Syrian Ambassd. speaks of Syria's peace initative; Shuns acknowledging Israeli press

[Ned]

H. do you really believe Jews had no reason to leave Europe and form a homeland of their own after their experience there?

[Ned]

BTW, history of the ME may have developed much more peaceably had the Brits not first promised the Arabs the part of Syria we now know as Palestine (the name resurrected from the Roman Province), and then renegged on that promise by keeping it themselves. The Arabs had signed a letter agreement with the Zionist leaders agreeing that "Palestine" would be a Jewish homeland -- provided that the Brits live up to their agreement with them about sovereignty. Once the Brits broke their agreement, the Arabs "revolted" and began the long war both with the Brits and with the Jews of Palestine and now Israel.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned
H. do you really believe Jews had no reason to leave Europe and form a homeland of their own after their experience there?

Yes! After ww2, at least in the West, there is hardly a reason to expect some major danger for them.
Anyway, to have their homeland and to settle on already inhabited territory and claim it for themselves....

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, history of the ME may have developed much more peaceably had the Brits not first promised the Arabs the part of Syria we now know as Palestine (the name resurrected from the Roman Province), and then renegged on that promise by keeping it themselves. The Arabs had signed a letter agreement with the Zionist leaders agreeing that "Palestine" would be a Jewish homeland -- provided that the Brits live up to their agreement with them about sovereignty. Once the Brits broke their agreement, the Arabs "revolted" and began the long war both with the Brits and with the Jews of Palestine and now Israel.

No, history of ME would have developed much more peacefully had the Brits not made any promises and concessions towards Jews. They have already promised Arabs the land, where the Arabs were the autochtonic majority, and Jews an immigrant minority...
Arabs (Hashimites) did agree that Palestine would be a "National Residence" for Jews, but there was no talking about a state back then.
And jewish immigration was perceived very badly by citizens of Palestine themselves, they revolted a couple of times against it.
Palestine was a mandate... which ment that the British had the task of preparing it for independance.
So the promises were broken by the Brits twice.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson


Yes! After ww2, at least in the West, there is hardly a reason to expect some major danger for them.

You forget that Eastern Europe was occuppied by the Red Army. No was accepting Jewish refugees, not even the British Mandate who had cut a deal with the Arabs to keep new Jews out.

Post WWII Europe was not hunky-dory for surviving Jews.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson
Anyway, to have their homeland and to settle on already inhabited territory and claim it for themselves....

You mash a lot of history into that one sentence.

The Turks permited Jewish immigration.

So did the Brits for a while.

Jewish immigrants bought land upon which they settled. No one stole anything from anybody.

No one claimed anything for themselves until after WWII, 1947.

The UN, for gods sake, said the Jews and Arabs had to divide Palestine into two states. No one grabbed anything.

It was the Arabs who made war on Israel when it was first founded.

Syria and Egypt started the '67 war by engaging in acts of war.

Egypt attacked Israel in '73.

Every Israeli incursion into Arab territory since has been preceded by Arab attacks on Israel from those territories.

There is only one good guy in this story and only two bad guys. The good guy is Israel. The bad guys are the Brits and the Arabs. No fair observer could look on this sad situation and actually root for the bad guys like you do, IMHO.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson

No, history of ME would have developed much more peacefully had the Brits not made any promises and concessions towards Jews. They have already promised Arabs the land, where the Arabs were the autochtonic majority, and Jews an immigrant minority...
Arabs (Hashimites) did agree that Palestine would be a "National Residence" for Jews, but there was no talking about a state back then.
And jewish immigration was perceived very badly by citizens of Palestine themselves, they revolted a couple of times against it.
Palestine was a mandate... which ment that the British had the task of preparing it for independance.
So the promises were broken by the Brits twice.

You do agree that the Turks and the Brits both allowed legal Jewish immigration for a long time. Why were the Brits wrong in continuing what the prior government allowed?

Even the Arab leaders had said they would continue Jewish immigration.

The Arab revolts began soon after the Arabs were betrayed by the Brits and the French when the Brits kept Palestine as a Mandate and the French displaced the newly installed Arab king in Damascus and took over Syria for themselves. It is clear the major spark for the revolt(s) was the betrayals of the Brits and French and had nothing to do with Jewish immigration.

As you said, in those days, there was no talk of a Jewish state independent from Arab rule. The Arabs wanted the French and Brits out and were content to have the Jews live in Palestine so long as it was under Arab sovereignty.

That is why I said the real problem in the ME was caused by the Brits (and the French).

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned
You mash a lot of history into that one sentence.

The Turks permited Jewish immigration.

So did the Brits for a while.

Jewish immigrants bought land upon which they settled. No one stole anything from anybody.

Jews had special institutions faciliating buying land...
and the land was being bought from landowners, largely non-Arabs. To make room for Jewish settlers, arabic peasants were being kicked out.

The UN, for gods sake, said the Jews and Arabs had to divide Palestine into two states. No one grabbed anything.

On what basis does a 1/3 minority, being in definite most immigrants not even borned in this land, got majority of the country's territory? Lets imagine year 2060. Beurs, constituting now a third of France's population, demand division of France into two states. UN (America and Brits especially) gladly comply...

It was the Arabs who made war on Israel when it was first founded.

Lets say Poles of Chicago declare independance, somehow supported by UN. Wouldn't US fight that?

Every Israeli incursion into Arab territory since has been preceded by Arab attacks on Israel from those territories.

in order to liberate territories earlier captured by Israel

There is only one good guy in this story and only two bad guys. The good guy is Israel. The bad guys are the Brits and the Arabs. No fair observer could look on this sad situation and actually root for the bad guys like you do, IMHO.

Everyone who disagrees with You is not a "fair observer", right?

There are two bad guys and one dumb guy. Bad guys are the British and zionists, the dumb guy is Arabs.
Jews had no right to establish a state there and do with Palestinians what they did and what they continue to do until today.
Arabs had all the reasons necessary to start the wars. They completely failed in their policy, their policy from the very beginning was naive, primitive, ineffective. But they were and are right.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Heresson
because it's easy to make them look jewish, and less easy to make them look zionist

yeah. that's a good cover up for... anti-semitism.

Israel caused creation of PLO and presence of Palestinians in Lebanon, and they were the real reason behind the civil war

You ought to have your history straight.

PLO was founded in 1964, by direct intervention of Egypt, to use as a political front to attack Israel. 1964 predates any Israeli attack on 1967 areas, the widely purported reason for the conflict, these days.

Palestinians went to Lebanon because they were kicked out by Jordan in 1970.
Why? Because they attempted to stage a coup and a hostile takeover the country. Syria tried to intervene in their favor, and later supported their flight to Lebanon.

Israel has nothing to do with either of those.

Deary, I've been in this city... a couple of times.
It was an armed revolt against the state, and according to syrian version at least, it was lead by dangerous fundamentalists (allegedly they were killing women who didn't wear a scarf, f.e.). I'm not saying all of that is necessarily true, and definitely destroying the Old Town and killing such a lot can be seen as overreaction, but it's like with Hiroshima bomb... at least there's been relative peace from now on.

Yeah.

Well, I'll remember it for the next time Israeli muslims stage a revolt. Killing 20,000 of them ought to shut them up... Obviously that's not how Israel acts.

The biggotry of you saying that, and then proceeding to accuse Israel of nonsense, is incredible.

Even though you do hold correct views on some other issues of the world, and posses a certain sense of humor.
I sincerely hope you're 'baiting' me. Otherwise it's pretty bleak.

Because, thanks to Israel mostly (though not only), it wasn't allowed to exist. These territories do not belong to Israel. As well as Golan, Sinai, southern Lebanon, Shebaa do not. Yet Israel, breaking international law and UN resolutions used to occupy / continues to occupy them and
fill with its settlers. It's a good strategy, the way that - in even more brutal and almost genocidial way - Rome carried out in its early days during the conquest of Italy.

It wasn't allowed to exist because of Israel.
Israel supported the partition plan in 1947...


Your beloved Syria breaks countless UN resolutions regarding occupation of Lebanon, supporting armed militias and what not.

Israeli policies weren't ever brutal. Israel has poured tons of money into the occupied territories. It built new neighborhoods, created government, created 6 universities, supported religious life and what not.

Only the rise in terrorism has provoked Israel to aggressive actions.

That is simply not true
And if there was no Palestinian movement prior to 1948, why do the Israelis complain about the mufti of Jerusalem in the wartime period? Why were there not one, but actually two palestinian armies fighting Jews in this day?

There were local ruling elites, such as the nashashibis, and the husseinis (to which the mufti was part).

Ruling elites does not equal a people. They're just that - local elites of several cities.

"Palestine" was always historically concieved as a suburb of "Area of Damascus / Greater Syria". You can check out history books and the county lines in the Ottoman empire. Never was there an autonomous urge and definition by local dwellers.

some quotes:

Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations
Jerusalem, February 1919

"We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."

Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi
Testimony before the Peel comission 1937

"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

Representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the UN
General Assembly, May 1947

"Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" [...] politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."

Ahmed Shuqeiri, (later first chairman of the PLO)
UN Security Council 1956

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8

Anyway, it's not a reason not to give them a state.
[....]

At the risk of repeating myself:
I never said that there being no palestinian nation / movement prior to 1948 should in any way prevent them from getting a state now.
I'm all for them getting a state, inside certain borders.
I don't deny the palestinians exist now.

I'm claiming that in the historic context, the palestinian movement did not exist in 1948, and in large part way until 1967. In many ways Israel created and united totally unrelated people, into a single context.

As such, I think that Israel can not and should not be judged in the context of "stealing a sovereign land".
The creation of Israel dislocated people, sure. It did not dislocate "a" people. Just people.

The whole Palestinian story and heritage was created in the diaspora. There is little or no "Palestinian history".

Some were city dwellers, some were nomads (recently settled beduins). Gaza saw themselves as part of Egypt. The West Bank and Galilee saw themselves as part of "pan-arab syria" or what ever.

Assuming that a national movement existed, and was squashed by Israel, is mostly rewriting history.

You didn't move out of Lebanon completely. If You did, Hezbollah would have no excuse for attacking You.

The UN acknowledged we moved out completely.
The Sheba farms were always part of Syria.

In any case, Hezbullah needs no excuse. Ever since 2000 Nasrallah speaks of "continuing the resistance" in the context of a larger struggle against Israel and the palestinian conflict.

You ought to read his speeches.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson

Lets say Poles of Chicago declare independance, somehow supported by UN. Wouldn't US fight that?

given, A. The Poles had no historical connection to Chicago prior to immigrating to the US. B. The US was a soveriegn state at the time Polish immigration began. C. Poles already have a sovereign state, in Poland, its hardly comparable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
On what basis does a 1/3 minority, being in definite most immigrants not even borned in this land, got majority of the country's territory? Lets imagine year 2060. Beurs, constituting now a third of France's population, demand division of France into two states. UN (America and Brits especially) gladly comply...

Lets imagine its 1919, and the descendants of Polish immigrants to the historical capital of Lithuania, Vilna, ask to be part of Poland ......

[Heresson]

Israel has nothing to do with either of those.

Do You really believe that without Israel, there would be PLO?

Well, I'll remember it for the next time Israeli muslims stage a revolt. Killing 20,000 of them ought to shut them up... Obviously that's not how Israel acts.

I'll put it this way: I find it more appropriate for a gouverment to kill "its" people than not its. From what I know, Israeli Arabs, though second-class citizens, are fairly calm.
Please, give all the Palestinians Israeli citizenship and annect Western Bank officially... mae Israel a Jewish and Arab state... that's another way of solving the problem, You know

Your beloved Syria breaks countless UN resolutions regarding occupation of Lebanon,

not any more. Still it does more in accordance with UN than Israel.

Israeli policies weren't ever brutal. Israel has poured tons of money into the occupied territories. It built new neighborhoods, created government, created 6 universities, supported religious life and what not.

It nice if it's true, but it needn't have. Keeping illegal jewish settlers from Palestinian Territories would gain it more sympathy.

There were local ruling elites, such as the nashashibis, and the husseinis (to which the mufti was part).

Ruling elites does not equal a people. They're just that - local elites of several cities.

It's always been starting with that

"Palestine" was always historically concieved as a suburb of "Area of Damascus / Greater Syria". You can check out history books and the county lines in the Ottoman empire. Never was there an autonomous urge and definition by local dwellers.

there was, once, I recall, but less than in Lebanon for sure.
Your quotes come from people dedicated to the idea of Greater Syria... such people exist today as well, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Jordan...

I'm all for them getting a state, inside certain borders.

what boarders, exactly?

As such, I think that Israel can not and should not be judged in the context of "stealing a sovereign land".
The creation of Israel dislocated people, sure. It did not dislocate "a" people. Just people.
(...)
Assuming that a national movement existed, and was squashed by Israel, is mostly rewriting history.

Palestinians do have certain charecteristic, at least christians.
But it's not the point. The point is that Jews didn't have rights for this land. Taking it from Palestinians or from Greater Syrians it's less important.

The UN acknowledged we moved out completely.
The Sheba farms were always part of Syria.

No, they were part of Lebanon occupied by Syria for 10 years or so until Israel capured them.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Lets imagine its 1919, and the descendants of Polish immigrants to the historical capital of Lithuania, Vilna, ask to be part of Poland ......

My dear, these were not immigrants. Grand Duchy of Lithuania used to have byelorussian as its official language even before union with Poland. Byelorussian is very close to polish, and it got even more so during this times (during USSR era, it was kind of re-ruthenised). Later it was switched to polish. Grand Duchy of Lithuania in its late days was a state of polish culture, not lithuanian... just like meklemburg was not a lechite state anymore. Until late XIX century, lithuanian nation in ethnic sense did not exist. Lithuanians, including the lithuanian-speaking peasants of Zmudz, were de facto part of polish nation, took part in polish uprisings etc. Many, many important Poles of XIX and XX century came from Lithuania/Byelorus and did consider themselves Lithuanians = Poles. Mickiewicz is a good example. His is the polish national epopee, in which we learn that our fatherland is Lithuania and how lovely are the lands and folk from over Niemen river.
Poles of Lithuania were not result of immigration, but peaceful polonisation. I'd compare it to a process (though there was lots of more colonisation there, since MA) that took place in Polabie (Meklemburg, Brandenburg, part of Holstein, Wendenland), Pomerania, Silesia. Many of Germans there are in fact immigrants, but most are of Lechite: polish, polabian, pomeranian, origin.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


given, A. The Poles had no historical connection to Chicago prior to immigrating to the US. B. The US was a soveriegn state at the time Polish immigration began. C. Poles already have a sovereign state, in Poland, its hardly comparable.

OK. So lets say the Bretons start to emmigrate en masse to Cornwales or whatever it is called. They came from there after all, now they want to return. They have no souvereign state, and France persecutes them.

Still

a) Jewish "connection" was outdated, obsolete.
b) irrelevant. Mandate ment Palestine was to become independant in its unity
c) Jews had an autonomic republic within USSR

[Edan]

Originally posted by Heresson


b) irrelevant. Mandate ment Palestine was to become independant in its unity

... with Transjordan.

[Heresson]

no