Well, i'll be...

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Since they owned it and lived there, yes. Just because what Israel was assigned wasn't a viable state doesn't mean it's not fair.

No it would not have been fair to create a non-viable Jewish State! If you are going to create a new State then you should give them land that they can live on. What would be the point in creating a Jewish State if the Jews can't live on it?

And we get back to my original point: if the land wasn't viable, then why did the Arabs refuse the partition? If the land was not viable, then a Jewish State would not have lasted long, right? Then, why didn't the Arabs accept the Partition and simply wait for the new Jewish State to fall apart.

The fact that they refused even a deal that would have created a minimalistic and non-viable Jewish State, just proves that they did not want a Jewish State at all. So, they attacked Israel, hoping to crush it and win all the land. They wanted all the land with no Jews at all, and ended up losing all. It's not Israel's fault that it won!

[Az]

It was all Syria. It's just all the fighting took place in the North, Damashq being the capital and all.

Allenby entered Jerusalem in 1918....

ok, it was fun to chat, see you tomorrow ( it's almost 1 AM , and I've got school tomorrow. I hate you people . )

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
No it would not have been fair to create a non-viable Jewish State! If you are going to create a new State then you should give them land that they can live on. What would be the point in creating a Jewish State if the Jews can't live on it?

And we get back to my original point: if the land wasn't viable, then why did the Arabs refuse the partition? If the land was not viable, then a Jewish State would not have lasted long, right? Then, why didn't the Arab accept the Partition and simply wait for the new Jewish State to fall apart.

The fact, that they refused even a deal that would have created a minimalistic and non-viable Jewish State, just proves that they did not want a Jewish State at all. So, they attacked Israel, hoping to crush it and win all the land. They wanted all the land with no Jewish at all, and ended up losing all. It's not Israel's fault that they won!

As has been said, 45% of the people in the Jewish half was Arab. Do you think these 400,000 Arabs were happy about having to live in a state designed to be jewish above everything else? What did that mean for them, hmmm?

The Palestiians rejected the plan because it meant that the people f this area were not being given the rigth to rule themselves, and make their own laws, according to the notion of self-determination. After all, Palestinians made up 66% of the population: why should the land be split then, 50-50% with Jerusalem run by the UN under the plan?

There are smaller viable states out there in the world, so I don't see how this state was non-vaible. Aftre all, did you look at the 1937 Peel commission partition plan?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Allenby entered Jerusalem in 1918....

ok, it was fun to chat, see you tomorrow ( it's almost 1 AM , and I've got school tomorrow. I hate you people . )

No need to spread the hatred around, now is there

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
No it would not have been fair to create a non-viable Jewish State! If you are going to create a new State then you should give them land that they can live on. What would be the point in creating a Jewish State if the Jews can't live on it?

So if my business isn't viable, I should be allowed to just appropriate some of yours? Why should Arab lands be given to the Jewish state? Why should Arab people be forced to live in a Jewish state? If the Jews didn't have the basis for a viable state, then they didn't deserve one. They were only able to create a viable state through theft.

And we get back to my original point: if the land wasn't viable, then why did the Arabs refuse the partition?

Because no person or person should be forced to accept to live in someone else's state. The Arab states had no say in the matter, it was up to the Arabs of Palestine, and they said they didn't wan their country divided up and they didn't want to live in a Jewish state.

Not that anyone cared what the majority of the people of Palestine wanted. After all, only the Jews are worth caring about.

So, they attacked Israel, hoping to crush it and win all the land. They wanted all the land with no Jews at all, and ended up losing all. It's not Israel's fault that it won!

This is not an assertion you can back up with facts. Who attacked the Israelis? There were six Arab states involved in the war, Egypt, Lebanon (a Christian state, BTW), Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Of these six states, only two intiated combat with the Israelis, the Syrians (in one battle) and the Egptians, with half their forces. However, only the battle with Syrians took place in the Jewish Partition. The Egyptians fought the Israelis near Ashdod, wich is clearly part of the Arab Partition. So obviously, the Israelis had already invaded the Arab portion of the country.

The Lebanese grabbed the West Galilee for themselves, which was Arab territory, without ever attacking the Israelis (they did attack an abandoned settlement). In December of 1948, after the second truce, the Israelis attack the Lebanese and seized the West Galilee. The Iraqi were supporting the Jordanians, and both forces simply defended territory that the Israelis had secretly agreed would go to Jordan. Israel did attack the Iraqis, but the Iraqis managed to hold their ground, which is why Samaria is still Arab and not part of Israel.

Except in Jerusalem, which Jordan could not let fall to the Israelis, there was little fighting between the two countries. The Isrealis did try and seize the fortress of Latrun, overlooking the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway, but it was beaten back.

The Saudis didn't do anything.

Furthermore, half of Egyptian forces moved East, to try and block the Jordanians from moving into the Gaza area (which they succeeded in doing, enabling the Israelis to annex most of the region).

The war, while rhetorically about the Jews, was in reality an attempt by all the surrounding countries to grab a piece of Palestine. Only Israel and Jordan were able to accomplish this.

If the Arab states were seriously trying to destroy the nacent Jewish state, then why did they only send 23,000 poorly armed, poorly trained men to face 25,000 resistence fighters who had just thrown off one of the most powerful countries in the world?

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not that anyone cared what the majority of the people of Palestine wanted. After all, only the Jews are worth caring about.

Hey, Che:

The thread has gotten good, lets not bring back the demons of 'normal ME' thread.

[Ned]

I agree Che, the Brits (and the French) are the cause of the problems of the ME. At least the Brits are now helping us fix the problems.

Any single-state solution would have to have a guarantee against a state religion, and a guarantee of freedom of religion, not unlike our first amendment.

I think, but I do no know, that the problem most Israeli's have with a single state solution is that they like the parliamentary form of government where the majority parties rule both the legislature and the executive. The US form of government, though, would work, IMHO.

As to the election of president, I see no problem with an Arab president, provided, of course, that he is a "republican."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So if my business isn't viable, I should be allowed to just appropriate some of yours?

As an interesting aside Che; that is the heart of the communist ideology that you claim to support isn't it?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
As an interesting aside Che; that is the heart of the communist ideology that you claim to support isn't it?

What I support for communism isn't the same thing I support for capitalism.

[Panag]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You need a peace and reconcilliation commission, like the South Africans have.

hi ,

you can not compare Israel with SA , ........

it just wont work , .....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Azazel
Gepap : here lies your mistake. the rest of the lands weren't all owned by palestinians. The desert wasn't owned by anyone, and many lands were owned by governments, the Ottoman, and then the british. Most of the land given to the jews was desert. Desert is defined metorologically defined as a place where less than 200mm of rain fall per year. now let's place that baby on the partition plan. all lands that are south to the orange line are desert.

hi ,

its a bit small , but okay , .......

actually did anyone at all forget to check the 1898 records , .......; yes they did , ......

in those records you can see what whas really owned by jews , .... and that portion is far larger then the map shows , .....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

You mean people like Siro and Eli, eh?

hi ,

no , like people who are on this forum , who think they know it all , yet they have never put a foot in the middle - east , .......

people who claim to know everything , yet they sit behind their comp , 10000 miles away , .......

thats one group , ....

the second group is the people in Israel that actually have nothing to do with it , refugees from all over the arab world , and all the other legal and illegal aliens who come only for the reason to bring forth terror , ....

thats the second group

have a nice day

[Az]

Because no person or person should be forced to accept to live in someone else's state.

I agree fully. that's why the jews need a state of their own.

[OldWarrior_42]

At least I have the sense to look at the entire historical record. It isn't pretty, but it sure as hell helps to get a better picture. But I am sorry if I unfortunitelly have brought up something so terrible as facts into the mix.



Just wanted to point out that if you really feel you have committed to bringing the "facts" to the discussion.... you need to go back a little more than just 54 years of history. You are not looking at the entire historical record as it clearly goes back centuries before Israel ever became a nation.

Just wanted to point out that there are more than one or two sides to a story, and there are long underlying reasons for the problems faced in this region today.

Back to your regularly scheduled program. :-P~~




Kropotkin
Emperor
of Ålidhem
Mar 1999
time: 14:19


17-11-2002 11:05 link



Oh come on! This idea that what happened centuries ago has much to do with the current situation is clearly overrated. I agree that there's good reasons to go back more than 54 years, something like 100-150 might be in place. Taking the exodus of 70 AD is pretty much to accept one side of the story as correct. In my opinion what happend 2000 years ago mean very little besides to justify the actions by one or the other side.

The statement made was "At least I have the sense to look at the entire historical record."

Followed up with "But I am sorry if I unfortunitelly have brought up something so terrible as facts into the mix."

My response was simply to those 2 remarks. I made no mention of "The Exodus or anything else. Simply put, if you are to look at the "entire historical record" , you need to go back to the beginning.

And to be factual, it should have been stated that Israelis have killed more Arabs than Arabs have killed Israelis, "since 1948". That was not stated. That would have been a factual statement. But it was not put forth as such, so therefore it was not bringing facts into the mix.

Facts would need to include the numbers of deaths caused by each side since the beginning. And since there are probably no records of said numbers going back thousands of years, the statement cannot be factual, only opinion, and incomplete as it had not brought forth the entire historical record.

And yes, I do believe that we are where we are today , between these people, based on countless centuries of hatred. It does have a bearing on what happens today and now. They have hated each other for so long, I don't think they will ever learn not to. Maybe one day they can learn to "tolerate" each other and coexist peacefully, but I don't know if that will ever happen in my lifetime.

Carry on with the thread now, sorry to interupt with my pedantic uselessness. :-P~~

[Ned]

GePap, Back to my original point. The history lesson show us that Jews lived everywhere in Palestine as did Arabs. There were areas of majority Jewish population. There were areas of Arab majority population. But as far as I could tell, there was no law, policy or rule that forbad either nationality from living anywhere in Palestine they wanted - to the extent, of course, that the owners of the land would rent or sell it to the interested party.

The Jews and Arabs were equality Palestinians.

Now, along comes the '48 war. Jordan and Egypt occupy (illegally in your view) portions of Palestine. In '67, the Israeli Palestinians kick the aggressor-conquerors Arab states out of Palestine.

Up 'til this point, I think we agree on the facts.

Now, why is it "illegal" for Jewish-Palestinians to return to their homes is the former Jordanian and Egyptian occuppied areas? Why it "illegal" for new settlements to be made?

I see the situation as analogous to some extent with our own civil war. We were one country. Americans, whether born in the North or South, could live anywhere in the US they wanted. Along comes the war. Northerners flee the South. Eventually the North wins. Why can't the Northerners who fled return to the South? Why is it "illegal" for Northerners to build new settlements in the South?

The problem with your view is of the ME is that you deny that Jews have equal rights to Arabs. Arabs, in your view, are the only Palestinians. Jews are invaders.