‘all the territories’ occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council.<2>
Rostow's President, Lyndon B Johnson, appears to support this last view:

We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace.<20>

Arthur Goldberg, another of the resolution's drafters, concurred that Resolution 242 does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that this matter should be negotiated between the parties:

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. The Arab states urged such language; the Soviet Union proposed such a resolution to the Security Council in June 1967, and Yugoslavia and other nations made a similar proposal to the special session of the General Assembly that followed the adjournment of the Security Council. But those views were rejected. Instead, Resolution 242 endorses the principle of the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and juxtaposes the principle that every state in the area is entitled to live in peace within “secure and recognized boundaries.” ...

The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.



Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.<21>

Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969: "As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."

President Lyndon Johnson:

"The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction, and war.

"There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4. As our distinguished and able Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, has already said, this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities."


much more
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

[Dick Dastardly]

64. UN Res 242-Here is what the drafters stated

Here is what the drafters stated

Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters



After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel prevented an attempt by surrounding Arab nations to destroy it militarily, the United Nations Security Council prepared a carefully-worded resolution to guide the parties. Since then, U.N. Resolution 242 has been invoked as the centerpiece for negotiation efforts, including the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords and the Road Map peace plan.

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

Sometimes, the misrepresentations are redressed, as was the case when the New York Times and others corrected errors about the resolution. In other cases, inaccurate characterizations still await formal correction, as is the case with Jimmy Carter’s repeated distortion of the resolution in his book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.

Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 – Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown – as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained.

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.


We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.






George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, commented:

I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories



Eugene V Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and one of the drafters of the resolutiondraws attention to the fact that the text proposed by the British had succeeded ahead of alternatives (in particular, a more explicit text proposed by the Soviet Union):

... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.<17>
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council.<18>
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.<19>
He also points out that attempts to explicitly widen the motion to include "the" or "all" territories were explicitly rejected

Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from ‘the’ territories or ‘all the territories’ occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council.<2>
Rostow's President, Lyndon B Johnson, appears to support this last view:

We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace.<20>

Arthur Goldberg, another of the resolution's drafters, concurred that Resolution 242 does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that this matter should be negotiated between the parties:

The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. The Arab states urged such language; the Soviet Union proposed such a resolution to the Security Council in June 1967, and Yugoslavia and other nations made a similar proposal to the special session of the General Assembly that followed the adjournment of the Security Council. But those views were rejected. Instead, Resolution 242 endorses the principle of the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and juxtaposes the principle that every state in the area is entitled to live in peace within “secure and recognized boundaries.” ...

The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.



Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.<21>

Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969: "As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."

President Lyndon Johnson:

"The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction, and war.

"There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4. As our distinguished and able Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, has already said, this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities."


much more
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

[kayecy]

71. Yes, that is what the R242 drafters stated and there is no mention of "disputed territories" .....

Thank you for that list but there is no mention of "disputed" territories so it really doesn't help

... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'.

You will note that R242 refers to “territories occupied in the recent conflict”...Nowhere does it refer to "disputed territories" or where they border with "non-disputed territories" or that, as Pelsar claimed, they are delineated by the 1967 cease-fire line.

Pelsar claimed the following:
.....there are citizens of israel...there are non citizens...there is disputed territory and there is non disputed territory based on the cease fire lines of 67.

I asked him if that was just his opinion or if not, could he tell me where he had got the information from.....As far as I can see there is no official mention, never mind a definition of 'disputed' or 'non-disputed' territories or borders.

Your long list does not explain where Pelsar got his information from......I suggest that both of you know that “disputed territories” and “non-disputed territories” is not defined anywhere .......except perhaps in Israeli propaganda.
.
.

[Dick Dastardly]

94. That is false

They dont use the term "disputed territories" but they say the same thing. Your semantic game does not change this. They dont use the term "Palestinian state" either so does that mean you are saying that it should not exist. There are many ways to say something like fast,speedy or quick but you obviously know this and are playing semantic games.

[kayecy]

102. Why don't you say exactly what you mean?

..... They dont use the term "disputed territories" but they say the same thing. Your semantic game does not change this.

Accusing me of playing semantic games is not very polite is it?......Why don't you say exactly what you mean?

Are you claiming that the R242 wording "territories occupied in the recent conflict” actually means "disputed territories" or what?

[Dick Dastardly]

104. Not accuse but its fact. Whats not polite is to play obvious semantic games

You have what the drafters stated. If you dont understan then you have to be a submoron or playing semantic games. I dont think you are a submoron

[kayecy]

110. You are entitled to your opinion...

If you wish to read into R242 something that is not there, then good luck to you......I would have thought that you would have known that Israel is very insistent on the matter and does not think it is playing "semantic games".....Israel claims that R242 means exactly what it says, no more, no less.

Of course, you may believe Israel too, is what you call "a submoron"......you are entitled to your opinion.

[Dick Dastardly]

122. So you are saying

those who wrote 242 dont know what they are talking about and you know better than them what they said and meant, so you just ignore them.
Why do you think you know better than the framers what was said and meant?, because I find it quite ridiculous that you claim to know what the framers said and meant better than they themselves.

The Israeli view is the same as that of the framers so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.


btw I have heard you claim that the occupation is illegal and that a Palestinian state should be established.


Where does it say the occupation is illegal in 242? Where does it call for a Palestinian state?



Here is more info for you to peruse

The Drafters Clarify Its Meaning

While the wording and intent of Resolution 242 is often correctly described, at times it is misrepresented as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines — the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 — Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown — as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained.


cont
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/242drafters.asp





I understand you want to stop the atrocities, massacres and land theft by the criminal Israeli regime but denying and or ignoring inconvienient facts is not the way to do it, that only helps the the criminal regime and those who support it by giving them ammunition. The correct question is not that it does not say what it does but why were the powers in complicity with the warmongering criminal regime to cook the resolution so that it supports war, land theft, massacres and other atrocities by the Israeli regime. Your angle is just like stating the Jim Crow laws that for example made blacks sit in the back of the bus dont say that that they must sit in the back, rather than using the approach of getting it changed.
Its obvious the Israel lobby was working overtime lobbying in many countries to get 242 the way it wanted

[Shaktimaan]

103. I don't understand what you're confused about.

When the documents dick posted were drawn up the Palestinians didn't claim the land in question as their own. The land Israel has not given back is the land that is not owned by any state, nor has it ever been, (with the exception of some land owned by Syria in the North.) Right now that unclaimed land is claimed by two entities. That's what makes it disputed.

It is not officially labeled "disputed" in any cease fire treaty or agreement just as it is not officially designated as "Israel" or "Palestine." There's just no need to officially designate it like that, it doesn't give or remove any special rights to anyone involved. It is pretty obvious that the land is in dispute.

What are you suggesting as an alternative? I'm not certain exactly what you are arguing.

[kayecy]

111. This is supposed to be a reply to message 71...Can you state what bits of 71 you are referring to?

[Shaktimaan]

120. Well, what are you trying to say or refute

about the term "disputed territory?" Do you not understand what it means? Or are you taking issue with the fact that none of the WB is officially designated as "disputed" in any agreements? I just don't understand what you are even asking for clarification for, not just for #71, but this whole thing about requiring proof of some sort that the land is actually disputed.

What point are you making with this line of reasoning?

edit: You keep saying that no where but in Israeli propaganda does anyone refer to the land as disputed. I do not understand what your point is in saying that. If the land was not disputed there would be no conflict over it, it is quite clearly in dispute, as opposed to land Israel occupied that was not disputed, such as the Sinai. So what? Are you trying to suggest that no one else in the world thinks that Israel has any claim to this land, is that your point? What are you trying to say?

[pelsar]

68. see #63....nt

The UN is pretty clear about the lack of final definition of the borders....

[kayecy]

72. See No71.........Or have you really got something that refers to "disputed territories"?

[Shaktimaan]

73. Additionally, there are the Oslo accords.

The DOP specifically states that permanent status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders are to be excluded from the interim arrangements and that the outcome of the permanent status talks should not be prejudged or preempted by the interim arrangements.

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Principles%20-%20Main%20Points

Formal borders between Israel and Palestine are clearly to be the result of final status talks between the two, as agreed to between Israel and the PLO. The OPT have never been part of a sovereign state and are currently defined as "de facto unclaimed territory." Since some of the land is unquestionably being disputed between the two, and seeing as how it doesn't technically belong to anyone at the present time, I'm not sure what you would consider it other than "disputed."

I'm curious though, since you weren't aware that this was disputed territory, what did you think was the official designation regarding borders and sovereignty? Who did you believe the OPT officially belonged to?

[kayecy]

75. I repeat.......What exactly are the borders that Israel is claiming?

....... Since some of the land is unquestionably being disputed between the two, and seeing as how it doesn't technically belong to anyone at the present time, I'm not sure what you would consider it other than "disputed."

Exactly what I am trying to find out......Which part of the West Bank does Israel claim is "disputed territory"?....The whole of Jerusalem?....Ariel?.....the fence round every tin-pot settlement?......Everywhere west of the River Jordan?...or what?

I suggest that all three of you know that Israel, unlike any other country in the World, is not prepared to say what border it is claiming.....Contrary to what Pelsar seems to think, Israel certainly does not claim the 1967 cease-fire line as its border, so if not, what is its claim and on what basis?

[Shaktimaan]

77. To my knowlege

Israel hasn't claimed any specific border rights along their eastern side, with the exception of East Jerusalem, (though they've shown that even this area is subject to some negotiation.) Israel's detractors often point to this as an example of how Israel is reluctant to commit to any specific area out of a larger plan to annex as much of Palestine as possible, instead of a predetermined area that they truly believe they have a claim to. Bearing in mind the history of the West Bank I'd like to offer an alternative explanation.

Ever since the UN's Partition Plan was rejected, Israel's borders have been defined by what they were able to hold following the subsequent wars fought against them. While the war of '48's outcome is widely understood to have defined Israel's "true" borders the reality is more complex. Israel's war of independence ended in an armistice agreement, not a treaty. Since none of the nations involved, save Israel, believed that their victory was anything more than a temporary fluke they tried to leave themselves some legal wiggle room in the hopes that a future war would see them gain back the territory outside of that awarded Israel in the (failed) Partition deal, if not more. So the armistice deal made it clear that the lines drawn were not to be considered final borders nor should they have any legal bearing on drawing future borders. Israel would have greatly preferred a peace treaty with the armistice line as official borders, but no one else was interested. So it ended with everyone involved understanding that Israel's eastern "border" was unfinished business. The next few wars didn't work out how the Arab states had hoped and Israel also took the OPT, which left them with the situation they still have today.

Up until 60 years ago Jews had been living in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years, primarily in just a few holy cities. Based on this, and land that was more recently purchased by Zionist settlers, Israel feels they have a legitimate claim to some of the land. Exactly how much is open to discussion, even within the Israeli camp. Basically they don't have a set area to claim as "theirs" any more than the Palestinians or the Bedouins do. The land was always shared to some extent between the different ethnicities who inhabited it.

All the shaky treaties and agreements up until this point have been based on the idea that sovereignty over this land has to be negotiated. Settlements are a way Israel can sway the needle a little over to her side prior to the negotiations but ultimately settlements can be evacuated and demolished, as we've seen in Gaza. Far worse would be for Israel to issue an official statement delineating exactly what they will consider Israel, an official borderline to be disputed. At this stage of the game we've moved way past that. Everyone understands where the basic line will be, the argument now is over details and other unrelated matters, like right of return. You have to separate the area of the west bank that Israel wants, the area they feel is rightfully theirs, the area they need and the area that they're likely to get in the end.

In this case, all "disputed territory" means is that while both sides might think that the whole thing should truly belong to themselves, both sides also realize that it 'aint gonna happen and they're willing to compromise for something greater. For Israel it is worth losing 96-97% of the WB in exchange for a real peace treaty. (The land won in the 6 day war was always hoped to be used in this way anyway. 94% of that captured land has already been traded for peace, these negotiations are just over the remaining 6%.)And for the Palestinians it's worth losing 4 or 5% of the WB in order to finally get their own state, which they richly deserve.

short answer: There is no set border. Both sides have legitimate claims to the land in question so they're negotiating over who gets how much and what parts of it. Why are you hung up on Israel delineating exact demands instead of being open to negotiating a settlement? (which seems to be a much better way of reaching an agreement to me.)

[kayecy]

79. The Annapolis and other “negotiations” have got nowhere...Why not try thinking out of the box?

Why are you hung up on Israel delineating exact demands instead of being open to negotiating a settlement? (which seems to be a much better way of reaching an agreement to me.)

If you look back, you will see that this little discussion started with Pelsar claiming that the riots in 1920 started because the Arabs did not like the Jews “buying land, moving in and working it”.

My response was that that since 1967, this conflict had become never-ending because, among other things, that was exactly what Israel was doing with Palestinians who merely wanted to return to their villages....Pelsar produced the old ‘legality’ argument and the difference between “disputed” and “non-disputed” territories.

Since Israel is clearly preventing Palestinians from returning to their villages I was trying to find out why the land West of the green line was considered “un-disputed”...From your explanation it seems that all of Israel/Palestine can in fact be considered “disputed” because there has never been any agreement.

If I am correct in this then Palestinians could reasonably claim that the starting point for negotiations should be:

1. The Palestinians claims a 100% of Israel/Palestine as a single state
2. Israel claims everything inside the green Line plus 4% or whatever of the West Bank as their Jewish state.

The Annapolis “negotiations” are going nowhere....I believe there is a much better chance of achieving an amicable, permanent agreement from a starting point like the above which would force both sides to make concessions than merely negotiating how much of the West Bank Israel should keep.

[pelsar]

80. the solution is very simple...

and its already been worked out at taba....and the israelis have shown that they actually can do their part.....whats left is the Palesetenains to prove they can do theirs of which so far they have failed miserably.

physical details:
more or less 67 borders with lands swaps to take care of the larger israeli settlements that will remain israeli
E.Jerusalem to the Palestenians

responsablities-excuses not allowed
israel to remove the smaller settlements: this was proven with gaza that israel has the ability to;

PA or whatever the govt is, to halt attacks on israel:...... miserable failure

no government incitement: israel had a peace curriculum in schools....Palestenians celebrated and celebrate suicide bombers (named sporting events after them)....miserable failure
____________

the solution lies in the gaza litmus test: if the Palestinians cant develop a society that doesnt include attacking jews/israelis, they're not going to get much of anything.

[kayecy]

83. When did Sharon/Olmert accept Taba?........When did they stop expanding settlements?

.....and its already been worked out at taba....and the israelis have shown that they actually can do their part....

They have?....Did Sharon accept Taba?......Do you think expanding settlements is showing “they actually can do their part?”

[pelsar]

85. the principle of taba...

has been accepted by olmert and the israeli govt.....and by the PA as well.
______

settlement expansion never really stopped in the westbank....the settlements were removed in gaza...it appears to clear the way for kassam production.......you really wouldnt want kassams on the intl airport, and on major israeli cities would you?.....

[Vegasaurus]

87. oh, these folks don't believe there wile be Kassams on the airport or major cities

because they believe all the militants will simply hang up their automatic weapons and put the bomb making materials away.

Poof. Just like that, peace in the middle east.

ROTFL!

[azurnoir]

92. What is your solution?

having eliminated peace, you are very plain in belief that the kassams will not stop so that is apparently not an option. What do think should happen, what should Israel do about its "Palestinian problem"?

You dance around it, state it plainly.

[kayecy]

89. Just your personal opinion again?

...the principle of taba has been accepted by olmert and the israeli govt.....

Just your personal opinion again or have you got some evidence to back it up?

...settlement expansion never really stopped in the westbank.....

So why are you giving me all this nonsense about "....and the israelis have shown that they actually can do their part....."?

[pelsar]

90. ever hear of gaza?

So why are you giving me all this nonsense about "....and the israelis have shown that they actually can do their part....."?

we call that proof that the israeli govt can remove the settlements if need be....you do know about gaza correct?..the pullout and the daily attacks and terrorism on israeli citizens from there?

the PA on the otherhand, never stopped attacking, never stopped with the celebration of the attackers......so why wouldnt there be kassams on israels cities after a westbank pullout (as in gaza)...or perhaps you think, like some here, that it would only be natural?

[kayecy]

106. Ever heard of Sharon's unilateral "disengagement plan"?

....(Gaza)....we call that proof that the israeli govt can remove the settlements if need be.....

By “we”, I take it you mean this is another of your personal opinions?.....Sharon’s letter to Bush dated April 14, 2004 stated why he wanted to withdraw:

”The Disengagement Plan is designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize our political and economic situation. It will enable us to deploy our forces more effectively until such time that conditions in the Palestinian Authority allow for the full implementation of the Road map to resume.

There is no mention that Gaza was to be an example of how the Israeli government could remove the settlements if need be.

You do remember Sharon’s unilateral “Disengagement Plan” – don’t you?....It was not part of the Road Map, it was not even negotiated with the Palestinians....In reality, Israel never wanted any part of Gaza, or any other Palestinian populated area....However, Israel did want as much of the West Bank land as it can get, hence the need to increase “facts on the ground” by settlement expansion.

.
.

[pelsar]

114. Sharon...he was PM..

that makes him the representative of the israeli govt.....and the knesset approved the withdrawl from gaza...and his govt didnt fall.....which translates in to the israeli population approving the move. (you actually wrote that sharon was doing it on his own?.....)

but i always love the various excuses used to somehow belittle everything israel does.

facts...very pesky things arent they?...israel did in fact remove settlements...that means israel can in fact remove them...if its worthwhile.

ahhh now we get to the more interesting interpretations:
Israel never wanted any part of Gaza, or any other Palestinian populated area

so israel doesnt want the westbank either...or at least the populated areas correct-according to your intreptation There were israelis living in gaza just like in the westbank and the reasons were the same (in case you didnt know....)

and in fact the disengagement plan was negotiated...again its those pesky facts that show up. Which is why the settlements were destroyed, which is why there were no kassams nor mortars falling on the israelis during the withdrawl, which is why the border to Egypt had EU personal agreed to by all the groups involved.

i know....its best to ignore the facts, find a few quotes, either out of context or just made up, so that one can pretend that israel leaving gaza was somehow some evil trap that the Palestinians fell into which is why they are trying to kill israelis almost every day. The interesting question of course is why?...why are the actual facts ignored?

[kayecy]

118. Now you really are losing me

.....that makes him the representative of the israeli govt.....and the knesset approved the withdrawl from gaza...and his govt didnt fall.....which translates in to the israeli population approving the move. (you actually wrote that sharon was doing it on his own?.....)

It may surprise you but I did know that......What I don’t know is what all this has got to do with your claim that ".. israelis have shown that they actually can do their part"?.......Why have they gone on expanding settlements, even during negotiations?

so israel doesnt want the westbank either...or at least the populated areas correct-according to your intreptation There were israelis living in gaza just like in the westbank and the reasons were the same (in case you didnt know....)

Now you are losing me....Israel doesn’t want the West Bank – what, non of it??????
.
.

[pelsar]

121. its all very simple.....

israel left gaza as the political/military establishment decided it was in israels best interest to...thats what countries do. This was also exactly what the intl and Palestinians were demanding:

upon leaving gaza the Palestinians had two choices based on basic economics; guns or butter. They could choose to concentrate on developing gaza, and live as good neighbors with israel. This would be a nice reply to the israeli withdrawal, thereby giving confidence in the theory that says give the Palestinians a state, self determination and peace will follow or they could use their new found freedom and try to kill israelis.

they chose the latter and have been doing so every day.
_____

those are the relevant facts, that describe the situation today relative to Gaza. The Palestinians in gaza and their govt have simply chosen to terrorize israel......any excuse you have or attempt to blame israel for the Palestinian choice at best will be irrelevant.

i appears you have a hard time simply accepting that the Palestinians in gaza have chosen....they have chosen to shoot rockets daily for no other reason then to terrorize israelis.

[kayecy]

126. We are agreed at last...

....israel left gaza as the political/military establishment decided it was in israels best interest to..

We are agreed at last....Now can you explain how constantly expanding settlements in the West Bank can be construed as "...the israelis have shown that they actually can do their part"?

[pelsar]

146. easy...

We are agreed at last....Now can you explain how constantly expanding settlements in the West Bank can be construed as "...the israelis have shown that they actually can do their part"?
____

If the Palestinians use vacated land to terrorize israel, daily (gaza)......why would israel give the Palestinians even better launching sites?...so that they can terrorize jerusalem, Hadera, netanya, the airport?

[Shaktimaan]

101. There are palestinians who claim what you suggest.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad for instance. However neither group has any official status to speak internationally for the Palestinian people. That right belongs exclusively to the PLO.

So while some Palestinians could, and in fact do, dispute Israel's ownership of land that if officially part of Israel, they have no power to speak on behalf of the Palestinians as a group and, more importantly, they have very weak legal standing to claim ownership over this area compared to Israel. They are not an official state, they have never held sovereignty over the land in question and the treaties that do exist between themselves and Israel preclude any claim requiring a single state solution.

The other problem is that none of the land west of the green line is unclaimed at this point. It is actually a part of Israel and is recognized as such by the entire world. The Armistice agreement designating the green line as an unofficial border was not between Israel and the Palestinains. In fact, the Palestinians were not privy to any of those negotiations, they did not exist as an independent national group. All of the Palestinians in the West Bank were Jordanian citizens, and Jordan was occupying the West Bank, although they attempted to annex it illegally.

The agreement in force right now states clearly that the green line is to be used as the basic starting point for negotiations. Israel is willing to give some land from the western side in trade for some from the eastern side. But nothing guarantees that it must be equal.

You seem to be looking at this from the point of view that the Palestinians were given the right to demand a state at some point. Neither Israel nor the world owes the Palestinians a state of their very own. They don't have this "right." Nothing guarantees the Palestinians their own state, the fact that they are going to get one is a pretty amazing achievement. But they and Israel are not negotiating over the details as equals. Israel doesn't really need to agree to anything they find too unfair, or anything at all, for that matter. Palestine holds very, very few cards in this game.

I believe there is a much better chance of achieving an amicable, permanent agreement from a starting point like the above which would force both sides to make concessions than merely negotiating how much of the West Bank Israel should keep.

Do you really now?

Why would this "force" Israel to make any concessions at all? Israel is under no legal or practical obligation to make any concessions at all. Right now ALL of the land that the Palestinians consider theirs, the west bank and Gaza, technically belongs to no one at all. It is VERY hard for a nation that does not even exist yet to successfully win a border dispute case because they don't own the land in question on either side of the border yet.

Palestine had several opportunities to get an official state over the years and they rejected all of them in the hopes that their gamble would result in their obtaining more land. Since they lost those gambles they are now in a very weak position to make demands for parts of Israel proper. The best they can hope for is to make their state in the area of land that is currently unclaimed with a potential property swap between Israel for some of it.

My response was that that since 1967, this conflict had become never-ending because, among other things, that was exactly what Israel was doing with Palestinians who merely wanted to return to their villages

Huh? Israel let the Palestinians displaced in the 1967 war back to their villages right afterwards. What the heck are you talking about?

[kayecy]

107. I think you have misunderstood me...............

Huh? Israel let the Palestinians displaced in the 1967 war back to their villages right afterwards. What the heck are you talking about?

You misunderstand me....I said that there has been never-ending conflict since 1967....Are you claiming that any Palestinian who can prove that he and his ancestors lived West of the Green line can go back to his village?

Neither Israel nor the world owes the Palestinians a state of their very own. They don't have this "right."

What an amazing statement.......some people don't have a right to a live in a state!
.

[Shaktimaan]

119. I never said that.

What an amazing statement.......some people don't have a right to a live in a state!

The west bankers were Jordanian at one point, remember? I said that they don't have the right to "their OWN state." A big difference, which means that the world doesn't owe any group of people their own state merely because they desire it. The Palestinians have been hardball negotiating for a state like it is a foregone conclusion that they even definitely have one coming to them. When the Zionists were in the same position they accepted every single deal offered to them, even if they felt that it was less than it should have been. And now they have had a state for decades and the Palestinians, who rejected every deal that didn't suit them perfectly, have a big mess.

Are you claiming that any Palestinian who can prove that he and his ancestors lived West of the Green line can go back to his village?

No, I am saying that the Palestinians displaced during the six day war were all allowed to return to wherever they had left as a result of that war. No one west of the green line was displaced from that war.

[kayecy]

127. may I ask why not?

Are you claiming that any Palestinian who can prove that he and his ancestors lived West of the Green line can go back to his village?

No, ..............

May I ask why not?.....I would have thought it was a basic human right to be allowed to return to the area where you were born, where your father and grandfathers were born.

[Shaktimaan]

129. Since when is that a basic human right? np

[kayecy]

133. So you are not prepared to explain why Palestinians are prevented from returning to their homes? n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

105. Its not just Israel that says it needs to be negotiated

Is that really so, every single country all over the earth?.....Tell me then, which other country does not make it clear what it claims is its border?....Many countries have disputed borders but only Israel confuses everyone by saying they have still to be negotiated!


For your benefit again, from the drafters

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.


does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.


I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said “Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,” and not from “the” territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.


Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary



There is much more as you know
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267



All this does not change the fact of Israeli agressions and atrocities since its inception but facts are facts.

[Vegasaurus]

31. It;s the legal immigration, apparently n/t

[breakaleg]

9. Gaza, Gaza, Gaza. What about the West Bank? Is Israel leaving there? I'd love to hear

how you rationalize how much Israel doesn't want to steal Palestinian land based on their current and planned land grabs in the West Bank.

[pelsar]

28. gaza-kassams and mortars....

thats why you hear about gaza all the time.

we have this thing against having rockets falling on our cities....and its quite a reasonable assumption to see how the westbank once left in the PA/Hamas hands will then start with their own versions of the kassams.....

seems many here believe so (PM, douglass to name a few...)

do you?

[breakaleg]

57. This post is incoherent.

[leftynyc]

86. Makes perfect sense to me

Why should Israel expect any difference in what will happen in the West Bank than what happened in Gaza. Just another spot to shoot rockets into Israel. Does that clear it up for you?

[subsuelo]

10. What hyperbole? I quoted Israeli leaders who freely admit the intention

[oberliner]

11. The Ben Gurion quote is not accurate

Ben Gurion actually said the opposite:

"We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places."

* Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians (2000) by Efraim Karsh
* This was extensively quoted as " must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987) by Benny Morris, p. 25.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

Here is an actual quote from Ben Gurion that you might find interesting:

We do not covet their expanses nor will we penetrate them - for we shall fight to end Diaspora in Arab lands as fiercely as we fought to end it in Europe, we want to be assembled wholly in our own Land. But if this region is to expand to the full, there must be reciprocity, there can be mutual aid - economic, political and cultural - between Jew and Arab. That is the necessity which will prevail, and the daily fulminations of their leaders should not alarm us unduly - they do not echo the real interests of the Arab peoples.

Come what may, we will not surrender our right to free Aliyah, to rebuild our shattered Homeland, to claim statehood. If we are attacked, we will fight back. But we will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a Cupertino gainful to both. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals.

http://www.mideastweb.org/bg1947.htm

[pelsar]

12. perhaps...

find accurate quotes?....or is using inaccurate ones preferred as they serve a "higher purpose?

[stranger81]

13. what's with the plural, when you're not disputing any of the other quotes? [n/t]

[oberliner]

17. Some comments/clarifications on a few of the other quotes

Here are some remarks from Meir on her oft-quoted remark cited above

"I have been charged with being rigidly insensitive to the question of the Palestinian Arabs," Meir wrote. "I am supposed to have said, 'There are no Palestinians.' My actual words were: 'There is no Palestinian people. There are Palestinian refugees'."

"My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations," she wrote. Meir also wrote that she did not completely "disregard whatever national aspirations Palestinian Arabs have developed in recent years," but that their state would have to be a confederation with Jordan, which was severed from Palestine by the British in 1921 and has a mostly Palestinian population.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-5-15/41564.html

The Rabin "quote" that was cited includes a significant modification that alters its meaning:

The quote as cited on this thread includes the question "What is to be done with the Palestinian population?'"

The actual question was: "What is to be done with the population?" The population in question being specifically limited to those in the cities of Lod and Ramleh and was made in within the context of the war that was being fought at that time.

If one were interested, one could find numerous quotations from Israeli leaders talking about their desire to live in peace (see the Ben Gurion quote I posted elsewhere in this thread) but for some reason, those aren't disseminated across the internet as widely as these others.

[pelsar]

26. see below...

not that it makes a difference....i think its easier to go to electronic intifada....they have greater depth than mere quotes when it comes to making up things.....

[Dick Dastardly]

54. As we discussed EI is an excellent source of fact based information

There are some biased articles but the vast majority are very well written and accurate. They outline the Israeli massacres, ethnic cleansing, violations of international law in a non biased balanced way.They are not apologists for any Palestinian terror and condemn it also. The same goes for the writings of Professor Juan Cole who is one of the recognized experts, the writings of Professor Rashid Khalidi who is also one of the top experts and regarded as such by most of the top experts.

Until I started reading the above mentioned and some other sources of balanced fact based information, I had no idea of the depth of brutality,wickedness of the Israeli aparthied regime as well as the noble struggle of the oppressed Palestinians who only wanted peace but were thrown out of their homes and country when the Zionists stole their land and rejected peace. At every point in this conflict the Zionists and then Israel stoked the flames of conflict to gain more land. They rejected the peaceful overtures of flawed but genuine peacemakers like Nasser who even tried to protect Israel only to be attacked by Israel. The massacres and targeting of Palestinian civilians by Israel must stop. Israel must be forced to cease the violence, stop the land theft and stop the occupation.

[pelsar]

81. EI? most imaginative site out there...

my favorite however was the way it was claimed that closing off an israeli port in 67 (usually considered an act of war) was some how flipped over to be "protecting israel"......(just like israel is now protecting the gazans)

[Dick Dastardly]

95. They only provide the facts in a well rounded balanced way

instead of the biased pro Israel propaganda pieces we see in much of the MSM.

[Behind the Aegis]

96. No, they simply do not.

They are a "pro"-Palestinian propaganda site. They rarely provide "well-rounded" articles. See: example

[Dick Dastardly]

98. As I stated there are some biased articles

There is no way to be perfect but they do an excellent job the vast majority of the time. They do an excellent job showing the atrocities/and massacres that Israel commits without embellishment and they also don't ignore when the resistance groups are at fault. The article you linked was actually a wire service article(Inter Press Service ) not an EI article.

[Behind the Aegis]

99. We and many others will have to agree to disagree.

They are, imo, nothing but a "pro"-Palestinian site designed to create false "facts" and propaganda to be utilized by those unaware of the situation, don't care but just hate Israel, and/or some other combination.

[oberliner]

18. The Sharon quote is cited elsewhere as being made on November 15, 1998

Here is a quote from Sharon in the NY Times on November 22, 1998:

''I don't know of another nation that would have given up areas linked to its historical heritage,'' Mr. Sharon declared, ''but we in the Government had to decide whether we want to make a real and honest effort to reach arrangements that may bring peace between us and our neighbors. The Government's response was yes.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E0D81330F931A15752C1A96E958260&scp=4&sq=ariel+sharon&st=nyt

[pelsar]

29. now that your quotes.....

have shown be "not complete".(see remarks after your post).....i'm curious. Do you first have you view point and then look to have it proven and when evidence points the other way, do you ignore it and pretend it never existed?

[Shaktimaan]

14. really?

Both sides in the I/P conflict have been attacking each other from the start. Oops forgot that part did you?

Care to explain? I'd be interested in hearing when the Jews began attacking the Arabs according to you. We know the Arabs began their attacks in 1921, again in 1929 and then initiated a three year uprising from 1936-39. So can you kindly reference the Jewish attacks/riots/massacres against Arab civilians from the early 20's?

Oh, and this is funny. You even bolded the Sharon quote to (supposedly) support your statement here... Destroy Palestine, take it all for Israel, leave nothing to the natives:

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."

Can you explain how Sharon pointing out which parts of the OPT will go to the Palestinians supports your accusation that Israel plans to take everything, leaving nothing for them? Not to mention Sharon's hard won policy of leaving Gaza and closing several WB settlements? I mean, if the best stuff you can find to support this theory of yours is a quote that says the exact opposite, from a man who fought tooth and nail to end the occupation in large sections of the OPT, closed settlements and dragged out the settlers one by one before handing the land, and autonomy over it, to the Palestinians, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you may not be looking at this conflict entirely rationally.

Actually it is the Israeli goal to steal all of Palestine from the native population, an ongoing policy as demonstrated by the quotes above over the years from Israeli leaders.

Except that your quotes are either fake or taken out of context. And your conclusion ignores the far greater amount of evidence that demonstrate the exact opposite. You have a few suspect quotes based largely on heresay or offhand comments. But signed agreements, official policy statements, treaty proposals and countless pieces of hard evidence such as key Israeli actions support the opposite. Even some of your quotes support the opposite.

And nothing you could find could come close to the kind of hateful rhetoric that groups like Hamas go on record with as their official policy regarding Israel. Their policy truly is exactly what you accuse Israel of. The only difference being that they don't posses the ability to fulfill it. Israel does have this ability, yet they have not gone down that road. Unlike everywhere in the world controlled by Arab governments who have fulfilled their policy of getting rid of their Jewish populations. Isn't it amazing that you are able to ignore the myriad nations who have actually done this in order to criticize a nation that hasn't done so?

[Vegasaurus]

19. Exactly right

Notice how there are no comments about the Arab nations who have expelled all of their Jewish inhabitants and do not allow them right of return (or even to visit). No comments about the inherent racism in that.

There is also no comment about the fact that if Hamas had a fraction of the firepower of Israel, they would use it to get rid of the Jewish population, just as they promise to do. Hamas wants ALL of Israel, and NO Jews in the middle east. When and if Iran supplies them with the firepower, they plan to do exactly what they have promised.

Israel has never used a fraction of its firepower against the Palestinians, and in fact, if it really wanted to "steal all the Palestinian land" or "kill all the people", they could have done it a hundred times over by now.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. No, yr both wrong...

Notice how there are no comments about the Arab nations who have expelled all of their Jewish inhabitants and do not allow them right of return (or even to visit).

You've been corrected on this many times before, but why let facts stand in the way of things? All Jewish inhabitants of ME countries were NOT expelled - some remained, some left willingly to move to Israel, some left under duress, and others were expelled. Trying to claim they were ALL expelled is totally untrue...

As for Shakti's claim that violence in Palestine started with the Arabs in 1921, that's not correct either, though it probably makes for a good story for those who like blaming the Arabs for everything and like their history ultra-simplistic. Robberies and crime was a fact of life in Palestine in the late 19th/early 20th century. Palestinian villages and later Jewish settlements were regularly attacked by bands of mainly Bedouin marauders. Later, but still before the 1920's, skirmishes broke out sporadically over land disputes, and both Jews and Arabs were involved in the violence...

And when it comes to the Arab Revolt, there doesn't seem to be any awareness that the primary focus of the revolt was against the British, that the Nashashibis who were the opposition to al Husseini were attacked and killed in what could be termed terrorism (I'm aware that term never seems to be seen as applicable to Palestinians), and that throughout the course of the rebellion, which resulted in a severe weakening of Palestinian society, thousands of Arabs were killed....

[eyl]

44. While there were indeed robberies and such

in Palestine for a long time, organized (insomuch as a mob is organized) violence between Arabs and Jews began with the riots of 1920 - which were Arab-initiated violence against Jews. It's rather minimizing the events to characterize them as a series of land disputes

[shaayecanaan]

39. Which ones?

Notice how there are no comments about the Arab nations who have expelled all of their Jewish inhabitants and do not allow them right of return (or even to visit). No comments about the inherent racism in that.

Which countries are you referring to?

[kayecy]

21. Correction.....There were riots in 1920.......And the Zionists began their 'invasion' when?

Correction

..... Care to explain? I'd be interested in hearing when the Jews began attacking the Arabs according to you. We know the Arabs began their attacks in 1921

There were riots in 1920 (see the Palin report)

Why were there riots in 1920?....I'm sure you don't need me to explain.

[Shaktimaan]

22. Doesn't matter in regards to this particular post.

subsuelo made the accusation that... "Both sides in the I/P conflict have been attacking each other from the start."

Despite your choice to use a politically charged word like "invasion" to describe a legal, peaceful immigration consisting largely of refugees, I doubt that you are suggesting that it qualified as an "attack" in the manner subsuelo uses the word here. To do so would equate planned, violent massacres of unarmed civilians and the destruction of their homes and businesses, (many of whom were native Palestinians themselves), with the mere act of immigration. I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting any moral equivalence here.

[kayecy]

23. OK -Suggest another that encapsulates imposing a flood of unwanted immigrants on an innocent people?

"Both sides in the I/P conflict have been attacking each other from the start."

subsuelo is correct if you include the Zionist 'invasion' of refugees.

OK, so 'invasion' is a politically charged word....So is "..legal, peaceful immigration" when you omit to say that the 'legality' came from the Occupying forces, the 'peaceful' came about because the Zionists were sheltering under the military forces of the British, and 'immigration' actually means a massive flood of unwanted immigrants.....I think 'invasion' is more accurate.

To do so would equate planned, violent massacres of unarmed civilians and the destruction of their homes and businesses, (many of whom were native Palestinians themselves), with the mere act of immigration. I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting any moral equivalence here.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that is exactly what I am suggesting....Contrast the individual criminal acts of violence carried out in the heat of acute anti-Zionist feeling, with the Zionist national leaders deciding, over a period of time and without any provocation, to ‘invade’ Palestine....There is no moral equivalence

[Vegasaurus]

27. More anti-immigration talk

Tsk tsk. How un-PC of you.

[pelsar]

32. good point...kill the immigrants

....those jews should have learned to live as 2nd class citizens (2000 years of experience)...and even if it means getting killed, that is by far the better moral choice then leaving.....

who do they think they are...self determination for jews.....death to the zionists!

[bemildred]

33. Olmert: We must curb infiltrations from Egypt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x205992

No need to kill people, you can just build walls.

[Vegasaurus]

34. Like Egypt's new ten foot concrete wall

constructed to keep out the Gazans? Kind of like that wall?

[bemildred]

35. Exactly, nobody wants a flood of immigrants. nt

[eyl]

43. Are you aware large-scale Jewish land purchases

began during the 19th century? The "occupying forces" you decry were the Turks who ruled the area for centuries.

[kayecy]

76. And how big were these "large-scale" Jewish land purchases in the 19th century?

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make, but according to the historian, Tessler, the total land owned by Jews in 1900 was 218,000 dunams, or about 1% of Palestine....not exactly "large-scale".

More to the point, how did the pre-1917 Zionists plan to achieve majority-rule in Palestine?.....Even by 1938 after over 300,000 immigrants had arrived, the Arabs were still in the majority and Jews owned only 7% of Palestine.....I'm sure not even Hamas would object to Israel's existence if it only occupied 7% of Palestine!
.
.

[pelsar]

78. so what happend?

the jews where the minority....the arabs didnt like having jews immigrate and so they decided to riot and attack (but only as individuals) the immigrants.....but not in all areas. There were in fact quite a few areas where the local arabs didnt and decided that they preferred the future that the jews brought with them (democracy), as opposed to the which the arabs promised (dictatorships, tribalism, etc)

[kayecy]

82. Democracy?..............When did the Zionists offer Palestinians democracy? n/t

[pelsar]

84. ...came with the zionist ideology...

as did communism, socialism......but the fact is that the present israeli arabs are living in a democracy and according to the polls and many interviews.....they prefer it to Palestinian rule....(and if you dont know that, then your not keeping up with the news....).

as far as the westbank goes...the "locals" werent offered anything, gaza now has self rule (a rather bleak theocratic dictatorship....)

[kayecy]

88. You are fudging the answer again.......When did the Zionists suggest democracy for Palestine?

....came with the Zionist ideology as did communism, socialism......but the fact is that the present israeli arabs are living in a democracy

It came with the Zionist ideology did it?.......they kept quiet about it for a mighty long time didn't they?......Wouldn't do to suggest democracy before they had engineered a Jewish majority would it?

[pelsar]

91. history is your friend...reading helps..

It came with the Zionist ideology did it?.

you might try reading up on Labor zionism....its was only a secret for those who keep their eyes and ears covered.....

[kayecy]

108. I asked you....[i]"When did the Zionists suggest democracy for Palestine?[/i]

I asked you...."When did the Zionists suggest democracy for Palestine?

When exactly did Labor Zionism suggest democracy to the Palestinians?.......As far as I can tell, no Zionist suggested any such thing until partition, when of course Palestine had been engineered to produce a Jewish majority state.

History is your friend....reading helps.
.

[pelsar]

115. logic and history also help...

start with: Weizmann and Emir Feisal

but beside that the israeli state is a democracy which includes all of the citizens.....that is a fact. When israel declared a state all the arabs living within the borders became citizens of a democratic state. Labor zionism was based on various socialistic/democratic principles that came to be factual when the state was established.

There was no "hidden agenda" about making a social democratic state...it was open to all.....some arabs joined in....others chose not to.

[kayecy]

117. You know that no Zionist would ever agree to democracy before a Jewish majority had been engineered

.....start with: Weizmann and Emir Feisal

They suggested democracy?...............Where did you read that nonsense?

......but beside that the israeli state is a democracy which includes all of the citizens.....that is a fact. When israel declared a state all the arabs living within the borders became citizens of a democratic state. Labor zionism was based on various socialistic/democratic principles that came to be factual when the state was established.

Israel came about after partition produced a Jewish majority in part of Palestine.....Before partition, you know as well as I do that no Zionist would ever agree to democracy until he had engineered a Jewish majority.
.
.

[pelsar]

124. are you actually suggesting ...

that without the zionists there would possibly have even been a democracy?.....

[kayecy]

125. Do you deny it?

I said "Israel came about after partition produced a Jewish majority in part of Palestine.....Before partition, you know as well as I do that no Zionist would ever agree to democracy until he had engineered a Jewish majority."


Do you deny it?
.

[pelsar]

128. of course not...

democracy and civil rights are far more important to me than mere nationalism and self determination... especially one based on a dictatorships...which as i understand is precisely what you support.

[kayecy]

132. What a baseless accusation.......

... especially one based on a dictatorships...which as i understand is precisely what you support.

What a baseless accusation.......When have I ever said such a thing?......Either quote my exact words which have lead you to make this accusation or apologize.

[Dick Dastardly]

100. Actually you only gave part of it.

While the Zionists commited many crimes we must in fairness be truthful
According to British statistics in the land that became Israel more than 70% was state land, 9% was Jewish owned, 18% was absentee landlords and 3% was Arabs

[kayecy]

109. You say that 70% of Palestine was "state land".......

According to British statistics in the land that became Israel more than 70% was state land, 9% was Jewish owned, 18% was absentee landlords and 3% was Arabs

It would help if you were a little more specific on where you got your information from....."A History of the Israel-palestinian Conflict", Tessler, p174 states " The figure (of Jewish owned land) for 1947 is only 6.6% of the total" and then goes on to give a breakdown.


More importantly, what evidence have you for claiming that 70% was "state land"......Which "state" are you referring to?.....The land was under a British military occupation.

[eyl]

113. See post 112 for a source

as for "State land" - the land in question was state land* under the Truks, and remained so under the British (though since Britain controlled the area under a LoN mandate, technically I suppose the land was "owned" by the LoN and administered by Britain).

[eyl]

112. My point was

That you seem to decry the purchase of land by Jews as illegitimate because it was done under the occupying power's rules - but defining the power in question (when purchases began, at least) as "occupying" is rather a stretch.

As for the 7% figure - in 1946 the Jews owned ~8.5% of the territory, true - but the Palestinians owned 15-20% (source: Survey of Palestine, 1946). So who gets the other 70%?

[kayecy]

116. I think you misunderstand me

My point was....That you seem to decry the purchase of land by Jews as illegitimate because it was done under the occupying power's rules - but defining the power in question (when purchases began, at least) as "occupying" is rather a stretch.

You misunderstand me....I really have no strong opinion on the purchase of land by Jews....If you go back to my Post 23, you will see that I was claiming that the massive Zionist “immigrant invasion” planned and carried out by Zionist leaders over a period of time was far more immoral than the acts of violence carried out in 1920 by individual Palestinians in the heat of strong anti-Zionist feelings.....There would have been no violence, no conflict if the Zionists had not connived with the British to disenfranchise the local Palestinians.....That was a terrible thing to do to a poor, backward, innocent people under what was effectively a military occupation.
.
.

[Dick Dastardly]

130. They did not connive with the Brits to disenfranchise the locals

The Peel report and others showed this repeatedly. The British actualy severely curtailed Jewish Immigration but not Arab. They limited the areas Jews could live and buy land but not to the Arabs who immigrated in far higher numbers than the Jews and did so due to the economic opportunities the Jews created. Do you consider Arab Immigration and invasion too? What about the native Jews, is it only ok for the Arab natives Arab brethren to immigrate but not the Jewish natives Jewish brethren? Before the Brits the Ottomans encouraged Jewish immigration. The anti zionist feelings were created and stoked by those with a political agenda like the Mufti. See
Arab Riots of the 1920’s
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots29.html
"The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#f


I am shocked that someones moral compass thinks that legal peacfull immigration is far more immoral than violence



Here is some info supporting what I posted. Do you have any evidence

MYTH

"The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine."

FACT
Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘ absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to be forcing the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was at a time when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million.

The British actually limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine by partitioning the country.

In 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine — some 35,000 square miles — to create a brand new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein's son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan's emir.

The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.” By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.2

Ultimately, the British admitted the argument about the absorptive capacity of the country was specious. The Peel Commission said: “The heavy immigration in the years 1933-36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#a




MYTH

"The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled."

FACT
The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country's absorptive capacity.

During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.

snip

The British gave in further to Arab demands by announcing in the 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.



full
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#b



MYTH

"Jews stole Arab land."

FACT
Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is that from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.18

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."19

It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.20

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."21

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.22

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al­Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.23

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.25

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:


It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original).26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.27

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."28

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#e




The Peel Commission Report



The Present Situation

The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

Such economic advantage, however, as the Arabs have gained from Jewish immigration will decrease if the political breach between the races continues to widen.

The Land

snip
Up till now the Arab cultivator has benefited on the whole both from the work of the British Administration and the presence of Jews in the country, but the greatest care must now be exercised to see that in the event of further sales of land by Arabs to Jews the rights of any Arab tenants or cultivators are preserved. Thus, alienation of land should only be allowed where it is possible to replace extensive by intensive cultivation. In the hill districts there can be no expectation of finding accommodation for any large increase in the rural population. At present, and for many years to come, the Mandatory Power should not attempt to facilitate the close settlement of the Jews in the hill districts generally.

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.


THE POSSIBILITY OF A LASTING SETTLEMENT

snip
The existing circumstances are summarized as follows.

An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State.

The conflict has grown steadily more bitter since 1920 and the process will continue. Conditions inside Palestine especially the systems of education, are strengthening the national sentiment of the two peoples. The bigger and more prosperous they grow the greater will be their political ambitions, and the conflict is aggravated by the uncertainty of the future. Who in the end will govern Palestine?" it is asked. Meanwhile, the external factors will continue to operate with increasing force. On the one hand in less than three years' time Syria and the Lebanon will attain their national sovereignty, and the claim of the Palestinian Arabs to share in the freedom of all Asiatic Arabia will thus be fortified. On the other hand the hardships and anxieties of the Jews in Europe are not likely to grow less and the appeal to the good faith and humanity of the British people will lose none of its force.

Meanwhile, the Government of Palestine, which is at present an unsuitable form for governing educated Arabs and democratic Jews, cannot develop into a system of self-government as it has elsewhere, because there is no such system which could ensure justice both to the Arabs and to the Jews. Government therefore remains unrepresentative and unable to dispel the conflicting grievances of the two dissatisfied and irresponsible communities it governs.

In these circumstances peace can only be maintained in Palestine under the Mandate by repression. This means the maintenance of security services at so high a cost that the services directed to "the well-being and development" of the population cannot be expanded and may even have to be curtailed. The moral objections to repression are self-evident. Nor need the undesirable reactions of it on opinion outside Palestine be emphasized. Moreover, repression will not solve the problem. It will exacerbate the quarrel. It will not help towards the establishment of a single self-governing Palestine. It is not easy to pursue the dark path of repression without seeing daylight at the end of it.

The British people will not flinch from the task of continuing to govern Palestine under the Mandate if they are in honour bound to do so, but they would be justified in asking if there is no other way in which their duty can be done.

Nor would Britain wish to repudiate her obligations. The trouble is that they have proved irreconcilable, and this conflict is the more unfortunate because each of the obligations taken separately accords with British sentiment and British interest. The development of self-government in the Arab world on the one hand is in accordance with British principles, and British public opinion is wholly sympathetic with Arab aspirations towards a new age of unity and prosperity in the Arab world. British interest similarly has always been bound up with the peace of the Middle East and British statesmanship can show an almost unbroken record of friendship with the Arabs. There is a strong British tradition, on the other hand, of friendship with the Jewish people, and it is in the British interest to retain as far as may be the confidence of the Jewish people.

The continuance of the present system means the gradual alienation of two peoples who are traditionally the friends of Britain.

The problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question which of them in the end will govern Palestine must be Neither. No fair-minded statesman can think it right either that 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been facilitated by he British Government and approved by the League of Nations, should be handed over to Arab rule, or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But while neither race can fairly rule all Palestine, each race might justly rule part of it.

The idea of Partition has doubtless been thought of before as a solution of the problem, but it has probably been discarded as being impracticable. The difficulties are certainly very great, but when they are closely examined they do not seem so insuperable as the difficulties inherent in the continuance of the Mandate or in any other alternative arrangement. Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace. No other plan does.


also read the Exchange of Land and Population portion which is interesting

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html


At this point in history the Zionist atrocities were not like they will become.

[kayecy]

131. MYTH "The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine." ???

Thank you for commenting on my post No116.....As you probably know, I have four or five correspondents on this thread alone, so I hope you will forgive me if I just take up one of your points.

MYTH "The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine."

There were some 50,000 Jews in Palestine in 1917....Can you tell me how an additional 300,000 Jews managed to immigrated to Palestine between then and 1938 without British connivence?...Balfour’s infamous declaration...” His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object...” makes it quite clear that the British were as involved as the Zionists in achieving a Jewish majority via demographic engineering, and what happened to the local non-Jewish residents was of no concern to them

I suggest that Zionists would never have achieved the critical mass necessary to support partition if instead of favoring a national home for the Jewish people, Balfour had defended the self-determination rights of the local population

[msmcghee]

134. Well, if it "makes it quite clear" . .

. . to you and you "suggest" it . . then I guess that pretty well settles things. :sarcasm:

You never seem to connect your facts with your assertions in any logical way. Just repeating your assertions works for those who already want to believe them. I have yet to see you make a decent logical case though for any of your assertions here - this being a case in point. Without some attempt - and so many repeated unsupported assertions - it appears that your views are all ideological and pretty much unconnected to reality. Especially when you are repeatedly challenged to provide that support and you can't.

You have maintained that Israel purposely targets Palestinain civilians as policy - for example. When pressed over many repeated challenges you back off and change your assertion to the one that Palestinain civilians are killed - without reference to intent - using many weasel words rather than admitting you were wrong to start with.

This is another one - the Brits conniving with the Zionists to displace Arabs. The facts again pretty much point in the opposite direction.

[kayecy]

135. If you cannot back up that lie, is it too much to expect an apology?

You have maintained that Israel purposely targets Palestinain civilians as policy

What a baseless lie......I have never, repeat never made such an assertion...I challenge you to find any sentence in any of my posts that maintains Israel targets civilians as a policy.

If you cannot back up your totally baseless claim, I expect you to apologize.
.

[msmcghee]

136. Editing - see reply to this.

[msmcghee]

137. I apologize. I got you confused with subsuelo. Sorry.

I hate it when that happens.:dunce:

[kayecy]

145. Was your previous apology totally incincere?

I accepted your apology and explanation in good faith, but I now find that you wrote the following on the PSU forum on April 5th:

If only. I have yet to see you (kayecy) face any discussion with me rationally or honestly. You use them as games to push your favorite memes and ignore challenges to your view.

Like your completely non-existent evidence for Israel targeting civilians.

Was your previous apology totally incincere?......What do you mean by non-existent evidence?..... I have never claimed that Israel targets civilians.

[Dick Dastardly]

138. You just repeated your assertions with no evidence and ignored mine

Thank you for commenting on my post No116.....As you probably know, I have four or five correspondents on this thread alone, so I hope you will forgive me if I just take up one of your points.

Your welcome and thank you for responding but you should respond to the whole thing as they are interconnected and I see no one else has responded to 116 so I assume they dont mind you responding to my response on this and are waiting for you to do so, so please do.

There were some 50,000 Jews in Palestine in 1917....Can you tell me how an additional 300,000 Jews managed to immigrated to Palestine between then and 1938 without British connivence?...Balfour’s infamous declaration...” His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object...” makes it quite clear that the British were as involved as the Zionists in achieving a Jewish majority via demographic engineering, and what happened to the local non-Jewish residents was of no concern to them

I suggest that Zionists would never have achieved the critical mass necessary to support partition if instead of favoring a national home for the Jewish people, Balfour had defended the self-determination rights of the local population




Did you even read what I posted which shows what you say is completely false. The info I posted answers all your questions and statementd. You dont even supply evidence for your accusations that you repeat while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Can you give us evidence to support your contention that Btits "connived" with the Jews to dienfranchise the local Palestinians? Why do you ignore that Jews were local too? What evidence do you have that what happened to the local non Jews were no concern to the Brits which goes against the evidence I posted and you ignored? Do you consider Arab Immigration and invasion too? What about the native Jews, is it only ok for the Arab natives Arab brethren to immigrate but not the Jewish natives Jewish brethren?. It also seems you think that the local non Jews should have more rights than local Jews.
Immigration and land purchases to Jews were tightly restricted, some Jews managed to sneak in.The Arabs on the otherhand had no restriction on immigration or buying land, they immigrated in far greater amounts than the Jews which you ignore. They immigrated due to the economic opportunities the Jews provided.
Read the info and links I posted in 130 which refutes your asserstions


There would have been no violence, no conflict if the Zionists had not connived with the British to disenfranchise the local Palestinians.....That was a terrible thing to do to a poor, backward, innocent people under what was effectively a military occupation.

The anti zionist feelings were created and stoked by those with a political agenda like the Mufti. See
Arab Riots of the 1920’s
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots29.html
MYTH
"The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#f


So where do you get your info from? Because as the links show that the violence was stoked and what you said is not true. Also as my previous post shows nothing was done to the poor backward people and they were in fact helped by Zionist immigration which resulted in increased Arab immigration




I was claiming that the massive Zionist “immigrant invasion” planned and carried out by Zionist leaders over a period of time was far more immoral than the acts of violence carried out in 1920 by individual Palestinians in the heat of strong anti-Zionist feelings......



Again
I am shocked that someones moral compass thinks that legal peacful immigration is far more immoral than violence. Do you actually believe this?






Text

[kayecy]

140. You have made no attempt to explain why Balfour was not helping the Zionists...

Q1 Can you give us evidence to support your contention that Btits "connived" with the Jews to dienfranchise the local Palestinians?

Yes – The Balfour Declaration...Without that, Zionists would never have achieved the critical mass necessary for partition.

Q2 Why do you ignore that Jews were local too

I don’t ignore them... I said earlier that there were some 50,000 Jewish residents of Palestine in 1917.

Q3 What evidence do you have that what happened to the local non Jews were no concern to the Brits

I used the term ‘local residents’, which of course includes the local Jews....I assumed, perhaps I am wrong, that the local Jews did not see any threat from Zionism so why should the Brits or anyone else be concerned about them?

Q4 Do you consider Arab Immigration and invasion too?

The extent of the Arab immigration is controversial, but in any case, I have never read that the majority of the locals felt threatened by such immigration.

Q5 It also seems you think that the local non Jews should have more rights than local Jews.

You ‘seem’ wrong... I think they have exactly the same rights


I have now given answers to your first five questions.....Your Post 130 was some 2,500 words long and referred me to six long reference....Quite frankly that is ridiculous in a simple debate

You have an absolute right to write as much as you like and refer me to as many documents as you like....I have the absolute right to read and answer as little or as much as I wish.....As I explained, I am short of time and if you are not prepared to limit your posts to one or two questions at a time, then I am afraid I must bring this debate to a close.

Read the info and links I posted in 130 which refutes your asserstions

Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner ordered temporary restrictions in 1922, “in the interests of the present population and the absorptive capacity of the country.” (see Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World)....I have seen nothing in your Post 130 that claims the British restricted immigration prior to 1922.

You claimed that it was a myth that the British helped the Jews to displace the native Arab population, but you have made no attempt to explain why the Balfour Declaration was not doing exactly that.

[bemildred]

141. That's because that is exactly what they were doing.

It was a deal they cut with what-his-name, the guy that figured out how to make cheap acetone. It says: "that the British government supported Zionist plans for a National home for the Jewish people within Palestine‎ with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there" which is, of course, an oxymoron. But the Brits were quite good at being two-faced back then, the best in the world at it.

[Dick Dastardly]

142. Thank you for your responses

Q1 Can you give us evidence to support your contention that Btits "connived" with the Jews to dienfranchise the local Palestinians?

Yes – The Balfour Declaration...Without that, Zionists would never have achieved the critical mass necessary for partition.

Have you even read the BD? Or just the part you posted because you left a relavent part out which I bolded
Here it is
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

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

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour


How is this some connivance (which implies some decietful secret underhanded way)to disenfranchise locals as you stated. Is this what you say is your proof because its proof of nothing you state but actually quite the opposite. You show no evidence of any connivance to disenfranchise locals or that the locals were of no concern. For a period after BD the Jewish population stagnated whil Arabs increased greatly. The Brits also restricted Jewish Immigration, land ownership and where they could live but did not do this to the Arabs. Its a funny way to connive what you state. The fact is you have nothing to back up what you say except your own baseless statements

More info debunking your claims
MYTH

“All Arabs opposed the Balfour Declaration, seeing it as a betrayal of their rights.”

FACT
Emir Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann and other Zionist leaders during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It acknowledged the "racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people" and concluded that "the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine.” Furthermore, the agreement looked to the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and called for all necessary measures “...to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.”22


MYTH

“The 'traditional position' of the Arabs in Palestine was jeopardized by Jewish settlement.”

FACT
For many centuries, Palestine was a sparsely populated, poorly cultivated and widely-neglected expanse of eroded hills, sandy deserts and malarial marshes. As late as 1880, the American consul in Jerusalem reported the area was continuing its historic decline. "The population and wealth of Palestine has not increased during the last forty years," he said.12

The Report of the Palestine Royal Commission quotes an account of the Maritime Plain in 1913:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts...no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna ....Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen....The ploughs used were of wood....The yields were very poor....The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist....The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert....The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.13

Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote of Palestine:

We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria....Large areas...were uncultivated....The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots...changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbors, the Bedouin.14

Surprisingly, many people who were not sympathetic to the Zionist cause believed the Jews would improve the condition of Palestinian Arabs. For example, Dawood Barakat, editor of the Egyptian paper Al-Ahram, wrote: "It is absolutely necessary that an entente be made between the Zionists and Arabs, because the war of words can only do evil. The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterizes them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country."15

Even a leading Arab nationalist believed the return of the Jews to their homeland would help resuscitate the country. According to Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia:

The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons (abna'ihi­l­asliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and in all things connected with toil and labor.16

As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers.

Mark Twain, who visited Palestine in 1867, described it as: “... desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”17

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html

Q2 Why do you ignore that Jews were local too

I don’t ignore them... I said earlier that there were some 50,000 Jewish residents of Palestine in 1917.

You do ignore them, you speak only of what the Arabs want and their rights.

btw
During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.

Q3 What evidence do you have that what happened to the local non Jews were no concern to the Brits

I used the term ‘local residents’, which of course includes the local Jews....I assumed, perhaps I am wrong, that the local Jews did not see any threat from Zionism so why should the Brits or anyone else be concerned about them?

You stated the Brits didnt care about the local non Jews. Let me refresh

makes it quite clear that the British were as involved as the Zionists in achieving a Jewish majority via demographic engineering, and what happened to the local non-Jewish residents was of no concern to them

I have shown lots of evidence refuting that which you not only ignore but dont provide evidence to support what you say, only your own statements again

Q4 Do you consider Arab Immigration and invasion too?

The extent of the Arab immigration is controversial, but in any case, I have never read that the majority of the locals felt threatened by such immigration.

So again its ok for Arabs to immigrate but not Jews. Only the local Arabs should have any say

Q5 It also seems you think that the local non Jews should have more rights than local Jews.

You ‘seem’ wrong... I think they have exactly the same rights

I seem even more right now because you have shown you only have a problem with immigrants who are Jewish. You only care of the rights and wants of the Arabs.

I have now given answers to your first five questions.....Your Post 130 was some 2,500 words long and referred me to six long reference....Quite frankly that is ridiculous in a simple debate

You have an absolute right to write as much as you like and refer me to as many documents as you like....I have the absolute right to read and answer as little or as much as I wish.....As I explained, I am short of time and if you are not prepared to limit your posts to one or two questions at a time, then I am afraid I must bring this debate to a close.

Thank you for your responses
I gave you the information because it debunks everything you said not to be ridiculous. I believe in backing up what I say. You on the otherhand dont provide evidence and ignore any provided and Ignore anything you are proved wrong on.

As far as the questions go it is you that made comments so expect to be brought to task. Dont make comments if you dont wish to be taken to task. This is a debate forum. You most definatly have a right to ignore anything and respond as much or little as you want but dont expect not to be called on not backing what you say. People who dont have a good argument usually claim what you do

Read the info and links I posted in 130 which refutes your asserstions

Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner ordered temporary restrictions in 1922, “in the interests of the present population and the absorptive capacity of the country.” (see Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World)....I have seen nothing in your Post 130 that claims the British restricted immigration prior to 1922.

.


There was plenty in 130 that immigration was restricted and controlled, you have provided nothing to back any of your claims. Did you just insert 1922 in your quote because that is not true, post a link to your source please. In any case what does prior to 1922 matter anyway, you keep changing dates but in any case there were quotas established in 1920 and immigration was suspended for a time in 1921 see the hope simpson report http://www.mideastweb.org/hopesimpson.htm

also

During World War I, the Jewish population declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population continued to grow exponentially even while that of the Jews stagnated.

MYTH

"The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled."

FACT
The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country's absorptive capacity.

During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.4 Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated.


MYTH

"The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine."

FACT
Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration “in the ‘interests of the present population’ and the ‘ absorptive capacity’ of the country.”1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to be forcing the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land. This was at a time when less than a million people lived in an area that now supports more than nine million.

The British actually limited the absorptive capacity of Palestine by partitioning the country.

In 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine — some 35,000 square miles — to create a brand new Arab entity, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia (which are both now Saudi Arabia) going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein's son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan's emir.

The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) stating that “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.” By 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews.2

Ultimately, the British admitted the argument about the absorptive capacity of the country was specious. The Peel Commission said: “The heavy immigration in the years 1933-36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”3

You claimed that it was a myth that the British helped the Jews to displace the native Arab population, but you have made no attempt to explain why the Balfour Declaration was not doing exactly that

I most certainly did provide a full debunking of what you stated but you have not provided any evidence to back up your claims. It is actually up to you to back up your claim.

There would have been no violence, no conflict if the Zionists had not connived with the British to disenfranchise the local Palestinians.....That was a terrible thing to do to a poor, backward, innocent people under what was effectively a military occupation.

I provided a full debunking with the Peel report and other sources and asked what evidence you have to back up your claim which only then you mention the Balflour and claim it as evidence only posting a part of it as we see bolded

There were some 50,000 Jews in Palestine in 1917....Can you tell me how an additional 300,000 Jews managed to immigrated to Palestine between then and 1938 without British connivence?...Balfour’s infamous declaration... ” His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object...” makes it quite clear that the British were as involved as the Zionists in achieving a Jewish majority via demographic engineering, and what happened to the local non-Jewish residents was of no concern to them

You left out this portion
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"

I consider that highly dishonest as some other tactics. You have a habit of making claims you cant back up, move the goalposts and ignore evidence that debunks your unsupported claims and recycle statements with no support as evidence.
The evidence I provided was plainly there but you continually ignore it and claim it isnt.



Anyway here some of the info again that debunks your claims


The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.25

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:


It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original).26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.27



snip of Peel report

The Present Situation

The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

Such economic advantage, however, as the Arabs have gained from Jewish immigration will decrease if the political breach between the races continues to widen.

The Land

snip
Up till now the Arab cultivator has benefited on the whole both from the work of the British Administration and the presence of Jews in the country, but the greatest care must now be exercised to see that in the event of further sales of land by Arabs to Jews the rights of any Arab tenants or cultivators are preserved. Thus, alienation of land should only be allowed where it is possible to replace extensive by intensive cultivation. In the hill districts there can be no expectation of finding accommodation for any large increase in the rural population. At present, and for many years to come, the Mandatory Power should not attempt to facilitate the close settlement of the Jews in the hill districts generally.

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.


and

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.22





I guess since you did not mention it you now agree The anti zionist feelings were created and stoked by those with a political agenda like the Mufti.

You have been schooled and are now owned by Dick Dastardly. :evilgrin: :)

[kayecy]

143. Gee....A 3,200 word post!.....Where am I supposed to begin?

Gee a 3,200 word post!...Where do I begin?

....it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".... How is this some connivance (which implies some decietful secret underhanded way)to disenfranchise locals

Answer 1.....You will note that Jews were given favorable treatment, they were alien immigrants and yet were promised political rights – the non-Jewish locals were not given political rights....Do you think that was fair?

Answer 2....If another country issued such an XYZ Declaration about your country, giving the right for alien immigrants to enter your country and make a homeland there, you would be quite happy would you?....You would not think it deceitful, secret, underhand or just plain immoral?

... You show no evidence of any connivance to disenfranchise locals

Answer: (http://www.zionism-israel.com/Balfour_Declaration_1917.htm.)..Sir Mark entered into negotiations with us, and gave us his fullest support, without even telling us of the existence of the tentative agreement! He was in effect, modifying his stand in our favour, seeking to revise the agreement so that our claims in Palestine might be given room......Is that not connivance?

....or that the locals were of no concern.

Answer .... Segev quotes the words of British foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour: "Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."............Do you call that concern for the locals?

.... The Brits also restricted Jewish Immigration, land ownership and where they could live but did not do this to the Arabs.

Answer:...See my Post No 140... ”I have seen nothing in your Post that claims the British restricted immigration prior to 1922."......If you believe you have evidence that this is untrue, please state exactly where I can find it.

....The fact is you have nothing to back up what you say except your own baseless statements

Answer.....This statement of yours is neither polite nor true......You were the one who claimed that it was a myth that the British helped the Jews to displace the native Arab population, but you have made no attempt to explain why the Balfour Declaration was not doing exactly that.....Refering me to WEB pages which do not attempt to explain it is an insult to my intelligence, not a debate.

You do ignore them (local Jewish residents), you speak only of what the Arabs want and their rights.

Answer....What is there to talk about?....Were they complaining?...Were they being disenfranchised?

“I assumed, perhaps I am wrong, that the local Jews did not see any threat from Zionism so why should the Brits or anyone else be concerned about them?” ....You stated the Brits didn't care about the local non Jews. Let me refresh

Question...You are losing me here, what exactly are you claiming?

I have shown lots of evidence refuting that which you not only ignore but dont provide evidence to support

Correction.... You have produced umpteen thousand words and referred to WEB documents which are largely irrelevant.

So again its ok for Arabs to immigrate but not Jews. Only the local Arabs should have any say

Answer.....No, not at all....My statement said “The extent of the Arab immigration is controversial, but in any case, I have never read that the majority of the locals felt threatened by such immigration.”......Earlier in my Post 140 I said that by “locals” I meant both local Arabs and Jews....Are you forgetful or just being bloody minded?

I seem even more right now because you have shown you only have a problem with immigrants who are Jewish.

Clarification....Let me spell it out for you.....I only have a problem with a flood of unwanted immigrants who wish to disenfranchise the locals.....It makes no difference whether they are Jewish immigrants, Chinese immigrants or Arab immigrants.

I gave you the information because it debunks everything you said not to be ridiculous. I believe in backing up what I say. You on the otherhand dont provide evidence and ignore any provided and Ignore anything you are proved wrong on.

Amazement....Debunks everything I said???????.......I will treat that statement with the contempt it deserves.
.

[stranger81]

38. So you think Mr. Sabra & Shatila was a peacemaker?

You guys are a laugh a minute.

But you won't be able to have it both ways forever. You do realize, don't you, that not everyone swallows this kind of propaganda?

[Shaktimaan]

42. oh please.

take your strawman arguments somewhere else. don't waste my time with this lame thing you do... like I wasn't going to remember that I never defended Sharon as a peacemaker or that we were discussing something totally different.

Let's face it. If you had a real rebuttal to my argument then you would have made it, instead of pretending I said something completely different so that you would be able to refute it. I mean, my statements are all written down above in this thread, for anyone to read. Considering that, do you really think it's a good plan to insult me for things I never touched upon or suggested, let alone asserted.

If you want to have a real discussion, then I'll be here. But I'm not into wasting my time responding to these strawman and bait n' switch "techniques." Gotta grow up sometime dude.

[bemildred]

4. You need to read up on the history of Tibet.

You have made several glaring historical errors. Israel has been the Jewish national homeland since 1948. Before that there was around 1800 years of the place being a political football for various political and religious players, mostly not Jews, who were mostly not there. That's what Zionism was all about, eh? Jews do have a religious connection to the place that goes back (perhaps) 3000 years, but so do many other parties, and not just the obvious Abrahamic religions.

[aranthus]

15. But you didn't say anything about Tibet.

When I saw the heading of your post I thought you would write something to the effect that the Tibetans had attacked China or that the area was a traditional part of China for millenia. I would have been interested in being shown wrong about that. Instead, you post drivel that shows that you don't know very much about Jews or Jewish history. When I say that Israel is the Jewish homeland, I mean Eretz Yisroel, "the land of Israel." That's a concept that goes much farther back than the creation of the modern state of Israel. The Holy Land is where the Jewish People became a nation; that's what a homeland is, whether or not the nation has actual political control of an area. There have been exactly three indigenous independent states in the Holy Land, and all of them have been Jewish: The First Jewish Commonwealth, The Second Jewish Commonwealth, and the modern state of Israel. Your suggestion that the ancient Jewish connection to the Holy Land is only religious is too ludicrous to merit further discussion.

That being said, I of course recognize that there have been and are, other people living in the Holy Land. That does not refute the Jewish claim to having a state there. That does not mean that the Palestinians have the right to all of Palestine for themselves. My original point being that the war is much less about the Palestinian desire for an independent national existence as it is a desire to deprive the Jews of theirs.

[bemildred]

16. That's right, I didn't.

I was suggesting you find our for your self, not offering to educate you. At least you would be able to produce more credible propaganda. I see I was wasting my time.

[bemildred]

25. Here, have some alternative history:

Shattering a 'national mythology'

Of all the national heroes who have arisen from among the Jewish people over the generations, fate has not been kind to Dahia al-Kahina, a leader of the Berbers in the Aures Mountains. Although she was a proud Jewess, few Israelis have ever heard the name of this warrior-queen who, in the seventh century C.E., united a number of Berber tribes and pushed back the Muslim army that invaded North Africa. It is possible that the reason for this is that al-Kahina was the daughter of a Berber tribe that had converted to Judaism, apparently several generations before she was born, sometime around the 6th century C.E.

According to the Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, in Hebrew), the queen's tribe and other local tribes that converted to Judaism are the main sources from which Spanish Jewry sprang. This claim that the Jews of North Africa originated in indigenous tribes that became Jewish - and not in communities exiled from Jerusalem - is just one element of the far- reaching argument set forth in Sand's new book.

In this work, the author attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the fourth century) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the eighth century). Unlike other "new historians" who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years. He tries to prove that the Jewish people never existed as a "nation-race" with a common origin, but rather is a colorful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. He argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking: "There were times when if anyone argued that the Jews belong to a people that has gentile origins, he would be classified as an anti-Semite on the spot. Today, if anyone dares to suggest that those who are considered Jews in the world ... have never constituted and still do not constitute a people or a nation - he is immediately condemned as a hater of Israel."

According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, "who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland," is nothing but "national mythology." Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past - for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, "so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html

[Crunchy Frog]

139. So far as I know, genetic studies do not support that theory. n/t

[bemildred]

144. Are you claiming that all modern Jews are closely related genetically?

That seems very unlikely to me, on a number of grounds, and I'd be interested to know about any studies that show otherwise. I have seen reports on studies that show Palestinians Jews are closely related to the Palestinian non-Jews, but I would be surprised to find that Ukrainian Jews, for example, share the same genome.

I don't mean by this to suggest that I have any firm opinions about the "alternate history" piece I put up, I just thought it was interesting.

[shaayecanaan]

40. Tibetans are far better off than Palestinians

1. Tibet never attacked China: The Palestinians have been attacking the Jews since the 1920's.

The Tibetan resistance fought China until they were dumped by the CIA, without whose support the resistance soon evaporated. Because they had very little support from the broader populace, it was difficult to maintain a guerilla war for any significant length of time.

2. The Chinese occupied Tibet in a straight up conquest: Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza because the Palestinians

The People's Liberation Army was able to walk most of the Tibetan campaign. They gave immediate cash relief to many of the villagers, and promised to build roads, hospitals and so forth. Most of the villagers had laboured so long and so fruitlessly under their landlords that they were prepared to support the Communists, just like most of rural China. Even the current Dalai Lama admitted that the PLA did not kill civilians during the Tibetan campaign.

Of course, soon they realised just how miserable their lot would be under the PRC (much like rural China generally) and anti-CCP sentiments grew steadily through the 1950s.

3. The Chinese have no legitimate claim to Tibet: The land of Israel has been the Jewish national homeland for over three thousand
years.

The Dalai Lama concedes that ultimately the Chinese should have sovereignty over the TAR. Culturally, the Tibetans are far closer to Chinese than to Indians. Linguistically, Tibetan is closest to the languages of the adjacent Xinjiang province. Various Chinese dynasties and authorities have been in charge of Tibet, on and off and to varying degrees since the Mongol conquest. Ethnically, Tibetans and Han Chinese were indistinguishable until about 4000 years ago.

Tibet's idea of liberation is to let the Chinese have China and let the Tibetans have Tibet: The Palestinian idea of liberation
is to destroy Israel

By and large, Tibetans do have Tibet. 94% of the population of Tibet is Tibetan. Tibetans have, on the whole, been dispossessed of their homeland to a far lesser extent than Palestinians.

[bemildred]

45. Ah, someone who knows some of the history.

:thumbsup:

And the "Jewish" historical claim to Israel is about as sound as my "historical claim" to Scotland, to the extent it is not just religious twaddle. People confuse "want to" with "have a right to" all the time. Not that any of that means much now.

[msmcghee]

53. Oh yeah, like the "right" to resist occupation. n/t

[bemildred]

55. Exactly.

Rights are not worth much unless you have some means to enforce them.

[msmcghee]

56. Hardly a useful distinction.

Whether a right is enforceable or not - if it is something people hold as dear then it determines their behavior to a great extent.

[bemildred]

58. Whether you can enforce your rights is not a useful distinction?

:rofl::rofl:

[msmcghee]

59. Yes, in determining whether they are "worth much".

Which is the point you were making before you got distracted by the chance to be snarky.

In fact, rights that can't be enforced are often far more valuable to a person than rights that are enforced. People in communist states for example, risked prison and worse to attend church services secretly. Many religious folks in countries where religious freedom is guaranteed don't go and never miss it - except maybe they'll show up for Easter service.

Doesn't being wrong about stuff all the time ever bother you? B-)

[bemildred]

70. So if you aren't occupied, you don't appreciate your right to resist as much?

But if you are occupied, then you do appreciate it, so it's "worth more" to you? I guess you ought to appreciate your occupiers too, for showing you the true worth of your unenforceable right to resist.

[bemildred]

46. This sentence bothers me:

"Ethnically, Tibetans and Han Chinese were indistinguishable until about 4000 years ago."

Could I ask you to explain where that information comes from?

[shaayecanaan]

66. Fair point

I based that statement on the opinion of linguistic scholars that the separation of Tibetan and other Asiatic languages occurred around 4000 years ago. It probably would have been better to express it that way.

[bemildred]

69. OK, thank you for the explanation. nt

[aranthus]

47. That's just a crock

1. Tibet never attacked China: The Palestinians have been attacking the Jews since the 1920's.

The Tibetan resistance fought China until they were dumped by the CIA, without whose support the resistance soon evaporated. Because they had very little support from the broader populace, it was difficult to maintain a guerilla war for any significant length of time.

I will admit that my initial post was inartfully pharased, but let's get serious. Were the Tibetans ever the aggressors? Did they attack legal immigrants or an invading army? The Palestinians attacked people who had come to Palestine legally.

2. The Chinese occupied Tibet in a straight up conquest: Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza because the Palestinians

The People's Liberation Army was able to walk most of the Tibetan campaign. They gave immediate cash relief to many of the villagers, and promised to build roads, hospitals and so forth. Most of the villagers had laboured so long and so fruitlessly under their landlords that they were prepared to support the Communists, just like most of rural China. Even the current Dalai Lama admitted that the PLA did not kill civilians during the Tibetan campaign.

Same question. Did the PLA enter Tibet with the permission of the Tibetan government or as a conquering army? It doesn't matter that they "did not kill civilians during the Tibetan campaign." What matters is that it was a Tibetan campaign. It was a military operation, not legal immigration. The fact that there wasn't much shooting is irrelevant. The Germans didn't have to shoot much when they invaded Denmark in WWII.

Of course, soon they realised just how miserable their lot would be under the PRC (much like rural China generally) and anti-CCP sentiments grew steadily through the 1950s.

3. The Chinese have no legitimate claim to Tibet: The land of Israel has been the Jewish national homeland for over three thousand
years.

The Dalai Lama concedes that ultimately the Chinese should have sovereignty over the TAR. Culturally, the Tibetans are far closer to Chinese than to Indians. Linguistically, Tibetan is closest to the languages of the adjacent Xinjiang province. Various Chinese dynasties and authorities have been in charge of Tibet, on and off and to varying degrees since the Mongol conquest. Ethnically, Tibetans and Han Chinese were indistinguishable until about 4000 years ago.

You can't seriously believe that any of this justifies Chinese conquest of Tibet. You can't believe that similarities that existed 4000 years ago should govern today. Tibetans are a separate nation from China with a separate culture, language, history, ethnicity, and religion. They had their own country before the first Chinese conquest. China has never had dominion over Tibet except by right of conquest. You can't believe all of that makes no difference.

4. Tibet's idea of liberation is to let the Chinese have China and let the Tibetans have Tibet: The Palestinian idea of liberation
is to destroy Israel

By and large, Tibetans do have Tibet. 94% of the population of Tibet is Tibetan. Tibetans have, on the whole, been dispossessed of their homeland to a far lesser extent than Palestinians.

Get serious. We're talking about sovereingty, not land ownership. Tibetans want to live under their own culture. They haven't issued declarations and Charters that say that the Chinese aren't a people entitled to a state of their own.

[Vegasaurus]

48. It's good to have some real facts on this board of hyperbole nt

[aranthus]

50. Please forgive my ignorance, but

"nt" means what?

[bemildred]

51. "No Text"

As in a post with only a subject line.

[aranthus]

52. Thanks for the info.

[shaayecanaan]

65. I just love that incredulous "you cant be serious" tone

The Tibetan resistance fought China until they were dumped by the CIA, without whose support the resistance soon evaporated. Because they had very little support from the broader populace, it was difficult to maintain a guerilla war for any significant length of time.

I will admit that my initial post was inartfully pharased, but let's get serious. Were the Tibetans ever the aggressors? Did they attack legal immigrants or an invading army? The Palestinians attacked people who had come to Palestine legally.

All of the Han Chinese immigrants to Tibet are perfectly legal, according to the laws of the sovereign power, China. Sure, the Tibetans might not have been too happy, but then again, the Palestinians werent thrilled with widespread Jewish immigration, either.

As far as I know, all of the actions by Tibetan resistance were confined to historical Tibet. But then again, most of the actions by Palestian resistance have been confined to historical Palestine.

Same question. Did the PLA enter Tibet with the permission of the Tibetan government or as a conquering army?

Now I'm laughing. So the PLA should have obtained the permission of the Tibetan "government" before invading? Does that mean that the Haganah and Irgun should have asked permission from the Palestinians before invading, or is this just pure 200-proof bullshit that you havent thought through properly yet?

You can't seriously believe that any of this justifies Chinese conquest of Tibet. You can't believe that similarities that existed 4000 years ago should govern today.

You'd think so, but then again, most Israelis think they are entitled to occupy Palestine based on a biblical mandate from 2000-3000 years ago. So what would I know?

Get serious. We're talking about sovereingty, not land ownership. Tibetans want to live under their own culture. They haven't issued declarations and Charters that say that the Chinese aren't a people entitled to a state of their own.

So do people in nearby Xinjiang (heard of the East Turkestan independence movement? Here's a thought: I'll give you a (very incomplete) list of the people in the world without their own state and you tell me if they deserve a state or not:-

Assyrians (parts of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Israel)
Kurds (parts of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey)
Gypsies (Hungary, Romania and the Balkans, mostly)
Karen people (Burma)
Druze (Israel, Syria and Lebanon)
Bedouin (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Yemen, and others)
Yazidis
Zoroastrians
Ainu (Japan)
West Papua
Banda Aceh (Indonesia)

So, how much of the map do you want to redraw?

[aranthus]

67. Just a short response for now.

Tibet was a sovereign state before the first Chinese conquest. The Palestinians never had a stae, and never had a national identity (as Palestinians) begore the Jews arrived. That makes the Jewish return to the Holy Land legal immigration and the Chinese conquest of Tibet a conquest.

[shaayecanaan]

93. Ah?

The Palestinians never had a stae, and never had a national identity (as Palestinians) begore the Jews arrived. That makes the Jewish return to the Holy Land legal immigration and the Chinese conquest of Tibet a conquest.

So white settlement of Native American lands was perfectly legitimate because the native Americans never had a state?

Why was Jewish settlement of Palestine under British authority any more or less legal than Han Chinese settlement of Tibet under the laws of the PRC?

[aranthus]

97. Because Tibet didn't start or join a war against China

Why was Jewish settlement of Palestine under British authority any more or less legal than Han Chinese settlement of Tibet under the laws of the PRC?

Because the British conquered the middle east portion of the Ottoman Empire in a war that the Ottoman's voluntarily joined. Since the Central Powers were considered the aggressors, that made the Ottoman Empire an aggressor, and the British conquest was legitimate. So the British became the legitimate sovereign, with the right to make immigration law. In addition, the Jews had legitimate historical and political claims to the land, having the only indigenous independent states in the region, and the Arabs had not. Tibet was a sovereign state before the PRC conquest in 1951, so that conquest was illegitimate aggression.

[shaayecanaan]

123. So Canada would have been entitled to take over the US

and to allow the population of Mexico to move there, as a result of the American attack on Canada in 1812? Interesting.

(Putting aside the fact that the First World War started after an Austrian archduke was assassinated by the activities of Serbian military intelligence, so the opening hostilities were committed by a country on the Allied side. And that Turkey was committed to the War by virtue of its treaty with Germany. And several other glaring problems with your account.)

[eyl]

74. "Haganah and Irgun should have asked permission from the Palestinians before invading"?

Huh? "Invading"? Do you have any idea of how and why the Haganah and Irgun came into being?