News Why Does Israel Target Civilian Water Infrastructure?

[kyleb]

There is the argument that the majority of Palestinians weren't so much forced out of their homes by Zionists...

Then there is the well documented history of Zionist militias planing and execution of Plan Dalet, in which the ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from around two hundred localities across both sides of the UN partition Plan in the months prior to declaring statehood. Among others, the Israeli historian IIlan Pappe does a thorough job of compiling records of this within https://www.amazon.com/dp/1851684670/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

As I currently understand it, Mandate Palestine had been partitioned by the UN into at least two sovereign and autonomous states -- one, Israel, for the influx of Jewish refugess, and one, Palestine, for the indigenous Palestinian people.

Rather, it carved Palestine out around the Jewish minority there to create a slight Jewish majority for the state of Israel, which was then largely ethnically cleansed by Jewish militants, as noted above.

The Arab leaders rejected the partitioning. I haven't learned why yet.

Diplomatically, you can find a respectable recount of the arguments for and against http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9f...7c45a3dd0d46b09802564740045cc0a!OpenDocument" sums it up well. As for why Arab nations sent their armies in directly following Israel's decleration of statehood, again see the ethnic cleansing above.

Accompanying this argument is the question of why the Palestinian refugees can't simply be absorbed and taken care of by the surrounding Arab states, much as Israel was a haven for Jewish refugees from all over the world.

For the same reason you couldn't convince your neighbors to accept giving up their homeland to colonists, even if those colonists desired the land to the point of exploiting overwhelming military force to drive you all out.

There is the contention that this isn't done because the Arab leaders have used the Palestinian refugees as political pawns in their effort to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't have any opinion about the truth of this yet either.

What is certain is that thousands of Palestinians were unable to resume their lives in the homes they left when they attempted to return and do that. It's sort of like if you went on vacation for some time and then came back to find your home had been taken in your absence. Israel's claim is that these people, the displaced Palestinians, have no legal right to their former homes.

Exceedingly cynical arguments, based in an absurdly distorted perception of reality.

To simply say that stuff happens and leave it at that isn't good enough if the principles that we Americans are supposed to stand for are to have any real meaning.

Shamefully true, and fitting to what we have long been doing far more so than I gather you could imagine.

From what I've learned so far, the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel was viewed by the indigenous Arab people as an invasion. So that's one question that I have. Was it or wasn't it an invasion? It's not a matter of legality. The Nazi treatment of the Jews was legal under German law. It's a matter of right and wrong. Were the Arab states justified in opposing the partitioning of Mandate Palestine and the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel? Could there have been another haven established for Jewish refugees that didn't entail the creation of another massive group of refugees? If so, is that option still there?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589" is a exelent documentry which answers those questions in detail.

Or, could the Palestinian refugees be helped, on a massive scale, to tranfer and assimilate into other culture or be given a parcel of land on the scale of the Israeli state, say about 8000 sq. miles, somewhere in the world, where they can be free?

I don't see how the problems of ethnic cleansing can be solved though more ethnic cleansing, and certainly have no interest in trying.

Palestinians, refugees and otherwise, and Israelis as well, would be helped though a just two-state solution on the basis of international law, as outlined in the http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a0...3d3c4b4b95d2ff285257551005a67f0!OpenDocument", as they as has been done for decades, with only US veto power over the Security Council holding back enforceable resolutions to end this conflict.

What to do when some people adopt violence as a means of addressing a conflict.

The same thing we did to bring the end of apartheid in South Africa; boycott, divestment, and sanctions. The violence only comments as long as people can achieve their goals though it, which is only as long as we allow them to.

 

[ThomasT]

Then there is the well documented history of Zionist militias planing and execution of Plan Dalet, in which the ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from around two hundred localities across both sides of the UN partition Plan in the months prior to declaring statehood. Among others, the Israeli historian IIlan Pappe does a thorough job of compiling records of this within https://www.amazon.com/dp/1851684670/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

Another compelling account of the Middle East since World War I, including Israel and Palestine, is https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400075173/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (Paperback) by Robert Fisk.

This is first of all a book about war -- in particular, the wars that have scarred the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Algeria, throughout the author's long career as a correspondent for the London Times and then the Independent. It switches back and forth across the 20th century in a way that seems driven more by stream of consciousness than by any linear design, and, as befits its topic, it is a book of almost unremitting violence. The author presents himself both as unflinching witness and implacable judge of the events he recounts, for he believes that he is telling a story of unrelenting perfidy and betrayal -- in part a story of Middle Easterners being betrayed by themselves and their leaders, but mostly one of the Middle East being betrayed by the power, greed and arrogance of the West.

Fisk has thrown himself into the fiery pit time after time, often at grave personal risk -- Afghanistan at the beginning of the long struggle against the Soviets, the bloodbath of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the civil war in Algeria after 1991, the second Palestinian intifada since the fall of 2000. When he is not personally in the midst of conflict and destruction, he evokes them, as in his lengthy discussion of the Armenian deportations and massacres of World War I or (in a different register) his treatment of the shah of Iran's prisons and torture chambers.
. . . .
If this is a book about war, it is equally a book about the hypocrisy and indifference of those in power. Fisk is an angry man and more than a little self-righteous. No national leader comes off with a scrap of credit here; he regards the lot of them with contempt, if not loathing. Among the men in charge -- whether Arab, Iranian, Turkish, Israeli, British or American -- there are no heroes and precious few honorable people doing their inadequate best in difficult situations. Jimmy Carter is lucky to escape with condescension, King Hussein of Jordan with a bit better than that. Fisk is not fond of the media either (though he grants some exceptions); CNN and the New York Times are particular targets of his scorn for what he sees as their abject failure to challenge the lies, distortions and cover-ups of U.S. policymakers. Only among ordinary people, entangled in a web of forces beyond their control, does Fisk find a human mixture of courage, cowardice, charity and cruelty!

 

[kyleb]

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

Pappe recounts the details of the planing and execution of the operations from Israeli records, as have a few other historians. The only dispute is that official Israeli policy is to focus on the stated defensive nature of the campaign to excuse the ethnic cleansing it effected. Then of course there is the "they left at the behest of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states" claim, but that is just one of many distortions in the timeline in the backpack of lies used to perpetuate this conquest.

And yeah, you've got years of reading just to get a reasonable grasp of the history, particularly in the context of that of the region as Astronuc brings up. I say this as someone who has put a good portion of a decade into doing just that, and I continue to learn more nearly every day. From an intellectual level it is a fascinating subject, but not for the emotionally weak by any stretch. However, I argue the details of the history are trivial for anything but discrediting those who choose to selectively recount it to perpetuate such conflicts, and most such people will simply jump from one argument to anther as they fall anyway, which becomes a massive waste of time. For the rest of us, effort is far better spent on understanding the current realities, so we can finally start working to achieve a just two-state solution under international law. And on that note, I recommend this Dutch documentary on the Israel lobby in the US, the beginning is subtitled but the vast majority is in English:

 

[humanino]

And on that note, I recommend this Dutch documentary on the Israel lobby in the US, the beginning is subtitled but the vast majority is in English:

I think it has already been posted here on PF. I would strongly recommend watching it.

 

[tiny-tim]

reading lists

The Arab leaders rejected the partitioning. I haven't learned why yet.
…
From what I've learned so far, the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel was viewed by the indigenous Arab people as an invasion. So that's one question that I have. Was it or wasn't it an invasion? It's not a matter of legality. The Nazi treatment of the Jews was legal under German law. It's a matter of right and wrong. …

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

ThomasT , if you follow the reading recommendations … Pappe and Fisk … you'll get a thoroughly one-sided view.

My advice to you is always to be suspicious of people recommending particular books.

You can read for yourself the whole wikipedia article on Ilan Pappe, but your suspicions may be aroused by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe#Critical_assessment" quoted as saying …

"Readers are told of events that never happened … political decisions that were never made … for relying on secondary sources and admitting his own bias in his introduction …"

As a study or research policy, I suggest you start by looking at wikipedia articles (which have the advantage that, because of the way they are composed, they give you both sides), and follow up references (to both sides) from those articles, rather than exclusively books and documentaries that are the most extreme to be found.

There are loads of relevant wikipedia articles, but to get you started …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#The_20th_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#Struggle_for_self-determination
and of course the one kyleb referred to …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet#Operations_of_Plan_Dalet

 

[tiny-tim]

Plan Dalet

Then there is the well documented history of Zionist militias planing and execution of Plan Dalet, in which the ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from around two hundred localities across both sides of the UN partition Plan in the months prior to declaring statehood. Among others, the Israeli historian IIlan Pappe does a thorough job of compiling records of this within https://www.amazon.com/dp/1851684670/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

This is a thoroughly misleading and biased account of Plan Dalet …

According to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet …

Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: תוכנית ד' Tokhnit dalet; dalet is the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, as "D" is in the Latin), was a plan that the Haganah in Palestine worked out during autumn 1947 to spring 1948. The purpose of the plan was, according to its Jewish planners, a contingency plan for defending a Jewish state from invasion.

According to Yoav Gelber and most other historians , Plan D was primarily defensive in nature.

According to other sources it was a plan with the purpose of conquering as much of Palestine as possible and to expel as many Palestinians as possible (see 'Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine', by Walid Khalidi, for example).

From section 3b4 of the plan (which has been public knowledge for a long time) …

In the absence of resistance, garrison troops will enter the village and take up positions in it or in locations which enable complete tactical control. The officer in command of the unit will confiscate all weapons, wireless devices, and motor vehicles in the village. In addition, he will detain all politically suspect individuals.

The remainder of 3b4 authorises expulsion from and destruction of the village if there is resistance from it.

It also authorises, for a separate category of villages which are "population centers which are difficult to control continuously", expulsion from and destruction of the village even without resistance.

All this is a standard international military procedure.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet#Palestinian_narrative" we see the military and defensive effectiveness of expulsions near the Egyptian front line …

According to the French historian Henry Laurens, the importance of the military dimension of plan Dalet becomes clear by comparing the operations of the Jordanian and the Egyptian armies. The ethnical homogeneity of the coastal area, obtained by the expulsions of the Palestinians eased the halt of the Egyptian advance, while Jewish Jerusalem, located in an Arab population area, was encircled by Jordanian forces.

 

[kyleb]

As I noted above:

The only dispute is that official Israeli policy is to focus on the stated defensive nature of the campaign to excuse the ethnic cleansing it effected.

And furthermore:

However, I argue the details of the history are trivial for anything but discrediting those who choose to selectively recount it to perpetuate such conflicts, and most such people will simply jump from one argument to anther as they fall anyway, which becomes a massive waste of time.

Which reminds me, you never did answer my question as to if I am to accept your claim that General Assembly Resolutions don't confer legal rights; what, if anything, do you believe gives Israel any legal right to exist at all, as I inquired https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2045253&postcount=51". Granted, considering your demonstrated contempt for Palestinians rights, I don't really expect an answer.

 

[mjsd]

This is a thoroughly misleading and biased account of Plan Dalet …

According to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet …

Just a quick point: Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. And using it as the main source of a rebuttal against other's "biased" account of an event is not very convincing to say the least. However, since from day one the information about this conflict appears very murky and difficult to verify one way or the other, I may give you the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, We (westerners) should count ourselves fortunate, and perhaps realize that if we treat others with a bit more respect (even if we have to sacrifice a little bit here and there), then others may not trample on us as heavily should we become the inferior group in the future (by accident or otherwise).

 

[tiny-tim]

Just a quick point: Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source.

wikipedia is more reliable than any individual here, or than Pappe

especially since wikipedia articles have contributions from both sides​

 

[Astronuc]

ThomasT , if you follow the reading recommendations … Pappe and Fisk … you'll get a thoroughly one-sided view.

My advice to you is always to be suspicious of people recommending particular books.

I wouldn't put Fisk in the same category as Pappé, who is criticized along with other so-called 'New Historians' as anti-Zionist.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

It is important when reading any historical book to know the perspectives and prejudices/biases of the author. While Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation, is dense, it does apparently contain factual errors as highlighted in Efraim Karsh's criticism of the book in the article http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2006/31-3/biblio31-3.htm .

. . . .
First there is the problem of simple accuracy. It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was Minister of Defence, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al-Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth.

. . . .

Another criticism of Fisk's book - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/books/review/19bron.html

One should also be familiar with Fisk and Karsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

It would be worthwhile to also read Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) and Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1922 (Harvard University Press, 1999; with *Inari Karsh).

The problem in the ME and in history in general is one of sorting through the one-sided views of the authors, when one does not know the authors or the context from direct observation or participation.

The human experience is multi-faceted, and not simply two-sided.

I find myself thoroughly distressed at the propensity toward violence and hatred by so many in the world.

 

[sirchasm]

Is Israel guilty of using US armaments in breach of US domestic laws?

Some lawyers apparently think the US should embargo arms shipments and sanction states who do ship arms (that would include itself)...
Legal arguments can be so entertaining, don't you think?

 

[Alfi]

Legal arguments can be so entertaining, don't you think?

They sure can;
right up until I remember that children and other innocents are dying while the lawyers drag any and every detail out, all the while making money.If this whole conflict one that can be solved through law?
If that's all it is, and both sides can see fit to stop killing and make their case.
Call the World court together and get it solved.

 

[kyleb]

The International Court of Justice already ruled against Israel's conquest of the West Bank in their ruling against the separation barrier back in 2004, but has no means to enforce that ruling. To enforce internal law requires UN Security Counsel resolutions, and US veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions which would cut Israel off from the ability to continue their conquest over what little of Palestine is left.

 

[Alfi]

The International Court of Justice already ruled against Israel's conquest of the West Bank in their ruling against the separation barrier back in 2004, but has no means to enforce that ruling. To enforce internal law requires UN Security Counsel resolutions, and US veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions which would cut Israel off from the ability to continue their conquest over what little of Palestine is left.

but has no means to enforce that ruling.

This seems to be a center of the greater problem. The United Nations needs to change. It's not effective as it is.
A better UN may have stopped the invasion of Iraq. Or issued the orders to have SadManInsane removed from power. Possibly with less loss of life and money or war profiteering. Who knows, it didn't happen. The Sanctions and inspections and the whole game was preempted unilaterally by one country.
A better UN should be able to go into any country and arrest any suspect for open trial.

veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions

This seems to be one of the major flaws in the system.
I'll give a look into the history and the who wants or who holds the power. Should be interesting.

 

[ThomasT]

The remainder of 3b4 authorises expulsion from and destruction of the village if there is resistance from it.

It also authorises, for a separate category of villages which are "population centers which are difficult to control continuously", expulsion from and destruction of the village even without resistance.

Thanks for the links. The above seems to reinforce the view that the Zionists were invaders engaging in a sort of ethnic cleansing and, indirectly, that the Arab forces were dispatched to protect and defend the indigenous people against what was authorized in Plan Dalet.

 

[tiny-tim]

Thanks for the links. The above seems to reinforce the view that the Zionists were invaders engaging in a sort of ethnic cleansing and, indirectly, that the Arab forces were dispatched to protect and defend the indigenous people against what was authorized in Plan Dalet.

"Invaders"? They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8, and it was the neighbouring Arab countries who broke the United Nations charter by invading.

I think you need to read the links first.

You'll find that from the 1920s to 1948 there had been widespread murder of Jews, in the hope of driving them out, the Jews had retaliated, and by 1948 had formed a regular army (the Haganah) and adopted a defensive strategy designed to allow Arabs to remain (as indeed a huge number did).

As wikipedia points out: according to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

 

[ThomasT]

"Invaders"? They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8, and it was the neighbouring Arab countries who broke the United Nations charter by invading.

I'm not interested in 'legality' per se (eg., eminent domain is often abused in this country), but, rather, to form an opinion (based on learning the truth as best I can) of whether or not the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine was morally justifiable, and whether or not the expulsion of indigenous people was an integral part of the Zionist agenda.

I think you need to read the links first.

Yes, thanks again, I'm in the process.

You'll find that from the 1920s to 1948 there had been widespread murder of Jews, in the hope of driving them out, the Jews had retaliated, and by 1948 had formed a regular army (the Haganah) and adopted a defensive strategy designed to allow Arabs to remain (as indeed a huge number did).

There's been a lot of killing by both sides. It's the context that matters, and I aim to find the truth of that.

As wikipedia points out: according to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

The parts you quoted and paraphrased (having to do with takeover and destruction of villages and population centers) seemed pretty aggressive to me. The thing is, if the Zionists had no moral right to that land, or those villages or homes, then they would be 'defending' something which they had, to put it bluntly, stolen. And, if that was the case, then any subsequent atrocities by either side are attributable to that primary cause.

But, as I've said, I don't know enough yet to have an opinion about the truth of the matter.

I have a question. I remember watching an interview (on PBS I think, but I wasn't able to find it on their website, so maybe not) with a woman doctor (I don't remember her name), a child in the late 1940's living in Palestine with her family during the formation of Israel and the Palestinian exodus. She wrote a book about it and I can't remember the title. Do you (or anyone else) know what I'm referring to?

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't put Fisk in the same category as Pappé, who is criticized along with other so-called 'New Historians' as anti-Zionist.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

It is important when reading any historical book to know the perspectives and prejudices/biases of the author. While Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation, is dense, it does apparently contain factual errors as highlighted in Efraim Karsh's criticism of the book in the article http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2006/31-3/biblio31-3.htm .



Another criticism of Fisk's book - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/books/review/19bron.html

One should also be familiar with Fisk and Karsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

It would be worthwhile to also read Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) and Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1922 (Harvard University Press, 1999; with *Inari Karsh).

...

Thanks for scholarly references here, nice post.

 

[mheslep]

Before throwing around terms like indigenous here, it would help to have some idea of the actual demographics of Palestine in the British and Ottoman periods. Keep in mind that, most likely, in 1945 Palestine already contained roughly 600k Jews and more than one million Moslems, Jews having immigrated since ~1880, but in significant numbers under the British mandate. The Arab population also grew significantly during the British period. The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.
Source:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

 

[kyleb]

They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8...

This seems like an inconsistency with your previous arguments. Is it that you do believe UN General Assembly resolutions confer rights for Jews, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=293065&page=7"?

Regardless, while the partition plan did allocate land to establish Israel, it didn't allocate any right drive anyone out of their homes, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people who were driven out if not killed in the months prior to the Arab nations attacking, and calling that ethnic cleansing defensive does nothing to change what it is. Furthermore, militant Zionists committed their own share of murders in the decades before, one notable example being the 1924 murder of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Isra%C3%ABl_de_Haan" , and how they went on to become Likud, the party of Israel's incoming Prime Minster. So, arguably they have the whole Middle East under their gun now, though obviously just Palestine under direct control.

Before throwing around terms like indigenous here...

If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well. Scans of a compilation of British Mandate period records can be found http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html" , and if you care to look though that, along with the rest of history, you'll find the term indigenous fits Palestinians like a glove.

The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.

Back then the city of Jerusalem had far smaller boundaries, which Israel has expanded greatly over the decades to what would have shifted that statistic in favor of Arabs at the time. On that note, one should consider the fact that http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg" .

 

[turbo]

If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well.

It is worth noting that George Mitchell, Obama's ME envoy is of mixed heritage - Irish and Lebanese. There is a vibrant community of Lebanese Christians in central Maine, and they hold positions of prominence in commerce, law, local governance, etc. Mitchell is well-regarded for his efforts in negotiating the Northern Ireland truce, but I fear that dealing with Israel will be an impossible task because their government is so fractious and they have a long history of moving the goalposts.

If Israel truly wants peace, they should offer to withdraw from the West Bank and give up enough territory (even a narrow corridor) to allow for a contiguous Palestine (Gaza and West Bank). Such a proposal would pull the teeth of Palestinian militants and put them out of power. I see little prospect for this, because there is a very vocal faction in Israel that demands that Israel control Jerusalem. Livni has stated publicly that Israeli settlers are the major obstacle to peace with the Palestinians, but that is of little real value. She is Likud with lipstick.

 

[tiny-tim]

Jewish majority in Jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.
Source:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

You mean WWI … that reference actually says "about 1896"

There's also an 1853 book by Cesar Famin "L'Histoire de la rivalite et du protectorat des Eglises chretiennes en Orient" (Paris: Firmin Didot freres), which puts the majority back to at least 1853 …

from the title, the author is primarily interested in Christianity (des Eglises chretienne) in the middle east, so there is no reason to believe he would have inflated the Jewish figure …

this extract from Famin is from a blog … http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html … presumably a biased blogger, but it does seem to be an exact quotation from page 49 of the book (the book isn't on books.google.com) …

"The sedentary population of Jerusalem is about 15,500 souls:"
"La population sedentaire de Jerusalem est d'environ 15,500 ames:"
Jews . . . 8,000 . . . Juifs
Muslims . .4,000 . . . Musulmans
Christians 3,490 . . . Chretiens
- - - - - - -------
. . . . . . . 15,490

There is confirmation of this (though not the exact figures) on http://books.google.com/books?id=95...s++jerusalem+-famine&client=safari#PPA362,M1" by Julius Carlebach (1977) which although not quoting from p.49, does quote these two extracts from pp.50&51 of Famin's book:

The Moslems who constitute approximately a quarter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem …

… the Jews in themselves constitute over half the population of the holy city.

The same blogger in http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/jerusalem-population-in-19th-century.html" also quotes the figures from two books by French and Arab authors giving Jewish majorities in 1872 and 1874 (and a French book based on the Prussian consul's figures on 1858 showing a Jewish minority)

Of course, there has been a joint Christian-Jewish majority in the city of Jerusalem since well before 1800 (sorry, I have no link for this ).

 

[kyleb]

Yet the Christian community wanted not part an Jewish state, nor did the Jewish community of the time. And again, what was called Jerusalem back then is only a small portion of what is called Jerusalem today, and the latter long had an Arab majority.

And yeah, Turbo, Mitchell is a promising appointment, but a few men can only do so much with a huge lobby against them, and what looks to be Likud running Israel soon isn't going to make that any easier. The settlers are really minor obstacle compared to the powermongers running the show, most of the settlers are only there for the economic incentives and tax breaks those powermongers give them.

 

[math_04]

Well, Israel has a right to defend itself as any country would but I just feel they made a strategic blunder. By bombing large areas of the Gaza Strip, they did kill a few Hamas members but lots of civilians were also caught up unfortunately. This represented a victory for Hamas and probably boosted other Islamist terrorist groups in the Middle East.

As I watched all the children crying and the women mourning, I knew this war and events leading up to it will breed a whole new generation of angered youths. I watched a documentary called 'Inside Hamas' and it showed how Hamas was an ineffective government that later on, did not enjoy the support of many of Gaza's residents. The PLO itself is inherently corrupt and also does not enjoy much support. The problem with Palestine is there is not effective AND peaceful government, both current parties are either terrorists or corrupt.

I think Israel will need to make a brave decision and stop the blockade of Gaza, let the trucks through and tell Hamas that we are ready to make the next step, now you must do the same. It is a hard choice but for the sake of security, bombing is not going to help. Of course, if Hamas is unwilling to do it, then Israel needs to occupy Gaza again. At least then, the Arab nations and the rest of the world will see how difficult and futile it is to make peace with a group bent on destroying a country.

There is nothing wrong with Israel, but this time, it made the wrong choice. Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak may have done it to win the elections but it really backfired.

 

[kyleb]

I take it you didn't read the thread, but rather just dropped into talk over us, eh Math?

 

[mheslep]

...If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well. Scans of a compilation of British Mandate period can records can be found http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html" , and if you care to look though that, along with the rest of history, you'll find the term indigenous fits Palestinians like a glove...

Agreed it fits the Palestinians there before WWII and displaced by the war, and it also fits many of the Jews there before WWII. Indigenous-to-Palestine does not accurately describe all of the ~10m ethnic Palestinians now living throughout the world.

 

[kyleb]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

 

[Evo]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

Maybe I have misunderstood what you meant. Are you denying occupation of these lands by Jews for thousands of years? Here is a timeline just dating from the Ottoman period.

http://www.jcrc.org/downloads/israel/jcrc_israel-timeline_5.pdf

 

[kyleb]

I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of the Arabs we call Palestinians today are descendants of those who occupied the region for thousands of years, along side the few Jews you refer to, while the vast majority of ancestors of the Jews we call Israelis today lived elsewhere over the last few thousand years. Again, the bulk of that colonization prior to Israel's declaration of statehood can be seen in the British Mandate period records I linked above. Notably, see Table 3 here:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6583.html