israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

[Heresson]

Jewish immigrants have annected 71% of Palestine, occupy the rest, build illegal settlements etc, but these are Palestinians that are harming them? I don't know if I should be laugh or cry.

[Shrapnel12]

Ya, what's wrong with an occasional bomb on a school bus now and then? Tell me Heresson, are you afraid that everytime you use public transportation or walk into a cafe, it'll blow up? Are you a military target? Oops! I forgot the dirty Jews deserve it. Praise Allah!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Ya, what's wrong with an occasional bomb on a school bus now and then? Tell me Heresson, are you afraid that everytime you use public transportation or walk into a cafe, it'll blow up? Are you a military target? Oops! I forgot the dirty Jews deserve it. Praise Allah!

This can just as easily be reversed and said in regards to "the other side" (can they really be called different sides, when they are so similiar?)

Why bother?

[Shrapnel12]

If your point is that Israel has killed innocents as well, this cannot be denied. I won't even deny that Israeli soldiers have commited criminal acts or that overzealous politicians have made unethical decisions that have resulted in Palestinian suffering Tell me however when is the last time an Israeli planted a bomb on a school bus or in a heavy civilian area in attempt to kill just civilians. If you want me to believe that it is Israel's intentional policy to kill off as many Palestinian innocents as they can or that their primary targets are the social centers of Palestinian society, you are seriously deluded.

To summarize, the difference between Israel and Palestine is that Palestinains see civilians as military targets a a main policy. Israel's main target is militants, but civilians are killed accidentally. Some from neglect, some from incompetance, and some from the occasional rougue soldier who decides to take matters in his own hands, but not as official Israeli policy.

[General Ludd]

No, really - Why bother?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Heresson
Jewish immigrants have annected 71% of Palestine, occupy the rest, build illegal settlements etc, but these are Palestinians that are harming them? I don't know if I should be laugh or cry.

1. It's annexed. Further, they didn't annex the territories. One might even come up with an alt. history scenario where annexation created a better outcome than the present situation (occupation & settlement).
2. If the creation of Israel in 1947 is the core issue, there can be no peace. It's done, and there is no undoing it.
3. From what I can tell, ~40% of the West Bank is occupied by Israel, either in settlements of the attendant infrastructure. Blech.
4. Cry. Of course, we need a better crying smilie.

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

One thing I think most people can agree on is that there can be no peace, not without the total annihilation of one side or the other and that's not going to happen unless you believe in some kind of Apocolypse. My only hope is that some scientifice breakthroughs will happen that make people's lives all over the world so happy, they won't squabble over land anymore, not even in the ME. Hey, I can dream can't I?

[Heresson]

The creation of Israel in 1947-8 was a mistake. It can not be undone, but it does not mean Israelis are not responsible for the tragedy they caused.
Declaration of independance was de facto annexation of 51% of Palestine by fresh immigrants. the land Israel gained during its war of independance was annexed as well. Nowdays 71% of original Palestine belongs to Israel. Original inhabitants, Palestinians, have only 29%, and as You yourself claimed, almost half of it is occupied anyway.
Now I am not supprised You do not find it wrong. After all You, Americans, have made the same to Indians.

I do not support palestinian terrorism, but it is not the cause of the problem, it's an answer.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Heresson
Jewish immigrants have annected 71% of Palestine, occupy the rest, build illegal settlements etc, but these are Palestinians that are harming them? I don't know if I should be laugh or cry.

The Saudi-originating Hashemite dynasty has annexed 72% of historical Palestine, contrary to the mandate set up by the League of Nations, and created a country in which over 75% are Palestinians.

Now the Palestinian movement wants to take more land from the already small Jewish homeland.


See, we can both play historical grievances.

[Shrapnel12]

The general impression given in the media is that Palestinians have lived in the Holy Land for hundreds, if not thousands of years. No wonder, then, that a recent poll of French citizens shows that the majority believe (falsely) that prior to the establishment of the State of Israel an independent Arab Palestinian state existed in its place. Yet curiously, when it comes to giving the history of this "ancient" people most news outlets find it harder to go back more than the early nineteen hundreds. CNN, an agency which has devoted countless hours of airtime to the "plight" of the Palestinians, has a website which features a special section on the Middle East conflict called "Struggle For Peace". It includes a promising sounding section entitled "Lands Through The Ages" which assures us it will detail the history of the region using maps. Strangely, it turns out, the maps displayed start no earlier than the ancient date of 1917. The CBS News website has a background section called "A Struggle For Middle East Peace.'' Its history timeline starts no earlier than 1897. The NBC News background section called ''Searching for Peace'' has a timeline which starts in 1916. BBC's timeline starts in 1948.

The above quote is not posted here to show fact, but rather to point out that there is a dispute as to who has the the legitimate claim over "Palestine". From all sources I have ever read and from listening to both sides in the news and on other forums, it leads me to believe that you can't lay original blame. The two-state solution is the only fair solution and the only cause for Palestinian terrorism is blind hatred and prejudice with the rest of the Arab world egging it on. What's wrong Heresson, still bitter the Israel kicked your sorry ass? Why hasn't your country or any other Arab country offered the Palestinians a homeland? Truth is Arabs don't want them around anymore then Jews do. Jews just make the obvious scapegoat.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Heresson
The creation of Israel in 1947-8 was a mistake. It can not be undone, but it does not mean Israelis are not responsible for the tragedy they caused.

Israel is in no way responsible for the poor politics of the so-called arab leadership at the time.

The high arab committee is a poor story of poor politics and a failed leadership that has been unable to do anything besides provoking the local population into several armed pogroms against the Jews, and a revolt.

What ever poor political decisions they made, and what ever poor skills they had - it is the fault of said leadership.

Every hawkish political turn of the Jewish leadership can be traced to be a reaction to Arab instigation and unprovoked violence against Jews.

Funny most of the places Arabs attacked were not new immigrant settlements, but centuries old Jewish communities which have co-existed side by side for ages.

Declaration of independance was de facto annexation of 51% of Palestine by fresh immigrants. the land Israel gained during its war of independance was annexed as well.

The declaration of independence intentionally omits any and all mentions of borders.

The borders as they finalized were accepted as part of a cease fire agreement between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. What ever entity you presume Palesetine is or was, it was conquered and divided between 4 different factions.
Local population had no effective political leadership, as it cowardly ran away, and let the Egyptians and Jordanians do their bidding.

Also, might I remind you, there was no international agreement upon the exact borders and make-up of Palestine. Several suggestions by the UN, and several US and UK inquiring committees were repeatedly ignored and denied by a failed Arab leadership.

After 1967, Jerusalem and a strip of land connecting it to the shore was annexed. Nowdays 71% of original Palestine belongs to Israel.

Incorrect.
72% of "original" Palestine belongs to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Original inhabitants, Palestinians, have only 29%, and as You yourself claimed, almost half of it is occupied anyway.

Original inhabitants should be explained as local inhabitants starting from 1923. There was little or no control of non-Jewish immigration and settlement prior to that.

I do not support palestinian terrorism, but it is not the cause of the problem, it's an answer.

The cause of Palestinian terrorism, is historically instigations and propoganda made by local leaders for advancing their private political fortune.

It started with Mufti Al-Husseini, who instead of promoting a viable Palestinian state-mechanism instigated mass violence and riots, thus strengthening his own position, but weakening the Palestinian political cause.

Continued with Egyptian run PLO during Shukeiri. After that Arafat setting up his own state in Jordan and then in Lebanon, and finally in Gaza and the West Bank, where he did everything possible to prevent the creation of serious state foundations.

[Sirotnikov]

The above quote is not posted here to show fact, but rather to point out that there is a dispute as to who has the the legitimate claim over "Palestine". From all sources I have ever read and from listening to both sides in the news and on other forums, it leads me to believe that you can't lay original blame.

QFT

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The Saudi-originating Hashemite dynasty

They'd be very offended if You told them so. They were from Hijaz (Higaz), not from Saudi Arabia. But what You mean, that they were not Palestinians, is true.

has annexed 72% of historical Palestine, contrary to the mandate set up by the League of Nations, and created a country in which over 75% are Palestinians.

[quote]
the origins of the mandate are from 1920, of transjordan 1921. Both were finally separated in 1923.
You could argue that this land belonged to the mandate for two or three years. But it doesn't make it "historical Palestine". And it can hardly be said it annexed part of Palestine because it was part of it, so it could at best separate, secede from it.
Anyway, your claim that since there's Jordan, Palestine proper can be taken by Jews is as mad as if someone would say in , say, 1970, that since Germans have DDR, they can give western Germany to turkish or moroccan immigrants...


Also

the British, with the League's approval under the terms of the Mandate , partitioned Palestine at the Jordan River and established the semi-autonomous Emirate of Trans-Jordan in those territories to the east.

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

Now the Palestinian movement wants to take more land from the already small Jewish homeland.

More? As if Mandate of Palestine was to become a jewish state? Mandate of Palestine was made for PALESTINIANS. For people living in its territory. When it was created, perhaps a fifth of its population were Jews, and most of them were immigrants, living there for a decade or two. Jews shouldn't have gotten an inch of its territory.

The general impression given in the media is that Palestinians have lived in the Holy Land for hundreds, if not thousands of years. No wonder, then, that a recent poll of French citizens shows that the majority believe (falsely) that prior to the establishment of the State of Israel an independent Arab Palestinian state existed in its place. Yet curiously, when it comes to giving the history of this "ancient" people most news outlets find it harder to go back more than the early nineteen hundreds.

This is a typical israeli propaganda. Perhaps the people there started feeling Palestinian in XIX century, but they lived there for hundreds of years already. I don't think there were "Libyans" for example, until early XX century. Does it mean the land of their forefathers can be given to anyone that wants it?
it's an old trick. Siro, if I remember correctly, tried to prove (but failed), that Palestinians actually aren't descendants of Arabs living there 200, 400, 800 years earlier. It's because Israelis have a complex of immigrants, and want to prove, againsts facts, that Palestinians are fresh immigrants as well.

The two-state solution is the only fair solution

Why? If the Welsh, Gaels and Irish migrated en masse to the area around Stonehenge and demanded independance for "Reborned Celtia" or whatever, would it be granted to them?

Israel is in no way responsible for the poor politics of the so-called arab leadership at the time.

The high arab committee is a poor story of poor politics and a failed leadership that has been unable to do anything besides provoking the local population into several armed pogroms against the Jews, and a revolt.

What ever poor political decisions they made, and what ever poor skills they had - it is the fault of said leadership.

Every hawkish political turn of the Jewish leadership can be traced to be a reaction to Arab instigation and unprovoked violence against Jews.

Funny most of the places Arabs attacked were not new immigrant settlements, but centuries old Jewish communities which have co-existed side by side for ages.

Arabs had the dumbest political strategy ever. They helped Jews themselves. But do we blame native Americans or Sub-Saharean Africans for that they weren't mature enough to repeal colonial invasion? Jews were among the most cultural and developed nations in the world. Arabs weren't, and, sadly, still aren't. You've had a tremendous advantage over them, and You used it without scruples. I can't really blame You, but it is an outrage to deny Palestinians the right not to be pleased about it.
Anyway, I know how these things work. I am writing my thesis about persecution of christians... And a byzantine victory ment a burned church in Al-Fustat... I am pretty sure Palestinians and Arabs aren't angels and aren't playing fair. But it doesn't mean You are.

72% of "original" Palestine belongs to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

So it belongs to another branch of Palestinians. With addition of Aqaba and a bit of the desert.

[Asher]

This is a supremely dumb idea.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Heresson
They'd be very offended if You told them so. They were from Hijaz (Higaz), not from Saudi Arabia. But what You mean, that they were not Palestinians, is true.

You did correctly identify what was the main point, however.

Originally posted by Heresson
You could argue that this land belonged to the mandate for two or three years. But it doesn't make it "historical Palestine". And it can hardly be said it annexed part of Palestine because it was part of it, so it could at best separate, secede from it.

I refer you to Map of Palestine during the Middle Ages according to the description of the Arab geographers, drawn by Geo. Armstrong, from Palestine Under the Muslims: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from AD 650 to 1500, by Guy Le Strange, London 1890
The date is important because it is an authentic document from a time preceding the politicization of the Palestine question.

Notice how this map includes the entire western trans-Jordan, and the writing FILISTIN goes on to Amman and beyond.

Also:

Quoted from Wikipedia on: Definitions_of_Palestine_and_Palestinian
Palestine was divided between the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem. Sometimes the rift valley comprising Wadi Arabah, the Dead Sea and River Jordan has formed a political and administrative frontier, even within empires which controlled both territories and sometimes not. The ancient Kingdom of Israel and the Hasmonean state for example included territories on both sides of the river. During the period of the Caliphate what is today southern Israel/Palestine and southern Jordan were termed Jund Filasteen (جند فلسطين) and the northern parts of these land as Al Jund al Urdun. In 1920, most of modern Jordan was incorporated into the planned League of Nations mandate territory termed Palestine. Trans-Jordan became a separate political unit on April 11, 1921 and the Mandate came into force in September 1923 as the Emirate of Transjordan. 19th Century sources refer to Palestine as extending from the sea to the caravan route, presumably the Hejaz-Damascus route east of the Jordan River valley. Others refer to it as extending from the sea to the desert.

Notice the bold part.
During the Caliphate, the border was between north Israel and South Israel. Not between the west bank and the east bank.
During 19th century, "Historical Palestine" continues well into today's Jordan.

Originally posted by Heressonthe British, with the League's approval under the terms of the Mandate , partitioned Palestine at the Jordan River and established the semi-autonomous Emirate of Trans-Jordan in those territories to the east.

Slightly Misrepresented.

The League of Nation's original text did not call for partition nor establishing a Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan.

Quoted from Wikipedia on: 1922_Text:_League_of_Nations_Palestine_Mandate
Many articles of the document specified actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status. However, it was also stated that in the large, mostly arid, territory to the east of the Jordan River, then called Transjordan, Britain could ‘postpone or withhold’ application of the provisions dealing with the 'Jewish National Home'. In September 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved on 23 September. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine (which was 23% of the entire territory), and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan (constituting 77% of the mandated territories).

The original document called for a principle of a Jewish national homeland in the territory, with the trans-jordan area being eligible to postponement.

The brits though, wisely maneuvered it to set up their own puppet state.

Originally posted by Heresson
More? As if Mandate of Palestine was to become a jewish state? Mandate of Palestine was made for PALESTINIANS. For people living in its territory.

INCORRECT

read:

Quoted from Wikipedia on: 1922_Text:_League_of_Nations_Palestine_Mandate
The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" and “secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home” while safeguarding "the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine” and "political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

The document defining Britain’s obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home

The mandate's specific goal called for an establishment of a Jewish national home (= nation == nation state).

"while preserving civil and religious rights of local inhabitants" = nothing about their self determination.

Originally posted by Heresson
This is a typical israeli propaganda. Perhaps the people there started feeling Palestinian in XIX century, but they lived there for hundreds of years already. I don't think there were "Libyans" for example, until early XX century. Does it mean the land of their forefathers can be given to anyone that wants it?

There are two different notions

First, there is self determination.
Palestinian self determination (beyond ruling elites) only formed since the middle 20th century.
Since it is an existing fact, I don't deny it, nor do I deny their right for self determination, self governance, having a state and everything.

Then there's the claim that Palestinians "lived here for hundreds of years" while Jews were always an insignificant minority / all came from Europe in the 20th century.

This is incredibly misleading because there has been constant change in the number of Jews and non-Jews living in Palestine due to economical and political causes.

While Jews were never a majority in the entire Palestine, they enjoyed strong bases of settlement, that were often disrupted due to brutal attacks and political changes:

[size=1]Quoted from Wikipedia on: History_of_Palestine/size]
Following the expulsions from Spain, the Jewish population of Palestine rose to around 25% (includes non-Ottoman citizens, excludes Bedouin) and regained its former stronghold of Eastern Galilee. That ended in 1660 when they were massacred at Safed and Jerusalem. During the reign of Dahar al Omar, Pasha of the Galilee, Jews from Ukraine began to resettle Tiberias.

And more:

[size=1]Quoted from Wikipedia on: History_of_Palestine/size]
Many Circassians and Bosnian Muslims were settled in the north of Palestine by the Ottomans in the early 19th Century. In the 1830's Egypt conquered Palestine and made some minor improvements and many Egyptians, in particular soldiers, settled there. It was however during this period that the Jews of Safed were massacred in 1831 by Druzes. Safed was resettled with Kurds and Algerians. This was followed in 1837 by earthquakes in Safed and Tiberias.

So much for the "peacefully living side by side for hundreds of years" story.

Originally posted by Heresson
Arabs had the dumbest political strategy ever. They helped Jews themselves. But do we blame native Americans or Sub-Saharean Africans for that they weren't mature enough to repeal colonial invasion? Jews were among the most cultural and developed nations in the world. Arabs weren't, and, sadly, still aren't. You've had a tremendous advantage over them, and You used it without scruples. I can't really blame You, but it is an outrage to deny Palestinians the right not to be pleased about it.

I don't see your point.

Your representation of the Jews as a rich, successfull and ruthless conqueror is blatantly false of course.

Jews have been persecuted and denied owning property in most of Europe, especially in the eastern block, where 99% of immigrants came from. Unless you intend to claim that it was the highly emancipated rich German Jews that first immigrated to Palestine.

Second, let's assume we were in a slightly better position than the Palestinians in the early 20th century. Were we supposed to forgo our historical rights, because "oh those poor locals can't get a grip on themselves"?

Actually, all the prominent early Yishuv thinkers saw Israel as a socialist Jewish-Arab federation of some sort, rather than a Jewish-only nation state.

The ideological change began to occur during the 1920's when the arab elites responded with violence, pogroms and even more violence.

Originally posted by Heresson
Anyway, I know how these things work. I am writing my thesis about persecution of christians... And a byzantine victory ment a burned church in Al-Fustat... I am pretty sure Palestinians and Arabs aren't angels and aren't playing fair. But it doesn't mean You are.

I never claimed we play fair. We do have a goal in mind, and it is conflicting with the Palestinian stated goal of "no Jewish state allowed".

But Zionists are hardly the colonialist bastards you make them out to be. You're misrepresenting history to make Zionists appear to be evil unprovoked aggressors and Palestinians to be silly, poor abused victims of a robbery.

The reality is a thousand times more complex.

Originally posted by Heresson
So it belongs to another branch of Palestinians. With addition of Aqaba and a bit of the desert.

Great.
Then I decide the West Bank belongs to "another branch" of Jews, who control cities where there was almost constant Jewish presence for millennia such as Hebron, and Nablus.