Palestine

kp59583

Why did the Arabs reject the UN plan?

Arab rejection of partition in 1947 reflected a crisis of leadership in a community whose identity as Palestinians was not yet fully crystallized. Indeed, at the start of the British mandate, the Arabs of Palestine were profoundly ambivalent about the appropriate focus of their political loyalties--should they identify with the overall Arab nation, consider themselves Southern Syrians, or call themselves Palestinians in conformity to boundaries artificially drawn by imperial powers?

The responsibility for resisting British rule and confronting an influx of Jewish immigrants fell upon a Palestinian political elite drawn from traditional urban notable families. The tensions between the two foremost families--the Husaynis and Nashishibis--came to a head during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. This uprising did yield British restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchase, but not a secure route to Palestinian self-determination. As noted by Palestinian scholar Rashid Khalidi:

• The Palestine Arab Revolt...was in many ways the decisive episode in the efforts of the Palestinian Arabs to resist the British mandate's support for a Jewish National home in Palestine....[It] has been glorified in much Palestinian historiography but...ultimately the revolt must be judged a failure....[D]uring this episode [the Palestinians'] already divided leadership was fragmented further....These divisions contributed to the failure of the Palestinians to capitalize on [their] potential advantages.

As the partition vote in the UN approached, it became clear little hope existed for a political solution to a problem that transcended politics: the Arabs' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in Palestine and the refusal of the Zionists to settle for anything less. The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:

• The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.

The categorical rejection of partition by the Arab Higher Committee led by [color=#0000ff]Haj Amin al-Huseini[/color] as well as the newly created Arab League represented an all-or-nothing attitude that was ultimately counterproductive. It resulted in the utter defeat of Palestinian dreams for independence, for at least half a century.

The Arabs not only rejected partition, but attacked Israel from all sides. The armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq invaded Israel on May 15, 1947, the day after Israel's Independence Day, with the clear intention of killing the infant state in its cradle.

On May 15, 1947 Azzam Pasha called for "jihad", saying:

• This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, agreed with Pasha:

• I declare a holy war, my muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!

In a letter to the United Nations, the Transjordanian Prime Minister was quoted:

• Our position is clear, and has been proclaimed on every occasion. It is never to allow the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine and to exclude partition. And our object is to cooperate with the other Arab States in her deliverance. Once this aim is attained, the determination of her future status is the right and concern of her own people. Theirs alone is the last word. We have no other object or aim in view.

Every Muslum nation says that the Muslum hatred for the US is for or support of Israel which is probably true to a certain extent. But the problem itself was caused by the unwillingness of the Arab nations to let Israel to exist in the first place.

kp59583

raid517

What a load of Jewish revisionist bull. Everybody always claims that the reason Israel has been so hated by the Arabs has more to do with some inherant form of anti-semitism than it has to do with anything that the Isreali state has ever done to them. But the truth is very different. There in fact has never been an instance in history where Israel has been attacked first by ANY Arab state.

The land grab of 1967 was nothing more than a blatant act of Israeli expansionism. Indeed many of the senior players in the Israeli government and army at that time have very openly admitted this.

Not that of course Israel is adverse to correcting this imballance. She is willing to give back much of the land she stole - at a price.

According to Israeli diplomatic sources and Israeli newspaper reports (early January 2000), the Jewish state's price for the turnover is $20 billion in additional United States military and civilian aid. Much of this aid is requested in the form of sophisticated military equipment, including the Tomahawk cruise missile. (So far Britain is the only foreign country to receive this powerful weapon, which has a range of up to 2,000 kilometers.) Israel is also asking for funding for further weapons systems development, and to offset the cost of resettling 18,000 Jews who have been living on the Heights.

For three decades Israel has cited vital security concerns to justify its seizure of the Golan Heights. Israelis have claimed that from 1948 to June 1967, Syrian military forces repeatedly used the Heights to shell Jewish settlements and installations below. These artillery bombardments, in the widely accepted Israeli and American view, justified Israel's conquest of the Heights in 1967, and its occupation ever since.

Actually, Israel's seizure and occupation of this territory is based on a historical lie. This was frankly acknowledged by Israel General and cabinet minister Moshe Dayan in an interview given in 1976, but which was not made public until April 1997. Dayan, who died in 1981, was a key organizer of Israel's victory in the June 1967 Israel-Arab war.

"I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights," he said, "As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time." The seizure went ahead, he added, not because Israel was threatened, but in response to pressure from Jews who coveted Syrian land, and from army commanders in northern Israel. "Of course [war with Syria] was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don't open aggression against an enemy because he's a bastard but because he's a threat."

"At least 80 percent" of the border clashes over nearly two decades associated with the Syrian shellings were initiated by Israel, Dayan continued. "We would send a tractor to plow some [disputed] area ... and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further and if they still did not shoot we would go as close as we could and taunt them until in the end the Syrians would have little option but to shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

"So," a Washington Post columnist recently summed up, "on the authority of what you could call an impeachable source, the situation is very different from what is commonly portrayed. Israel, with an appetite for land, for political profit and for strategic depth, was in the Golan instance -- not in all instances -- an aggressor, not the victim of aggression." (S. Rosenfeld, "Israel and Syria: Correcting the Record," The Washington Post, Dec. 24, 1999.

For much of the proceeding period prior to the 1967 war, Israel had conducted several aggresive miltary manouvers on the Egyptian border, thereby leaving Nasser little alternative to mobilise - although this mobilisation was deliberately made to appear to be purely defensive. A fact that the commander of the Israeli Airforce at that time freely acknowleged.

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

The result of this was that Israel achieved her objective in forcing Nasser into a mobilisation - and that having done so she used this mobilisation as an excuse to launch a premptive war. Indeed it is exactly this philosophy of pre-emptive war and expansionism that now appears to have found it's way into the very heart of the American government.

And on the role call goes:

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68


"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

As to your assertion that the prolonged occupation was necessary to gurantee Isreal's security, again the facts do not bare this out.

Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Edit.-This was only one of many such proposals]

Now, it appears, American taxpayers are once again being called upon to generously reward the Zionists for aggression and occupation based on a historical lie. A lie that people like you appear only too willing to embrace.

GJ

raid517

World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza.

"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation

"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'

"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality." Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.

Israeli occupation - continued

"You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or more have experienced - some many, many times - the [Israeli] army breaking into the home, beating relatives, destroying things. Many were beaten themselves, had bones broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had these things happen to siblings and neighbors...The emotional aspect of the child is affected by the [lack of] security. He needs to feel safe. We see the consequences later if he does not. In our research, we have found that children who are exposed to trauma tend to be more extreme in their behaviors and, later, in their political beliefs." Dr Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, quoted in "The Journal of Palestine Studies," Summer 1996, p.84

Israeli occupation - continued

"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a 35-year-old [Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in Israel in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be shocked one day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it had been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done - the land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next day by an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license. Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never Palestinians. This is apartheid." Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.

All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.

"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Excerpts from the U.S. State Department's reports during the Intifada

"Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:

1988: 'Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...'

1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel acted as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after they had surrendered, or after they had been subdued...

1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published 'detailed credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in prisons and detention centers." Former Congressman Paul Findley, "Deliberate Deceptions."

Jerusalem - Eternal, Indivisible Capital of Israel?

"Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser points out that the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day War. Responsibility for drawing those lines fell to Central Command Chief Rehavan Ze'evi. The line he drew 'took in not only the five square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem - but also 65 square kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most of which never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became part of Israel's eternal and indivisible capital.'" Allan Brownfield in The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000.

raid517

So next time you want to argue about who is to blame for the current situation, try to at least make a little effort to get your facts straight.

GJ

Blade123

This sickness will never end from the Jews. The most hypocritical people I've met in my life. If you want to talk about arabs breaking UN resolution or not complying, here is something to entertain you, if your jewish enough to read it:

[color=#ff8000]A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"[/color]

• 1955-1992:
• * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
• * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
• * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
• * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
• * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
• * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
• * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
• * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
• * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
• * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
• * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
• * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
• * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
• * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
• *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
• * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
• * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
• * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
• * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
• * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
• * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
• * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
• * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
• * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
• * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
• * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
• obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
• * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
• * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
• * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
• states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
• * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
• * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
• two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
• * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
• council's order not to deport Palestinians".
• * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
• by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
• * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
• * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
• claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
• * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
• Palestinian mayors".
• * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
• nuclear facility".
• * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
• Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
• * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
• * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
• allow food supplies to be brought in".
• * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
• and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
• * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
• * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
• in attack on PLO headquarters.
• * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
• its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
• * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
• at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
• * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
• denying the human rights of Palestinians.
• * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
• requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
• * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
• * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
• * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
• at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
• * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
• Nations.
• * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
• Palestinians.
• * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
• calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
• * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
• * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
• and calls for their immediate return.

Let's not forget the whole "reason" why this so called "war on terrorism" and fighting in Iraq was because Saddam was in defiance of UN resolutions (according to the US). Yet Israel has broken over 100 and the US still continue to veto everytime a decision is made by the world to do something about it. Israel is nothing but the states illegitimate son and those who are oblivious to this fact are either deaf, dumb or blind.

raid517

And why should the Palestinians recognise the right for the Israelis to exist? Why should they even try to do so when the Israelis have consitently refused to recognise their right to exist?

Or aren't you aware of Golda Meir’s infamous comments in 1969 that there "is no such thing as a Palestinian people."

In some ways this is correct, insomuch that when Jordan, Egypt and others occupied much of the Palestinian territories, this was not viewed by the Palestinian people as an 'occuptation'. This is because many Palistinians view themselves as belonging to the wider 'Arab Nation' wherein a view is taken that Arabs everywhere belong first to the Arab nation and secondly to the towns, cities and countries that they live in. (Let's not forget that Yasser Arafat was born an Egyptian (although his parents were born in Palestine). So this effectively answers your first question. Why didn't the Jordanians, Syrians and Egyptians try to form a Palistinian state when they had the chance? Well clearly is was because that is what they believed they were doing, they were defending the Palestinain state on behalf of the Palestian people - and also on behalf of the wider ARAB NATION through occupying it. They saw themselves as providing the only viable buffer against Israeli aggression - as it seemed very clear at that time that if they did not stay there, then Israel would undoubtedly attempt to occupy Palestine and that she would do so entirely unnopposed.

Ultimately it didn't work out too well - since after Israel staged the fake crisis in the North and along the Egyptian borders early in 1967, she invaded and defeated them anyway. But for the Isaeli government at that time, this was very much all part of the plan.

Let's not get confused though about what Golda Meir meant. Because while there might be no strict ethinc group known exclusively as the Palestinian people (just as there is no single national identity that defines Americans to be American) there very much was a state called Palestine, where people who identified themselves as Palistinian had lived and prospered for many generations.. Did you know for example that until the early 1920's the population of Palestine was estimated to be 87% Arab/Muslim, and only 3% Jewish - with various others making up the rest of the numbers (British, imigrants, foreign nationals and so on)? This ethnic mix coexisted and worked peacefully together for many thousands of years. It wasn't until large scale Jewish imigration from Europe began during the 30s that this ballance began to change and the real problems emerged. So the claim made by the Jews that Palestine is their natural homeland is also clearly bogus. Indeed the Jews never really had a homelend until 1948 when Palestine was divided by the UN (after considerable US/Jewish pressure was applied) and many thousands more imigrants from all over Europe, America and the world began flooding in.

There had been talk of establishing a Jewish homeland before this - but is was never certain exactly where it should be. There were attempts to establish Jewish states in countries as diverse as America, Argentena, Africa, Russia and China - among several others - before a certain brand of jewish extremists known as 'Zionists' interprited their bible and decided that some obscure line or other in there had told them that their true homeland should be in Palistine. But it was never considered a fact before this period.

What Golda Meir was referring to is however really quite clear. Because by saying that the Palestinian people did not share any one single national/racial identity, what she was inferring is that the aspirations and wishes of the people of Palistine simply did not matter. They were not a racially pure group, not like the Jews, therefore persecuting them and removing them from their land was of little or no concequence.

So I'm afraid what you are sufferring from is a false memory syndrom. Because clearly the Jews after the war were not a persistantly persecuted people, they did not have a historical right - or even a valid legal claim to the land that they occupied, they were not persistantly attacked by their Arab neighbours (quite the opposite in fact) and they did not occupy the Golan Hights (or anywhere else for that matter) simply to 'gurantee their own security.'

What they wanted was land, land and more land.

Unfortunately, it really was that simple.

GJ

Blade123

Excellent replyraid517, was quite informative. I await kp59583 "constructive" argument if he has one, though I think he hasn't got much to stand on.

kp59583

If the world and Muslums were so conserned with the formation of a Palestinian Country why was it not formed from 1948 to 1967?

raid517

I think I already answered that question. It was a Palistinian state, but the Palestinians didn't have much of an army and were largely dependant on external help to act as a buffer against any invasion by Israel. The terminology used above that Egypt ruled Gaza, while Jordan ruled the West Bank is somewhat misplaced. The Palistinans viewed them as their only viable means of defence, they were there largely at the request of the Palistinian people. As I said Palestine was always considered to be more Arab than simply Palestinian and it was thought of by the Palestinians who lived there to be part of a wider Arab nation. When the Jordanians and Egyptians were there, far from regarding them as an 'invading army' they saw them as a friendly force as part of a wider alliance between all Arabs who were prepared to stand up and attempt to counter the threat that Israel appeard to pose to the region at that time. So there was a Palistian state, both before and during the occupation of the Westbank - regardless of whether other Arabs were represented there or not. Again as I have said previously other Arab identities have always tended to mix freely in this particular region anyway.

GJ

OldBuzzard

Raid, Blade....maybe we should just exterminate the 'evil' Jews?? Would that make you happy??

Since you are both so smart, and seem to have all the answers, please enlighten me, and tell me how YOU would solve the problem.

kp59583

Who was the president of this Palestinian Country?

raid517

Pah... so what, you point out that this whole thing isn't all one sided and that the Isralies aren't the saints they make themselved out to be and suddenly you're a racist? I think there's only one appropriate response to that and that's screw you!

There is only one solution to this whole thing and that's for people like you and for your government to stop looking at Israel through such distorted and rose tinted glasses. Only if and when Israel is forced to accept that it may loose much of the vast financial support it recieves from the US unless it is serious about negotiating will this conflict ever end. But of course that isn't likely to happen in any kind of a hurry. So you can continue to watch your TV and be 'amused' by the slaughter of more Palestinian children and Israeli civilians (since presumably you are saying that it is this status quo that you support) for much of the forseeable future.

GJ

raid517

Is there a point to these silly one line questions?

Yasser Arafat was regarded as their leader for much of this period. I don't know if he was always considered as President, but certainly he has always held a place within the upper ranks of the PLO.

GJ

Blade123

The solution to this problem is very easy. Give the palestians back their land and stop with this bull!@#$ attitude Palestinians are terrorists and the Jews are "Walking saints". Yes incase you didn't know they are human beings with just as much equal rights as anyone else. Who else would you feel if your schools are been sprayed with bullets and your homes been demolished?

Look you only have to read there own scriptures of the old testament to see their arrogance and rebelious attitude from before Moses and even after his time (No I'm not Christian). They've been constantly kicked out of the land because of their mischief up until emperor (xeno or titus?). OldBuzzard I suggest you go do your homework and look at it from both view points.

Enough said...

OldBuzzard

OK, lets kick the Jews out of Israel and give it back to the Palastininans.

Now do what are you going to do with them?

Come on you two. You both seem to be 'all knowing and all seeing'. Pretend that you are 'Earth Czar', and your word is law. Give this 'poor old ignorant hillbilly' the benefit of your wisdom, and tell me precisely how you would solve this problem. Don't come in with vague, general statements. Lay out a VIABLE solution.

GOG

No, I think it's enough to kick them out from the territories they've occupied for decades.

raid517

Well first off you can quit with the damned patronising tone, and learn to speak to others with the same degree of respect you would expect to be spoken to yourself. You have referred to yourself as ignorant in the past (as in 'ignorant' old hillbilly) and I find it unfortunate that I have to remind you that it is particularly ignorant to be so impolite and condescending towards others when they have given you no reason to adopt this attitude. Politeness as the saying goes, costs nothing. If you are indeed a member of the older generation as you claim, you should surely know a little better.

Secondly my 'solution' is the same as I set out above - and that is for America and Israel to pursue a genuine and meaningful dialogue with the Palestinians - something that I - and a great many others in this world do not believe has so far ever really happend. For this to work, America would have to weild the considerable influence she has over the Israeli government - by threatening to withold some of the many billions of dollars in military and ecconomic aid Israel recieves from the US each year. Only when Israel is faced with the prospect of genuine economic sanctions will she ever be really serious about negotiation. But of course the historical republican lack of interest in the USA (and to a slightly lesser extent among the Democrats too) in pursuing a genuine settlement between Israel and the Palestinians (due in no small part to the extremely large Jewish lobby within America and the very real impact they can have on elections) has always and may always continue to get in the way of any such agreement ever becomming viable. You ask me for an answer, but my question is why are you asking me for an answer when the answer is in your/your government's hands and the hands of the Israeli leadership?

And your arguments can just as easily be turned against you. Why don't we then just tell the Palistinians to get the hell out? Why don't we round them all up and force them to walk into the sea? Or does that really seem like a viable solution to you? You say that it is not acceptable to criticise the Israelis - but it is perfectly acceptable to continue to criticise, persecute and kill vast numbers of the Palestinian people? Well that is to say the least, one hell of a double standard. So I have a question for you - and that is how exactly do you square that? What for a change is YOUR answer? I can tell you what I think is wrong, I can tell you how I THINK it should be fixed, but really I'm not the one who's going to change it. For that to happen it would require people like you to genuinely want a solution too and for you to encourage your leaders and those who are in a postion to influence the outcome to work towards a real and sustanable compromise too.

This isn't all one sided - and history isn't as convienient as many Israelis have painted it. The only possible way forward is through real dialogue and meaningful compromise.

Without this there will be no solution. Period.

GJ