IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[CyberGnu]

False.

An American spokesperson told an audience of international journalists that the accusations are false.

I don't recall any american intelligence response to the issue.

I've already gone over this with you, at which point you disappeared. I quoted a US official, at the time. Since the search function is broken, however, I can't find the thread.

I also have no intention of dancing to your pipe. You had ample opportunity to repsond last ime we went over this, but didn't.

The Neturei Karta are also a Jewish organization catering to a Jewish audience

Neturei Karta?

Interesting.

Where are the polls to prove that the majority of Jews in germany are zionist or at all pro-israeli?

You use an awfull lot of assumptions.

Not really. They are quite safe. Just like I would expect a swedish news paper to be against a war in Iraq, or a French newspaper to be against anything involving the US.

Again proves your lack of knowledge in Israeli government and secret service organizations.

The mossad has little to do with tracking al-qaeda in Israel, but rather tracks it out side. IDF and Shin Bet track it in and around Israel.

You might want to look up "irony" in a dictionary....

As to recent events:

The latest two attacks by Al-Qaeda on Israeli targets, and their latest publications all clearly show a concentration on Israel as the new primary target. They've even set up a special wing, for dealing with "Palestine".

Not sure if you noticed, but the recent attacks took place in africa. Bin Laden is a smart man. He is trying to use the palestinian cause to rally support for his own. Why you believe this proves the presence of al qaeda camps in lebanon is beyond me...

Not completely. Israeli reporters said that according to israeli and foreign intelligence resources, the gun battle in Ein Hilwe was between Fatah and Al-qaeda related factions. The local Fatah spokespeople quickly denied it, as did the Lebanese, and finally an American spokesperson said that America has no such intelligence [regarding al-qaida activity in ein-hilwe].

What you are referring to occured months after the die welt story, so there is no direct relevance.

It amazes me how you interpret your own quote, though... Israeli reporters claim that undisclosed sources claim that al-qaeda is in lebanon. Everyone, including US officials, denies it... And yet you believe it to be true.

Just watch out for the mutant star goats when you go home. They get frisky after dark.

[Panag]

hi ,

gnu , if you would take the intrest of reading ones in a while what we post in the international world you would see that its nothing new , and that there is proof of al-do-nogood-for-nothing-to-stupid-to-work-and love-to-blow-up-stuf-Qaida in libanon , ......

ahem , ones in a while there are some who feel remorse and flee across the border and ask for asylum , .....

bye

[Ned]

CyberGnu, On further consideration, I now believe that Jerusalem was not discussed in connection with the "exclusion." The map includes Amman in the exclusion because it was part of the "vilayet" of Damascus. However, McMahon was using the term "district" geographically. He was not using the term "district" to refer to a Turkish province or "vilayet."

Here is the quote from McMahon's reply to Hussein (from your post).

From 24 October 1915:
McMahon: The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.

Compare this to the map. Damascus, Homs, Hamma and Aleppo comprise a list of Syrian "districts." Damascus is southernmost "district" on the list. All the others lie North of Damascus. However the map continues to draw the line well south of Damascus. Why? Because the "vilayet" of Damascus extended south to include both Amman and Jerusalem. (I got this from a Jordanian site.) But is clear to me that McMahon was not speaking in terms of "vilayets." He was speaking geographically. That this is true is proven by the fact that both Aleppo and Beirut comprised separate vilayets.

In his reply, Hussein refers to the vilayets of Beirut and Aleppo (as being wholly Arab). I believe Hussein understood McMahon's references to the four cities as geographical references and not as political references. In this I believe he was correct.

So, it appears that the map may be disingenuous by continuing to draw the line south of Damascus in front of Amman. So what this is mean? It means that McMahon never propose to exclude Jerusalem from the Arab caliphate.

I now believe that Arab anger with the Brits may be somewhat justified.

As to Sykes-Picot, here is a map illustrating the areas of agreement. It shows Palestine as a "Condominium." The agreement itself states that "Jerusalem" will be ruled under an international government with the approval of Russia. As to the other areas (Blue and Red), the agreement essentially states that the British and French will rule through Arab governments.

It is interesting that Sykes-Picot was concluded in May of 1916, only three months after the final letter in the McMahon-Hussein series. The Sykes-Picot agreement appears to be dramatically inconsistent with the British agreement with Hussein.

[CyberGnu]

panag: ?

[CyberGnu]

Ned: Exactly, and I think we are now on the same page.

From the EB on Sykes-Picot:

This secret arrangement conflicted in the first place with pledges already given by the British to the Hashimite dynast Husayn ibn ‘Ali, sharif of Mecca, who was about to bring the Arabs of the Hejaz into revolt against the Turks on the understanding that the Arabs would eventually receive a much more important share of the fruits of victory. It also excited the ambitions of Italy , to whom it was communicated in August 1916, after the Italian declaration of war against Germany, with the result that it had to be supplemented, in April 1917, by the Agreement of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, whereby Great Britain and France promised southern and southwestern Anatolia to Italy. The defection of Russia from the war canceled the Russian aspect of the Sykes-Picot Agreement; and the Turkish Nationalists' victories after the military collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to the gradual abandonment of its projects for Anatolia. The Arabs , however, who had learned of the Sykes-Picot Agreement through the publication of it, together with other secret treaties of imperial Russia, by the Soviet Russian government late in 1917, were scandalized by it; and their resentment persisted despite the modification of its arrangements for the Arab countries by the Allies' Conference of San Remo in April 1920.


IIUIC, the S-P agreement was rapidly followed by the Balfour declaration because the British leadership realised that the S-P agreement was in conflict with promises made to both teh arab world and the zionist congress. They believed the zionist congress to be more important, however, and thus the balfour declaration came to its current form.

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
panag: ?

hi ,

do you want more then 100 different original maps

these guys drew so many maps while sipping some drinks and smoking cigars in club in london , .......

and the ones who drew the maps did never set foor in the entire middle east , ......

and this is where the whole problem is , people draw maps in far away places while they know zip about the people or country , .....

most of the maps are still in london today at the national archives , you need to apply in order to see them , ......

they are intresting but they are really no reflection what so ever of a serious solution , .......

some maps are "copied" and spread around the net as being "real" , how ever they are not , .....
now if you really want to see some nice stuff , go to Paris , they have so many records , okay you need to apply there also , but at least you can feel the real stuff in your hands and you get to read it if you want , .....

the archives from the French Foreign Legion are also very intresting and "easy" to get in to , .....

now , one mr sikes , who happens to be a fanatical jew hater , he gave a nice speach 18 months before the map in the house of lords wanted to have segration laws for jews and wanted the males to be sterilized , ....

so basically what ever he has done is nothing more but spreading hate , .....

look , if you really want to know more or less the thruth about what went on yesterday ( history ) or today , come over , fly to Paris , london , brussels etc , .... after a couple years you shall start to understand what really went on , and what really went on is that jews where never accepted in the world , .....

like a tzar in russia wrote down ones ; "the jews should go back to Israel , they have overstayed the visit"
afterall its the nation of all jews , if they are back then we shall have no more problems with them , ....

unfortunatly the revolution broke out before he could continue , .....

bye

[Ned]

CyberGnu, excellent post. Ditto panag. This thread is by far the best ME thread that I have ever seen on Apolyton. Really informative.

Panag, I have no doubt that Sikes was an anti-Semite. There appears to have been a real war inside the British government between those who favored a Jewish homeland and those who wanted to feed the Jews to the lions. If you know, who were Sikes, McMahon and Balfour? Were they all part of the the same government? Tory?

Another explanation is that the Brits would tell anyone what they wanted to hear at the time in order to induce them to joint the war effort. To some extent, I think they did that to the United States as well. All of us are victims of British diplomacy.

CyberGnu, unless I see more facts that would cause me change my mind, I agree that the Arabs were betrayed and that they had a just cause in resisting the British Mandate. It would have been better for all had Faisal been allowed to remain King of the whole of Syria in 1919. He appeared to be highly receptive of large Jewish immigration to Palestine. If the Jews were later to be granted autonomy or their own state, it would have been with the consent of the Arab rulers. There would have been peace.

But that was then and this is now. The Arab rulers have offered peace. The US, the Europeans and Russia are devising a plan. I believe we now have a real opportunity to put this matter behind us.

[gsmoove23]

How does a load of anti-semitism in Europe justify divorcing people from their land in the middle-east. By all means lets listen to Russian Tsars. Someone should have told that guy that Israel didn't exist anymore.

[Sirotnikov]

I've already gone over this with you, at which point you disappeared. I quoted a US official, at the time. Since the search function is broken, however, I can't find the thread.

I also have no intention of dancing to your pipe. You had ample opportunity to repsond last ime we went over this, but didn't.

I read it.
American Officials are used to denying many things. For instance that they had any evidence leading to 9/11, which it appeared they did, but beaurocracy stopped it from reaching the top.

Neturei Karta?

Messiatic rabidly anti-zionist jews. Several dozen thousands I think.

They are the ones S Kroeze believes to be the 'real jews'.

Not really. They are quite safe. Just like I would expect a swedish news paper to be against a war in Iraq, or a French newspaper to be against anything involving the US.

You automatically expect things out of the jewish ethnicity, without paying any attention to it's diversity of opinion.

You might want to look up "irony" in a dictionary....

dear gnu, a joke should atleast be accurate.

If I begin making jokes about the IRS tracking al-qaeda it would be silly, as they're not the ones responsible for it.

Not sure if you noticed, but the recent attacks took place in africa. Bin Laden is a smart man. He is trying to use the palestinian cause to rally support for his own. Why you believe this proves the presence of al qaeda camps in lebanon is beyond me...

Not sure if you noticed, but his targets were Israeli and there's every reason to believe (including they're own words) that they are attempting to get into Israel.

What you are referring to occured months after the die welt story, so there is no direct relevance.

Let me run it by you again:

event 1: die welt says that there are rumors that al-qaeda members may be settling down in lebanon

event 2: haaretz (or JP?) says that according to rumors, the last gun battle in lebanon was a power struggle between fatah and al-qaeda related factions. lebanon denies. fatah denies. america denies knowledge.

if event 1 is true, then event 2 seems to hold base to truth as well.

It amazes me how you interpret your own quote, though... Israeli reporters claim that undisclosed sources claim that al-qaeda is in lebanon. Everyone, including US officials, denies it... And yet you believe it to be true.

everyone seems very relaible.
everyone is lebanese , and americans, who failed to notice they had all the info to stop 9/11 but couldn't reach it beaurocratically.

Look, meanwhile, most israeli accusations end up proving themselves. just like rumors about PNA and Iran getting closer culminated in the capture of Karin A.

[Sirotnikov]

Ned, could you explain again your and gnu's posts about the mcmahon - faisal notes and about the sykes pekot agreement?

somehow not everything i read added up to the same conclusions that you made, and i fear it's because lack of sleep on my part.

[Harel]

CyberGnu, you repeatedly exclaim how the British deceived the Arabs and failed to offer them the areas that were initially offered to them in 1916, in the Sykes agreement. However, that is only one side of the equation.

Pro-Zionists could tell you how the jews were also deceived, and were offered much greater areas several times in certain agreements and discussions. There were no less then six official maps drawn between 46 and 47, and the final map of dividition was one that was actually quite ill-favored toward the jews considering previous maps and promises. In this map from 1923, for example, you can see how the British promised all of the westen area to the jews.



Only a few years afterwards, in the Peel convention, the British returned from almost all of their pro-zionist claims and offered an insulting area to the rising jewish nation. Compare the two maps:



How can you keep you're same mantra and exclaim how the Palestians were fooled and robbed? What about the jews, when the British cancelled all their agreements?

The map finally offered by the UN in 47 shows a far more discriminatory area, dividing the future land into several torn pieces, without any real ability to exist or survive.



Another thing...

About the accuracy of Israeli media... well, personally, may I suggest reading the Haartez more, especially it's locally published version (not the online one, but there are translated one offered for sell everywhere in the world). I doubt you would find a great deal of mass-distributed papers in the entire world that are as cynical, criticizing and down-right anti-zionists as the Haaretz. They are far more probing then most Palestinian newspapers I saw (which just invent most of the stuff). Israeli media is one of the last one in the world to be considered as tools of propoganda. Haaretz is also working with liasons with some of the most important papers in the world - the London tribune and the New York Times, and I doubt those two papers would work with Haaretz if it was indeed as... untruthful as you try to picture it.

In addition, about how Israeli media claims something the rest of the world denys... well... Israeli media IS the one with most of the facts. It's the one with the most intrest in the area, the most resources located in the middle-east, and I don't need to elaborate too much about Israel intelligence agency. I would consider it very logical to assume Israeli media knows better then everyone else, just like I expect Taiwan media to know best about the political shifts in China.

To conclude the dicussion...

I haven't read the entire thread. I apologise for that, I only got to the last four pages. But I do think that you have a very misguided opinion about Israel. Modern Israel is hardly zionist, or jewish. Over 20% of the citizens here are not Israeli, with arab, druz, baudin, christian and a few others all vote, have repsentatives in the cabinet, and even have ministers. I think this fact is important to mention because most people just don't know it. They picture Israel as a small, middle-east religious country. So, a few facts:

- Over 20% of Israel are not jewish. With that we are hardly a homogenous country - many european countries are far more humogouns and have far less diversity then Israel.
- Israel is also a parilementral democracy, that besides a few issues with local jewish agencies is placed on top list in terms of work freedom, equality, government integerity, and so on. Far above the US, I need to stress.
- Israel is also not really religious. In fact, we have a 26% atheist rate, which is the fourth in the world.
- Israel is a modern economy, with one of the highest GDP in the world (above many european countries as well). It's main exports are software, computer hardware, agricultural and medicinal technology.

I hope this post is neither too long or looks like a lecture, but quite frankly I see a lot of ignorance about Israel out there. Some of the facts are not even that relevent, but they help.

CyberGnu, whatever it is intentional or not I do feel a lot of misguided hatred toward Israel from your part. I don't think you're anti-semite or that you hate jews - but I do think you don't have a clue what Israel is all about. Did you know that Israel is the only country in the world with a written moral code for it's army? Countrary to public media (especially the CNN), the Israeli army is the most humane western army today. It manages to acomplish most of it's goals with zero casulaties to civilians on both sides, and always work to keep those casulaties to a minimum. We don't carpet bomb cities, like some americans... I mean, people, do. Nor do we even use planes for our strikes - mostly they are precision fire from a VERY low altitude with helicopters.

But no, I am sure you didn't know that. In fact, I am sure that you are just on the way to write a snappy response on my lack of objectivity in the matter, and going to quote on me all sort of... well, lies from the mass media. But I will remind you the arab world, and Europe, only look for excuses to condemn Israel do damnation for war crimes. So far they fail miserably. I saw student riots in France that were calmed with more force then we use here.

I must agree with my less elaqouent member Panag here, and say you really DON'T have a clue what Israel is about. I may be Israeli, but it also let me know things you don't. I tell you Israel is one of the most moral countries you will find. It doesn't hide it's crimes, it doesn't use propoganda, nor a network of lies like you tried to say before. You said everyone do it, well... we don't. You also said you don't place jews in a higher moral level then the rest of the world... but you should. I dare not think what Norway would have done if they were facing the Palestians... or the americans.

Edit: oh, and another thing to a very long post. You keep repeating that "10% jewish population". However, this value is misleading as it was true in 1920's. In 1940's, however, the jewish population reached 50% and was halted back only due to British restrictions. Hundreds of thousands of refgues were halted by the British, many were expelled to nearby Cyprus. Anyone who needed to plan for the future of the Palestine had to take into account the huge influx of immigration that was on route to Israel. Indeed, in the ten years after Israel was established the jewish population TRIPLED itself from immigration. If that value is a bit overwhelming, let me repeat. TRIPLED.

So, yes, 10% is very misleading. It was obivious to all that if Israel was to be the homeland of the jews then jews would be the dominate people in the area. Instead of 10%, say 80% - then try to compare a population of 80% given only 40% of the territory.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Ned, could you explain again your and gnu's posts about the mcmahon - faisal notes and about the sykes pekot agreement?

somehow not everything i read added up to the same conclusions that you made, and i fear it's because lack of sleep on my part.

Sure, as concisely as possible:

1. Hussein writes McMahon and agrees to join with Britain against Turkey on the condition that Britain recognize an independent Arab Caliphate. He defines the territories to extend from the Red Sea and Mediterranean on the West, the headwaters of the Euphrates on the North, Persia on the East, and the Indian Ocean on the south.

2. McMahon replies his agreement, but states that the districts west of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo are not wholly Arab and must be excluded from the Arab Caliphate.

3. Take a look at the map now. The areas described by McMahon have Damascus as the southernmost "district," with Homs and Hama extending north from Damascus, with Aleppo being in the far north. Critically, Amman is not included in McMahon's list. However the map shows the line extending south past Amman. Now why does the map show the line extending south past Amman and, indeed, even further south? The most obvious explanation is that the Vilayet of Damascus included Amman and also Jerusalem for that matter. However this inclusion is justified only if McMahon's initial references to “districts” were intended to refer to Vilayet's. But we note that Aleppo was a separate Vilayet that apparently included Homs and Hama, which are not separate Vilayet’s. This is a first indication that McMahon was not referring to Vilayet's, but was instead referring to geographical areas west of the Damascus. A second indication is that Beruit was also a separate Vilayet. If McMahon were intending to refer to Vilayet's, certainly would have mentioned Beirut.

4. Now compare the McMahon line, but limited only to the areas west of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, with the areas of exclusive French control as illustrated in the Sykes-Picot agreement. The areas defined by McMahon roughly correspond to the French area of exclusive control in the Sykes-Picot agreement.

5. Hussein responds to McMahon's exclusion zone with acceptance with respect to the areas around Adana, but insists that the people of the Vilayet of Beirut and the Vilayet of Aleppo are wholly Arab because Arabs can be both Moslem and Christian. There is no mention in Hussein’s response of Jerusalem or Amman. If Jerusalem were fairly included in the original McMahon exclusion, one would have expected Hussein to mention either Jerusalem or Amman. He would have either protested their inclusion or accepted their exclusion. However he did not mention either city at all, which is consistent with the areas not being part of the original McMahon zone of exclusion.

6. The discussion with Hussein ends in March of 1916. The Sykes-Picot agreement is entered into in May of 1916. But this was a secret deal. It was not published until Lenin published at in late 1918 or early 1919. At this time, Faisal was negotiating with Weizmann concerning Jewish immigration into Palestine. Obviously Faisal thought that he was going to be King of Syria, a Syria that would include Jerusalem. The correspondence between Faisal and Weizmann was very cordial. Faisal agreed to continued large-scale Jewish immigration into Palestine – provided that the deal with the British concerning an Arab Caliphate was fulfilled.

7. The hostility to Jewish immigration began after Faisal learned of the Sykes-Picot agreement, and really took off when the French deposed Faisal as King of Syria. This indicates that Zionism is not the source of Arab hostility to Jewish presence in Palestine. It is rather based on British betrayal.

[Edan]

Perhpas this thread should be renamed to "The Maps Thread"

Originally posted by Ned
6. The discussion with Hussein ends in March of 1916. The Sykes-Pirot is entered into in May of 1916. But this was a secret deal. It was not polished until Lenin published at in late 1918 or early 1919. At this time, Faisal was negotiating with Weizmann concerning Jewish immigration into Palestine. Obviously Faisal thought that he was going to be King of Syria, a Syria that would include Jerusalem. The corresponds between Faisal and Weizmann was very cordial and agreed to continued large-scale Jewish immigration into Palestine.

From the Feisal/Weizmann agreement in 1919:
"Article 2:
Immediately following the completion of the deliberation of the Peace Conference, the definate boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commision to e agreed upon by the parties hereto
....
Article 6:
Mohammedan Holy Places shall remain under Mohammedan Control"
The boundaries were by no means "set in stone" (with the exception of Islamic holy sites).

Also: Letter from Feisal to Frankfurter:
"Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesteday vby the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper."

I can't find anything about the actual proposals, but I kinda doubt that a Zionist proposal would have completely handed over Jerusalem - I could see them proposing joint ownership, or possibly an international city, but completely giving up Jerusalem is extremely unlikely, especially since there were about 34k Jews and 13.5k Muslims in Jerusalem (at least in 1922).

This indicates that Zionism is not the source of Arab hostility to Jewish presence in Palestine. It is rather based on British betrayal.

The British were certainly two-faced (or three faced, even) to all sides and that played a major role in the hostility. Indeed, during the cease fire talks of the 1948 war, Nasser and Rabin had both been part of their respective delegations at the negotiations, and Nasser had told Rabin "Our main enemy is the British... We should be fighting the colonial power rather than you."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Edan
Perhpas this thread should be renamed to "The Maps Thread"

Perhaps. We seemed to have had a full discussion on the origins and causes of the Six Day War: the threat to cut off water from the Golan. Now we have educated ourselves on the sources of Arab hostility to Israel: British duplicity. Hopefully, those on both sides of Israel/Palestinian war are better informed.

Here is a link to the full Weismann-Faisal agreement. It does appear that Faisal was willing to grant independence to a Palestine that was to be a Jewish homeland.

Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann, 3 January, 1919

[Edan]

Huh. I don't know if that map is accurate or not, but if it is, I hadn't been aware that the Golan Heights had been part of the (original) British Mandate, and then given to Syria in 1923, which might (better) explain the lake decision discussed earlier.