BS: Palestine

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:45 PM

"the relevant date is 1947"

No - the relevant date is 2011.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 05:59 PM

One thing I will say is that I have never met a Palestinian person I did not really like. Their level of politeness is amazing..not that I would stereotype. I am sure there are rude ones, but the ones I have met are very charming and humble. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 06:17 PM

As the colonial imposed plantations of Northern Ireland haven't fared too well, my assumption is that the colonially imposed Israel is likely to fare similarly.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 11 - 11:27 PM

Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are, McGrath; it really isn't necessary!

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 02:54 AM

It's curious to see who is getting hot under the collar about this.

The UN had (and has) power to admit members. In my view it should admit Palestine as a member and sufficient reason is the need to be even-handed. It does not have the right to give away the land of others. It is not a legitimate world government.

I have not said that the treaties ending WW1 were not valid as between the parties. All I have said is that the parties to them had no right to give away the land of others. They could of course renounce their own claims to lands.

Thus the appointment of the UK to govern the mandated territories conferred no right to do so.

Thus the 1947/8 disposition also conferred no right to give away the land of others. Note "others".

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 03:56 AM

McGrath has been pleading from the start of this thread that we concern ourselves mainly with the current issue of UN membership and statehood, on the very reasonable grounds that the historical background has been debated before, at some length.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 05:36 AM

As the situation stands today, the following should be all for acceptance of the Palestinian proposal and for the granting of full UN membership and recognition of Palestine as an independent sovereign state:

- Anyone who wishes to do permanent damage to the United Nations;
- Israeli hardline "zionists";
- Iran;
- Syria;
- Turkey.

Oddly enough counted amongst the ranks of those opposed are Hamas and Hezbollah who see the formal creation and recognition of such a Palestinian state as a betrayal.

Some facts with regard to this newly created Palestinian State:

1. It becomes internationally responsible for the activities of its citizens within its borders.

2. It becomes responsible for acts committed by its citizens against other nations and their citizens.

3. Becoming a full member of the United Nations requires that Palestine (new member) FORMALLY RECOGNISE the State of Israel (member since 1949) and acknowledge their right to live in peace free from threat of attack.

So grant Palestine "statehood" and the next rocket, mortar shell or kidnapping attempt initiated from inside Palestine against Israel all of a sudden becomes an attack by one member state on another. The state of Palestine as represented by Mahmoud Abbas cannot throw their hands in the air and claim we're sorry but we cannot control our own citizens - that would no longer be accepted as the government of Palestine you have to control your citizens if they are engaged in attacking another member state.

Palestine could of course acquire allies to aid their cause and by gathering them around her could possibly attempt to deter Israeli retaliation (Which Israel by the terms of the UN Charter would be fully justified in taking). But that takes us back to the situation that existed in 1948 and we all know how that turned out don't we, only this time the game would be seen through to completion and basically I would not give a "rats ass" for the chances of Egyptian; Syrian; Lebanese; Jordanian or Palestinian forces, all of whom for their entire existence have only ever performed one function and exercised one role - that of suppressing their own people in order to keep the ruling cliques in power. The IDF on the other hand for the last 63 years has fought and prepared itself to defend their country - they have learned well and they have become damn good at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 06:42 AM

Thanks for getting the point I have been trying to make, Keith.

Most of Teribus's argument in that last post actually tends to support the case for recognition of Palestinian statehood.

However the suggestion that terrorist actions "initiated" from inside the territory of a state are equivalent to an attack by that state does not stand up to scrutiny. The actions of private individuals or groups are to be distinguished from the actions of the government. The Norwegian government was not responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik, and would not have been responsible if he had chosen to carry them out across the Swedish border instead of within his own country.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 12:10 PM

I do not normally get involved in these Mudcat poliical discussions. However, what I find in this thread is a lot of bad history, poor logic and, in some cases, total ignorance of the the facts. In any case, I believe that the state of Israel has every right to exist...two thousand years of virulent European anti semitism have made it essential that the Jewish people have a safe haven, safe from hate and persecution.
   I also believe that the Palestinian people have a right to a homeland. However, a Palestinian state could not thrive sharing a border with Israel...there would never be any peace for either.
   It would seem to me that all of the Arab states must be involved in any descision to create a Palestinian state and that Israel would be wise to stay out of the negotiations unless a common border were proposed.
   This is a very complicated issue, ignorance and hyperbole wount solve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 02:30 PM

How could there not be a common border?
Where do you see this state being located?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 02:46 PM

"The Norwegian government was not responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik, and would not have been responsible if he had chosen to carry them out across the Swedish border instead of within his own country."

Kevin I do not think that even with the wildest stretches of imagination can anyone think that you are comparing apples to apples.

But anyway let us play out your rather idiotic comparison:

Had Breivik carried out his attack in Sweden then the Swedish authorities would fully expect Norway to hand over Breivik to answer for his crimes in a Swedish Court.

Now in all honesty please tell me how far the writ of the Palestinian Authority extends in Gaza? I will tell you Kevin - not a whit - Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah can go take a poke at a rolling doughnut as far as Hamas in Gaza go, and therein lies the problem. The United Nations is being asked on the grounds of pure emotion to welcome into it's fold and create a country that seeks the annihilation and total destruction of another member state, which when all said and done is a pretty poor move - downright disastrous in fact - it goes against everything the UN stands for.

Should, after formal recognition of the State of Palestine, there be an attack on Israel from "Palestine" (my guess it would come from Gaza) then the UN Security Council MUST come down on the side of the victim and condemn the aggressor, so shortly after having been accepted as a full member Palestine would find itself on the receiving end of both Israeli retaliatory attacks and UN censure.

So unless the "Palestinian" Government are fully prepared to screw the nut and curb the extremists inside its borders they are on a guaranteed hiding to nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 03:11 PM

So long as there is Palestinian denial of the right of Israel to exist, a common border would doom the entire process. The nations of the middle east, who have most to gain from prolonged peace, should be the ones who resolve the Palestinian Problem. For far too long the West has tried to act as the sole negotiator...this clearly does not work. Where excatly a Palestinian state should be, should be determined by those who will have to provide a physical manifestation of a Palestinian state. Neither Europe or America can do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 03:24 PM

I was making a point about what I perceived as a fault in the logic of what Teribus had said about there being an automatic identity between the actions of a government and an action of individuals or groups living in a country. There is no such automatic identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 04:35 PM

a common border would doom the entire process

It's a bit hard to see what HiLo means here - I don't think he or she can be meaning that a "Palestinian" state could be set up in some part of the world well away from Israel, with the Palestinians being deported there - with Israel continuing to have a common border with other countries, which in the circumstances would hardly be likely to view it as a friendly neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 05:10 PM

I think he/she does, and the same person said, "what I find in this thread is a lot of bad history, poor logic and, in some cases, total ignorance of the the facts" !

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 11 - 07:31 PM

Well, does Israel have a right to exist, just because it was invented after the war in a fit of guilt?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 12:32 AM

It wasn't 'invented' then, Mrrzy, or 'just because'. Not saying these were not factors at the time in influencing the UN in its decisions [which it had the best right to determine & carry thru, however much Richard Bridge may bluff & bluster & go on spouting pigshit], but to attribute the entirety of the fact of Israel as an 'invention ... just because of ... in a fit of guilt' is the kind of mindless over-simplfied ¼-or-less-truth that is worse than a lie because it is an attempt to conceal and befog the actual truth. You will have to do a bit better than that.

"Right to exist"? Has the USA? ~ ask the Cree Nations. Has Mexico? Ask the Aztecs. Has Bangladesh? Ask the Pakistanis. Has Pakistan? Ask the Indians ........

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 03:02 AM

"Well, does Israel have a right to exist" - Mrrzy

According to the Charter of the United Nations it does. In fact that Charter guarantees its right to exist. A bi-lateral defence treaty concluded with the United States of America in 1948 guarantees Israel's right to exist - take it from there.

Attacks on a sovereign nation by terrorist groups based in another state, require that the "host" state do all in their power to curb and prevent such attacks. If the "host" state do nothing to curb and prevent the attacks and do not bring those carrying them out to justice, then the "host" country can be viewed as being complicit in those attacks and is open to retaliation.

Examples:
The Republic of Ireland was never held responsible for harbouring and aiding IRA attacks in Northern Ireland or on the mainland. The IRA was a proscribed and illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland decades before it was proscribed in the UK

Afghanistan under the rule of the Taleban was held responsible for harbouring and aiding Al-Qaeda and was subsequently attacked in order that the "host" regime could be overthrown.

The Lebanon, after the 2006 Israeli invasion, Hezbollah improved it's political "footprint" in the country and became part of the ruling coalition. In December 2008 and January 2009 during Operation "Cast Lead" IIRC there was one single instance of a rocket being fired into northern Israel from South Lebanon - Hezbollah immediately disclaimed responsibility for launching the missile and assured the Israeli's that they would do everything in their power to ensure there would be no repetition - They held good to their promise - there has not been a single instance of a rocket attack on Israel from the Lebanon since.

Once granted statehood if there are any attacks on Israel launched from inside either Gaza (most likely) or from the West Bank then Mahmoud Abbas and his "Government" have to arrest and punish those responsible or hand them over to the Israeli's, if they do neither then they are as complicit as the Taleban were and as such are open to retaliatory strikes by Israel and censure from the UN in the form of sanctions and withdrawal of aid.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 04:21 AM

One of the more concerning elements of this matter, is that if the UN General Assembly do ultimately vote to recognise Palestine as a state, there are moves afoot within Israel and the US to annex the West Bank.

Repuplicans have already drafted a bill in support of such an Israeli action to "explain to the Palestinians that actions have consequences."

I've had a little difficulty finding decent news sources discussing this development this morning (I think the Guardian may have something for anyone inclined to do a more thorough search), but here's something from an anti-war journal - which is perhaps pertinent:

US Republican support for proposed Israeli annexing of West Bank

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 04:25 AM

Oh, and there are a number of related links to various other articles on the web, linked to within that piece also.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 06:07 AM

Calm down Mr Myers. One cannot lift oneself by the bootstraps.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 06:38 AM

Annexing the West Bank would have some interesting implications. It would mean that the partition of Palestine dating from 1947/8 was largely reversed. It would mean that there would be over two million more Arabs in the resulting country that there are in Israel at present.

It seems likely that Hamas would welcome this development.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 08:52 AM

Do you mean me, Mr Bridges? My name is Grosvenor Myer ~~ most singular!

And I am perfectly calm, I thank you... Though must declare self entirely at a loss as to what bootstraps, or any use to which same might be put, have to do with the case. Would you care to elucidate?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 10:01 PM

Hey, we Amurricans killed off the natives fair and square. (Please, please don't take this wrong. It's coming from me, and I have a permanent BG.)

Where Israel was carved out of existing territory, the natives weren't conquered or killed off, so while it is a *fact* that the UN created Israel legally, should that make the displaced homeless?

Or should they all just become Jordanian and Lebanese and other nationalities from areas surrounding Israel and let the Israelis take over more and more that they *weren't* given legally, and forget about Palestine, which has existed since before Judea?

Or should it be realized, some would say decided, that said occupation, while legal, was wrongly accomplished, or wrong to begin with since why base land lines on the Talmud instead of the Koran, or some secular peace negotiation? After all, Prohibition was repealed, despite it having been legally started by constitutional amendment. The UN should be allowed to change its mind if it decides it was wrong then. Then the Israelis could become Jewish citizens of Jordan and Lebanon and etc and give everybody a rest for a while... yeah, right.

What is the "right" thing to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 11:44 PM

It's very simple really. No-one has yet produced a rational basis to assert that the League of Nations, the UN, or the UK had the power validly to create a state of Israel.

Equally no-one yet that I have seen has produced a rational basis to assert that the UN should not permit Palestine membership (a quite different issue).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 01:24 AM

Don't give up, do you dear Richard! Oh well, maunder on. "Much Ado About Nothing" again, in more than one sense. 'Nobody marks you'.

Regards from the other singular one

~M~

Bet you hate it when they call you Bridges, don't you?
                      ~M Gro-Myer~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 01:24 AM



Yet they did have the power to create:
Poland
Austria
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Serbia
Slovenia
Bosnia
Syria
Turkey
Iraq
Lebanon
Libya
Algeria
Sudan

But they did not have the power to acknowledge the will of the people of Palestine in 1948 who decided to accept the two-state solution as proposed in the areas defined. How strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:07 AM

"the will of the people of Palestine in 1948 who decided to accept the two-state solution"

???????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 04:36 AM

Richard ~ Teribus is right. The country under the Mandate was called Palestine; it only became Israel after the declaration of May 1948. I take it that it was the Jews of the then-Palestine at the time of the UN resolution to whom he was referring. They agreed to the borders stated by the UN, but were prevented from implementing their State within them by the hostile and, as it proved, counterproductive actions of the Arab/Muslim entities all round. Admittedly, mind you, 'two-state solution' is something of a misnomer, Teribus; it was in fact a partition.

Keep digging, Richard ...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 05:45 AM

They agreed to the borders stated by the UN,

That's an oversimplification - the borders imposed by the UN were significantly smaller than the borders that were desired and obtained by Israel in the course of the war, which are those of the Green Line.

But that's not particularly relevant to the issue today, which is whether there are any valid reasons why a Palestinian state should not be recognised as a member of the United Nations.

One reason which has been given in media disussion is that this could mean that Israel would be subject to the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court in relation to its actions, including the establishments of illegal settlements in occupied territory. I cannot see how this can be seen as a valid ground for opposing recognition of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:14 AM

"the Jews of the then-Palestine"

Anyone else see the omission?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:14 AM

PS - what then Palestine? See further above...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 06:43 AM

McGrath ~~ You weren't listening: I stated explicitly that they agreed to the UN authorised borders up to the time of the May 48 Declaration, but that it was the refusal of the other parties concerned to do so which subsequently led to the 'Green Line' borders; 'in the course of the war', as you rightly say. Who initiated that war?.

Richard ~ re 'then Palestine': that was the name universally recognised prior to May 48 for the territory under consideration. What does one have to do to get the simplest fact into your thick head!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:13 AM

"From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Sep 11 - 10:01 PM

...

Where Israel was carved out of existing territory, the natives weren't conquered or killed off, so while it is a *fact* that the UN created Israel legally, should that make the displaced homeless? "


1. The existing territory was the Jewish Homeland of Mandate Palestine, the Arab homeland ( of 77% of the Mandate was Transjordan)

2. If one is to consider the displaced Arab Palestinians ( around 640,000), the LARGER number of Jews ( 820,000) driven out of Arab nations ( and it was the Arab League that attacked the newly formed state of Israel) should ALSO be considered, UNLESS you insist that Jews are not human, and Arabs are. THAT seems to be the implied "fact" in many comments here.





"Or should they all just become Jordanian and Lebanese and other nationalities from areas surrounding Israel and let the Israelis take over more and more that they *weren't* given legally, and forget about Palestine, which has existed since before Judea?"

1. Yes, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees from Arab nations, Pakistan absorbed the Moslem Refugees from India, and India absorbed the Hindu refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh. When people here start arguing for giving Pakistan BACK to the Hindus who were driven out, THEN I might believe that they are NOT bunch of religious bigots and anti-semites.

2. Palestine was an administrative area of the Ottoman Empire. It was NOT an independent country until the Mandate. Judea was a portion of ancient Israel, which has NOT been brought up.



It seems that if Jews take lands back that had been from them " by force of arms ( 1948) " (Re the Mandate Palestine Jewish homeland boundaries) then they have to give it back, but when the Arabs "Take land by force of arms it means they get to keep it forever.

Anybody note a religious based bias besides me????

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:34 AM

Anyone care to discuss the actual issue? Recognition of Palestine as a state in this present year, 2011.

Since this is evidently the wish of a large majority of people living there, and of a large majority of countries at the UN, there would need to be some pretty good reasons for this not to happen.

Any suggestions as to what these "pretty good reasons" would be?

There is of course the argument that such recognition would mean accepting the continuing partition of what might be called Palestine, Greater Israel or the Holy Land. Supporters of Hamas and of the settlers might share this view, along with those who would prefer to see a united non-sectarian state throughout the whole territory. However it is hard to sustain this as realistic in the light of present circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:49 AM

Mr Myer: an area without a legally constituted existence or legally constituted rulers because no-one had the proper authority derived from 1917/22 so to constitute.

It might be a good idea if what is now intended to be called Palestine, and what is now called Israel (or a smaller area, like for example the 1947/8 area) were both recognised by the UN and (a separate issue) by each other. I don't offhand see how Palestine could (lawfully) continue its opposition to the existence of a state of Israel if it was a member of the UN (because it WOULD then have "joined the club") - and I don't offhand see how Israel could (lawfully) continue to occupy and oppress the West Bank and Gaza and their occupants.

I suppose they could (like the USA) say "OK, have an International court so long as it has no jurisdiction over me", but I haven't noticed that being said yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 08:53 AM

Perhaps if Israel had kept the name Palestine the indigenous Arab peoples would have happily accepted them. Yeah, sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: bobad
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:04 AM

"Any suggestions as to what these "pretty good reasons" would be?"

As far as Hamas is concerned, their "pretty good reason" is that it would implicitly acknowledge Israel's existence as a state which they do not accept, that is why they are opposed to the Palestinian request.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:05 AM

But 1912/22 'authorities' are irrelevant, Richard, because no-one denied both the de facto & de jure authority of UN to make the decision in 1947. Can't see why you keep dragging the, by then long superseded, Ottoman/Turkish interest, which had by then long ceased to be a factor, into the discussion at all. It seems to be some redcondite, arcane, mnemonic thought-process of your own.

~~~"both recognised by the UN and (a separate issue) by each other." ~~~

But that's the bugbear, Richard. The Palestinian entity wants statehood recognised by membership of UN, without any undertaking to recognise Israel's {a member since 1949} right to existence. They are not, surely, 'separate issue[s]'? You go on to admit so yourself ~
"I don't offhand see how Palestine could (lawfully) continue its opposition to the existence of a state of Israel if it was a member of the UN (because it WOULD then have "joined the club")".

But they [the Palestinians] nevertheless seek membership without any such undertaking.

There's the rub. Do you really not get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:39 AM

But recognition for a diminished state of Palestine within the 1967 borders does imply recognition of the state of Israel within 78% of what had been universally referred to as Palestine prior to 1948.

That is why Hamas is as opposed to this as are supporters of the settlements, including the Israeli government.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:46 AM

Good points McGrath

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 09:46 AM

It might 'imply' it, McG. But has any spokesperson had the bottle to come out & CONFIRM that such recognition would definitely be forthcoming, beyond any of the dubiety suggested by your "imply"?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 10:38 AM

McGrath,

Why the pre-1967 borders? Why not the last ones the Arab states accepted ( 1923) or the 1972 truce lines?

Why are truce lines from the 1948 war more valid than accepted borders?

Or why not insist on the UN lines before the Arab attacks. THOSE would leave Israel with indefensible borders, and insure a new war, probably nuclear, within weeks.


And why has no one addressed the issue of the Jewish refugees form the 1948 war??

Shouldn't THEY get a land, carved from the Arab states?

And before you say that they have Israel, the Palestinian Arabs have Jordan and you don't seem to think that enough.

But then, it was 820,000 Jews Vs 640,000 Arabs- so of course you only care about giving the Arabs another state.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 10:45 AM

The deeds of my house formally define the boundaries of my property with neighbours. They don't say anything over and above that about formally confirming their boundaries with mine. That's implied to be the same. Doesn't need confirming.

For that matter, until the Irish Constitution was amended after the Good Friday Agreement referendum in 1998, Ireland did not accept the lawful existence of a "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", since the territory of the Irish Republic was defined as the whole island of Ireland, which of course was not accepted by Westminster. That didn't stop the two countries both being members of the United Nations, and rubbing along well enough for the most part.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 10:59 AM

And here is the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs in the UN today, making a telling point, while stating Irish support for Palestine's bid: "Some seek to argue that Palestine cannot be recognised as a state because its borders remain to be agreed. But if the borders of Palestine are still a matter for negotiation, then so, by definition, are those of Israel, which is rightly a full member of the UN.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:04 AM

"within 78% of what had been universally referred to as Palestine prior to 1948."

Not sure where this comes from. The nation of Transjordan was 77+% of the original Mandate Palestine, and made into an Arab ONLY homeland, with Jews not allowed ( though lib=vlylass seems to think that ok as long as Jews don't do it.)

The West Bank is more than 22% of the 1923 Jewish Homeland portion of the later Mandate Palestine.

Since it was conquered in 1948, I think IT should be returned to the Jewish homeland. Those Jews there in 1948 were driven ou, along with the Jews from other Arab nations, members of the Arab League whose forces took the West bank. Israel reclaimed it in 1967, after the Arabs attacked again.

AND YOU CLAIM THAT ISRAEL HAS TO RETURN "CONQUERED TERRITORIES"?

Obvious religious bigotry.

And ANY comment about the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel needs to address the citizen rights of Jews in the Arab nation. Otherwise, you are stating that Jews are not deserving of the rights that you give others.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:31 AM

The idea that the term Jewish Homeland" implied territory exclusively or even predominantly Jewish is one which has been developed retrospectively. The original understanding of theterm was that it meant a place where Jews would have a right to live and share with other people whose home it was, more especially those other "children of Abraham", the Arabian inhabitants of the territory.
................

But that isn't relevant to what I boringly remind people is the supposed topic of the thread, the rights and wrongs of the Palestinian bid in 2011 to membership of the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:41 AM

McGrath,

The original intent was that- THEN the Arabs were given 77+% of the Mandate Palestine territory ( Transjordan) to be prohibited to Jews. The obvious conclusion was that the remainder was for the Jews.

As for the present, you have not addressed the points I brought up.

WHY SHOULD THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES GET A STATE, when YOU have denied that the greater number of Jewish refugees should get one???

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 11:52 AM

Obvious religious bigotry.

Hardly. Just facts, logic, fairness and common sense

Nope, BB - the (pro-Zionist at all costs) bigotry is entirely on your side.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestine
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 11 - 12:13 PM

Greg F.


Care to give a reason that Arab Palestinians get what you won't give Jews?

You have presented NO facts, no logic, no fairness and no common sense, just stated that Jews are not entitled to be treated the way you would have them treat Arab Moslem Palestinians.

If you don't like my statements, try to argue them, and not make attacks on me. Unless you have nothing to refute my arguments- then go ahead and attack me and prove you are both biased and wrong.

I have asked questions, and get back statements that do not state any reason that Arabs get special treatment, and ONLY Jews have to

1. give up conquered territory, while Arabs do not.
2. recompense Refugees, while Arabs do not.
3. Have to share their homeland, which Arabs do not.
4. Are supposed to accept being killed, which Arabs are not required to do.
5 recognize an Arab Palestine, while Arabs are not required ( and have stated they will NOT) to recognize Israel.


So take YOUR anti Jewish bigotry and got to hell.