BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 05:58 AM

Guest petr, That is a grossly over simplified view of an extremely complex situation that looks at US/Iranian relations in isolation while completely ignoring all the other players involved and their motivations.

I do not believe for one minute your generalisation that Iranians "fear and hate the US". If you opened up an office in Tehran issuing US Visa's you'd have a line a mile long before you could blink - that is how much the Iranians "fear and hate the US".

The "brutal regime of the Shah" is looked on by many Iranians as a period of peace, stability, prosperity and advancement enjoyed through out the country. I think you would be amazed at how many would gladly see a return to similar days in Iran today. The Shah's regime was certainly not as intolerant or as repressive as today's Iran under the attention of the AGIR - How many were publicly executed last year Guest petr? How many so far this year? Have you had a look at the crimes they were charged with? That did not happen under the Shah's rule.

As far as threats go petr, I take it that you can provide some reference to note your own condemnation of the current President's remarks relating to seeing "Israel wiped off the map". Please do not respond with the usual apologist crap about there being some error in translation. Judging by the reception that that remark, given at an International Anti-Zionist Conference, received it had absolutely nothing to do with any inherant interest in any political reform of a right wing Israeli political party.

The alarming and potentially dangerous situation that currently exists within Iran at present stems from the fact that the country is not ultimately ruled by an elected Government but by a self-appointed Council under the sway of a religious leader - the "Supreme Leader". Completely seperate from the usual set up of Civil Service, Judiciary, Armed Forces, Police and Emergency Services under the control of central and local Government you have the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who answer only to the "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who sits above the elected government, run by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Part of their writ is to support terrorist organisations throughout the region, to finance, train and equip them. They are run as a corporation, to a large extent they are self-financing which makes them that much less accountable and unpredictable.

The greatest threat to the United States of America as defined post 911 was what again Guest petr?

Rogue State + WMD/WMD Technology + Links to Terrorist Organisations.

GWB did not dream that up. That was the carefully considered and weighed opinion of the House Security Committee and of the US Defence and Intelligence Community. With regard to Iran, Guest petr, tick the boxes and tell me that Iran does not warrant careful scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:24 PM

even though this has sidetracked into an Israeli Palestinian debate,

on the point of Iran and the US one only has to look at the history of Iran to see why they fear and hate the US so much. Why hate the US were the good guys arent we? Americans are pretty good at remembering only their side of history. To Iranians, America showed its contempt for Democracy by overthrowing the Democratically elected govt of Iran in 1953 and installing the brutal regime of the Shah and supporting him for 25 years. Why? The Iranians were getting uppity and wanted more royalties for their oil.

Now I have no illusions that the current regime in Iran is some kind of democracy -it is a dictatorship - however there are democratic movements in Iran unlike in anything else in the region.
ANd by threatening Iran, the US is empowering the Mullahs and making them crack down even more on dissidents.
(by the way if anybody cares - threatening another country is illegal under the UN).

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:29 AM

"On the subject of the Strait of Tiran, this excerpt is in reference to 1967, but it is equally applicable to 1956" _ (CarolC)

Eh, no it doesn't. In reasoned arguement, or discussion, one sets the precedent for the other. So just to make sure that you understand which way things go, what happened in 1956 sets international precedent for 1967 - Not the other way round.

The precedent set by the United Nations was that international waterways cannot be closed by any nation at will, to do so is an act of war because it threatens the trade and well being of the nation affected. Adjudged by the United Nations as International waterways were The Suez Canal AND the Straits of Tiran. I couldn't give a flying toss what the Egyptians claimed as being territorial waters it wouldn't hold up in any international court for one bloody minute. That is why the UN ruled the way it did and proved the casus belli in 1967 - when the Egyptians did exactly the same thing again - As I said CarolC, these Arab chaps seem to be on one hell of a slow learning curve.

I can remember my father once explaining at great length that at the time we are talking about there was one thing you could depend upon, "There was not one single international situation anywhere in the world, no matter how bad, that after the intervention of John Foster Dulles wasn't ten times worse" and in retrospect that was a downright, and gross, underestimation. Had the US backed both Britain and France in 1956 there never would have been a "Middle-East Conflict".

So the US and the UK reneged on the deal to finance the Aswan Dam did they CarolC? Loans of that magnitude normally come with a catch, this one was no exception. The USA, Britain and the World Bank were to help finance construction with a loan of USD $270 million in return for Nasser's leadership on resolving the Arab-Israeli Conflict. However the US cancelled the offer in July 1956 as part of the secret US 'OMEGA' policy to marginalize Nasser after it became clear to the US exactly how Nasser intended to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. That plus the secret Egyptian arms agreement with Czechoslovakia and Egyptian recognition of the People's Republic of China are cited as being possible additional reasons for cancelling the arrangement.

Joe Stalin and Soviet Russia supplied arms to the Israeli cause during the War of Independence in the period after the British left until June 1948, thereafter they supplied the Arabs, which, unfortunately for your arguement, explains why in 1956 it was the Egyptians running around in T-34/85's, while the Israeli's used French and American armour.

Your poor, down-trodden, hard done by "Palestinians" collectively have got to be largest assembly of complete and utter tossers on the face of this earth, given their track record and their choices of course of action to follow and their "leadership", both of which have proved to be catastrophic for them and the region in which they live. The cause was founded on a lie and has continued in true Kindergarden tit-for-tat bloodshed and mayhem ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 02:52 AM

Interesting point about this bit...

Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser imported arms from the Soviet bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. He announced on the 31st August, 1955:

Nasser only began importing arms from the Soviet Union right after the Soviet Union stopped supplying arms to Israel, which it had been doing since prior to the 48 war (the Soviet Union backed Israel in that war), and right up until just before they started supplying Nasser. I guess Nasser had some catching up to do if he wanted to be able to defend his country against Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:57 AM

He nationalized the canal so that the fees could be used to build the Aswan Dam. The US, Britain, and the World Bank had agreed to help finance the dam, but they reneged on that agreement, and Nasser was forced to find funding from other sources. He envisioned the Aswan dam as being a key element in his plans to industrialize Egypt, so for him and for his vision of what was best for Egypt, nationalizing the canal was a necessity.

On the subject of the Strait of Tiran, this excerpt is in reference to 1967, but it is equally applicable to 1956 (it also provides plenty of documentation from original sources proving that the official Israeli version of events in 1967 is a huge lie)...

Blockading the Straits of Tiran: a reasonable casus belli?

Nasser’s action frankly pales utterly in comparison with previous Israeli shows of strength. Nor was his blockade of Tiran “an attempt at strangulation,” as Abba Eban described it. (Philo & Berry, p. 30) As David Hirst notes,

“Economically, the closure of the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli ships, and ships of other nations bound for Eilat with strategic materials, would have had little immediate impact. Only 5 per cent of Israel’s foreign trade went through Eilat; oil from Iran was the main strategic material, but Israel could easily get that through Haifa.”

Furthermore,

“What damage the closure might have done would have been offset by President Johnson’s reported offer – designed to stay Israel’s hand – to maintain its economic viability.” (Hirst, p. 333)

Indeed, according to the UN Secretariat, “not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years.” (Finkelstein, p. 139)

Nor was there any legal issue. The Israelis’ claim to right of passage through the Straits (which the Egyptians insisted fell inside their own territorial waters) was “based on possession of a thin sliver of coastline,” as Hirst notes, “and this itself had been secured, on the Israelis’ own admission, by ‘one of those calculated violations [of the ceasefire] which we had to carefully weigh against the political risks’. That was in 1949 … when, in defiance of a UN-sponsored ceasefire, an Israeli patrol thrust southward to the Arab hamlet and police post of Um Rashrash, expelling its inhabitants and founding the port of Eilat in its place.”

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Palestine/MediaMyths/TheArabsStartedthe1967War/tabid/248/Default.aspx


I've had a lot of difficulty finding information about Nasser's reasons for closing the strait. A couple of references said that it was a response to Israel taking a threatening posture towards Syria (both in '56 and in '67). I also get a sense from some sources that it was a sovereignty issue. Nasser felt that he had a right to control those waters because they were in Egypt, and in '67 he said that if Israel felt it had a right to use those waters, it should take the matter up with the World Court and let them adjudicate it (Israel declined to do so - possibly because they knew they didn't really have a case). That reference is here.


More myth-busting info on the subject...

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Protocol%20of%20Sevres%201956%20Anatomy%20of%20a%20War%20Plot.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/06/04/six_day_war/index.html?source=search&aim=/opinion/feature

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:50 AM

A link to what appears to be a very interesting book CarolC. It does not however shed any light on how the Israeli's managed to talk Nasser into nationalising the Suez Canal and closing the Straits of Tiran.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:16 AM

From Russia with Love:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7230396.stm

No Shit Sherlock!!!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:02 AM

"The last decade saw the publication of several books by revisionist Israeli historians or 'new' historians as they are sometimes called. Most of this literature focuses on the creation of the State of Israel and on the first Arab-Israeli war. The new historians have challenged many of the claims of the traditional Zionist rendition of events. They challenged the claim that the military balance in 1948 overwhelmingly favoured the Arabs; that the Palestinian refugees left of their own free will; that all the neighbouring Arab countries were united in their determination to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; and that Arab intransigence was alone responsible for the persistent political deadlock after the guns fell silent.

Motti Golani is a young Israeli historian whose work has focused on the second Arab-Israeli war which is usually called the Suez War in the West and the Sinai Campaign in Israel. His book has many strengths. It is based on careful and comprehensive research, especially in the Israel State Archives and in the IDF Archive. The arguments and conclusions are supported by strong evidence from primary sources, some of which is used here for the first time. It sheds a great deal of new light not just on the war itself but on related subjects such as civil-military relations in Israel, the policy-making process in defence and foreign affairs, the extraordianry influence exerted by Cheif of Staff Modshe Dayan in pushing Israel into war, and the collusion with Britain and France which preceded the attack on Egypt.

Last but not least, Dr Golani shows honesty and courage in following the evidence to its logical conclusion, regardless of how damaging it might be to the offical or semi-official Israeli version of this war. As the title of his book suggests, Dr Golani holds that the 1956 war was not imposed on Israel by her enemies but deliberately sought by her. Although the Czech arms deal announced in September 1955 began to tip the military balance in Egypt's favour, the balance was restored by secret arms acquisitions from France and in October 1956 Israel did not face any imminent threat of Egyptian attack or any other serious threat to her basic security. Israel's motives for embarking on this military venture included the consolidation of the alliance with France, territorial expansion, the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the establishemt of a new political order in the Middle East. Whatever else it might have been, the Sinai Campaign was not for Israel a war of ein breira (Hebrew - "there is no alternative")."

Israel in Search of a War: The Sinai Campaign 1955 - 1956

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:08 AM

In response to Nickhere's post of 05 Feb 08 - 07:43PM

Point 1:
"Someone has to make a first move - the world always seems to expect Hamas to do it."

And the "World" is perfectly correct in that expectation. The reality of the situation is that you cannot permit groups of people who have declared aims involving the destruction of others dictating what has to be done before they come to the table. First and foremost has to be the renunciation of violence and the clear and unequivocal statement guaranteeing Israel's right to exist. Without those moves on the part of either Hamas or Hezbollah there is absolutely no basis for discussion. The Israeli's are in the situation rather like Sharon Tate negotiating with the Manson Family, no matter what is offered the end result is we're going to kill you – that is what has to be removed before any dialogue can take place.

Point 2:
"What they're asking is Hamas (and West Bank Palestinians in general) to do is to stop without any promise even that Israeli settlements will stop never mind be withdrawn back over the Green Line."

Stop doing what Nickhere – Stop killing people? I would say that that was a perfectly reasonable request. The Israeli's would move back over the "Green Line" (1967 boundaries) like a rocket if they had the guarantees that they have requested. Biggest drawback here is that ever since the State of Israel was declared Arab States and the terrorists they harbour have made agreement after agreement, only those concerning Egypt and Jordan struck in the wake of the 1973 war have ever been honoured. That track record does not inspire confidence. Countries such as Libya, Iraq, Syria and Iran conduct their war on Israel by proxy, fortunately post 2003, both Libya and Iraq have ceased their sponsorship of terror in the region. Syria and Iran continue to train, arm and finance Hezbollah and Hamas.

Another example that cannot inspire confidence in negotiation has been Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. In abandoning settlements in Gaza and evacuating its citizens, forcibly in some cases, the Israelis requested only one thing – that rocket attacks on its civilian population inside Israel launched from Gaza should stop. That the Palestinian Authority agreed to, knowing full well that they would be totally incapable of meeting that obligation – They demonstrate an amazing incapacity, or even will, to control or govern their own people. There have been over 400 rocket attacks launched from inside Gaza in 2008 alone. The "Palestinian" people must be on a very slow learning curve, what their so-called "leaders" are doing is getting them precisely nowhere with their present tactics, I say tactics because I do not believe for one minute that they have a strategy, beyond lining their own pockets while they keep the people they are supposed to lead and represent in poverty.

Point 3:
"Now I'm no salesman, but even a child could tell that's a bum deal."

I couldn't agree more, it is a bum deal, but it is a bum deal all round

Point 4:
"Palestinians see their land being overrun and colonised and themselves turned out of their own homes and farms."

Where is this happening? Along the line of the wall? Simple stop the attacks on Israel mounted from inside the West Bank, stop providing shelter to those paid to carry out those attacks and the wall does not have to be built.


Point 5:
"What do you expect them to do?"

Application of some common-sense would not come amiss. And as you stated they did take matters into their own hands, they realised they'd been had, so what did they do? They voted for Hamas because Hamas promised to stand up for them, and just like Fatah, Hamas failed them miserably, because Hamas did not stand up for them did they? It was simply a case of the same old game – with the same old result.

Can anyone tell me what Arafat "the Strongman" ever managed to accomplish for the benefit of his so-called "Palestinian" people. We all know one thing for certain, that in doing rather ineffectually whatever it was he attempting to do, he managed to amass an absolute fortune while his people were being starved of all basic needs, leadership and hope.

Point 6:
"Appeal to the UN?"

I note that in your paraphrasing of UN Resolution content you omit what was stated in the first one – The one where the State of Israel is recognized and its sovereignty is guaranteed under the protection of the Charter of the United Nations. Was there any particular reason for that Nickhere?

For much of its existence the "Cold War" dictated much of what happened, or didn't, as the case may be, in the middle-east. The odd thing was that during the Israeli "War of Independence" the USA withdrew its support of the UN proposed boundaries, while old Joe Stalin backed Jewish resistance to the hilt both politically and with arms.

After the greatest mistake in US Foreign Policy History in 1956, the entire north shore of Africa plus most of the Arab world was thrown into the Soviet sphere of influence, where it remained for the next thirty-odd years.

Point 7:
"Palestinians can see the powerful leaders of the West have no real appetite in forcing Israel to do the right thing at this point."

Nickhere, the solution to any problem in the middle-east will not be forced on any of the parties involved by anyone from either inside or outside that benighted region. The solution is going to come from realization by all parties involved.


Point 8:
"They (The Palestinians) can see Bush, Blair etc are not neutral here, but on the side of Israel as a valuable military ally and outpost in the region that has been of interest because of its oil (the region, not Israel)."

Now just so as I have this correct in my own mind, the US are interested in the region because of its oil, the oil is actually owned by the Arab nations in the region, so, because the US are interested in the oil they ally themselves with Israel, the sworn enemies of the Arabs. Don't know about you Nickhere but that just does not make sense to me.

Point 9:
"If Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel why the surprise? Israel has never defined its borders and seems intent on making the West bank a part of its national territory."

No "If" about it Nickhere, Hamas most definitely refuses to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist – which oddly enough puts it at odds with the International Community. As to the bit about Israel never having defined its borders, well they were perfectly willing to do so in 1937; and in 1947, but the Arabs refused.

The Arabs went to war over it in 1947 and lost, among the many things they agreed to at the Armistice talks in 1949 were the boundaries; Israel held to those boundaries, her Arab neighbours did not. Israel and Egypt had clashed repeatedly since their 1948 war as Egypt allowed and encouraged groups of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel from Egyptian territory. In response, Israeli forces constantly made cross-border raids in retaliation.

Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser imported arms from the Soviet bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. He announced on the 31st August, 1955:

"Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel. ... There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death."

The second war between these Middle East neighbours took place in 1956. As part of Egyptian President Nasser's nationalist agenda, he took control of the Suez Canal zone away from the British and French companies which owned it. At the same time, as part of his ongoing struggle with Israel, Egyptian forces blocked the Straits of Tiran, the narrow waterway that is Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea. The blocking of an International Waterway is considered by the United Nations as an act of aggression.

Four and a half months later, on March 16, 1957, Israel withdrew her troops from the Sinai and Gaza strip after receiving international reassurances that Israel's vital waterways would remain open. Three thousand three hundred United Nations troops replaced them. Despite Israel's withdrawal, the Egyptians refused to open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping.

Note Nickhere that the Israeli's agreed to withdraw on the premise agreed to by Egypt that the international waterways be kept open and that the UN Emergency Force remain in Sinai to maintain a buffer. Israel withdrew to the 1949 Armistice Lines, I make that three times in ten years that the Israelis had agreed to "define their borders" and three times that her Arab neighbours had rejected and violated those borders and ignored previous undertakings agreed with the UN.

They repeated their trick of 1956 again in 1967, the pan-Arab movement under Nasser massed five Armies on Israel's borders having ordered the UNEF out of Sinai. The threats emanating from the Arab capitols of the world were graphic and clear. Rather than wait for the hammer blow to fall Israel attacked. The Arab forces robbed of any air support due to clinical strikes by the Israeli Air Force were routed. Israel, took the Golan, Gaza, the Sinai, Jerusalem and the West Bank.

A cease-fire was put in place, this time, considering the threats made and past performance, the Israeli's said no to withdrawal of any troops from land captured. The land we have taken we keep and use as a bargaining chip for our national survival – I believe that they were quite justified in adopting that approach, particularly in the light of the Khartoum Resolution of the 1st September, 1967.

The Khartoum Resolution was issued at the conclusion of a meeting between the leaders of eight Arab countries in the wake of the "Six-Day War".

The resolution, called for:

•        A continued state of belligerency with Israel;
•        The ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War;
•        An end to the war in Yemen;
•        Economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan.
•        The resolution also contains in paragraph 3 what became known as "the three No(s)" of Arab-Israel relations at that time: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.

The Khartoum Resolution formed the basis of the policies of these governments toward Israel until their attack on Israel in 1973 in what became known as the Yom Kippur War.

The Yom Kippur War differed from the previous conflicts as this had more to do with Israel's Arab neighbours fighting to regain territory that they had lost rather than to support anything to do with the Palestinians.

The Yom Kippur War was fought from 6th October to 26th October, 1973, between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria. The war began with a surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Egypt and Syria crossed the cease-fire lines in the Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been captured by Israel in 1967 during the Six-Day War.

The war went disastrously for the Arab cause after they appeared to have made initial gains. The defeats inflicted on both Syria and Egypt were so severe as to completely alter political balance and outlook amongst the front-line Arab nations.

Egypt became the first Arab State to recognise the State of Israel – Israel returned all land taken in 1967 and the two countries have lived at peace since that day. Jordan also recognised the State of Israel and have likewise lived at peace.

What the international community see in the representatives of the Palestinian Authority is a willingness to recognise Israel and a glimpse of a way forward that is completely lacking with either Hamas or Hezbollah. Because of the latter's intransigence they have made the Palestinian Authority the only horse worth backing in the race.

Point 10:
While mentioning Hamas and Hezbollah please do not forget to mention their principal backers – Syria and Iran, without whom, neither terrorist organisation would exist.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:01 PM

Rubbish, Teribus.

Really? Then they must have indeed prospered, which amazes me because neither would let them settle, assimulate or integrate with their own populations. If memory serves me correct they had no rights of citizenship or resource to educational or health programmes.

The Palestinians you are talking about are the ones who were not in the West Bank or Gaza, who fled to Jordan during the Nakba (original ethnic cleansing prior to and during the "War of Independence"). I am talking about the Palestinians who never left the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, or who fled to those places during the Nakba (original ethnic cleansing prior to and during the "War of Independence"), where they were already assimilated into and integrated with the population of that area, since that's where they were from. They may not have had any rights of citizenship in Jordan or Egypt, but they also do not have any rights of citizenship in Israel, either. They do not have citizenship in any country whatever to this very day, even though they are living in the place where they are from. And while it's true that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were neglected by the governments of Jordan and Egypt, they weren't being deprived of their homes and livelihoods as they are now.

The ethnic cleansing started about six months before the "War of Independence" for Israel, although there were Jewish boycotts of non-Jewish Palestinians prior to that time, and Palestinians were being deprived of their livelihoods prior to that time. Palestinians were also being dispossessed when the lands they were living on as tenants of absentee landlords were being bought up by European Jews. And while this was not illegal, the Palestinians nevertheless were rightly concerned that they were being squeezed out of their own homeland.

The ethnic cleansing began in earnest when Jewish paramilitary forces began slaughtering innocent villagers (in some cases, killing most of the inhabitants of the villages... just mowing them down, women, children, old men - everybody) in order to scare all of the Palestinians who lived in villages that the founders of the state of Israel felt were strategic to their aims of taking as much land as possible once Israel declared its independence, in order to get them to flee.

The ethnic cleansing continues to this day as thousands of Palestinian homes are being demolished and Jewish-only settlements built on land that is rightfully Palestinian land. The occupation also serves, along with the settlements, as a military strategy for the removal of Palestinians from their land. The method is to make life for the Palestinians so bloody miserable, that they will willingly leave. In Gaza, the blockade (which has actually been going on in a somewhat less severe form since Israel withdrew its forces from there) also serves this purpose.

There is also ethnic cleansing of "Arabs" from Israel proper as well, as thousands of homes of "Arab Israelis" are also being confiscated and/or demolished. If they can't have a home in Israel (or the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem), they will have to leave the area and go somewhere where they will be allowed to live. And in this way, Israel accomplishes it's long standing (and oft stated) goal of removing all of the "Arabs" from the land that Israel wants for Jews only.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:58 PM

"28th June 2004 - CPA dissolved and full governmental authority was transferred to the sovereign Iraqi Interim Government"

!!!! 'CPA dissolved' - by whom? All of this glosses over the fact that the country was invaded, a new governemnt loyal to the invaders set up. I think the average astute Iraqi realises democracy has limited meaning there. What if Iraqis tomorrow decided to vote for some extremist form of Islamic government? Would that be tolerated by the occupying US forces? Since the answer is a resounding 'No', it is clear that democracy in Iraq has limited meaning. Any 'government' set up to try Saddam must be seen in that context

PS - I don't like Saddam btw, just in case you think I'm rooting for the man.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:52 PM

Teribus: "Psst, Nickhere - It was never part of Jordan either was it? While Israel might have had a tenuous claim to it, Jordan had none whatsoever"

Israel has no 'tenuous' claim to it either. It has no claim to it, period.

I didn't protest about Jordan occupying Transjordan back in the early 70s cos I wasn't much into politics those days, being too young to take much interest in such matters. I didn't raise much of a stink when Rome occupied Palestine either, come to think of it. My sin, I guess.

But I can and should take an interest in what's happening today. And what Israel is doing in the West Bank today is wrong, and a major contributing factor to the instability in the region. You see Israel says it wants stability and peace, and probably it does, but not until it's annexed all the land it thinks should belong to it first. As one Israeli PM said many moons ago "Our borders are where our armies stop".

And we see the result.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:43 PM

Teribus, hold my breath? No, I can't hold it that long! ;-)

But seriously, it's not as outlandish as you think. Someone has to make a first move - the world always seems to expect Hamas to do it. What they're asking is Hamas (and West Bank Palestinians in general) to do is to stop without any promise even that Israeli settlements will stop nevermind be withdrawn back over the Green Line. Now I'm no salesman, but even a child could tell that's a bum deal. Palestinians see their land being overrun and colonised and themselves turned out of their own homes and farms. What do yiou expect them to do? Appeal to the UN? The UN has already declared dozens of times that Israel's in the wrong here, needs to pull back, let refugees return etc., Israel has shown no interest in listening to the UN, just ignores it unless the UN pronounces against Iran or something (not that Iran is brilliant in that regard either). In any case, Palestinians can see the poweful leaders of the West have no real appetite in forcing Israel to do the right thing at this point. They can see Bush, Blair etc are not neutral here, but on the side of Israel as a valauble military ally and outpost in the region that has been of interest because of its oil (the region, not Israel).

So they take matters into their own hands. They voted for Hamas because Hamas promised to stand up for them, unlike Fatah. Arafat went from strongman (and to the West 'terrorist') to Israel's local policeman in the West Bank when he got into his old age. The people realised they'd been had. Palestinians then got punished by Israel and the West for making the wrong democratic choice and choosing Hamas to represent them. If Hamas refuses to recognise the state of Israel why the surprise? Israel has never defined its borders and seems intent on making the West bank a part of its national territory. The irony here is that Israel is the one wiping the West Bank off the map. If it succeeds in going on as it is, it'll be known simply as Israel, and not the West Bank, in 20 - 30 years.

So to punish Palestinians for chooisng Hamas, aid and funds are cut, while erstwhile 'terrorists' Fatah are ressurected and reinvigorated by the West to rival Hamas. They are flooded with money, recognition etc., while Hamas are sidelined. It's laughable to hear in the news nowadays how Hamas 'seized control' of Gaza - even though it was Fatah who 'seized control' of the West bank, thanks to all the help they got from the West to do so.

Hezbollah are another issue. The bottom line is if the colonies were abolished (which shouldn't have been built in the first place) and Israel withdrew to the Green Line and released its stranglehold on Palestinian life, the Intifada would ahve lost its raison d'Etre. If you still find a few hard men at it after that, you'll be dealing with very much a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:26 PM

"I think the Palestinians fared much better under the Jordanians and the Egyptians than they have under Israeli occupation. At least under the Jordanians and the Egyptians, they weren't being ethnically cleansed, under a brutal military occupation."

Really? Then they must have indeed prospered, which amazes me because neither would let them settle, assimulate or integrate with their own populations. If memory serves me correct they had no rights of citizenship or resource to educational or health programmes.

Their stay in Jordan was fairly brief as Arafat in one of his more perceptive stages as "leader" of the "palestinian people" attempted to overthrow the government of Jordan and replace it with his own brand of corrupt despotism. King Hussain of Jordan was, thankfully, quite equal to the task and turfed the lot out - They now reside in squalor and misery of yet another series of Arab hosted refugee camps in Lebanon - Syria being far too astute to let them inside its borders in any great number.

The ones in Egypt kept a very firm lid on them and holed them up in similar refugee camps in Gaza.

Now about all that "ethnic cleansing" that the Israeli Government was carrying out? Has this been going on for long CarolC? How does it manifest itself? If life was so terrible under this brutal military occupation I would have thought that the population of Israel would have almost immediately dropped by, oh I don't know, maybe 16%. I mean the opportunity has always been there to hot foot it to a life of bliss with the Egyptians and the Jordanians.

Emotional claptrap the lot of it.

The whole "cause" for conflict between Arab and Jew in Palestine   was based on lies told by an Arab way back in the early 1920's, they continued with lies told by the same man in 1929, then again 1936 to 1939. In 1937 The Peel Commission realised that they could never live together but might be able to live in two states side by side. This was the best deal that the Arabs were ever going to get, but they rejected it and chose to continue the fight known as the Arab Revolt, in which they lost out badly. If anyone taught the Jews to fight it was the Palestinian Arabs and on each occasion the Arabs attacked them they got better and better at it. When the British Mandate ended the UN offered a similar deal in 1947, the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected it again.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM

And by the way, Teribus, I have, on numerous occassions protested right here in the Mudcat, the fact that Jordan conspired with Golda Meir to take from the Palestinians what was supposed to be theirs. My record on this is right there for anyone to see. Although I think the Palestinians fared much better under the Jordanians and the Egyptians than they have under Israeli occupation. At least under the Jordanians and the Egyptians, they weren't being ethnically cleansed, under a brutal military occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:57 PM

Teribus, your question was not "did the Palestinians formally accept the state of Israel during the 1940s". Your question was this (copy-pasting from your post)...

Have the "Palestinians" formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland - No they have not

The correct answer is that they have formally accepted the state of Israel.


Whether or not they did so in the 1940s is totally irrelevant to any of the points I have been making. Perhaps you are responding to something someone else has said.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:45 PM

Excuse me CarolC around the time we are talking about (1947 -1948) when did the Arabs formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:29 PM

"Teribus, you speak of the West Bank as if it were an integral part of Israel that had been seized by Jordan, then retaken by Israel. Not so. It was never part of Israel." - (Nickhere)

Psst, Nickhere - It was never part of Jordan either was it? While Israel might have had a tenuous claim to it, Jordan had none whatsoever. So why no outcry when they took it by force and occupied it illegally for twenty years - an example of those double standards you guys always seem to moan about - or is that sort of thing only brought to the fore when the purpose suits?

As for the nuclear NPT signed under the regime of the Shah in 1970. Now if the new regime in Iran did not agree with its terms and conditions, then they should have withdrawn from the treaty at that time, all the mechanisms are there for countries wishing to leave it. That would of course have meant that existing nuclear states who remained signatories could not give any assistance to Iran in the nuclear field. But they did not withdraw from the treaty did they Nickhere? And as they did not withdraw from it then they remain subject to all its terms and conditions.

Your example of Saddam Hussein was rather a bad one:

"Saddam repudiated his trial on the grounds he was still the legitimate leader of his country, for all the good it did him"

Now let's see why Nickhere:

28th June 2004 - CPA dissolved and full governmental authority was transferred to the sovereign Iraqi Interim Government.

30th January 2005 - Iraqi Legislative Election
5th April 2005 - Jalal Talibani elected President of Iraq

19th October 2005 - Trial of Saddam Hussein (ex-President of Iraq) begins

5th November 2005 - Saddam Hussein (ex-President of Iraq) found guilty and sentenced

30th December 2005 - Saddam Hussein (ex-President of Iraq) executed.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:28 PM

teribus - Obviously you do not believe in a balance of power.

You tell me what happened when:

1 - Iraq
2 - North Korea
3 - South Africa
4 - Iran
5 - Libya

broke the treaty. I think you should also include the U.S. because we all know that they continue to develop nuclear weaponry and other WMDs.

If the U.S. weren't so obsessed with protecting Israel and the oil interests in Iraq, they could send more troops to Afghanistan to make sure that Pakistan's nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of terrorists. They might even have enough troops to enter Sudan and stop the massacre in Darfur.

How long does the U.S. have to protect 'mono-cultural racism'? Those days are over, teribus. Its time to re-think and undo the mistakes of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM

Have the "Palestinians" formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland

Yes they have.

their immediate resort to military action and their resulting military defeat had consequences which they have steadfastly refused to acknowledge and live with - Their choice was to gamble and they lost.

More lies. The founders of the state of Israel had been ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and villages for several months before the start of the "War of Independence". Nobody immediately resorted to any military action. The "War of Independence" was merely a continuation of a process that had been ongoing for several months, while nobody did a thing to stop it. It was only after other Arab peoples stepped in to help the Palestinians who were being ethnically cleansed, that the founders of the state of Israel declared it a war.

And then after armistice, they then proceeded to create one pretext after another to take more land, committing numerous acts of aggression on their neighbors, including massacres of Arab villages, as a way of creating such pretexts. Each time, it was Israel who instigated the aggression (with the exception of 73, when the other countries were taking back land that had been illegally taken from them), but Israel only called it a war when the people it was attacking responded.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:11 PM

Now could you please explain to us all how an integral parts of the territory known under British Mandate as Palestine suddenly became part of Jordan (West bank) and Egyptian (Gaza) in 1948.

Actually, I can answer that. When the founders of the state of Israel were in the process of attempting to take all of what had been mandate Palestine (and succeeding in taking half of what the Palestinians had been allotted in the partition plan, as we can see in the maps of partition and of armistice), Egypt and Jordan stepped in and prevented that from happening, managing to hold onto about half of what the Palestinians had been allotted in the partition plan. Had they not done so, no doubt all of what had been mandate Palestine would have become a part of the state of Israel right from the beginning, including all of what had been allotted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Israel, of course, is now in the process of finishing that mission by ethnically cleansing all of the Palestinians from what is now the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:03 PM

What in the world can the statement, "restricted to Jewish Settlement" possibly mean other than that only Jews may settle there, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM

"If Israel is serious about peace, let it pull out of the West Bank NOW, end the settlements and resettle the latter-day colonists back in Isreal and demolish the settlements or hand them over to the Palestinian authorities." - (Nickhere)

Perfect, absolutely perfect, you would appear to have the solution Nickhere. Now toddle along and get exactly what the Hamas and Hezbollah reaction to that would be and then come back and tell us. Noting of course that if it does not contain such elements as full recognition of the State of Israel and the acknowledgement of the rights of all Israeli citizens to live their lives in peace, free from all threats of violence, or attack, then the deal is off. Tell you what Nickhere - I wouldn't be holding my breath on it - Would you?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:58 PM

And Teribus, you speak of the West Bank as if it were an integral part of Israel that had been seized by Jordan, then retaken by Israel. Not so. It was never part of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:51 PM

Just getting back on-thread

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM

BBruce: "Let me see. You now state that a nation is to be held to treaties that it did not sign"

Iran signed the NPT under the Shah. It's had a major and total regime change since then. Is England bound by agreements it signed with the Pope back in 1350? Saddam repudiated his trial onthe grounds he was still the legitimate leader of his country, for all the good it did him. No way, he was told, there's a NEW regime in force now, so everything's changed and the old rule book has been thrown out and a new consititution drawn up. Seems to me Iran (who is perfectly legally to entitled to do what it is currently doing) is going above and beyond what can be expected of it in opening up to IAEA inspection. Evidently it doesn't matter to the world that Iran signed the NPT well before the Revolution and regime change, and has made it clear that Iran better toe the line, or else....

Projectforanewamericancentury has made it clear that Iran will be part of a new USA colonialism no matter what. If it waved a water pistol in the air it'd be in breach of something or other.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:46 PM

"The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement"

Do I retract that statement - No of course I do not. If you are attempting to portray that statement as meaning that ONLY Jews could settle in the West Bank you would be mistaken, and I believe that I elaborated on that in subsequent posts

Palestine in 1920 = What became referred to as Palestine in 1923 + What became referred to as Trans Jordan in 1923

In 1923 the British split the Mandate as detailed above, Jews could only settle in the area west of the Jordan river that became known as Palestine they were not allowed to settle in Trans Jordan. Please note that is not the same as saying that ONLY Jews could settle in Palestine - Do you accept that? Now I do not know if there is any way that I can make that any clearer?

"Anyone could settle and live in what became known as the Transjordan sector of the Palestine Mandate provided they were not Jewish - Jews were and still are specifically excluded.

Anyone could settle and live in the part of the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory." - (Teribus - 05 Feb 08 - 03:05 AM)

Now could you please explain to us all how an integral parts of the territory known under British Mandate as Palestine suddenly became part of Jordan (West bank) and Egyptian (Gaza) in 1948.

If you cannot I will. Those Palestinian territories of Gaza and what became known as the West Bank were taken by force of arms by Egypt and Jordan in 1948 and occupied until they were taken back by Israeli forces in 1967. Throughout those twenty years there was never any hue and cry for those territories to be returned was there CarolC?

Strange that you did not highlight or emphasise this:

'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it (The Jewish Community) should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

Have the "Palestinians" formally recognised the existance of a Jewish National Homeland - No they have not and their rejection of the UN proposal to resolve the issue, their immediate resort to military action and their resulting military defeat had consequences which they have steadfastly refused to acknowledge and live with - Their choice was to gamble and they lost.

Did the international community recognise Israel as a sovereign nation when it declared itself in 1948? - Yes it did. Did Israel become a member of the United Nations in 1948? - Yes it did. Is Israel protected by the UN Charter? - Yes it is.

Did the Arabs sign a UN brokered cease-fire agreement and establish boundaries in 1948? - Yes they did. Did they ever for one single moment intend to live up to the agreements made under the terms and conditions of that agreement? - Not on your life? Same thing happened in 1956 and again in 1967 and again in 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:40 PM

Teribus, "I think that you will find Barry that Israel has never threatened the destruction/eradication/annihilation of anyone. Exactly the opposite has been the case with Israel's neighbours and more latterly of the terrorist organisations they harbour and support"

Which is worse? Threatening to wipe someone off the map, or actually doing it in practice?

I think we can agree the latter. Israel has been wiping the West Bank off the map steadily since 1967. Palestinians have been evicted from their homes, had their farms and property seized, their homes destroyed their livelihoods shattered, their economy ruined (and don't dare blaming that on the 'lazy Arab' stereotype - if you're an Israeli you should know just how many permits are required and how much red tape is needed for Palestinians to do any buisness). If number of deaths is an indicator of atempts to wipe someone off the map, the Palestinians have lost far more people than the Israelis. Indeed, Israel is the only one in the immediate region with the actual arms and equipment to think in terms of wiping anyone off the map. They've shown 'considerable restraint' ? Well they can't exactly go in and nuke Gaza, now, can they? That wouldn't look at all good internationally, and if anyone is publicity-conscious, it's the Israeli Govt.

Concurrently Israel has been aggressively expanding an consolidating its settlements at the expense of the very same Palestinians who are being dispossessed. Roads are being built through the West bank to link these upon which no Palestinian is allowed drive. Palestinians even need different colour licence plates on their cars - in their OWN territory - as decided by Israeli authorities. And that's before we start on the wall, being built well oover the green line to annex Israeli settlements. An apartheid and unjust society is being created. The situation within Israel is not so severe, but 'Isareli Arabs' as they are called, are still like second class citizens. Israel is, in ideology, a racist theocracy.


Further up the thread you lamely attempt to justify such blatant colonialism with 'well, hasn't everyone done that in the past?' Yes, but perhaps unfortunately for Zionists who want to do it now, they've picked a bad time, at the end of the 20th Cent and start of 21st Cent when humanity is supposed to be more civilised and looks down on its own colonial past sins. We've abolished slavery, banned genocide and given thumbs down to apartheid so the Zionists need to get with the times.

If Israel is serious about peace, let it pull out of the West Bank NOW, end the settlements and resettle the latter-day colonists back in Isreal and demolish the settlements or hand them over to the Palestinian authorities.

The other alternative is to make the whole Israel / West Bank region into one country where Arab and Jew alike are treated as equal citizens. That seems unlikely to happen as long as Zionists want 'an Jewish state for a Jewish people' That's a whole other argument of course, and it's debateable whether in this day or age such a thing shouyld be permitted. Otherwise every country could choose to be 'a Catholic Spain for the Spanish" and return to the old days of kicking all the Jews and Arabs out as they did in the mid-1400s. Except of course that is exactly the kind of mono-cultural racism we're all so keen to avoid these days....except in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM

Teribus, you said this in your 04 Feb 08 - 03:12 AM post.

The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement

Do you retract this statement (lie)?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:32 PM

PS CarolC:

Any clues required, any hints needed with regard to my questions

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/maps/hist_subdist.html


Now can you tell us whether or not Gaza happens to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute it was captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Egypt. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Egypt got hold of and laid claim to it?

Similar exercise tell us whether or not the districts of Nablas; Ramallah; Jerusalem and Al Khalil happen to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute they were captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Jordan. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Jordan got hold of it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:28 PM

"This is the double-standard at work again. Why are there no limits on the development of nuclear weapons by Israel?"


Let me see. You now state that a nation is to be held to treaties that it did not sign, nor receive the benefits that signatories are supposed to get.

OK, I will now ( for discussion's sake) argue that YOU MUST comply with whatever agreement I make with someone else. If you don't like that, too bad.

Your statement implies that you have no arguement with that at all.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

And what the fuck do think I was saying when I wrote:

1. "Anyone could settle and live in the part of the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory" - How exclusive do you feel the term anyone is?

2. "the area that the British under the terms of the San Remo Agreement set aside as the area in which the Jews could establish their national homeland - note Homeland CarolC not a sovereign nation".

What double standard are you talking about dianavan?

India - Has not signed the nuclear NPT and has developed and tested nuclear weapons.

Pakistan - Has not signed the nuclear NPT and has developed and tested nuclear weapons.

Israel - Has not signed the nuclear NPT and is suspected of having developed nuclear weapons but to date has never tested any.

Now those were all non-signatory nations not required to comply with the terms and conditions of the nuclear NPT.

Now then dianavan as an expert on double standards and what certain nations can and can't do with respect to treaties that they've signed, tell us all what these signatories to the nuclear NPT did do and then tell us why in doing so they were breaking the treaty:

1 - Iraq
2 - North Korea
3 - South Africa
4 - Iran
5 - Libya

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM

That sums it up, Carol.

Palestine was never intended to become a Jewish State.

Israel does not have the right to exist at the expense of the Palestinians. "A Jewish homeland within Palestine" is completely different than the state of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:48 PM

I refer you back to the quotes from Winston Churchill, Teribus, that I included in my 04 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM post, which you conveniently seem to have ignored, on the subject of who could live where in mandate Palestine...

* "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917."

    * 'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'.

    * 'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.'

    * 'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

    * 'This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.'


Nowhere in this does it say that only Jews can live in mandate Palestine, nor that mandate Palestine should become a "Jewish state". It does, however, clearly say that Jews and "Arabs" will live equally together in all of Palestine. A "Jewish homeland within Palestine" means just that. Jews will be able to call Palestine their home, not as guests, but as natives. It does not in any way suggest that Jews will be the only people who will be able to call Palestine their home, or that they may establish an independent country with a Jewish character, a Jewish government, and a permanently Jewish majority, to have power over the non-Jews in Palestine, or that Jews can tell Palestinians that they may not return to their own homeland of Palestine (for any reason whatever).

I suspect that had things occurred in the way that Churchill stated they should, all of the problems associated with the establishment of the state of Israel would never have happened, and Jewish Palestinians and non-Jewish Palestinians would be living more or less peacefully together within their common homeland right now.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:33 PM

teribus, "Israel - Remains outwith the nuclear NPT and as such is not constrained by its terms and conditions."

This is the double-standard at work again. Why are there no limits on the development of nuclear weapons by Israel? Nuclear weapons destroy, eradicate and annihilate. Thats just about the biggest threat I can imagine.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:17 PM

Well CarolC let's have a look at the area of the Palestine Mandate where it was possible for Jews to settle during the period of the League of Nations British Mandate, the area that after having split the Mandate in 1923 the area that the British under the terms of the San Remo Agreement set aside as the area in which the Jews could establish their national homeland - note Homeland CarolC not a sovereign nation:

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/maps/hist_subdist.html


Now can you tell us whether or not Gaza happens to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute it was captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Egypt. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Egypt got hold of and laid claim to it?

Similar exercise tell us whether or not the districts of Nablas; Ramallah; Jerusalem and Al Khalil happen to fall within the boundaries shown on that map? But wait a minute they were captured by Israel during the six day war in 1967 from Jordan. Can you tell us CarolC exactly how Jordan got hold of it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:21 AM

The lies I'm pointing to, Teribus are the ones you are telling about who was originally supposed to get Gaza and the West Bank under the internationally imposed borders in that area during the first half of the 20th century. The answer to that question is that the indigenous Palestinians were supposed to get those areas under the internationally imposed borders. That is the truth. Your assertions to the contrary are lies.

The people in Gaza and the West Bank are either people who are indigenous to those places, or who fled for their lives to those places during the massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the founders of the state of Israel during the several months BEFORE Israel's "War of Independence", and also during the that "war" itself. They are not people who originated in what is now Jordan. Most of the Palestinians in Jordan came from what is now Israel, after they fled for their lives during the same process of ethnic cleansing.

The fact that Jordan doesn't have any Jews living in it is hardly the fault of the Palestinians. This is a reality for which they bear no responsibility. However, it is your country that is responsible for the fact that no Jews are allowed to live in Jordan, so maybe you should give up some of your land as a way of helping to correct that wrong.

You keep trying to deflect attention away from the actual lies that I have proven you have made to other points that are not relevant to my original point about you telling lies. I'm not stupid enough to fall for that trick. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:08 AM

I think that you will find Barry that Israel has never threatened the destruction/eradication/annihilation of anyone. Exactly the opposite has been the case with Israel's neighbours and more latterly of the terrorist organisations they harbour and support.

Now could you please answer the question as to what the basis for negotiation is, when there is no ground for compromise, or concensus, with an opponent, or antagonist, whose sworn aim and over-riding ambition is to kill you and whose interpretation of any argeement reached is that it serves only as a stop gap on the way to finally securing your total destruction.

Israel is on record time after time stating that it will reach agreement and will negotiate with anyone provided that the Sovereignty of the State of Israel is recognised and that its citizens are allowed to live in peace without fear or threat of attack.

Go away and find out what the official Hezbollah, Hamas, + any other Jihadist line is on that. Oh and that includes that of their paymasters in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:48 AM

Plain truth is Barry, there is no ground for compromise or concensus with an opponent or antagonist whose sworn aim and over-riding ambition is to kill you and whose interpretation of any argeement reached is that it serves only as a stop gap on the way to finally securing your total destruction.

Again, who are we talking about here, Israel or Palestinian? Both have bllod on their hands but only one has the power!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:20 AM

Hi Barry,

Dimona - Suicide bombing, first inside Israel for over a year.

Now what was it I said to you just recently? Oh yes:

"Gaza - Considering the number of attacks I think that the Israeli's are showing remarkable restraint, don't you? - how would you respond to 428 attacks in 30 days? Frequency might go up some now Barry as Hamas may well have resupplied via the rather large gaps in the border with Egypt"

I believe that the Al-Aqsa faction, not Hamas, have claimed responsibility, but the route the bombers took was from Gaza via Egypt. That Barry is exactly how they believe that it was done, and in the short term future they expect more.

Plain truth is Barry, there is no ground for compromise or concensus with an opponent or antagonist whose sworn aim and over-riding ambition is to kill you and whose interpretation of any argeement reached is that it serves only as a stop gap on the way to finally securing your total destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:05 AM

CarolC, regarding these "lies" I am supposed to have been telling.

The Arab population of Israel amounts to something like 16% of the total take in the other non-Jewish elements that make up the population and that percentage is higher at around 20%. Now can you tell us what percentage of the population of what is now known as Jordan is Jewish? I know that you will evade that question so here's the answer - 0%. Why because they were not allowed to settle there. So could you explain to me and others on this forum where the lie is in the following?

"Anyone could settle and live in what became known as the Transjordan sector of the Palestine Mandate provided they were not Jewish - Jews were and still are specifically excluded.

Anyone could settle and live in the part of the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory."

As for this piece of emotional twaddle:

"The facts are that most of the people who lived and worked in the area that is now (Please insert name of Country/Area of choice..............) for hundreds and in some cases more than a thousand years have been dispossessed of almost of all that they ever had though an ongoing and relentless process of ethnic cleansing by (Please insert Race or religious group of choice............) who settled in the area and established a colonialist enterprise requiring a population demographic in which they would always be in the majority. These colonialists have committed ongoing and too numerous to count human rights abuses and violations as well as war crimes and other atrocities."

That CarolC is life as we know it on planet earth. The above has been common practice for thousands of years, and no doubt will continue to be the case.

Dianavan, the fact that you ask your question illustrates that you have not even attempted to look at the problem from the Israeli perspective. Your question was:

"Was it also necessary for Israel to develop nuclear weapons?"

Israel - nuclear programme for energy needs dates back to 1958 and as such predates the Nuclear NPT by more than a decade.

Israel - Remains outwith the nuclear NPT and as such is not constrained by its terms and conditions.

Israel - As a non-signatory of the nuclear NPT receives no help or technical assistance from other nuclear countries.

Israel - From the date of its declaration of sovereignty in 1948, has been for the large part surrounded by neighbours who declared their open hostility towards Israel and who repeatedly have made public pronouncements relating to the destruction/eradication/annihilation of the State of Israel and of the Jewish people.

Israel - Her neighbours outnumber her in terms of population, natural resources, wealth. For much of the period of Israel's existence they also outnumber her in military terms each having large conscript standing armies.

Israel - Relies on a citizen army with a professional core. As such Israel cannot mobilise her army and keep it mobilised for long periods, were she to try the country as a whole would not function.

Given that set of circumstances Dianavan, yes I'd say as an adult Israeli who was around in 1948 and in 1958, I think I could put forward a very good case for the development of an Israeli independent nuclear deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:17 PM

teribus -

"...Israel's nuclear energy programme was driven by necessity as unlike Iraq, Libya and Iran - Israel has no oil or gas to supply its energy needs."

Was it also necessary for Israel to develop nuclear weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM

I see you prefer to change the subject when your "facts" are shown to be mere lies, Teribus. Your perogative, but lies they remain.

The facts are that most of the people who lived and worked in the area that is now Israel and the West Bank and Gaza for hundreds and in some cases more than a thousand years have been dispossessed of almost of all that they ever had though an ongoing and relentless process of ethnic cleansing by Europeans who settled in the area and established a colonialist enterprise requiring a population demographic in which they would always be in the majority. These colonialists have committed ongoing and too numerous to count human rights abuses and violations as well as war crimes and other atrocities.

Violent acts have been committed by the people who were being dispossessed, but those acts have no less moral legitimacy than violent acts committed by any other people in defense of their homes, land, and people. We in the US threaten any countries that would consider acts of aggression against us with nuclear annihilation, which, of course, would kill many millions of innocent civilians, women, children, old people, etc. The indigenous people of Palestine certainly have as much right to defend themselves as we do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 05:42 PM

Boils down to this simple fact enshrined in Jordanian Law, CarolC:

Anyone could settle and live in what became known as the Transjordan sector of the Palestine Mandate provided they were not Jewish - Jews were and still are specifically excluded.

Anyone could settle and live in the part of the the Palestine Mandate that became known as Palestine in 1923 when the British split the territory.

Every single time a partition proposal was put forward in general the Jewish community accepted it, the Arab community rejected it. Why on earth they did not go for the Peel Proposal in 1937 I have no idea, but they didn't. Each time they opted for force of arms, and each time they lost. Fact of life if you sit down to play poker or any other game where gambling is involved, if you do not have the best hand, or cannot bluff the best hand, you lose. You cannot in all honesty then complain to the dealer that you have lost, you have made a mistake, and please sir can I have my money back. To deliberately chose the path of war - there is no greater gamble than that - nothing on this earth is more uncertain - yet time after time that is what was the Arab causes' preferred course of action was - and time after time they lost.

They fought and then having been defeated, whined and demanded that the offer they rejected should be resurrected and put back on the table - unfortunately things do not work that way. They have steered themselves into situation after situation where they have signed up to UN brokered cease-fires knowing full well that they have absolutely no intention of keeping to the conditions of those agreements and this sad and shoddy fact of life is well known to the Israelis (Latest UN brokered cease-fire Israel has met the UN conditions, Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government and the UN have not honoured one).

The clearly stated intention of both Hamas and Hezbollah is the erradication of Israel. They are supported wholeheartedly in this aim by Iran.

There is no double standard used between Israel & Iran on the nuclear issue. The two are as different as chalk and cheese, one (Iran) is a signatory of the Nuclear NPT and thereby subject to all its terms and conditions, the other (Israel) independently pursued its own nuclear energy programme out of necessity in 1958, ten years before the nuclear NPT was proposed. I said that Israel's nuclear energy programme was driven by necessity as unlike Iraq, Libya and Iran - Israel has no oil or gas to supply its energy needs.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM

The Palestinians are seen by the whole of the Arab whole as being the opressed living confined within the boundries that Israel sees fit to allow them to live in & they see the US as a backer to their oppressor. Weither or not any one wants to argue the past 5000 yrs is not relevant. This is the perception of the living conditions & until that perception is altered & basic human rights are granted there 'll never be a settlment to this dispute. The double standard used between Israel & Iran on the nuclear issue is just another of the same dispute, dispite all the rules & regs passed by those that don't live there, that Israel does as it pleases with the US's blessing, backing & money & to hell with the rest of the region & how they should behave.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM

Teribus, the people who made the map you posted are being a bit dishonest about what the mandated boundaries signified. Well, actually, they're flat out lying. The mandate boundaries only dictated which areas would be administered by the British government and which would be administered by the French government. They did not dictate where Jews could live and where non-Jews could live. It was only after the boundaries of the various mandate areas were established that the British mandate area was split into Palestine and Transjordan. Those names actually mean something. Palestine was for Palestinians and also for European Jews who would be allowed to establish a Jewish homeland within that area (not all of it, but only a part of it), Transjordan was originally a part of mandate Palestine, but was split off from it and given to the Hashemites (who were not Palestinians, but from the area that is now Saudi Arabia), as a reward for helping the British government fight the Ottomans.

Winston Churchill had this to say about the Jewish homeland in Palestine...

    * "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917."

    * 'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'.

    * 'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.'

    * 'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

    * 'This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.'

http://www.answers.com/topic/churchill-white-paper

http://www.answers.com/topic/british-mandate-of-palestine

He is saying that the indigenous Palestinians and those Jews who came to Palestine from other places both would have equal rights to live in Palestine and call it their home, but that they would live together as equals and nobody would have any greater right to any part of Palestine than anyone else.


On the subject of partition, the non-Jewish Palestinians rejected it, which they had every right to do. In fact, they had more right to reject partition than the British government had to force partition on them. They were (are) the indigenous people of that area (along with the Arab Jews, who were also Palestinians). The Jewish agency accepted partition, but some of the Jewish paramilitary groups did not accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 07:25 AM

Almost forgot CarolC what was the collective Arab response to the 1947 UN Partition Plan? Can you tell us what they did next? And what the result was? I think the date was sometime in the summer of 1948.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 07:20 AM

1946 Eh Carol?

Put your clock back a bit and have a look at Palestine Mandate in 1920 and how it was altered in 1923. This CarolC shows what bits were restricted to the jews, please note there was nothing to prevent Arabs or other ethnic groups settling in the Jewish areas but the Jews themselves were restricted as to where they could settle. By the bye CarolC if I made this up I did so before I was born.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Israel%20in%20Maps/The%20British%20Alteration%20of%20the%20Mandate%20-%201923

Or here's a little historical fly-by from Crusader times to present:

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/arabworld/hapalestine.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 04:13 AM

Teribus is in the habit of making up his "facts" as he goes along. Here's a couple of maps that show which areas were designated for the Jewish state and which areas were designated for Palestine. And it should be noted that there were no areas that were restricted to Jewish settlement according to the partition plan. The Jewish state was required to not interfere with the existing population of "Palestinians", which would be anyone living there prior to partition, including "Arabs" (of course, the term "Arab" referred to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims who were Arabs and not Europeans or other ethnic groups).

http://www.friendsofpalestine.org.au/images/Palestine%20Map%20Big.jpg

http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 03:12 AM

In that case Barry maybe you should actually take a look at how it all came into being. Also please note the "nation" you appear to be talking about was the invention of Yasser Arafat. The word Palestine was used to describe a general area, it has never existed as a country. Take time to study the League of Nations Mandated Territories and look at the restrictions that were put in place on those coming into those territories from abroad.

From 1948:
The area now called "The West Bank" - originally part of Palestine restricted to Jewish Settlement, captured by Jordanian Troops and held until 1967. Jordan relinquished its rather dubious claim to it in 1988 and up until the present time it is recognised by the UN as "belonging" to no-one. Do I hear any call from you for this land to be restored? No I didn't think so

Golan Heights - the border was set and agreed in 1923, large incursions were made by Syrian troops in 1948 and much Israeli land was taken, the Syrians continued to hold this land until 1967. It was from the Golan that they launched their last direct attack on Israel in 1973. Do I hear any call from you for this land to be restored? No I didn't think so. Bit selective in who has to get what Barry?

Gaza - Again part of Jewish area of Palestine, captured by Egyptian troops in 1948 and held until 1967. Given to the "Palestinians" on the understanding that totally indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians were to cease. As we all know Barry they didn't, over 4000 have taken place since Israel unilaterally withdrew, around 428 attacks so far this year. What is Israel supposed to do about this totally unacceptable state of affairs? Well according to Little Hawk, the appropriate response from Israel should be well directed targeted air-strikes and artillery barrages. Considering the number of attacks I think that the Israeli's are showing remarkable restraint, don't you? - how would you respond to 428 attacks in 30 days? Frequency might go up some now Barry as Hamas may well have resupplied via the rather large gaps in the border with Egypt, remembering of course that Arafats last gift to his "palestinian" people, 15 million dollars worth of weapons from Iran, was supposed to be delivered via the same route.

Who is funding all this and supplying Hamas and Hezbollah with the weapons? Try Iran Barry, if they were to stop then there would be excellent opportunities to establish peace in the middle-east.