Israel and Israel and Jerusalem and Judaism

  • News
  • Thread starter slugcountry
  • Start date
  • #26
960
0
There's a lot of history behind the reasoning of Hamas, and the Palestinians in the more hard line cases. It's not simply some arbitrary racism.


The more militant tendencies of Sharon amongst other factors probably lead to the voting in of Hamas, placing hard line against hard line; a series of rather brutal methods when he was in control of Israel's armies that lead to him being titled the Butcher by certain European media outlets. After this some countries wanted him tried for war crimes, but this was never likely to happen.<edited for brevity>

http://www.rense.com/general8/butcher.htm
So add to the eqn, kindasleezy Rice, who immediately stalemates any hope for progress by preempting from recognition any agent unwilling to disavow violence and/or the recognition of the Israel state. We need some lateral thinkers and we have a abrasive hard liner calling diplomatic shots, around and around we go.
J
 
  • #27
23
0
After Ottoman rule the area fell into the hands of the British. The British left after some terrorist actions by Zionists and under increasing pressure from diplomats, leaving the area in the hands of the UN and it's new partition plan.
How amusing - the area simply "fell into the hands of the British"? I suggest you come to terms with your nation's colonial history before criticising other nations.
You make it seem as if the British left due to "some terrorist actions by Zionists and under increasing pressure from diplomats" - though you made sure to phrase it vaguely enough, lest you be corrected about less important matters such as the 1947 partition plan or several Arab revolts.

By some pretty lame rhetoric: Palestine has never had a state or owned the lands?
There was never a Palestinian state, and the landowners were mostly Syrian and Egyptian families.
Just because they haven't set up an official diplomatic corps and proclaimed the land there's in writing or whatever. do you think this gives anyone the right to kick the majority population out and hand it over with no say whatsoever?
No I do not - nor do I believe it's as simple as that.
If the Massai were kicked of their lands in Tanzania and Kenya? Do you think they would have no rights to them? Would you be a little appalled at the technicality that they are not a state?
How ironic that a Briton should lecture someone about native rights using an African example.

Not to mention the fact that pre Zionist movement of the late 19th century the Jewish population in the area was about 1%, which rose after the Jews began to move back in, and particularly escalated during and after the war, despite the British agreement with the Palestinians to seal the borders(they came in by boat anyway)
You have a problem with Jewish refugees emigrating from Europe before, during and after the holocaust? Disgusting.

Thereafter with the flood of refugees the population rose to pre partition levels of about 33%, Most of the Jews living on land bought from the Palestinians, and in diverse settlements communities and amongst the Palestinians.
This land is today home to over 7 million people - there was obviously plenty of room for everyone back then, and since the land was bought, where's the problem?
BTW check the data on http://www.meforum.org/article/522" - it seems the Zionist enterprise made Palestine very attractive for quite a few Arabs.

Truman under increasing pressure from Zionists eventually caved in and was fundamental in imposing the new plan on the Middle East, knowing full well it would lead to war, but seeing no other option- he agreed to the partition plan along side the UN and was instrumental in getting it accepted. As it turned out this was a terrible plan which had no agreement from the Palestinians or any other of the Arab nations. Forcing a majority population to vacate lands their ancestors had used for thousands of years, because of a supposed prior claim by Israel's Zionists.
Now you've turned from spin-doctoring into outright lies. The partition plan did not force anyone to vacate any lands, let alone "a majority population" - it partitioned the land into two seperate states, both of which included minority populations, and was not based on any "prior claim" - it just so happens that there were Zionists living in Palestine.

This p'ed off a lot of Palestinians eventually leading to the 6 days war. where pre-emptively Israel stole some more of the Palestinian lands, which to this day it refuses to give up in their entirety and return to the UN's pre 1967 partition plan borders.
The Palestinians were occupied by Egypt and Jordan before the Six-Day war, the war had nothing to do with them, but rather with Nasser's pan-Arab aspirations. Israel did not "steal" the land, it captured it from these two states, and did not even annex it. You also, for some reason, ignore several peace agreements with Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians. For example, Israel returned to Egypt an area larger than Israel itself - in return for peace.

The more militant tendencies of Sharon amongst other factors probably lead to the voting in of Hamas, placing hard line against hard line; a series of rather brutal methods when he was in control of Israel's armies that lead to him being titled the Butcher by certain European media outlets. After this some countries wanted him tried for war crimes, but this was never likely to happen.

http://www.rense.com/general8/butcher.htm
What a mess of an argument. At least make your bashing coherent.

Essentially though the Palestinians claim they have been hard done by, and to be frank only the most biased individual IMO would see the partition plan as even remotely fair. A two party state would of likely been better, couldn't of been much worse, but then I supose it's easier to judge the issue in hindsight.
They were offered the plan in 1947. They refused to accept it. They joined 5 Arab nations in a war that they declared was aimed at destroying Israel. Now you think the original plan is "remotely fair".
Then again, you also have a problem with holocaust survivors immigrating to Palestine.
Figures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
23
0
and i've also heard that people that are not Jewish do not get rights in Israel...is this true?
It's completely false.
 
  • #29
82
1
i have a Jewish-Israeli friend that has vowed never to step foot in Israel again after what happened in the summer of 2006 between Israel and Leabanon. He says the actions of Israel are against Judaism, since in Judiasm it says you should be close to Israel spiritually. and i've also heard that people that are not Jewish do not get rights in Israel...is this true?
lol! absolutely not true. heh funny.

legally all citizens are on the same status.
practically there is difference if you are arab, but that is because of individual racism among people, but thats nothing extreme as what you would usually have when immigrants have a connection to countries which you are in war with.
its not like they sit in the back of the bus when jews are present, its more about people mouth trashing, or things connected to social service budgets in arab villages(mind i not remind that most arabic woman do not work, have whole lot of children, and many males do not work as well, all from statistics, so it is questionable how much they deserve it anyway...)
 
  • #30
23
0
(mind i not remind that most arabic woman do not work, have whole lot of children, and many males do not work as well, all from statistics, so it is questionable how much they deserve it anyway...)
They deserve the same treatment as every other citizen.
 
  • #31
82
1
They deserve the same treatment as every other citizen.
yes, they do, im just annoyed by it...

btw, would you please be our spokesman to any international events? youre good..
 
  • #32
23
0
yes, they do, im just annoyed by it...
Unemployment is not a uniquely Arab problem.

btw, would you please be our spokesman to any international events? youre good..
Actually I believe I would do more good working inside Israel - this is simply a way to keep my English on par. You can sometimes find me at Peace Now activities.
 
  • #33
How amusing - the area simply "fell into the hands of the British"? I suggest you come to terms with your nation's colonial history before criticising other nations.
You make it seem as if the British left due to "some terrorist actions by Zionists and under increasing pressure from diplomats" - though you made sure to phrase it vaguely enough, lest you be corrected about less important matters such as the 1947 partition plan or several Arab revolts.
I know how badly my country acted in the past, what does that have to do with the issue exactly?

There was never a Palestinian state, and the landowners were mostly Syrian and Egyptian families.
No I do not - nor do I believe it's as simple as that.
How ironic that a Briton should lecture someone about native rights using an African example.
Stick to the discussion not to taking pot shots at British history. The fact is the land was the land of the indigenous people. And it's no different from taking the Massai's land from them and then giving them a small amount of land in return.

You have a problem with Jewish refugees emigrating from Europe before, during and after the holocaust? Disgusting.
No all I said was the British tried to stem the tide of migration under the request of the Palestinians. Not that I disapproved of the policy or approved?

This land is today home to over 7 million people - there was obviously plenty of room for everyone back then, and since the land was bought, where's the problem?
BTW check the data on http://www.meforum.org/article/522" - it seems the Zionist enterprise made Palestine very attractive for quite a few Arabs.
I never said there wasn't migration on both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that in 1895 Jews made up 1% of the population, this at least shows that they were not the occupants of this land until the Zionist movement of the late 19th century.

Now you've turned from spin-doctoring into outright lies. The partition plan did not force anyone to vacate any lands, let alone "a majority population" - it partitioned the land into two seperate states, both of which included minority populations, and was not based on any "prior claim" - it just so happens that there were Zionists living in Palestine.
No it didn't force, but there were many that had to leave there home lands due to the division of land, none of which they agreed too, rather naively they thought they would retake the lands soon after, which explains why the refugees left peaceably.

The Palestinians were occupied by Egypt and Jordan before the Six-Day war, the war had nothing to do with them, but rather with Nasser's pan-Arab aspirations. Israel did not "steal" the land, it captured it from these two states, and did not even annex it. You also, for some reason, ignore several peace agreements with Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians. For example, Israel returned to Egypt an area larger than Israel itself - in return for peace.
Semantics. It took land by force and then refused to give it back.

What a mess of an argument. At least make your bashing coherent.

They were offered the plan in 1947. They refused to accept it. They joined 5 Arab nations in a war that they declared was aimed at destroying Israel. Now you think the original plan is "remotely fair".
Then again, you also have a problem with holocaust survivors immigrating to Palestine.
Figures.
I never said this^^^ you're putting words in my mouth.

All complete spin doctoring, there is not a single number or fact there you can argue about, it's all pretty much true, as I said only the most biased person could believe that it was a fair deal for Palestine, gentlemen I present exhibit A, or do you agree it was not a fair partition?

And please don't start playing the racist card, I have never had any ill will towards Israel or anyone else, I just think both sides of the story need to be told, they're certainly not going to get it from you.

Kindly stick to the facts, and please don't read in details to presentation of history, that somehow because of the actions of my country, I must by default agree with them or that I am not in anyway sorry for our colonial past, it's not only irrelevant but it's disingenuous.

You'll note I agree that there was room enough for both, but that there should of been a two party state at the end, so I don't know where your getting this anti-sematism anti-emmigration vibe from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories

The resolution is cited.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242), one of the most commonly referenced UN resolutions in Middle Eastern politics, was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter [5], and was reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 338, adopted after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The resolution calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (there has been some disagreement about whether this means all the territories: see UN Security Council Resolution 242: semantic dispute) and the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency". It also calls for the mutual recognition by the belligerent parties (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan) of each other's established states and calls for the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries for all parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Text of Resolution

The Security Council;

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
The pre-resolution discussion.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument [Broken]

7. But as one looks around this Council table, when the future of a whole area and the destiny of a whole people are being decided on, one is struck by an anomalous fact, namely, that the party directly concerned, the Arab people of Palestine, who should themselves be the first speakers to be heard--since they have never ceded their inalienable rights to anybody nor forfeited them--are totally absent from the picture. No reference is made to them in the draft resolution, except, belatedly, in sub-paragraph (b) of operative paragraph 2, as constituting the refugee problem. Yes, this is the Arab people of Palestine, the uprooted, dispossessed people in exile, crying for justice for over twenty years now, without so far finding justice in the councils of the world.

8. The United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, indeed, all the international documents pertaining to the unhappy history of Palestine, were not meant in any way to deprive peoples of their inalienable rights to self-determination in their own lands and their right to their homeland in which they had lived for over two thousand years; what is of pertinence here is enshrined in Article I of the Charter, to which no reference whatsoever is made in the United Kingdom draft resolution.

9. In our last statement, on 15 November, we outlined what we believe should be the basic guidelines for the solution of the present crisis. We stated then that:

"...one of the cornerstones of the Charter is the non-recognition of the fruits of aggression ... that any solution of the present crisis which does not recognize that principle is a negation of the Charter itself...that the new international order envisaged in the Charter...involved the renunciation for ever of the use of force for aggressive purposes...and non-recognition of any right based on conquest." [1377th meeting, para. 6.]


In fact, and once more, the very first Article of the Charter is a confirmation of these principles.

10. It goes without saying that the withdrawal of the Israel aggressive forces from occupied territories is at this stage the central point of the problem and should be the focus of the attention and efforts of the international community. The advocates of the draft resolution must know this axiomatic fact very well. That is why the question is a prerequisite for efficiently tackling the United Kingdom draft resolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
slugcountry
Hi - believe it or not this thread has nothing to do with palestine - refer to the OP if in doubt :uhh:
 
  • #35
Hi - believe it or not this thread has nothing to do with palestine - refer to the OP if in doubt :uhh:
Appologies, I merely wanted to explain the history to give a picture of why Hamas feels the way it does.

Please note I think Hamas is not the right sort of organisation to be in power, given it's hard line values, and am glad there is a coalition government now.

I'm sure if Yonoz wants to reply we can start up a new thread :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #36
246
6
The problem with historical claims are that they deny current reality. Some claim that Israel belongs to Arab Muslims because they were once the majority, some claim that the land belongs to Jews, because the whole area was once part of a system of Jewish states and thus the entire area, including the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel and non-Jews should leave, since they only moved into the area sometime in the last one or two thousand years.

Neither historical claim is really applicable and just serve the purposes of extremist groups like Hamas and Israeli right-wingers to deny reality. The reality is that, regardless of all the claims that Israel has no right to exist, it will continue to exist. The West Bank and Gaza are a majority of Muslim Arabs, and will have to be granted autonomy for any peace deal to work.

So long as people continue to deny reality and see things as how they want them to be, rather than how they are, there will be conflict. Historical claims are meaningless and will only serve to prolong the conflict. Do Jews have a greater historical claim because it is older? Do Arabs have a greater historical claim because it is more recent?

Once people stop worrying about history and start thinking about the future, peace will be possible.
 
  • #37
AhmedEzz
I agree with you mate. The sooner we start accepting the facts the better. However, there are some things that are not acceptable. These include not allowing the Palestinian refugees to return home and not making Eastern Jerusalem the capital of the Palestinian state. Don't you agree?
 

Related Threads on Israel and Israel and Jerusalem and Judaism

  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
92
Views
9K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
75
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
92
Views
14K
Top