US - Israeli relationship

[zerorelations]

What do you think about US - Israeli relationship?

[palerider]

What do you think about US - Israeli relationship?


I believe we need to support them more strongly than we do rather than be involved in "peace" plans that will net them an even smaller piece of land and in turn, make them even less secure. The problem isn't that they are occupying "palestinian" land because jordan has taken posession of about 80% of the land that was designated as the palestinian mandate, and you don't hear a word about it. The problem is that they are jews and they are surrounded by people who are called upon by their religion to kill jews.

[valgal]

I believe we need to support them more strongly than we do rather than be involved in "peace" plans that will net them an even smaller piece of land and in turn, make them even less secure. The problem isn't that they are occupying "palestinian" land because jordan has taken posession of about 80% of the land that was designated as the palestinian mandate, and you don't hear a word about it. The problem is that they are jews and they are surrounded by people who are called upon by their religion to kill jews.

Please tell me more about Jordan posessing 80% of the Palestinian land and provide resources. I have never heard this before.

[palerider]

Please tell me more about Jordan posessing 80% of the Palestinian land and provide resources. I have never heard this before.

I don't have a lot of time to search for references right now. Here is the first that I came by. The author claims 75% so for the sake of expediency, I will defer 5% to him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may060603.asp

Clip: The country now called Jordan occupies 75 percent of the territory formerly known as the Palestinian Mandate, and a majority of its population is Palestinian Arab. (Most of the rest are Bedouins, a formerly nomadic people found just about everywhere in the region, including in Israel.)

[valgal]

I'd like to read more than an editorial that does not reference their comments. If you have other information, I'd seriously be interested in reading it.

[Lilly Marlene]

Welcome Valgal !

[Valgal is somewhat known to me from the other board, although our most significant discussion there was as opponents.]

[Lilly Marlene]

What do you think about US - Israeli relationship?

In my view, the European Jews did the same thing to that area of the world - and the people IN that area of the world - as some of our own ancestors did to the Americas.

I don't think it is a very admirable thing.

But it's done now (which is what I meant by the "spilt milk" comment on another thread).

Here is the difference though: no other country - much less superpower - underwrote and subsidized our "Manifest Destiny" in America with billions of dollars each year, buying us weapons to subdue the American Indians.

And similarly, the United States should not be doing that in the case of Israel.

Why not?

1. It causes Arabs to hate us ("War on Terror", anyone?) ... and implicates us in unjust acts committed by the State of Israel.

2. It costs astounding sums of money that we really do not have.

3. It severely violates the policy urged numerous times by the founders of this nation, which was that we should "avoid foreign entanglements".

The National Review would OF COURSE urge everyone to increase support to Israel because the NR has turned in that empire-building direction for a number of years now, contrary to the outlook with which it was established in 1955.

[valgal]

I'd also like information to this question: When Jordan allegedly took possession or control of palestinian land, were the palestinian people displaced from their homes?

[valgal]

Hi Lilly. :)

[Friendindeed]

What do you mean when you say "the palestinian mandate" palerider ? There is more than one historical document about that area isn't there ?

[palerider]

What do you mean when you say "the palestinian mandate" palerider ? There is more than one historical document about that area isn't there ?


Do you have access to google? I have to say, this is one of the lazyiest boards that I have ever belonged to. If you don't think that jordan has booted the "palestinians" off of the land that the UN set aside for them, then by all means feel free to provide some information that says that israel is the only one that has occupied any of that land.

[Friendindeed]

What are you talking about palerider ?
I never said anything about Jordan booting them off the land or not.

[valgal]

Do you have access to google? I have to say, this is one of the lazyiest boards that I have ever belonged to. If you don't think that jordan has booted the "palestinians" off of the land that the UN set aside for them, then by all means feel free to provide some information that says that israel is the only one that has occupied any of that land.

Respectfully Palerider, it is up to the person who makes a statement to substantiate it, that is common courtesy of any of the boards I have belonged to.

My question remains when Jordan came to occupy the land did they displace people from their homes?

Another question would be why was their no complaint to their occupancy, did they manage things differently than the state of Israel?

[palerider]

Respectfully Palerider, it is up to the person who makes a statement to substantiate it, that is common courtesy of any of the boards I have belonged to.

Here, it seems that if someone doesn't like what you have said, they suggest that they don't like it, but aren't motivated to disprove it on their own, so they request that you go about looking for enough conflicting information to disprove your own stance.

If you say a thing that I don't agree with, I will take it upon myself to find information that either confirms what you are saying or disproves it. I provided a link to a source, if it isn't satisfactory, find one that either disproves it or confirms it.

My question remains when Jordan came to occupy the land did they displace people from their homes?

Another question would be why was their no complaint to their occupancy, did they manage things differently than the state of Israel?

THe reason there is no complaint is that the jordanians are arabs and not jews.

[Lilly Marlene]

Here, it seems that if someone doesn't like what you have said, they suggest that they don't like it, but aren't motivated to disprove it on their own, so they request that you go about looking for enough conflicting information to disprove your own stance.


:)
And of course, sometimes they offer contrary evidence but are told that their sources are "lying" for reasons unknown.

[valgal]

Palerider, That sounds like a "cop out" for being able to say just about anything without doing your homework.

I was bonafidely interested in what you had to say about Jordan's occupation but now I wonder if you are just blowing smoke........

I don't think it has anything with Jordan being Arab and Israel being Jewish. I think it has more to do with how the occupation is being executed.

There is something about having your home taken from you, your orchards uprooted and a housing development erected on your former home that puts a real bad taste in your mouth towards the occupiers. Did Jordan do anything like this?

Val

[Friendindeed]

Here, it seems that if someone doesn't like what you have said, they suggest that they don't like it, but aren't motivated to disprove it on their own, so they request that you go about looking for enough conflicting information to disprove your own stance.

I have followed several of the longer discussions post by post and have never seen anyone request that. But if you're joking then kudos to you for the foray into an unknown frontier not a bad start. :D


If you say a thing that I don't agree with, I will take it upon myself to find information that either confirms what you are saying or disproves it. I provided a link to a source, if it isn't satisfactory, find one that either disproves it or confirms it.

One of the problems is that sources have conflicting information especially when the subject has a lot of gray area. A good example is how you quote from the Qu'ran in other threads, you get quotes that say one thing and other people get quotes that say the opposite.

[USMC the Almighty]

There is something about having your home taken from you, your orchards uprooted and a housing development erected on your former home that puts a real bad taste in your mouth towards the occupiers. Did Jordan do anything like this?



Just ask Southerners...

[Friendindeed]

Just ask Southerners...

Good point.

[palerider]

:)
And of course, sometimes they offer contrary evidence but are told that their sources are "lying" for reasons unknown.


Clearly the fantasy of the peaceful islamic spain doesn't match the brutal and bloody history. And suggesting that I would know why anyone lies or that anyone knows why anyone else lies is just silly. Maybe they fabricated their fictions because they simply needed to believe in a golden age whether it actually existed or not.

THe fact is that the myth doesn't jibe with the history of massacres, taxes, crucifixions, torture, rape, and exile.

[palerider]

Palerider, That sounds like a "cop out" for being able to say just about anything without doing your homework.

I was bonafidely interested in what you had to say about Jordan's occupation but now I wonder if you are just blowing smoke........

I don't think it has anything with Jordan being Arab and Israel being Jewish. I think it has more to do with how the occupation is being executed.

There is something about having your home taken from you, your orchards uprooted and a housing development erected on your former home that puts a real bad taste in your mouth towards the occupiers. Did Jordan do anything like this?

Val

Well there is a fine way to find out whether or not I am just blowing smoke and it is exactly the same method I would use if I suspected you of blowing smoke. I would get off my ass and do a bit of research. I gave you a link either accept it, or find something else.

And with regard to the "poor palestinians" who were "uprooted" etc, they are segregated by their own wish. There are plenty of arabs living in Israel as simply part of the society. They go to restaurants, hold jobs, take taxis and even hold office in the government. The palestinians are where they are because they choose to be where they are. They would rather suffer in slums than live like civilized people among jews.

[palerider]

One of the problems is that sources have conflicting information especially when the subject has a lot of gray area. A good example is how you quote from the Qu'ran in other threads, you get quotes that say one thing and other people get quotes that say the opposite.

And again, those trying to paint a picture of peaceful islam will run out of material from the books of the qur'an long before those who are pointing out the reality of islam even get warmed up.

[valgal]

USMC, Surely you are not equating what is happening to the Palestinian people to what happened to the plantation owners of the south who horribly exploited people to obtain their wealth and fortune? Am I missing something here?

[valgal]

Palerider,

I am not going to go on a search to substantiate a statement you made. Often times you can not proove a negative and I doubt that your figure can be prooven.

So all the people that I have heard about on news and in stories, Palestinian people who have been taken from their homes and those homes have been bulldozed to make way for housing developments for Jewish settlers, it is by their choice that they live in slums?

[Lilly Marlene]

Clearly the fantasy of the peaceful islamic spain doesn't match the brutal and bloody history. And suggesting that I would know why anyone lies or that anyone knows why anyone else lies is just silly. Maybe they fabricated their fictions because they simply needed to believe in a golden age whether it actually existed or not.


Palerider let us not derail yet another thread in the service of this quarrel. Give me a call the day you decide to start looking at the links I give you instead of only at your own, and maybe then we can talk.
But I will say this.
It is not enough for you just to say that contrary sources are "lying". I made a point of using sources which would have no reason to lie about it (Jews, Catholics, and the British).



THe fact is that the myth doesn't jibe with the history of massacres, taxes, crucifixions, torture, rape, and exile.


Once again, please take a look at the three separate accounts I gave you on the other thread and then get back to me (on that thread, not here)

[Friendindeed]

And again, those trying to paint a picture of peaceful islam will run out of material from the books of the qur'an long before those who are pointing out the reality of islam even get warmed up.

Is it a numbers game ?

[Friendindeed]

USMC, Surely you are not equating what is happening to the Palestinian people to what happened to the plantation owners of the south who horribly exploited people to obtain their wealth and fortune? Am I missing something here?


You might be. Very few people have an objective view of the post-bellum South thanks to the bias of history lessons in schools taht were written by the victors.

[valgal]

Friend I do not doubt that there is a bias in the history. However do you really think you can fairly compare the two situations?

[Lilly Marlene]

Upon looking again at palerider's National Review article, I submit that the "Palestinian Mandate" is ultimately not germane to the issue here.
Why not?
Because that was a piece of work consequent to British meddling.
It would be a similar thing if the US had gone over to the Pyrhenees and delineated a portion of that area to be the "Basque Mandate".

IOW, whatever arrangements have been made by the people who actually lived there - on top of the superficial lines drawn by colonialists - are their own business.

In any event, here is a little history of the region and it is written by a Jewish author.

from www.cactus48.com:


Early History of the Region

Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., the land of Canaan was occupied by Canaanites.

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

The present-day Palestinians' ancestral heritage

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine

"The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

More on Canaanite civilization

"Recent archeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofor attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE." The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.

How long has Palestine been a specifically Arab country?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

How did land ownership traditionally work in Palestine and when did it change?

"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine." Rashid Khalidi, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens

Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Inherent anti-Semitism? - continued

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

Inherent anti-Semitism? - continued

"[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Jews attitude towards Arabs when reaching Palestine.

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Proposals for Arab-Jewish Cooperation

"An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha'am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein's solution to the problem, so that a new "Jewish question" may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

Was Palestine the only, or even preferred, destination of Jews facing persecution when the Zionist movement started?

"The pogroms forced many Jews to leave Russia. Societies known as 'Lovers of Zion,' which were forerunners of the Zionist organization, convinced some of the frightened emigrants to go to Palestine. There, they argued, Jews would rebuild the ancient Jewish 'Kingdom of David and Solomon,' Most Russian Jews ignored their appeal and fled to Europe and the United States. By 1900, almost a million Jews had settled in the United States alone." "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by The People Press Palestine Book Project.

[Friendindeed]

Friend I do not doubt that there is a bias in the history. However do you really think you can fairly compare the two situations?

In some ways yes USMC is right, they can be compared. Thjat is not to excuse slavery in any way.

[USMC the Almighty]

However do you really think you can fairly compare the two situations?

Yes. You said: "There is something about having your home taken from you, your orchards uprooted and a housing development erected on your former home that puts a real bad taste in your mouth towards the occupiers."

To which I responded "Just ask the Southerners". A perfectly legitimate parallel. I wasn't necessarily equating the two as much as I was confirming your assertion of "having your home taken from you...puts a real bad taste in your mouth towards the occupiers".

Ever talk to Southerners about Lincoln, the Union, or the "War of Northern Aggression"? They still shake every time you mention the name Sherman.

[palerider]

Upon looking again at palerider's National Review article, I submit that the "Palestinian Mandate" is ultimately not germane to the issue here.
Why not?
Because that was a piece of work consequent to British meddling.
It would be a similar thing if the US had gone over to the Pyrhenees and delineated a portion of that area to be the "Basque Mandate".L

IOW, whatever arrangements have been made by the people who actually lived there - on top of the superficial lines drawn by colonialists - are their own business.

Some research is in order on your part Lilly.

Modern international agreements established the jew's right to rebuild their homeland in what is presently Israel and the territories. The 1917 Balfour Declaration that called for settlement of the land by jews was incorporated by the league of nations into the palestinian mandate and by the UN in article 80 of its charter.

Does the word legal mean anything to you if it flies in the face of what you wish?

Due to the fact that Israel entered into the territories in 1967 as the result of defensive action, their administration of the area is also legal. UN resolution 242 says that Israel is to administer the area until such time as the enemy states committed to a “just and lasting peace.” Arabs, not Israel is responsible for the present state of affairs. They refused to accept any negotiation that included a jewish state. UN resolution also states that israel was to negotiate new, and more defensible borders.

The law is the law Lilly. Why is it that you openly and aggressively support lawbreakers?

In any event, here is a little history of the region and it is written by a Jewish author.


You do this often Lilly and frankly, it strikes me as racist. Are you under the impression that just because a jew writes a thing, that it must be accurate? Or that just because a jew writes a thing, its premise must be accepted? Information must be accurate lilly, no matter who it comes from. Your history from the "jewish" author conveniently leaves out the legal framework for the state of israel completely.

Is the law not germane to you if it defeats your apologetics?

[palerider]

Palerider,

I am not going to go on a search to substantiate a statement you made. Often times you can not proove a negative and I doubt that your figure can be prooven.

Of course you aren't. And I am not surprised at all. And I would never think of asking you, or anyone else for that matter to prove a negative. I don't lie, and I don't fabricate. Here, let me do the research for you since you are clearly too lazy to do it yourself.

I will even guide you through the process in case you should ever want to research anyting on your own in the future.

First, I looked at a map showing the palestinian mandate.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/palestinianmandate.jpg

Then I looked at a map showing present Israel and Jordan.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/israeljordan.gif

The total land mass of the palestinian mandate was 43,667 square miles. According to the CIA factbook, today jordan is 35,646 square miles and Israel is 8021 square miles. These two countries occupy what was the palestinian mandate. Do you still want to argue that jordan doesn't occupy at least 75% of the palestinian mandate?

[Lilly Marlene]

Modern international agreements established the jew's right to rebuild their homeland in what is presently Israel and the territories. The 1917 Balfour Declaration that called for settlement of the land by jews was incorporated by the league of nations into the palestinian mandate and by the UN in article 80 of its charter.


And ?
My point concerned that very same "Balfour Declaration".
Exactly what on earth gave Great Britain the right to declare boundaries in the Middle East ?

The Palestinian Mandate you keep referencing ...was a consequence of that earlier British meddling.



Does the word legal mean anything to you if it flies in the face of what you wish?

No, the word legal means less than nothing to me in this context.
Need I remind you that all of Sadaam Hussein's actions within Iraq were "legal" as well ?



Due to the fact that Israel entered into the territories in 1967 as the result of defensive action, their administration of the area is also legal. UN resolution 242 says that Israel is to administer the area until such time as the enemy states committed to a “just and lasting peace.” Arabs, not Israel is responsible for the present state of affairs. They refused to accept any negotiation that included a jewish state. UN resolution also states that israel was to negotiate new, and more defensible borders.

It is not true that Arabs have rejected negotiations every time. Also, many of the offers they've received have been notably unacceptable.

It's astonishing how much stock you seem to place in the UN's pronouncements ...
I wonder how faithfully you're willing to abide by their consensus in other matters ?

FYI, nothing the UN has to say about Israel holds any interest for me.
Practically the entire world reacted to the Holocaust in an emotional frenzy and that includes the UN.
They did not stop to ask themselves why the indigenous people of Palestine should take the hit for it.



The law is the law Lilly. Why is it that you openly and aggressively support lawbreakers?

But you would be among the first to urge that a law be declared null and void if it stood in the way of accruing additional land for Israel, wouldn't you ?


You do this often Lilly and frankly, it strikes me as racist.

The race card again ?
You resort to that as often as any liberal I've met.
But,
There is a problem for you this time that was not a problem when you tried to do it over "the little brown girls" of Iraq.

What is that problem ?

The problem is that there is scarcely a greater insult to Jews than to characterize them as a "race".
That was Hitler's view, and Jews have been highly sensitized to it ever since then.
They consider themselves a religion and even a people but NOT A RACE.


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k31/2soon2say/Judith-with-the-Head-of-Holofernes-.jpg


Are you under the impression that just because a jew writes a thing, that it must be accurate? Or that just because a jew writes a thing, its premise must be accepted? Information must be accurate lilly, no matter who it comes from. Your history from the "jewish" author conveniently leaves out the legal framework for the state of israel completely.

Is the law not germane to you if it defeats your apologetics?


I used the material from a Jewish author to underscore the same thing I emphasized in the other thread by furnishing material from the Neturei Karta ...
namely that this argument is not about Judaism but rather about Zionism.

[valgal]

Palerider, your complete disrespect and rudeness leave me not to get past the first insult. You will have to wait for another person to come around to verbally abuse.....

I have tried a sampling of this board and realize that it isn't for me.

[palerider]

Palerider, your complete disrespect and rudeness leave me not to get past the first insult. You will have to wait for another person to come around to verbally abuse.....

I have tried a sampling of this board and realize that it isn't for me.

You were the one that suggested that I, in some way, was expecting for you to prove a negative which in and of itself, suggested that I fabricated the statement that jordan had occupied over 70% of the palestinian mandate. I had done neither.

Since it wasn't difficult to get the maps, I could only assume that either you don't know how to research for information, or you are too lazy to research for information. Which is it?

[Friendindeed]

Palerider, your complete disrespect and rudeness leave me not to get past the first insult. You will have to wait for another person to come around to verbally abuse.....

I have tried a sampling of this board and realize that it isn't for me.


valgal I hope you will not leave on those grounds. This board could use more women on it besides the two.

See near the end of the thrad "define conservatism", this has been the flu talking more than anything else, he's not like that normally. In fact he went out of his way to do me a favor awhile back.

[USMC the Almighty]

Exactly what on earth gave Great Britain the right to declare boundaries in the Middle East ?

The Ottoman Empire played for the Central Powers in WW1...and lost. That's what.

[Lilly Marlene]

The Ottoman Empire played for the Central Powers in WW1...and lost. That's what.

You must not understand what I'm asking.

Recall that Great Britain had made two previous agreements about that area - one with France and one with the Arabs - before the Balfour Declaration ...which were contradictory to it. Britain used the Balfour Declaration to renege on its first two agreements.

And it all comes down to meddling as I pointed out earlier.
Nothing gave them the right to bestow occupied land to another people.

Even Moshe Dayan knew that:

"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish, state here...Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages...There is not a single community in the country that did not have a former Arab population." Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's "Original Sins."

[Friendindeed]

valgal I recommend to you a book called "The Un-Civil War" by Mike Scruggs.

[USMC the Almighty]

You must not understand what I'm asking.

Recall that Great Britain had made two previous agreements about that area - one with France and one with the Arabs - before the Balfour Declaration ...which were contradictory to it. Britain used the Balfour Declaration to renege on its first two agreements.

And it all comes down to meddling as I pointed out earlier.
Nothing gave them the right to bestow occupied land to another people.

Even Moshe Dayan knew that:

"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish, state here...Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages...There is not a single community in the country that did not have a former Arab population." Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's "Original Sins."

I understand your point fully -- you're speaking of the Husain-McMahon letters (1915-1915) and the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916). The point I'm making is that, when you lose a war, the people who defeated you typically take your land and can divide it as they please. The Ottoman Empie lost WW1. If you have something, but are not able to defend it, in all likelihood someone bigger and stronger is eventually going to come and take it from you. It's how the world works.

I'm not saying that it wasn't populated by Arabs. You can look at it one of two ways.

(1) You can see it as the Jews getting a homeland following the horrors of the Holocaust -- in which case, as the Arabs never hesitate to bring up, the Palestinians are essentially being punished for a European crime.

(2) Jews returning to their homeland -- land given to them by God, and thus it was already rightfully theirs.

[Lilly Marlene]

[USMC, before addressing your reply, I had meant to mention something to you last night after seeing your post to valgal: the History Channel is planning to air a special about Sherman in April ...that is one episode of history which almost literally boils my blood. I figure you probably already knew about it because you are fond of history but thought I'd mention it just in case.]


I understand your point fully -- you're speaking of the Husain-McMahon letters (1915-1915) and the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916).

McMahon made a fully documented deal with the Arabs. The latter fulfilled their part of it by fighting the Turks and so as far as I see, the subsequent Agreement and Declaration are rendered null and void.


The point I'm making is that, when you lose a war, the people who defeated you typically take your land and can divide it as they please. The Ottoman Empie lost WW1. If you have something, but are not able to defend it, in all likelihood someone bigger and stronger is eventually going to come and take it from you. It's how the world works.

Indeed. The Jews were unable to defend their area and lost it 2000 years ago (after managing it for not even very long a time).


I'm not saying that it wasn't populated by Arabs. You can look at it one of two ways.

(1) You can see it as the Jews getting a homeland following the horrors of the Holocaust -- in which case, as the Arabs never hesitate to bring up, the Palestinians are essentially being punished for a European crime.

(2) Jews returning to their homeland -- land given to them by God, and thus it was already rightfully theirs.


As you probably have reckoned I see it the first way. But please understand that it's not because I'm some kind of atheist who doesn't believe in God. There is another side to this story of God 'giving them the land'.
Please read the material I posted in the thread "Israel is Guilty of....".

[Friendindeed]

Lilly I believe there were later agreements that reconciled the contradictions.

[Lilly Marlene]

Lilly I believe there were later agreements that reconciled the contradictions.


You are probably talking about the Churchill White Paper.
It tried to resolve the contradictions but it did not succeed. They could not promise land to some people in exchange for a specific action, and then give it to other people after that action was performed, and then put the whole affair to rights by composing an eloquent phrase or two.

Here is what happened, according to

http://www.mideastweb.org/1922wp.htm


Soon after the Balfour Declaration was issued, it became clear to the British that it was inconvenient to implement a "National Home" for the Jewish people in Palestine. None of the persons who had issued that declaration in 1917 were in power. Britain had meanwhile, reneged on their commitment to give Syria to the Arabs, in favor of their commitment to give Syria to France based on the Sykes Picot agreement. The Hashemites were no longer in power in Saudi Arabia either. The Mandate had created intense resentment, and riots had occurred in Palestine in 1920 and 1921. Motions were raised in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to repeal the Balfour declaration. The motion was defeated in commons with the help of Churchill, Ormsby Gore and others, but it was felt that a compromise would be necessary. The "as implemented" mandate would be somewhat different from what the Zionists and the framers of the mandate had envisioned. Churchill, possibly with the help of Herbert Samuel, was given the thankless task of reframing the mandate in such a way that it would placate the Arabs, but still give Britain an excuse to keep Palestine from the French in the form of the "homeland for the Jewish people"

The British government decided to detach Palestine east of the Jordan river, constituting most of the area of Palestine, and form the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, as shown in the map at right.


The White Paper of 1922, known as the "Churchill White Paper," or "Command Paper" alludes somewhat obliquely to this change. It affirms the right of Jews to a homeland in Palestine, refers to a Zionist resolution of 1921 declaring willingness to build the country in cooperation with the Arabs and notes:

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.

The White Paper attempts to resolve the various contradictory promises of the British Foreign office. The detachment of the eastern part of Palestine is said to satisfy both the provisions of the McMahon letter of 1915 to Sheriff Hussein, and also the wording of the Balfour declaration, which promised a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as opposed to a home encompassing all of Palestine. The White Paper also makes it clear that the Jews will not rule the Arabs in Palestine, but will only govern themselves, according to the then current British Foreign Office interpretation of the mandate. Churchill noted:

But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

The above is in conflict with the interpretation of Lloyd George, who had been Prime Minister when the Balfour Declaration was issued and with the interpretation of the American delegation to the Paris peace conference. Lloyd George wrote:

It was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a National Home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. (Memoirs, pp 736-7) (see the discussion in the introduction to the Balfour Declaration).

However, the winds of British policy had shifted, and Churchill's task was to justify the shift in yet another ambiguous document that could be interpreted in different ways to different people and at different times, or, in Churchill's words:

...the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

However, the White paper contained a great many things that caused justifiable alarm to both sides, as the Arabs were not reassured that there would not be a Jewish-ruled entity in Palestine, and the Jews could see clearly the threat to partition Palestine and to limit immigration...