BS: A Palestinian State?

Subject: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:43 AM

Let me throw the idea out there to gte thye ball rolling. Should a state be created for Palestinians out of the West Bank? I know there is also Gaza, but I don't count that because it's far too small to be of any real use to anyone and it's not anywhere near as fertile or big as the West Bank.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: mg
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:30 PM

I can't say for sure what needs to be done. I know here are some absolutes:

1. It is too small a place for everyone who wants to live there. There need to be auxilliary settlements in other countries, including the U.S., various other mid-East countries, perhaps South America and elsewhere, and some fo the population pressure needs to be reduced.
2. They shouldn't be calling for new settlers in Israel when the Palestinians don't have enough.
3.   if they own land in whatever is Israel now, they need to retain title and have some rights.
4. Water rights need to be vigorously protected.
5. Settlements must go.
6. Encroachment must go.
7. Orchards and farmlands must be preserved.
8. That is all for now. If nothing else, they need a Williamsburg type area that is preserved and at least they can visit and see what their homeland was like before it was taken from them, or given away by politicians.
9. There need to be work programs..like maybe they could make the eyeglasses for the world...
10. They should be able to travel as agricultural workers under special programs. They should be trained in vocational schools int he trades and in agriculture. Wine-makign comes to mind...

Various other considerations.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:59 PM

Right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

Yes. A Palestinian State is a must if there is ever to be a solution to the Mid-East crisis.
Most of the talk about "pushing Israel into the sea" is rhetoric with no basis in fact.
It's in the Palestinian interest to have an Israel to negotiate with without the beligerence and saber-rattling of the Bushites to impede this process. Fortunately there are plenty of good Israelis that agree with me. (Read Ha'aretz). Uri Avnery is one of them.

Bush has trampled the Road Map.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:20 PM

Yes, finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is fundamental to finding peace in the Middle East. The situation in the West Bank etc., has been used in anti-Israeli rhetoric in the past by a number of neighbouring countries, notably Saddam in Iraq long ago. Given his treatment of his own people, the Palestinians are probably thankful he wasn't able to fufill his ambitions. But the point is the same: solve the Palestinian question in a way both sides are happy with (that's the hard part) and you take much of the wind out of the sails of the sabre-rattlers on both sides.
Some Palestinians might be ok with being citizens of Israel if they had equal rights. Others want complete independence. A Palestinian state would need practical infrastructure in the first instance - beginning with a proper airport, as it has no real connections with other countries other than by road and through Tel Aviv airport - and this last has been a big issue when it comes to exporting produce etc., and trying to get all the right permits.

Frank, you mentioned Uri Avnery in Haaretz. Another very good Israeli Jewish writer on the same subject is Amira Hass.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:31 PM

"Some Palestinians might be ok with being citizens of Israel if they had equal rights."

But first Israel has to grant them the right to return.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:51 AM

And will the other countries give the Jews driven out from 1948 to the present the same right of return?


"In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now and they were determined to get ALL of that remaining 25%. Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron slaughters of 1929 and later the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." "

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 12:23 PM

"And will the other countries give the Jews driven out from 1948 to the present the same right of return?"

I don't know? Do they want to return now that they have returned to their ancient homeland? Seems to me they have a home whereas the Palestinians are still refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 12:38 PM

The quoted statement says that the Palestinians ARE NOT without a state- Transjordan was CLOSED to Jewish immigration ( by the British) so that IT would be the ARAB PALESTINIAN HOMELAND. If they are refugees, it is no more than the greater number of Jews who were driven out of ARAB nations... So why do the Palestinians have these "rights" that you would deny, or state are unneeded, to Jews?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:06 PM

I do believe the Palestinians have the right to return, I did not state, however, that Jews did not need it. I asked a quesion. Do the Jews want the right to return or do they want to stay in Israel?

I believe that many Palestinians, if given the choice between Jordan, Israel and the refugee camp, would want to return home to Israel. The Jewish right to a homeland does not give them the right to displace the people who were already there. Israel does not have the right to practice apartheid.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:00 PM

B'Bruce: "And will the other countries give the Jews driven out from 1948 to the present the same right of return?"

Any idea what ever became of them? I wonder where they are now. Any info on that?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:19 PM

THEY were taken in by Israel- while Transjordan, the ARAB Palestinian state, kept the Palestinian refugees in camps from 1948 to 1967.

So, the world should make the Israelis take in ARAB refugees, while doing nothing about the rights of the Jews who were driven out of ARAB countries?

Why didn't they try that in Pakistan/India? Make those Indians take in the Moslems that fled to Pakistan, and MAKE Pakistan take in the Indians who fled to India? MAYBE they ( The Brits) figured that since BOTH sides had displaced people, they would balance out... Except now the Arabs want even more than the 75% of the entire Palestinian Mandate plus 75% of the remaining 25% of the Jewish Homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:34 PM

bb - I do not know that that the Jews who sere driven out of Arab countries want to return since they now have homes in Israel. If you have reason to believe that they wish to return, please provide a source.

I am sure that the choice between a refugee camp and returning to their homes in Israel, for Palestinians, is without a doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:43 PM

And the choice for the Hindus would be to return tyo Pakistan, and the choice of the Moslems would be to return to India.


The exchange of refugees, with the Jews being forced to flee from Arab territories, and the Arabs choosing to flee from Israeli territory ( since a number did accept the invitation of the Israeli government, and DID stay, where the Jews were given no choice in most cases) was what the Brits have done in the past, and may well do in the future.

HOW MUCH of Mandate Palestine should the 75% of the population who were Arab Moslem get?

They have, or could now have 93.75% of Mandate Palestine- whereas the Jews who were about 20-25% of the population (depending on year) are only claiming 6.25%.

AND YOU think the ARAB PALESTINIANS should have more land?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:46 PM

Well, in fairness, the whole world expected Palestine to 'take in' Jewish refugees from Europe and Russia etc., back in 1948. Maybe Germany should take back a few hundred thousand for a start? I reckon they should be given a big chunk of Bavaria - it's one of the most scenic and fertile parts of Germany. They should have to give up land if anyone should, true? France and all the other European countries that shoved them out should take back a few as well. For what it's worth, the UN council that decided to create a homeland for Jewish refugees down on top of where Palestinians were already living never bothered to consult the Palestinians about the decision. The British even promised them a homeland of their own in return for their support against the Ottoman empire in WW1, then reneged on that promise as soon as the war was over. (As an aside - the British had a habit of that. After encouraging the Irish to fight for the rights of small nations, democracy etc., they then decided the Irish weren't to have any of it. That's been a lot of the problem all along, the WAY (sorry, no italics on this browser, it'd represent what I want to say better than capitals) it was done, all a bit high-handed)


You're on the ball about Jordan though. Lots of complaining about the Jews and Israel, but they did damn all for the Palestinians. Which brings me to a point. Somebody back along this post suggested the West Bank was a bit small for all those that wanted to live there. Perhaps Jordan should cede some territory to a West Bank Palestinian state - since there are so many Palestinian refugees cramped along its borders anyway, it'd relieve Jordan of a problem that it seems to want rid of anyway. Another UN decision like the one in 1948 should do the trick.

You see, many Palestinian refugees still hold not only title deeds but even keys to houses and property that has since been colonised by Israel. If I understand correctly, most of these colonists are not Jews that fled the West Bank area in 1948, but new arrivals from USA, Russia and elsewhere. Perhaps they could stay where they were found not to have seized property belonging to Palestinians, but would they be happy to live in a Palestinian state (if the West Bank was so-declared)?

The lot of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon has been even worse in some respects than those of Jordan. Less integrated into Lebanses life due to differing sects of Islam and a large christian population, they also suffered two big massacres by Israeli-backed Phalangist militias at Shabra and Shatila.

I'm not sure about your figures of Arabs wanting 75% of the remaining 25% of the Jewish homeland - are you talking about the West Bank? I don't think that was ever part of the original Jewish homeland delineated back in '48 by the UN.

BTW, there are other Jewish communities living in the Middle East outside of Israel, one notable one being the one in Iran, which also has a Jewish member of the Iranian parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:50 PM

"UN council that decided to create a homeland for Jewish refugees down on top of where Palestinians were already living never bothered to consult the Palestinians about the decision."

It was the League of Nations, breaking up the Ottoman Empire


" The British even promised them a homeland of their own in return for their support against the Ottoman empire in WW1, then reneged on that promise as soon as the war was over."

Which the ARABS got- Transjordan




"The terms of the British Mandate incorporated the language of the Balfour Declaration and were approved by the League of Nations Council on July 24, 1922, although they were technically not official until September 29, 1923. The United States was not a member of the League of Nations, but a joint resolution of the United States Congress on June 30, 1922, endorsed the concept of the Jewish National Home.

Like the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," called upon the mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home," with "an appropriate Jewish agency" to be set up for advice and cooperation to that end. The World Zionist Organization, which was specifically recognized as the appropriate vehicle, formally established the Jewish Agency in 1929. Jewish immigration was to be facilitated, while ensuring that the "rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced." English, Arabic, and Hebrew were all to be official languages.

In March 1921, Winston Churchill, then British colonial secretary, convened a high-level conference in Cairo to consider Middle East policy. As a result of these deliberations, Britain subdivided the Palestine Mandate along the Jordan River-Gulf of Aqaba line. The eastern portion--called Transjordan--was to have a separate Arab administration operating under the general supervision of the commissioner for Palestine, with Abdullah appointed as emir. At a follow-up meeting in Jerusalem with Churchill, High Commissioner Herbert Samuel, and Lawrence, Abdullah agreed to abandon his Syrian project in return for the emirate and a substantial British subsidy.


A British government memorandum in September 1922 ("The Churchill White Paper"), approved by the League of Nations Council, specifically excluded Jewish settlement from the Transjordan area of the Palestine Mandate. The whole process was aimed at satisfying wartime pledges made to the Arabs and at carrying out British responsibilities under the Mandate. Unfortunately for the Zionists and counter to the whole expressed purpose of the Mandate in the first place, by this action more than three-quarters of the territory of the British Mandate was taken away from the potential Jewish Homeland without any corresponding action favoring the Palestinian Jews. The squeeky Arab wheel was greased with concessions at the sole expense of the Jewish population.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:53 PM

Map of Mandate Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:56 PM

Jewish populations

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:59 PM

"And the choice for the Hindus would be to return tyo Pakistan, and the choice of the Moslems would be to return to India."

I don't know where you are getting this information. Source, please.

Besides, bb, this isn't about India and Pakistan. Its about the roots of the problems in the Middle East. There are several possible solutions but it will take will and determination to make it happen. Allowing the Palestinians the right to return home is a good start.

I agree with Nickhere. Who has more right to the property seized from Palestinians, European immigrants or the Palestinian owners who have been living as refugees?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:05 PM

And who has more right to Canada than the First Americans driven off the land?

So I would expect you to move back to where you were born, rather than occupy a land whose owners have been pushed off.

Same for everyone in the US not of First American ancestry...

And send all the Blacks back to Africa, while you are at it.

Or is it just Jews that have to give up their lands?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:37 PM

I certainly agree with giving chunks of Europe back to people...and Ukraine and Russia...huge huge areas of land..now Ukraine..how much i I don't know has the radiation problem...but there are huge areas with huge amounts of land..we have to be careful to say land without a people because undoubtedly there are people everywhere..and it is not ours to give..but along with Palestinians having a congregating place, with old preserved villages and farms etc. and living somewhere else and returning for pilgramages, vacations, etc..I think Jewish people have to do the same....live and work elsewhere for the most part and visit the holy grounds and some relatives in Israel. That of course means all holy grounds and most remaining farm land has to be preserved by international occupation if necessary. And other satellite colonies need to be formed. The Irish for example....Australia, Canada....the Welsh in Argentina, the Swiss in Wisconsin perhaps and Washington. Scandinavians all over the place...

We have to really focus on the love of a praticular piece of land, which realistically most are not going to get back..but even if some did in common..like a village..many villages are I think almost ghost towns but I oculd be wrong...and focus less perhaps, based on what I have heard Palestinian leaders say..that they will live in a non-Palestinian state but on their own precious land. I am not saying they can or ever will have that land back, but we must try to understand how important it was and is to them.

I will tell you from my own family's experience...a great longing for Ireland, regardless how desolate and poor it must have been...it doesn't go away in many generations. Even in thousands of years as for the Jewish people. I am sympathetic for the idea of a homeland, especially after such horrible losses..but you still do not get to go and take someone else's house and farm and water. And say a holy book told you it was OK. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:28 PM

Again, you are tossing red-herrings.

Do American Blacks want to return to Africa? I doubt it, America is now their home and they are not being stopped from returning to Africa if they choose.

Same with Natives. Are Natives stopped from living in America? No.

Palestinians, however, are not given the right to return and are living as refugees. Why do European immigrants have more rights than Palestinians?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:35 PM

When we print a quote, bearded bruce, it is always a good idea to indicate where we found it. Especially when the quote is one which is bound to be seen by others as open to question as to its accuracy..
................
The best solution for the area would have been a single state where Jews and Muslims and Christians would all live alongside each other. A normal state in other words. To insist that countries should be by definition primarily for particular groups - a "Jewish state" or a "Christian state" (still less a "Catholic" or "Protestant" or "Orthodox" Christian state) or a "Muslim state", or for white people or black people - well, that's is a pretty despairing way of dealing with human diversity. That's not what religion is supposed to be about.

However that's not the way things have been allowed to develop in that part of the world, and a two state solution seems the only realistic way out of the present nightmare, even though it does smack of the sick fantasies of the old South Africa. Maybe some day there'll be a saner generation that can come together in some wider federation, as has happened in Europe, after an even bloodier history.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:49 AM

Israel had invited the Arab Moslems to STAY in Israel, and become citizens. Many did. Those who chose to flee, with the promise BY THE ARAB LEAGUE that they would get ALL of Palestine are the ones who aRE REFUGEES- AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN BY JORDAN, the ARAB PALESTINIAN state, as Israel took in those Jews who were forced out of the Arab states.

The present "Palestinians" had a choice- they CHOSE to flee, and made NO effort to return from 1948 to 1967, except as members of an occupying army. The ones WHO STAYED in Israel have their land and houses.

How many Jews are now in those Arab countries? And how many Arabs in Israel, with a MUCH smaller area and total population?


"The best solution for the area would have been a single state where Jews and Muslims and Christians would all live alongside each other."

Please compare Israel, the "jewish" homeland, and Jordan, the "Arab" homeland. Which is closer to your desired best solution?

The 1923 White paper PROHIBITED Jewish immegration to Transjordan- So the lack of a "right of return" for Arab Palestinians to the "jewish" homeland is only fair.


BTW, the present Palestinians have still NOT recognized the right of Israel to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:36 AM

"At the heart of political turmoil in the region and particularly in Jordan, the country with the largest number of registered refugees, is the Right of Return. Since their expulsion in 1948 Israel has denied Palestinians the right to return to their homes and lands"

http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo025/fmo025.pdf

"Israel's admission to the UN was conditional on its acceptance of UN resolutions including 194. Denying the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands is a war crime and an act of aggression which deserves action by the international community. The international community can apply sanctions on Israel until it complies with international law."

http://www.al-awda.org/facts.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:41 AM

"The third session of the General Assembly refused to accept any decision altering the Partition Resolution of the preceding year, nor did it decide on ways of its implementation. Instead, on November 12, 1948, with Resolution 194 (III)it decided to set up a United Nations Conciliation Commission, reiterated the decision on internationalization of Jerusalem, and laid down several principles on the refugee question.

Since the War of Independence was still going on, most of Resolution 194 deals with seeking a diplomatic solution to the conflict, including setting up an international Conciliation Commission to mediate between the parties. The refugees are mentioned only in Article 11, which resolved:

... that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
Article 11 also instructed the Conciliation Commission:

... to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation.
Palestinian Arabs constantly repeat claims of rights based on Resolution 194, in particular the right to return to lands that are now part of the State of Israel. That position has no basis, certainly not in Resolution 194. General Assembly resolutions, unlike those of the Security Council, are non-binding and essentially are only suggestions. Resolution 194 does not use the language of "rights" or "right of return". The resolution does not specify the nationality of the refugees; recall that the Palestinian Arab refugees, who voluntarily left Israel at the urging of their leaders, are approximately equal in number to the Jews who fled persecution from Arab countries. Any "right of return" or right to compensation is equally present in Resolution 194 for Arabs and Jews. Since the resolution also specifies that its recommendations would apply to refugees who wish "to live at peace with their neighbors," Arabs would be excluded. It was the Arabs who began the war in 1947 and they continue to be at war with Israel today.

The present-day insistance on a "Right of Return" by Palestinians is a transparent attempt to eliminate Israel by means other than war. If all the refugee Palestinian Arabs, and their descendents, are given the right to return to Israel, then Israel quickly becomes a country with a Jewish minority. The majority Arabs would put an end to Israel without delay. Therefore, any ultimate resolution of this issue will certainly be in terms of limited return (perhaps limited to the few living Arabs who actually once resided in Israel) plus a forumula of compensation for both Arabs and Jews who were displaced by events surrounding the 1948 War of Independence."

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_194.php

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:43 AM

Israel's Declaration of Independence called for equal treatment under the law of all its citizens, regardless of their beliefs or national origin. Arab Israelis have had political representation since the state's first parliamentary assembly; currently, thirteen members of the Israeli Parliament are Arab-Israeli, most representing majority Arab political parties. An Arab-Israeli judge also sits on the Supreme Court,[12] and a Druze is next in line to the acting presidency (and has assumed role as such for a week-long period).



"Arabs of Israel", "Arab population of Israel", or "Arab inhabitants" are terms used by Israeli authorities and Israeli Hebrew-speaking media to refer to non-Jewish Arabs that are citizens and/or residents of the State of Israel.[13][14][15]

The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, for example, therefore includes Arab permanent residents of Israel who do not hold Israeli citizenship in its census figures. As a result, the number of Arabs in Israel is calculated as 1,413,500 people or 19.8% of the Israeli population (2006).[16] These figures include about 250,000 Arabs in East Jerusalem, and about 19,000 Druze in the Golan Heights.

Terms used to refer to Arab citizens of Israel in the Arab media or Arabic cultural lexicon are "the Arabs of '48", "the Palestinians of '48"[17] or "the Arabs within" (ÚÑÈ ÇáÏÇÎá). These terms do not include the East Jerusalem Arab population or the Druze in the Golan Heights since these territories were occupied by Israel in 1967.

Other terms used to describe Arab citizens of Israel include "Arab Israelis",[18] and "Palestinian Arabs in Israel".[19][20]

All the terminology does not account for distinctions between different Arabic-speaking sub-groups in Israel. For example, these terms are commonly used to refer to the Druze population as well, even though some of them do not regard themselves as Arabs. [citation needed]

Additionally, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, who left or were expelled from Arab countries, mostly after 1948, or who are the descendants of those immigrants and refugees, are not usually identified as Arabs, though many of them and their ancestors were traditionally Arabic-speaking. Still, there are some Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews that do self-identify as Arab Jews.[21][22]

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:59 AM

"the number of Arabs in Israel is calculated as 1,413,500 people or 19.8% of the Israeli population (2006)."

Present Jewish populations of "Arab" countries ( from link earlier)

Jews in Lebanon    0.003%       100 total
Jews in Iraq       0.0004%      100 total
Jews in Iran       0.03%       20,405
Jews in Egypt       0.0001%      100 total
Jews in Algeria    0.0003%      100 total
Jews in Afghanistan 0.000003307 1 total
Jews in Jordan      0.000000%    NONE
Jews in Libya       0.000000%    NONE
Jews in Morocco    0.016%       5,236
Jews in Pakistan    0.000001%    200
Jews in Syria       0.0005%      100 total
Jews in Turkey      0.025%       17415
Jews in Turkmenistan 0.01       495
Jews in Uzbekistan 0.065%       17,453
Jews in Yemen       0.001%       200


Average worldwide population of Jews - 0.227 % of population

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:23 AM

"The Saudi government states that all citizens must be Muslim. The majority of the population adheres to a strict theological interpretation within Islam most commonly known as Salafi or Wahhabism. The Shia Population of the country is estimated at around 15%,[11] primarily in the Eastern provinces, and larger cities.

The country allows religious minorities such as Christians and Hindus to enter the country as temporary workers, but does not allow them to practice their faiths. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:31 AM

"With the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the League of Nations created the French Mandate Syria and British Mandate Palestine. Approximately 80% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan". In 1921, the British gave semi-autonomous control of Transjordan to the future Abdullah I of Jordan, from the Hashemite family, who had lost their civil war with the House of Saud for control of Mecca and Medina."

"In 1950, Transjordan annexed the West Bank, which had been under its control since the armistice that followed the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The annexation was recognized only by Great Britain (de facto in the case of East Jerusalem)."

"and it participated in the June 1967 war against Israel along with Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. During the war, Jordan lost the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israel (the western sector having been under Israeli control). In 1988, Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank but retained an administrative role pending a final settlement, and its 1994 treaty with Israel allowed for a continuing Jordanian role in Muslim and Christian holy places in Jerusalem."

"Jordan has a law that states that any Palestinian may immigrate and obtain Jordanian citizenship, but must remit his/her Palestinian claim. It should also be noted that Palestinians are not allowed to purchase land unless they give up their Palestinian citizenship. This violence has also led to a rise of extremism in Jordan. In November 2005, King Abdullah called for a "war on extremism" in the wake of three suicide bombings in Amman."
"Jordan has a population of 5.8 million. Most of the Bedouin population descend from the Hejaz.[8] or tribal origins and account for around 40-45% of the population.[8] However, 50 to 55% of Jordan's population are from Palestinian origins, many of whom fled from Palestine to Transjordan and gained citizenship after the Arab-Israeli wars in 1948 and 1967.[9] The remaining 5% of the population come from different ethnic minorities such as Circassians, Chechens, Armenians (13th largest in the world) and Kurds. Many Jordanians are also of Turkish and East European descent, as many Jordanian expatriates who reside in East European countries marry there.

The number of Lebanese permanently settling in Jordan since the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict has not been established, and is estimated to be very little.

Christians form approximately 6% of the population and have 9% of the seats in parliament. Most Christians belong to the Greek Orthodox church (called "Room Urthudux" in Arabic). The rest are Roman Catholics (called "Lateen"), Eastern Catholics (called "Room Katoleek" to distinguish them from "Western Catholics"), and various Protestant communities including Baptists. Christians in Jordan are of many nationalities, as evinced, for example, by the Catholic mass being celebrated in Arabic, English, French, Italian, Spanish, Tagalog and Sinhala, as well as in Iraqi dialects of Arabic.

Since the Iraq War,[citation needed] many Christians from Iraq have settled permanently or temporarily in Jordan."

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

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:34 AM

The main stumbling block is recognition of the State of Israel by ALL parties.

Israel's neighbours are:
Egypt - they have no problem in recognising the State of Israel;
Jordan - they likewise have no problem in recognising the State of Israel;
Syria - Still in dispute with Israel over land on the Golan Heights and over water issues. They sponsor terrorist organisations active in Israel, West Bank, Gaza and in Lebanon.
Lebanon - An artificially formed country carved out of the "old" Syria established in the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. Recently released from 27 years of Syrian occupation, but remains to be the main base for Hezbollah attacks on Israel.

Interested Parties:
Egypt - no problems, no particular axe to grind.
Jordan - no problems, no particular axe to grind.
Syria - Wants return of Golan and settlement of water rights
Lebanon - Wants settlement of land disputes with Syria and needs to evict Hezbollah to remove only point of friction with Israel.
Iraq - Non-frontline state, used to sponsor international terrorist organisations in the area targeting Israel, purely for inter-pan-Arabic political ends. Now no longer does so due to change of management.
Saudi Arabia - no problems, no particular axe to grind, wishes peace in the region.
Iran - Non-frontline state, main state sponsor of terrorist organisations in the middle-east, as formerly with iraq this is done for purely political reasons. Stated aim to "wipe Israel from the map". Possibly about to become a member of the nuclear weapons club.
Hezbollah - Political Party in Lebanon, currently attempting to overthrow the government there. An international terrorist organisation that targets Israel with the declared intent of total annihilation of the State of Israel.
Hamas - Current elected representatives of the Palestinian people. They have an internationally recognised terrorist wing responsible for indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. Like Hezbllah, their stated aim is the total eradication of the State of Israel and its people.
Palestinian Liberation Organisation - Tosser Arafat's old crowd, they too have militants that call for the annihilation of Israel.
Palestinian Authority - Weak, corrupt, unable to govern this is the rump of the milch cow that Arafat fed from for decades in order to amass his personal fortune. His successors are reluctant to relinquish the spot as they too, no doubt want a similar sized slice of the pie. Unfortunately for them, the Palestinian people having grown tired of their conspicuous lack of leadership over the past three decades had the absolute nerve to elect Hamas representatives.

OK, irrespective of point of view, take the position of Israel, look at things from their perspective, under what basis would you enter into negotiations with the parties detailed above?

By the bye, 1948 boundaries are a "red herring", even according to those who wish to negotiate (This excludes, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO/Fatah) the boundaries are those of pre-war 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:11 AM

True, guest. And I missed Saudi Arabia, with none.

But that makes it even more skewed- can't show up the Arabs as being hypocritical about driving out Jews but demanding the Palestinian Arabs be allowed to return, can we?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:25 AM

All you have really proven is that most humans still put clan/tribe/family/religion above country & world when considering most issues.

BOTH sides make 'true' statements which are worded to make the other side's 'true' statements seem self-serving.....and both sides are correct.

   ....and so it goes on.......

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:57 PM

The term, "who left or fled" is more accurate than "who voluntarily left Israel".

"The present-day insistance on a "Right of Return" by Palestinians is a transparent attempt to eliminate Israel by means other than war." - bb

So the Iranian claim that Israel would be wiped off the map really has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, right?

The threat of nuclear warfare is a way for Israel to deflect attention from the issue of 'right of return' and portray themselves as innocent victims being threatened by their neighbors. Israel knows that it is the right of return that threatens their existence not the nuclear capacity of Iran.

Stop blaming others and take responsibility for Israel's part in this mess.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:39 PM

""The present-day insistance on a "Right of Return" by Palestinians is a transparent attempt to eliminate Israel by means other than war." - bb

So the Iranian claim that Israel would be wiped off the map really has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, right?"


One does not imply the other. The first quote is from the site I posted from, and is true. The second quote is a false statement by you.

" Israel knows that it is the right of return that threatens their existence not the nuclear capacity of Iran."

BOTH are threats, if you bother to look at a map. A SINGLE atomic explosion can take out 80+% of the industry, and 60+ % of the population of Israel.


"take responsibility for Israel's part in this mess. "

So you still insist that Israel be burdened where the Arab nations have failed?

If YOU hold the other Arab nations, and the Palestinian Arabs, responsible for their part, AND HOLD THEM to the same standards you attempt to apply to Israel, THEN I can hold Israel responsible for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:35 PM

Like I said, bb, I have seen nothing to indicate that any of the Jews in Israel with to return to their previous homes in Arab States. Its a moot point because...

that is not the case with the Palestinian refugees who have no home, what-so-ever. They are refugees and have a right to return whether or not they fled or left willingly to escape a very real threat to their families.

...and yes, nuclear warfare is a threat to everyone. If, however, Palestinians were given the right to return, the threat would be greatly diminished.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:02 PM

That bit about right of return being a transparent whatever...I presume people have jumped on it and used it politically...but it is sincere sincere in the hearts of the people whose lands were taken. I have the honor of having known two of them and I can guarantee you they are profoundly sad men, despite having wonderful careers and families here in the U.S. They both lost their orange orchards...the famous Haifa ?? oranges world-reknowned.

Saying things like that is just plain awful. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:33 PM

BBruce - whew! that was a lot of posts! I see you are getting a lot of info from the palestinefacts site - as I've mentioned before, it's a production of the Israeli foreign ministry so I suppose it can't be called exactly independent.

"A SINGLE atomic explosion can take out 80+% of the industry, and 60+ % of the population of Israel"

remember that you said 19% of the Israeli population are Arab-Israeli, as you say they are termed (I don't relly like the term for reasons I'll explain further on). That means any nuclear strikke by Iran would also 'wipe large numbers of Arabs off the map', and I doubt the effects would stop at the West bank border: the security / apartheid wall simply isn't high enough!

"If YOU hold the other Arab nations, and the Palestinian Arabs, responsible for their part, AND HOLD THEM to the same standards you attempt to apply to Israel, THEN I can hold Israel responsible for their actions"

But this is illogical - if you believe someone has committed a wrong, it does not matter whether people hold the 'other party' responsible for their actions - a wrong is a wrong is a wrong!

As an aside, I'd just briefly like to address the idea that Palestinians all left cheerfully expecting to return soon:
Let's look at this logically: if you had news that two opposing armies (Israeli and Arab) were soon to kick off a war in your neighbourhood, would you hang around to watch? No, you'd grab whatever you could of value, documents etc., and you'd clear off to a safer place until it blew over. The parents of the kids who were evacuated from London during WW2 surely expected them to return to their homes as soon as the Blitz was over, true? If I was a Palestinian in 1948, it wouldn't matter if I liked either my Jewish or Arab neighbours - getting killed out-of-hand by either side was a real possibility.

Then there are other facts on the ground - the Deir Yassin massacre of over 100 Palestinain villagers by Israeli paramilitaries and regulars. This was a massacre plain and simple despite Israeli attempts to dress it up as a military operation by falsely claiming they 'encountered resistance' - the usual catch-all phrase. The early zionist paramilitaries (Stern gang etc.,) were no strangers to terrorism either - remember how they dynamited the British HQ killing over 90 people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds?

As for 'wiping Israel off the map' , here are just a few quotes from various Israeli public figures:

David Ben Gurion, Israel's first PM (in 1937 - a FULL 11 years BEFORE 1948 & arab attack) "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war"
(This shows clear intention from the outset of ethnic cleansing)

And Golda Meir, another Israeli PM in 1969: "There is no such thing as the Palestinian people...it is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist"
(This is clear self-delusion. There most certainly were people - known as Palestinians - living there, but the fact they did not have a strong sense of national identity such as was forged in European countries in the 19th century does not justify seizing their property and driving them out. Human rights are surely not dependent on nationality?)

Ok, back in a mo...

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:33 PM

BBruce - much of our discussion centres round politics and things like who did and said whta first. But you touched on a more fundamental topic though, and for me it presents one of the most perplexing philosphical contradictions regarding Israel.
First off I should say that until a number of years ago (mainly as it kept popping up in the news) I rarely gave Israel / the region much thought. I had family members and relatives and friends who'd spent time on Kibbutz there, and that was about all I heard of it. But the more I looked in to what was happening there and trying to understand why, the more the perplexing philosophical probelm presented itself to me:

You touched on I when you mentioned the term "Arab-Israelis". You say "Other terms used to describe Arab citizens of Israel include "Arab Israelis",[18] and "Palestinian Arabs in Israel"
This is the first clue as to the real nature of Israel as it stands at present. We have words here for people who were not born in Ireland but who live and work here. We call them immigrants, or Poles, or Lithuanians, or whatever their nationality. But once any of them get Irish citizenship, we simply call them 'Irish'. We do not (as far as I know) have words like "Black-Irish" or "Hispano-Irish" etc., - just "Irish". If a 'black' guy (sorry, I hope that term's Ok) is playing on the local GAA team, what matters is his playing, not his skin colour.
So,the mere fact of having a term like "Israeli-Arab" points to the sectarian and divided nature of the Israeli state.

But there's more. You described how "The present-day insistance on a "Right of Return" by Palestinians is a transparent attempt to eliminate Israel by means other than war. If all the refugee Palestinian Arabs, and their descendents, are given the right to return to Israel, then Israel quickly becomes a country with a Jewish minority. The majority Arabs would put an end to Israel without delay"

I once read an article by a journalist here making the same point.
I hardly need to point out how it would be percieved if I were to argue in the press that "the Irishness of our state will be threatened if we allow all these blacks and Poles and Russians in" - I would be quickly tarred and feathered for my racist views! Or if I argued that the "Cathlocisity of our country will be destroyed if we allow too many Jews or Prods or Muslims in" - I would be denounced for my intolerant sectarian views!
Indeed we criticise the northern unionists for cretaing a sectarian 'protestant state for a protestant people' precisely because of its implied disenfranchisement of those who did not fit the bill.
So, as I read it, it struck me "My goodness! What he seems to be saying is that Israel is a racist theocracy, since it is a Jewish state for a Jewish people only - as Jewish connotes both ethnicity and religion!

A similar argument now rages in the UK. It has a significant muslim population and now UK leaders (Brown, Blair etc.,) are marching on the path of forced integration ('make muslim women take off that veil' / 'make them take UK citizenship classes so they can learn what it means to be a loyal UK citizen). There are dire warnings about Britain becoming a Muslim country (!)

But then I thought, isn't that what our much-vaunted democracy is supposed to be all about? People choose the form of government and society they see best fit. If the British people want to vote to become a Muslim nation, then isn't that their democratic right?
If Israel becomes a Muslim nation - isn't that an expression of the democratic will of the people that must be respected?

I should make a point here though - I, for one, have no wish to live under a sword and sharia law (as in Saudi Arabia, another racist theocracy). I would not like the cramp on my freedom, including my religious freedom. But there are secular Muslim societies, such as Turkey (not without its human rights abuses though) and even Western-style democracies like my own are rampant with corruption and have v. have nots.

But we, in the 'West' trumpet a secular democratic model as the ideal society to the point where we are willing to invade Iraq and Afghanistan in order to bestow its 'benefits' on those countries at gunpoint (the irony is not lost on me). We promote it heavily and practically bully other countries to adopt it. Yet when democracy produces results we do not like, such as a possible Muslim Britain, or Hamas representing the Palestinians (for whatever reason, as you have pointed out ;-) ) we decide democracy must be rescued from itself. A classic example here was when a referendum on an EU treaty did not produce the desired result in Ireland, so the government simply decided people would keep voting on it until they 'got it right'.

I would be in favour of McGrath from Harlow's solution - a one-for-all state: a big geographical area that encompasses Jew and Muslim and Arab alike. As long as this state protects the welfare and democratic rights of all its citizens, there should be no need to worry. If one group starts dominating or discriminating against another, we have the means to step and intervene, if we have the political / moral will to do so, true?

Any thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:36 PM

Where is Carol C. and how come she has not as yet weighed in on this thread ?
                                              SOL

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:42 PM

"You touched on I"
Sorry, that should have read: "you touched on it" !

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:43 PM

Nickhere, thank you. I will check him out.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:46 PM

Bearded Bruce,

Israel has its own country.
The Palestinians do not.
Jordan is not the Palestinian's country
although a militant faction of Irael would l
like to make it so.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:55 PM

Bearded Bruce,

>The present "Palestinians" had a choice- they CHOSE to flee,

Of course they chose to flee. They were out-gunned, out-manned and literally run off of their land by soldiers with firepower. Jordan was not their home.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:57 PM

Bearded Bruce,

>AND YOU think the ARAB PALESTINIANS should have more land?

No not more. Just their own.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:21 PM

Nickhere - For the most part, I agree with your line of reasoning but I will argue that, "...the mere fact of having a term like "Israeli-Arab" points to the sectarian and divided nature of the Israeli state," is not necessarily so. It does mean that we assume all Israelis are Jews and that Arabs are others. That is a very accurate description of Israel at the present time. However, in Canada, we have Chinese-Canadians, Indo-Canadians, etc. It doesn't seem to be an issue because although they keep their cultural identity (and hopefully their language), they are, in fact, Canadian. I will admit that I have never referred to myself as an American-Canadian so you may be right.

Secular democracy doesn't seem to work in the Mid-east. Israel likes to think that because they are 'modern' they are a democracy but I don't think you can call Israel 'secular'. In fact, they want a theocracy just like their Muslim neighbors in Iran. Maybe that is the problem. The U.N. thought they were giving Jews a place where their ethnic identity would be respected, a homeland so to speak, but did not intend it to become a racist theocracy.

I am very disappointed in present day Israel. I would hope that they would serve as an example to others in the Middle East but they seem to have succeeded in stooping to the lowest commom denominator. How will any changes occur if Israel does not lead the way? Instead, Israel has become an oppressive, racist force in the Middle East.

Anyway, I have said enough. Nothing is going to change because of my opinion. It is up to Israel to determine their future and the future of those who are living on their borders in refugee camps. I sincerely hope they will someday heal and begin to show some compassion for others. I am sure this is not what God had in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:26 PM

BBruce - of course I should also point out that I am not in favour of Ireland becoming a Muslim state either. That is, if it became a Mulsim state that didn't allow the freedom of religion and action I currently enjoy. But a Muslim state that allowed me my freedom etc., would not be such a problem. The question is, would it? Any state based on religious law is bound to come into conflict with the secular model, as religious laws would dictate civil legislation.
Then again, not all religious laws are automatically bad for society (as the secularists would have it). The three main monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have some points in common.
The main problem here is that religious laws try and enforce by law what should come from the spirit - in other words, you cannot simply legislate people into being more altruistic, honest, loving etc.,

But do you see what I mean by a philosophical conundrum? If states like Saudi Arabia and Israel - which are based on ethnicity and religion - are acceptable models - then our own pluralist view of how society should be no longer holds as an absolute. The French could decide to have a state for French catholics only, the Germans could decide to have a state for German protestants only and so on. Expelling people who don't fit would no longer be racist or anti-semitic or whatever, but the natural order of the world.

I think it was a French writer, Jean Theirry (I'll have to check that name though) who argued that pluralism and democracy are transient states between periods of totalitarianism and anarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:17 PM

Dinavan - fair point. I suppose there are ethnic groups in countries like Canada etc., that, though Canadian, keep a lot of their cultural identity (as do muslims in Britain). As long as they are all treated equally by the Canadian state, they can all live alongside peacefully. The state, at least, has to regard them all as 'Canadian'. BBruce has said there are 'Arab Israelis' in parliament. I'm not sure where he gets his figures, but I accept his point anyway. But for Palestinians generally who live in Israel and the West Bank, there is a great deal of discrimination.

Of course Israel is not the only country in its position - as BBruce has pointed out, Saudi Arabia is much the same, and you could say the same for countries like China etc, (which has its own issues with Tibet). I suppose the difference for me is that Israel is presented in the western media as being the one and only example of a good democracy in the Middle East, which it appears not to be. It is unlikely the West will convince Arabs of the value of our model if this is the example it sees on the ground. You could point critically at e.g Saudi Arabia, but then of course no one is claiming that Saudi Arabia is anything other than a corrupt monarchy that operates a theocracy (and a sectarian one if you include BBruce's observation that non-muslims cannot be citizens).

Interestingly, many Palesytinians say they have no difficulty living alongside the Jews who are originally from the region. they find it much harder to live alongside European and American Jews, so what may be going on there may be as much a culture clash as anything. I don't know for sure, but I think it's important to work out all the lines of thought. What happens there seems to be critical for the welfare of a much larger world.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: mg
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:40 PM

The idea of Americans going there, who are in no danger..and I can understand the idea that there needs to be a safe haven, although this was not a good spot to pick for that purpose...and using up resources that should be used by the Palestinians just appals me. How much water are they drinking that should be going to Palestinian neighborhoods or that is draining the water table? I hope they aren't taking 25 minute American showers. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: mg
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:22 AM

Look again at the threads to Slieve Gallion Braes and Dear old Donegal...and tell me with a straight face that longing for lands, when you have the keys to the property in your possession still, that were lost is only a political ruse. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

Nickhere,

Your "quotes from various Israeli public figures:

Quote 1:
"David Ben Gurion, Israel's first PM (in 1937 - a FULL 11 years BEFORE 1948 & arab attack) "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war"

Care to provide the context in which this was said or a reference?

The Jewish settlers and the local Jewish population in British Mandated area of the middle east known geographically as Palestine were attacked by the Arab population on the following occasions:
1922 - Grounds for justification, lies deliberately told and spread by Muslim cleric's that Jews had murdered Arabs.
1929 - Repeat of the above
1936 & 1937 - Arab Revolt.

With regard to the Arab Revolt revisit the words of Ben Gurion and you will clearly see what he meant and where the Arabs had to go from.

Quote 2:
"And Golda Meir, another Israeli PM in 1969: "There is no such thing as the Palestinian people...it is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist"

Golda Meir was of course absolutely correct, the term "Palestinian People" was a modern day invention of that great leader "Tosser Arafat". There has never been a country called Palestine, it was a term used to describe a geographical area. The term palestinian people is about as correct in terms of defining a nation as the term west country people in the UK.

Also Nickhere, Arab League leaders told Palestinain Arabs to leave, in order that they could launch indiscriminate attacks on those who remained.

"I would be in favour of McGrath from Harlow's solution - a one-for-all state: a big geographical area that encompasses Jew and Muslim and Arab alike. As long as this state protects the welfare and democratic rights of all its citizens, there should be no need to worry."

Only problem with Nick is that in western democracy the State is deliberately held separate from the religion, that is not always the case in Islam. Counter to what dianavan believes Israel is a secular democracy

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:13 AM

Nickhere,

you start with the idea of a Palestinian state (an idea I agree with) but you give later the impression that you'd wish there would be no Israel at all (an idea I don't agree with). What do you actually want?

And what do you want for Gaza? Coming back to Egypt?

Since you brought up Germany, let me use this example in another way. Germany has lost about 1/3 of its 1937 territory and still accomodated all Germans who were evicted from these these regions after WWII (and did not let them live in camps as a pressure group for return). Do they too have a right to return?

This part of your argumentation reminds me that of German Neonazis who are of course for a right to return for all Palestinians (guess why; and by implication for Germans).

Who has the right to return in your eyes? The evicted/fleeing or also their offspring. For how many generations is there a right to return?

In case you think the Germans have no right to return for historical reasons (being guilty), think of the Poles and the Finns who surely have not been guilty in any way before their eviction. Do they have a right to return to what now is Belarus and Russia?

I am against this right to return after such a long time for it would needlessly create new injustice at least as great as the old injustice. If you'd really apply the right to return to Europe it would create a chaos same as it would in Israel/Palestine.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:43 AM

Stringsinger

"Jordan is not the Palestinian's country"

If that is the case, please explain what happened in 1921-1923.

The British, under the League of Nations, spit off from the Mandate Palestine the designated Jewish Homeland, all territories east of the jordan river ( 76% of the area) and established the Arab Palestinian homeland of Transjordan. All Jewish immigration there was prohibited.

How much of Mandate Palestine do YOU think should be given to the Arabs?

Should ISRAEL prohibit all Arab immigration, to be fair?

WHO kept the "Palestinians" in refugee camps from 1948 to 1967, and forced out large parts of their Jewish populations while Israel settled the Jewish refugees from Arab nations as citizens, and gave the Arabs who stayed in Israel in 1948 citizenship?

Yet ISRAEL is supposed to take in those who have declared repeatedly that they do not believe that Israel should exist, and have committed acts of violence against the civilian population, both Arab and Jewish, of Israel?


After I shoot you, or your children, will you welcome me into your home and make me a co-owner? If not, why should Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:29 PM

Probably not but I would be pretty pissed if you were in what I considered to be my home and I had the keys to it still. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:36 PM

Sorry, the League of Nations took the ownership from the Ottoman Empire after WW I, and gave the house to the Jews, after giving the Palestinian Arabs the 76% of the land that represented the population split at the time. You sold that house and got a newer, bigger one- NOW you want the old one back as well?

Or do you agree that the Jordanians should give back the Mandate Palestine territory that they presently occupy ( ie, the entire state)?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:23 PM

Nice try. I didn't sell the house. It was given to someone else by people who didn't own it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:12 PM

Wolfgang,

how best to explain this? I suppose first off, I'm looking (quite open-endedly, I admit) at what kind of solutions can be found for the Palestine crisis. At first it all seemed quite clear-cut: the Jews were dispersed by the Romans after their revolt, they had a (very) historical connection to the land, and so it made sense for them one day to return to it and call it home again. They set up a democratic state and the rest is history.

But then I found there were inconsistencies in that story. As you put it "Who has the right to return in your eyes? The evicted/fleeing or also their offspring. For how many generations is there a right to return?" You seem to be saying (am I correct?) that after so many generations a people can't realistically expect to return to their one-time homeland, whatever the reasons for their original exodus. But isn't that exactly the case of the Jews, then? If their exodus began with the Romans back in 79AD, about 67 generations have passed (30 years to a generation) since then. This is a typical example of what I am perplexed by. So it's quite natural that the descendants of Jews who have been in exile for 67 generations to be able to come back and settle there, but not for Palestinians who've been in exile for a comparatively mere generation or two at most.

Doesn't this strike you as at least logically, if not morally, inconsistent?

I am aware that a small number of Jews were still living in Palestine, but the 'Right of Return' is what I am talking about here.

To answer your other main question - no, I am not saying I would prefer if the State of Israel did not exist. I am not a Neturei Karta etc.,! Sorry if I am giving that impression, but there are many logical inconsistencies. Teribus has said Golda Meir was right in saying there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. Well I suppose we have to have some name to connote the people who lived / live in Palestine. No, it is true they were not a nation, as I have said. But Golda Meir was trying to propagate the notion that this was a barren wilderness empty of people until the zionists came along to set up their state. If this were so, who could argue with them squatting empty land? But of course it's not true. The area was full of people - call them Palestinians or Martians or whatever you want - and it these people who were obliged to give up their houses and farms and homes for a whole wave of refugees that the League of Nations decided to park on top of them. (sorry about that, BBruce, the term UN just came to hand more easily, but of course you are right, it was in fact the forerunner to the UN).

Now of course what happened to the Jews was wrong (I don't think anyone is disputing that point) but surely that doesn't mean that two wrongs somehow make a right, and the human rights of the people living in Palestine at the time can be simply set aside for another groups. If that were so, it would imply that Palestinians (for want of a better word) are somehow further down the chain of evolution, and therefore less entitled to human rights. In other words, social Darwinism.

So from the outset there were logical and moral probelms with the creation of a zionist Israeli state. Personally I think the League of Nations wanted a simple one-size-fits all solution that didn't require too much thought or effort. The crisis we have today is partially the result of their ham-fisted attempt at state-making.

But that's not the whole story either. Zionism, is of course first and foremost, nationalism. Now there's nothing much wrong in being proud of your country and being nationalistic and wanting the best for your country. But, as we know from the examples of e.g nazi Germany and jingoistic Britain, rampant nationalism can lead to seeing all other peoples and nations as mere 'tools' or 'objects' or a means to an end. I believe this is what happened in the case of zionism, hence Ben Gurion's etc., comments. So the zionists wanted an ethnically and religiously pure state and were willing to trample the rights of anyone who got in the way of that. The zionists razed hundreds of villages inhabited by Palestinians (Martians, whatever....;-} ) and I have already mentioned massacres like Deir Yassin. They took over Palestinain homes, farms, businesses and so on. I don't think, as Dinavan pointed out, that this was exactly what the League of Nations had in mind. It's one thing to arrive as refugees, quite another to shove out the current population in order to create a homogenous ethnically pure state.

BTW - BBruce, yes, of course I think that any Jews expelled from Arab countries should be able to return to their homes etc., if they wish.

The arabs are not above blame either. A quick glance round shows most arab countries to be similar theocracies to Israel. But my point was, and still is, they do not claim to be anything else (Iran is even called the Islamic Republic of Iran) whereas Israel presents itself as a secular, western style democracy. But if it is a Jewish state that does not permit its overall Jewishness to be diluted, it is not entitled to make such a claim any more than Saudi Arabia is. That was my point when I said such a line of logic would in fact justify a Celtic-catholic Ireland or an aryan Germany.

Nor is it a democracy that protects all the rights of its citizens, whatever its constitution might claim. I hardly need remind you that the US constitution began "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." while at the same time slavery was flourishing (Jefferson had slaves himself). What the constitution hid, was that 'all WHITE men' are created equal. In the same way, I think we can understand the Israeli constitution as actually guaranteeing the rights only of Jewish Israelis. Discrimination abounds. Here's just one small example: you cannot repair your house in Israel without planning permission. If you are an 'arab Israeli' you cannot, for practical purposes, get planning permission. Thus, you can never repair your house and eventually it falls into disrepair in which you must continue to live. If you repair it without permission, you are evicted, plain and simple. Now Jewish Israelis, on the other hand, have no such difficulty. Moreover, if an arab sells his house to a Jewish Israeli, planning permission is automatically granted if requested. (And I'm not talking about Palestinians in the West bank, I'm talking about arab citizens of Israel).

Now, honestly, does this sound like a healthy democracy to you? To quote Hamlet "something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

So, I'm divided. On the one hand I would like to see a Palestinian state in the West Bank where they would be free to pursue theirn interests. At the end of the day, a few hard men aside, most people - arabs, too - just want to get on with their lives, go to their jobs, tend their gardens and raise their kids. My reservations are that:

. Israel has strangled the economic and cultural life of the Palestinian West Bank, and there is no guarantee it would not continue to do so.
. Israel has already colonised large swathes of the West Bank and criss-crossed it with roads Palestinians are not permitted to use. This would make it very difficult for any burgeoning state, and Israel is unlikely to withdraw its colonies unless put under severe international pressure.
. It still would not address the problem of discrimination faced by arab citizens of Israel, leaving them only with the choice of emigration to the West Bank. If anyone thinks this is good enough, then they ought to consider who it would look if the same thing happened in Europe or the States to Jews. Rightly, it wouldn't be tolerated. I hope we can also come to realise Palestinians are not some lesser life form down the food chain.
.Palestine would need huge investment, aid and infrastructure, being landlocked. Would it get it?

So, that leaves me with McGrath of Harlow's idea: create a larger State of Israel (which the zionists at any rate would be happy with) and put it under strong international pressure to live up to the spirit of its own constitution and ensure equal rights for all. It would be an Israel witha bigger landmass and more resources (such as badly needed water) but would have to be a state acceptable to all those who lived in it. Christians, Jews and Muslims all managed to share Jerusalem for ages more-or-less peacefully, and that is the way it should be with the three main monotheisms. The aim would be to truly enforce the secular nature of the state so no ethinc group or religion dominated. Muslims could have their mosques, Jews their synangogues and so on. Can it be done?

I am forced to admit that this may remain a dream and that an endless cycle of violenec is far more likely. It might just result in Israel annexing the land but continuing with its stste the way it is at present. If Israel continues with its policy of colonising the West Bank and dsicriminating against some of its own citizens, endless tit-for-tat violence (which leaves far more Palestinians than Israelis dead, IMO) is the legacy it will leave to its children and grandchildren.

Surely we are supposed to have moved on from all that after two of the worst world wars in history last century?

If the above idea were accomplished, we could then turn to the arab states and say 'look, this is a shining example of what we mean in the West by the pluralist multi-cultural society we so applaud. See? You have nothing to fear living together". The arab countries may not go for it, but at least they could not be so cynical.


Teribus: sorry, my post went on a bit as usual, so I'll have to get back to some of your points later. Very briefly, whatever about there not being a Palestinian nation / national identity back in 1948, there certainly is one now, as a result of the treatment they've received from zionist Israelis. And as I already observed, surely human rights and dignity do not depend on having developed a sense of national identity? ?

As for there being no such country as Palestine on the map - there was no such country as Israel on the map either until a few strokes of the pen brought it into being. It had already expanded BEYOND its mandated borders by 1947.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:32 PM

Teribus: regarding Ben-Gurion's comment. So, when an Israeli leader like Ben-Gurion proposes and promotes ethnic cleansing of Arabs, there's a justification of course....
But when Hamas do it, it's just sheer bloodyminded anti-semitism......

?-|

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

We can't assume Jordanians are Arabs..I don't know what they are or are not but it is the Hashemite? Kingdome. And Palestinians of course can be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek Orthodox and probably a mixture of nationalities.

This DNA stuff is going to get interesting in a few years. Mark my words.

Can we imagine us the world body telling the gypsies of the world, who have been exploited, slaughtered in a genocide sense, etc...here is a state for you in India. Just move the others out. This is where you are from and I am sure there is a holy book that tells them the land is their's.

I was thinking the Palestinians need a day like St. Patrick's Day..just to have a nice time...celebrate surviving if nothing else...and I thought..well, who are some Palestinian saints...then I thought..well, Mary maybe for one..and some of the 12 apostles perhaps. I'm Catholic..won't win any bible contests....

But I also thinkt here are people who think concrete and some who think abstract. I am concrete. I think about the particular house and olive orchard and goats. Abstract people think in terms of a state that they are sure allpeople want. Some people don't care as long as their little piece of ground is their's atthe end of the day. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM

Bruce,

"Jordan is not the Palestinian's country"

"If that is the case, please explain what happened in 1921-1923."

What happened obviously is that Britain carved up the territory to their liking regardless of the needs of the people who lived there.

"The British, under the League of Nations, spit off from the Mandate Palestine the designated Jewish Homeland, all territories east of the jordan river ( 76% of the area) and established the Arab Palestinian homeland of Transjordan. All Jewish immigration there was prohibited."

By whom was it prohibited and for what reason? Clear this up please.

"How much of Mandate Palestine do YOU think should be given to the Arabs?"

Enough so that the people who were displaced by the Israeli's can continue to live there as they did before Israel expelled them.

"Should ISRAEL prohibit all Arab immigration, to be fair?"

They have for the most part through expulsion and occupation.

"WHO kept the "Palestinians" in refugee camps from 1948 to 1967, and forced out large parts of their Jewish populations while Israel settled the Jewish refugees from Arab nations as citizens, and gave the Arabs who stayed in Israel in 1948 citizenship?"

Well it wasn't the Palestinians. Israel settled the refugees from Arab nations as second-class citizens. And the reverse was done in Arab nations as well.



"Yet ISRAEL is supposed to take in those who have declared repeatedly that they do not believe that Israel should exist, and have committed acts of violence against the civilian population, both Arab and Jewish, of Israel?"

A lot of this is just rhetoric for effect. Israel needs to accept the Palestinians as being a valid community despite Golda Meir's dismissal of their existence which begins to sound like Holocaust denying. Israel and Palestine need each other. There is no monolithic view on this subject by either Israelis (read Ha'aretz if you think so) or by the Palestinian community. The fact that Native Americans were never recognized the the US government doesn't deny their original rights to the land that the European White Man appropriated.


"After I shoot you, or your children, will you welcome me into your home and make me a co-owner? If not, why should Israel?"

This is a fallacious comparison. This issue goes back many years and much shooting of women and children on both sides have taken place to the point where each is blaming the other and no one is talking about a decent solution to the problem. Bush has tromped on the so-called Road Map. Right now, Israel is militarilly more advanced than the Palestinians and so the balance of shooting and destruction is on the side of the Israelis.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:46 AM

"The British, under the League of Nations, spit off from the Mandate Palestine the designated Jewish Homeland, all territories east of the jordan river ( 76% of the area) and established the Arab Palestinian homeland of Transjordan. All Jewish immigration there was prohibited."

Question:
By whom was it prohibited and for what reason? Clear this up please.

Answer:
In the early 1920's, the self styled Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Tosser Arafats uncle, concerned about Jewish immigration, deliberately spread lies about Jewish attacks on Arabs and stories about Jewish massacres of Arabs - total fabrication, not one shread of truth in any of it, not even a single Arab with a broken eyelash as a result of any "Jewish attack". He got the response he wanted and the Arabs rose up and attacked the Jews.

In the immediate aftermath of this mayhem, that he, and he alone, had caused, he managed to persuade the British Governor/Administrator, that he was the only person who could control the situation as far as the Arabs went (He wasn't lying, he'd just proved he could turn them on and off like a tap).

The same thing happened again in 1929. This time Arafats uncle's part in the play was a not so subtle and he had to run for it. So the British decided that the two sides had to be seperated. They did not move people off their land they did not disposess anyone. The part of the Palestinian Mandated Territory to the West of the Jordan was to be the area reserved for the "Jewish Homeland", here Jews could come to and settle, here the Jews could set up shop, buy property. To the east of the Jordan, or Trans-Jordan was the area strictly reserved for the Arab tribes of the area. No Jew could settle there and no Jew could buy/own property there. Also please note the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the subsequent Balfour Declaration talked of a "Jewish Homeland", not a "Jewish State", the two are very different.

As 1947 approached and the old League of Nations Mandate was due to expire, Britain gave notice that they were going to withdraw from the area, the newly formed United Nations proposed boundaries to divide the communities. The Jews accepted this proposal, the Arabs did not, opting instead for a military solution to the problem - first mention of "driving the Jews into the sea". The Arabs attacked and lost and the State of Israel was declared and recognised by the United Nations, national boundaries and all. That was in 1948, the Arabs signed a ceasefire brokered by the UN, they had no intention of keeping to the terms of it. In 1956 the Arabs under Gamal Abul Nasser of Egypt tried again and lost. This resulted in another UN brokered ceasefire where no Arab land was taken, but the Sinia was to become a demilitarised zone. In 1967 Egypt, Syria and latterly Jordan brushed aside the UN monitors in the area (UN response was to do nothing about this) and camped their armies on Israel's borders issuing the gravest threats regarding Israel and its population - at the time no-one thought that the Israeli's stood a chance. The end result of this was what was known as the "Six Day War", again the Arabs lost spectacularly, this time the Israeli's did take land, they took the land from which on three previous occasions Arabs had launched attacks on their state. After the UN brokered ceasefire the Israeli's said, "You want your land back, you openly and officially recognise our right of existence and respect our sovereignty." Some countries did (Egypt and Jordan) Syria did not. Within the area of Palestine certain groups did not accept and groups such as the PLO, Fatah and latterly Hamas and Hezbollah sprung up backed by Gadafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and by Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:49 PM

Teribus, I know he's not your favourite statesman, and it's true he had many faults; but out of decency, perhaps you might refrain from referring to him as 'tosser' Arafat. In turn, I promise to try and refrain from talking about Ghoul-da Meir…. ;->

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:53 PM

Teribus: " Israeli's said, "You want your land back, you openly and officially recognise our right of existence and respect our sovereignty." Some countries did (Egypt and Jordan) Syria did not. Within the area of Palestine certain groups did not accept and groups such as the PLO, Fatah and latterly Hamas and Hezbollah sprung up backed by Gadafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and by Iran"

But if Jordan has recognised Israel's 'right to exist' and Israel grabbed the West Bank during the 1967 war, and has promised to hand back / vacate land grabbed in return for peace and recognition, why didn't it simply withdraw from the West Bank (which wasn't part of the original mandated state of Israel in the first place) and there would have been no PLO / Hamas etc.,?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:56 PM

Some people keep repeating that Hamas wants the state of Israel 'wiped off the map' like a mantra or a jingle, as if it required no further comment or context, and was self-evident proof of Hamas' (and by extension, since they voted for Hamas, the Palestinian people) unreasonable pathology. The first question of course is to wonder if the translation from Arabic is accurate in the first instance. But even assuming it is, the phrase is more ambiguous than has been suggested and could as easily mean scrapping Israel's borders (but leaving the population intact) as the more-usually ascribed meaning of exterminating the Israeli population. Of course, either scenario is bad news for Israelis, but the idea that it is simply the wanton badness of Hamas that prompts them to make such utterances in the first instance requires further comment.
The most obvious point is that is seems to be forgotten or overlooked that since 1967 Israel has occupied and aggressively expanded into the area known as the West Bank, home to many Palestinians, and Gaza to a lesser extent (afterall, Gaza is mainly desert). The PLO was the first, but Hamas is the latest expression of the Palestinians' reaction to being colonised, harassed, robbed and murdered. While I am not a fan of violence, it is not sufficient to simply isolate Hamas' violent rhetoric as if it existed in a vacuum. I often detect a tint of racism in comments on Hamas where Arabs are painted as being genetically pre-disposed to mindless violence.
Those kinds of arguments are especially transparent to me as similar explanations have been put forward by certain 'great thinkers' to explain Irish political violence as the product of a violent race. The Irish were characterised as immoral, irrational drunkards with a propensity to violence in contrast to the sober, rational and peace-loving English that were trying to bring them the benefits of being colonised, harassed, exploited and murdered. For many years a campaign of anti-Irish racism ran in England, mainly in the gutter press. In the 1800s, the Irish were shown as simian types, sporting a brace of pistols and a scowl as they propagated their vandalism of society to the affront of righteous indignant Englishmen everywhere. Of course Darwin's theories were popular at the time….During the 'Troubles' of the 1970s – 1990s, the Irish were characterised as 'loving to fight' wantonly violent etc etc., Of course not everyone thought like this, it was mainly reflected in the tabloids. But in the absence of any real discussion in society on the causes of the violence, the idea took hold that the Irish were somehow different, disposed to violence etc., Liz Curtis' book "The Same Old Story – the roots of anti-Irish racism" (pub. Sasta. Belfast: 1996 ISBN 1 901005 00 3) gives an excellent account of how this is done.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:09 PM

Teribus: " Israeli's said, "You want your land back, you openly and officially recognise our right of existence and respect our sovereignty." Some countries did (Egypt and Jordan) Syria did not. Within the area of Palestine certain groups did not accept and groups such as the PLO, Fatah and latterly Hamas and Hezbollah sprung up backed by Gadafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and by Iran"

And moreover, could it not have been the fact that Israel evidently had no intention of withdrawing from the West Bank that led to the formation of the PLo in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:34 PM

What would Israel have done if there had been no resistance whatsoever? What would the borders have been? What would the water situation have been? The refugees? Where would they have gone? mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:04 AM

Nickhere, I'm still curious whether the right to return applies in your eyes also to Europe (nearly the same time frame). Have the Finns a rights to return to parts of Russia, have the Poles a right to return to Belarus, have the German a right to return to Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

Wolfgang - Have those people been confined to refugee camps for generations?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM

Dianavan,

WHO confined them?

The ARAB countries.

So, if the fact they were forced to stay in camps is the real reason they get special treatment, let the Arab countries provide for them.

Although Jordan has ALREADY accepted those who left Israel in 1948, and were willing to accept Jordanian ( ie, the ARAB homeland of the Mandate Palestine) citizenship.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 05:13 PM

I think that there was some self-confinement, in that there was, and I can't remember where I came across this, great pressure on people not to accept offers of immigration because some of the political pressure would be lessened if peope were not longer in as bad circumstances. If this is so, it is one of the first things that has to be addressed...you can only squeeze so many people so far. They have to give each other permission to leave the camps and move to Canada, US, South America, etc. in large large numbers, big groups going at once. I suppose they have lost many of their agricultural skills since most do not have their lands any more but I would think a semi-rural place might be best. We should take a large number into the states and be looking for other places. The Arab states should take a large number. Of course not all are Arab but still they should. I wish God would send an angel down and tell everyone that birth control was not only OK, butit was a new commandment. We could solve these problems much more easily then. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 06:08 PM

Nickhere,

In my opinion, if there is no Palestinian State, there will never be a solution to the Mid-East crisis.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 08:35 PM

Wolfgang: "Nickhere, I'm still curious whether the right to return applies in your eyes also to Europe (nearly the same time frame). Have the Finns a rights to return to parts of Russia, have the Poles a right to return to Belarus, have the German a right to return to Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic?"

Well, I don't how many people were displaced from these areas and what logistics might be involved in repatriating all of them, but apart from that, I see no reason why not if they wished to return home. Of course, most will probably be settled in their new homes by now and may not want to return, but the option should be open. I doubt it would create quite the chaos you have in mind. There is already a large amount of migration within the EU - some 250,000 Poles (alone) have come to Ireland over the last few years. Mostly they are doing quite well here, though I doubt they'll all want to stay unless they 'marry in'. There were dire predictions of mass social upheaval if we 'let all these immigrants in' from the usual right wingers, but on the whole, it has been beneficial to Ireland. They key proved to be 'equal rights' - if incomers are guaranteed the same rights as natives then there is no real reason for conflict, or undercutting of the labour market.

I'm still interested to hear your take on my point: how do you reconcile the logic of having a 'right to return' for Jews after 67 generations, but no right such right for Palestinians after only one or two generations (and some within living memory, who still have the keys to their houses etc.,)

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: guitar
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 05:43 AM

yes

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:45 AM

Nickhere, that's not my logic. In my eyes, there is no right to return for offspring. Therefore there was no "right to return" for Jews as well.

Your answer to my question shows you do not understand a vital difference: Of course, there is migration all over the world and people find new homes, permanently or for some time. That's something completely different from the "right to return" Palestinians and German Neonazis mean: The right to throw out the occupants of the forefathers' houses and lands for whom since roughly sixty years this is home.

No one prevents a German to take up residence in Poland. But I hope good sense and love of peace prevents Germans from throwing out Poles and Czechs just because 60 years ago some ancestor had ownership of a bit of land.

Dianavan, I see you are asking the relevant question. No, these people have not been confined to camps (except for a short time in some cases). That's why in Europe there is peace and in Palestine there isn't. Those who have confined the Palestinians to camps (the neighbouring countries with Palestinian populations) are those who are guilty in this respect. They did not opt for peace when they could.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:05 PM

This is the logical:

"In my eyes, there is no right to return for offspring. Therefore there was no "right to return" for Jews as well."

in other words"

If Jews have the right of return, so do Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

Huh?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:53 PM

Wolfgang - I agreed with you. My sentence should read, it is logical to state that, "there is no right to return for offspring. Therefore there was no "right to return" for Jews as well."

but the reality is, "Jews have had the right to return and so should Palestinians."

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

Revisiting the Right of Return
By Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 18, 2004

Try to imagine what the world would be like if Israel had granted the "Palestinian refugees," who fled from Israel in 1948-49, the right to return to Israel. Not to the West Bank. Not to the Gaza Strip -- but to Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

Imagine a situation in which Israel agreed to allow tens of thousands of Arabs who fled from the battle zones of the Israeli War of Independence the possibility of returning to Israel, in many cases to the very homes they had abandoned during the fighting. Imagine how the same world, currently obsessed with achieving a "right of return" for "Palestinian refugees," would be forced to acknowledge that Israel had already granted the possibility for tens of thousands of these refugees to return to Israel, in many cases decades ago.   How then could the world continue to bash Israel?   What ammunition would anti-Semites have left? And what about the crowd claiming to be "anti-Zionists but not anti-Semites" or the self-hating leftist Jewish anti-Semites?

Well, hold on to your hat, because I have a whopper of a revelation to make to you.   Israel DID grant the "Palestinian refugees" the right to return to Israel!



Let us back up a bit. In 1947-48, the UN proposed partitioning "Palestine" into a Jewish and an Arab state of approximately equal sizes. The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs rejected it. When the UN ended the British Mandate over "Palestine," the Arab states attacked the newborn state of Israel, tried to annihilate it and its population, and at the same time gobbled up most of the territory that the UN had allotted to become a Palestinian Arab state. The territory that became Israel had NEVER been a Palestinian Arab state. Most of the Arabs in "Palestine" had migrated there from neighboring Arab countries after the 19th Century start of the Zionist Jewish immigration, taking advantage of the influx of capital and the availability of jobs and services, like hospitals. In other words, the Arabs of "Palestine" in 1948, just like the Jews, were by and large people from families who had been in the country for three generations or less.



During the fighting in the 1948-49 war, thousands of Arabs living in the territory that became Israel fled. The main reason they fled was that they understandably wanted to put some distance between their families and the battle zones. At the same time, they were ordered by the Arab political leadership to leave the territory of Israel. Why take my word on this? Listen to Arab sources:



"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."
- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949.   



"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954.



""The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND" (emphasis added), Abu Mazen, erstwhile "Prime Minister" of the Palestinian Authority, in "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do," published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976.



There are scores of other Arab sources confirming this.



So how many Arabs fled? The number has become enormously distorted over time by the Bash-Israel lobby and by Arab propagandists and their apologists, who usually claim between 500,000 and a million.   A more realistic estimate is between 300,000 and 450,000, based in part on Arab and UNRWA sources themselves. Most of these refugees ended up in some of the twenty-two sovereign Arab states, including those Arab countries from which they had migrated in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries in the first place. In other words, the "refugees" went back to their earlier homelands in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.   It was a semi- "right of return." At the same time, the Arab states carried out a near-total ethnic cleansing of around a million Jews, who had been living there since Biblical days and in many cases before these states had Arab populations. The Jews from Arab countries left behind far more property than did the Palestinian Arab refugees. Most of these Jewish refugees were resettled in Israel



In the years immediately following World War II, there were more than 50 million refugees: Poles, Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Hungarians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. etc. They were all long ago resettled and forgotten, all except for the "Palestinian refugees".   How come?



Because for decades, the Arab aggressor states found it convenient to utilize the "refugees" as a political and military weapon against Israel, not only of propaganda and spin, but of terrorism. "Palestinians" inside Arab states were trained as terrorists and sent out to murder.   At the same time, there was enormous incentive for the Arab locals in the countries into which the refugees had entered to pretend also to be "Palestinian refugees." After all, the UN and other agencies were handing out free food and perks to anyone pretending to be a refugee from "Palestine".   



Unlike all those many millions of other people considered refugees in the late 1940s, the "Palestinians" were the only ones for whom the "right of return" to their previous homes was considered an entitlement. The reason was not a selective affection for Palestinians, but a selective hostility towards Israel and Jews. Those demanding the wholesale "return" to Israel of Palestinian "refugees", including the countless thousands of non-Palestinians pretending to be Palestinian refugees, had one goal in mind, the eradication of Israel.



Israel would have been insane to allow itself to be inundated with real and make-pretend Palestinian "refugees", this in a tiny sliver of land the size of Maryland, at the same time that the 22 Arab states have territory-galore stretching from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to Central Asia! The Palestinian Arabs and their sponsors had tried to annihilate Israel and failed. Just like the infant United States, which refused to allow any of the tens of thousands of Tory Loyalists expelled by the patriots to "return" to the United States after the War of Independence, Israel was entirely in its rights to refuse to allow the "return" of masses of "Palestinians", whose migration was being demanded by those seeking to liquidate Israel via a demographic flooding.



There is just one little caveat though.



Israel DID let the Palestinian refugees return! Tens of thousands of them were quietly allowed to return to Israel, in many cases to their original homes, once the fighting in 1949 subsided.   Many continue to be admitted today within the framework of "family reunification" agreements.



From 1948 until 2001, Israel allowed about 184,000 "Palestinian refugees" or their families to "return" to Israel proper (Jerusalem Post, January 2, 2001; see also Ha'aretz 28 December 2000).   These are in addition to about 57,000 Palestinians from Jordan illegally in Israel, towards whom the authorities are turning a blind eye (Ha'aretz, 4 April 2001).   Not the West Bank, not Gaza, but Israel inside its pre-1967 "Green Line" borders! In the Camp David II meetings in 2000, Israeli leftist Prime Minister Ehud Barak rather insanely offered to allow another 150,000 "refugees" to enter Israel as part of a peace accord. The PLO's response was to launch pogroms and four years of atrocities, because the number was finite.



The demand for a "right of return" by Palestinians to Israel is no doubt the most absurd political demand floating anywhere around the planet. There is already an Arab state in two thirds of Mandatory Palestine, named Jordan, and most Palestinan Arabs make up most of its population. The Oslo Accords and Israel's Camp David II offer would have created a second Arab state in Palestine, in the West Bank and Gaza, as part of a comprehensive peace settlement. Any "Palestinian" from anywhere could have moved to "Palestine" or to Jordan, within the framework of such a peace, the same way any Jew who wishes to may immigrate to Israel, or any Armenian may immigrate to Armenia, and Greeks from the Greek Diaspora are automatically welcomed in Greece.



The PLO and the Islamo-Fascist states backing it demand that in ADDITION to establishing a second Arab state in Palestine within the framework of any peace settlement, Israel itself must ALSO be converted into a third Arab Palestinian state, via unlimited massive immigration of people claiming to be Palestinians. Benjamin Franklin, who opposed granting even a dime in compensation to the Tory refugees expelled from the United States during the War of Independence, would be splitting his sides laughing.



But the most Orwellian absurdity of all is that Israel DID grant the "right to return" to tens of thousands of "Palestinian refugees" long ago. Did this earn Israel the world's gratitude for its uniquely generous gesture? Did the world denounce the Arab Fascist states that ignored this generosity and continued to seek Israel's destruction and the genocide of its population? Do today's bleeding hearts and recreational compassion poseurs, pretending to feel uncontrollable pain and caring for Palestinian refugees, even know about the limited "right of return" granted by Israel over the past decades?



Hindus have never been returned to Pakistan, Muslems from Pakistan have not been returned to India, ethnic Germans were not returned to their pre-war homes in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia or Romania, Japanese have not been returned to Manchuria, Greeks have not been returned to Anatolia, Jews have not been compensated for the billions they left behind when ethnic cleansing of Jews in Muslem countries took place, and Tory Loyalists were never returned to New England. But tens of thousands of "Palestinian refugees" had their chance.



It is time to say enough is enough. The only remaining reasonable plan regarding those still claiming to be "Palestinian refugees" is simply: Forget about it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

Wolfgang: "That's something completely different from the "right to return" Palestinians and German Neonazis mean: The right to throw out the occupants of the forefathers' houses and lands for whom since roughly sixty years this is home"

There is another factor. Many of these refugees still hold title deeds to their property and even keys to their front doors. If someone steals my car and manages to keep it for a number of years, that still does not entitle him to consider it his. If my grandson wanted to get it back, it would still be the property of my family, even if the thief had managed to hold onto it for a whole generation. I know this scenario sounds a bit extreme, but I hope it illustrates the point I am making. If we follow your line of reasoning, about offspring etc., we basically end up with a version of the law of the jungle: the dominance of the strongest over the weakest. In other words, what has been happening since the first tribe of cavmen hit their neighbours over the head, took their food, tools and women, and managed to haneg onto them. There was no redress for the victims. While this is often the reality, I thought we were supposed to be trying to 'evolve' beyond that?


Bbruce: as soon as I saw Steve Plaut going on about 'self-hating Jews' and 'anti-semites' (despite Arabs being Semites, too) I almost switched off. Oh no, I groaned, not yet another well-funded revisionist apologist for Israel's land grabs and disregard for the natives....

But I steeled myself and will go back and read it all the same when I have a quiet moment. But the gist of it (along with much other pro-zionist thought) seems to be as usual that 'might is right', and the Palestinians 'brought all this on themselves'. It reminds me of the logic occasionally employed by men who hit their wives 'it's your fault - you made me do it'. Logic and morality have been turned on their heads.

"The demand for a "right of return" by Palestinians to Israel is no doubt the most absurd political demand floating anywhere around the planet"

But the 'right of return' for Jews who have been living generations in other countries and are in no fear for their lives is beyond question somehow? If it's ok for the Jews, surely it must be ok too for their cousins, the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 06:22 PM

BBruce: " the Israeli War of Independence" ??????!!!!

That's a NEW one! Who or what was Israel trying to win its independence from?? It's true the various Jewish paramilitaries had carried on a war along terrorist lines prior to 1948 (eg. bombing of Brtitish HQ in Jerusalem) but its war around 1948 was one of expansion as it sought to push into areas outside its mandated borders.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 08:18 PM

bb - Please tell me in your own language what "...the limited "right of return" granted by Israel over the past decades... actually means. I am especially interested in the term 'limited'.

I would also like to point out that "today's bleeding hearts and recreational compassion poseurs, pretending to feel uncontrollable pain and caring for Palestinian refugees" are from the same stock that used to feel that way about the "poor, European Jews".

I would like to point out that 'free food and perks to anyone pretending to be a refugee from "Palestine" says more about the writer than anyone 'pretending' to be homeless and hungry.

Next time, bb, try to speak your own words in language that I can listen to. Hate filled rhetoric is very hard to understand. I'm not sure where the writer's words end and yours begins.

It is easy to see that Zionists are not very good problem solvers if their only solution is to forget about it. How can you expect us to 'Never Forget' and in the same breath tell us to 'forget about it." Are you saying hypocrisy does not apply to Zionists?

Its obvious that Jews should shun Zionist politics today and rediscover the Zionism of their religion if they are interested in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 08:25 PM

Martin Luther King's view on Zionism:

"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 08:41 PM

Like I said, that was then, this is now.

I believed it then, I don't believe it now.

Zionism does not mean that when you return to your homeland you get to dwell there exclusively and exclude others. Thats discrimination at its worst.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:18 AM

Nickhere,

I see what you mean but I strongly disagree that this thinking should be applied between nations without consideration of the consequences. It would be disastrous when applied to Europe. German Neonazis argue the same way in this question.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:23 AM

Dianavan,

1. the right of return is that Jews, regardless of where they live, have the right to immigrate to Isael- JUST like Palestinians have the right to immigrate to the Mandate Palestine ARAB homeland of Jordan ( formerly Transjordan.

"Hate filled rhetoric is very hard to understand."

So, I will have to say that the sources you keep bringing up, from those who would deny the right to exist of the state of Israel, are somehow NOT hateful? And pushing old men off a cruise ship because they are Jewish is really just showing how much they like us?

At least Nickhere bothered to read what was presented, as I do of the information you and he have brought up.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:27 AM

"But the 'right of return' for Jews who have been living generations in other countries and are in no fear for their lives is beyond question somehow? If it's ok for the Jews, surely it must be ok too for their cousins, the Palestinians. "


They have the "right of return"- To the Mandate Palestine ARAB homeland. Or do you think Jews have the right to return to those Arab nations that they were forced out of in 1948- 1967?

BTW, I grew up across the street from a Palestinian family, from Ramallah. Of course, they had been forced out by the Moslems: They were Orthodox Christians. Do THEY get their homes back, too?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

As usual, bb, you didn't answer my question. I'll try again.

bb - Please tell me in your own language what '...the limited "right of return" granted by Israel over the past decades'... actually means. I am especially interested in the term 'limited'.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:21 PM

The author of the article states:

"Israel DID let the Palestinian refugees return! Tens of thousands of them were quietly allowed to return to Israel, in many cases to their original homes, once the fighting in 1949 subsided.   Many continue to be admitted today within the framework of "family reunification" agreements.



From 1948 until 2001, Israel allowed about 184,000 "Palestinian refugees" or their families to "return" to Israel proper (Jerusalem Post, January 2, 2001; see also Ha'aretz 28 December 2000).   These are in addition to about 57,000 Palestinians from Jordan illegally in Israel, towards whom the authorities are turning a blind eye (Ha'aretz, 4 April 2001).   Not the West Bank, not Gaza, but Israel inside its pre-1967 "Green Line" borders! In the Camp David II meetings in 2000, Israeli leftist Prime Minister Ehud Barak rather insanely offered to allow another 150,000 "refugees" to enter Israel as part of a peace accord. The PLO's response was to launch pogroms and four years of atrocities, because the number was finite. "



Now, Please tell me in your own language what '...drive out the Jews from all of Palestine" stated by Palestinian representatives over the past decades'... actually means.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:36 PM

'...drive out the Jews from all of Palestine" stated by Palestinian representatives over the past decades' - bb

You'll have to be a little more specific.

Who said that? When? In what context? What are your sources?

Answering my question with a vaque question is no answer at all.

Truth is, bb, you use 'limited right of return' with absolutely no idea what that actually means. Who decides the limits, bb, and what is the criteria?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:46 PM

dianavan,

Truth is, the person who wrote the article used the term 'limited right of return' with absolutely an example of what that actually means. He indicated that a "limited" number of Palestinians chose to accept it, as a larger, but still limited number chose to "return" to Transjordan and accept the conditions that they had to be peaceful, and give up claims to Israeli property.


"You'll have to be a little more specific."

If you want quotes, I can get them- but I doubt you will bother to acknowledge them. You have been telling me for the last few years how the Palestinians don't really mean ANYTHING that they say.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:00 PM

from the Charter of Hamas:

Article Six: Peculiarity and Independence
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights. In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail. Allah had inspired the Muslim poet, Muhammad Iqbal, when he said:
When the Faith wanes, there is no security
There is no this-worldliness for those who have no faith
Those who wish to live their life without religion
Have made annihilation the equivalent of life.

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari'a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.
Article Twelve: Hamas in Palestine, Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism
Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission. This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven. When Moses came and threw his baton, sorcery and sorcerers became futile.

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware." From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? "And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper." Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: "The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow." (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

Article Fourteen: The Three Circles
The problem of the liberation of Palestine relates to three circles: the Palestinian, the Arab and the Islamic. Each one of these circles has a role to play in the struggle against Zionism and it has duties to fulfill. It would be an enormous mistake and an abysmal act of ignorance to disregard anyone of these circles. For Palestine is an Islamic land where the First Qibla and the third holiest site are located. That is also the place whence the Prophet, be Allah's prayer and peace upon him, ascended to heavens. "Glorified be He who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of worship to the Far Distant Place of Worship, the neighborhood whereof we have blessed, that we might show him of our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer." Sura XVII (al-Isra'), verse 1 In consequence of this state of affairs, the liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. This is the base on which all Muslims have to regard the problem; this has to be understood by all Muslims. When the problem is dealt with on this basis, where the full potential of the three circles is mobilized, then the current circumstances will change and the day of liberation will come closer. "You are more awful as a fear in their bosoms than Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not." Sura LIX, (Al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 13.

Article Fifteen: The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Obligation
When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses on all local, Arab and Islamic levels. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma, clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters. The 'ulama as well as educators and teachers, publicity and media men as well as the masses of the educated, and especially the youth and the elders of the Islamic Movements, must participate in this raising of consciousness. There is no escape from introducing fundamental changes in educational curricula in order to cleanse them from all vestiges of the ideological invasion which has been brought about by orientalists and missionaries. That invasion had begun overtaking this area following the defeat of the Crusader armies by Salah a-Din el Ayyubi. The Crusaders had understood that they had no way to vanquish the Muslims unless they prepared the grounds for that with an ideological invasion which would confuse the thinking of Muslims, revile their heritage, discredit their ideals, to be followed by a military invasion. That was to be in preparation for the Imperialist invasion, as in fact [General] Allenby acknowledged it upon his entry to Jerusalem: "Now, the Crusades are over." General Gouraud stood on the tomb of Salah a-Din and declared: "We have returned, O Salah-a-Din!" Imperialism has been instrumental in boosting the ideological invasion and deepening its roots, and it is still pursuing this goal. All this had paved the way to the loss of Palestine. We must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to be dealt with on this premise. It includes Islamic holy sites such as the Aqsa Mosque, which is inexorably linked to the Holy Mosque as long as the Heaven and earth will exist, to the journey of the Messenger of Allah, be Allah's peace and blessing upon him, to it, and to his ascension from it. "Dwelling one day in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. The place of the whip of one among you in Paradise is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it. [God's] worshiper's going and coming in the Path of Allah is better than the entire world and everything that exists in it." (Told by Bukhari, Muslim Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja) I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill (told by Bukhari and Muslim).

Article Seventeen: The Role of Muslim Women
The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men and play a great role in guiding and educating the [new] generation. The enemies have understood that role, therefore they realize that if they can guide and educate [the Muslim women] in a way that would distance them from Islam, they would have won that war. Therefore, you can see them making consistent efforts [in that direction] by way of publicity and movies, curricula of education and culture, using as their intermediaries their craftsmen who are part of the various Zionist Organizations which take on all sorts of names and shapes such as: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, gangs of spies and the like. All of them are nests of saboteurs and sabotage. Those Zionist organizations control vast material resources, which enable them to fulfill their mission amidst societies, with a view of implementing Zionist goals and sowing the concepts that can be of use to the enemy. Those organizations operate [in a situation] where Islam is absent from the arena and alienated from its people. Thus, the Muslims must fulfill their duty in confronting the schemes of those saboteurs. When Islam will retake possession of [the means to] guide the life [of the Muslims], it will wipe out those organizations which are the enemy of humanity and Islam.

Article Twenty-Eight
The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: "Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind." Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. "Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep."

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM

Palestine constitutes the southwestern part of a huge geographical unity in the eastern part of the Arab world, which is Belad El-Sham. "In addition to Palestine, Sham contains Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It used to have common borders with these countries, in addition to Egypt.

The borders of Palestine start with Lebanon at Ras El-Nakoura at the Mediterranean sea and head in a straight line to the east till it reaches the area beyond the small Lebanese city of Bent Jubayel, where the separating line between the two countries curves to the north at a straight angle. At that point, the border comes around the fountain of the River Jordan, and a narrow passage adjacent to it from the east connects it with the land of Syria and the lakes Al-Hola, Lout and Tabarriyya.
The border with Jordan begins to the south of Tabarriyya Lake at the drainage of Al-Yarmouk River. It continues along the River Jordan. From the fountain of the River Jordan, the border heads south across the geometrical middle of the Dead Sea and the Araba Valley till it reaches the of Aqaba.

The borders with Egypt could be compared to a straight line that separates the semi-island of Seena and Al-Naqab desert. The border begins at Rafah at the Mediterranean Sea till it reaches Taba at the Gulf of Aqaba.

On the west side, Palestine lies next to the international open waters of the Mediterranean Sea at a distance of about 250 km from Ras El-Nakoura in the north to Rafah in the south."

http://www.palestine-info.com/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7VKd%2f%2fTLuxMOJSr8laI10k9ubyS66XfZXEzVGWn

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:04 PM

bb - I see nothing in that article about driving "the Jews from all of Palestine."

I see the word Jihad used many times. My understanding of the word means that you embrace a spiritual goal when confronting principles or ideologies that conflict with your own. Thats why its called a holy war. You choose to see that as a threat when, in fact, Jews have been doing that for centuries.

You also interpret wiping Israel off the map with a nuclear attack when even the articles you post explain that through migration, the Arab people could become the majority in Israel and replace Zionist political policy. Has it ever occurred to you that through mutual co-operation, Arabs and Jews might come up with something bigger and better?

You choose to read and interpret the words of Muslims as threatening to what you perceive to be a superior belief system without giving any consideration to the beliefs of the people who have occupied that land for centuries. European Jews in Israel have a more modern system of cultural beliefs but it doesn't always equate with superior. Why should their social/cultural belief system be forced down the throats of cultures idigenous to Israel?

Until you realize that you cannot exist in isolation and must share that land and allow Jews and Muslims to co-exist and grow together with mutual respect, you are part of the problem. Nobody can solve this problem for you. It has to be solved by Arabs and Jews together.

Attempting to convince you that there is any way other than war is futile.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:14 PM

"Has it ever occurred to you that through mutual co-operation, Arabs and Jews might come up with something bigger and better?"

Yes, which is why Israel invited the Arabs to stay in 1948. It was the ARAB League, and nations, that told them to flee, and attacked. If they were running from armies, they were ARAB armies.

Jordan and Egypt have been able to recognize the legitimacy of Israel- why is it that you and soem Palestinians have such a problem?


Until Palestinians realize that they cannot exist in isolation and must share that land and allow Jews and Muslims to co-exist and grow together with mutual respect, they are the problem.


"over every inch of Palestine"

"In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews,"

"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "


"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. "


Attempting to convince Hamas that there is any way other than war is futile.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:40 PM

1948 was almost 60 years ago.

...and yes, I do believe that Palestine was usurped by the Jews, and they had alot of help doing it. That doesn't mean it was right. Everyone seems to be satisfied with the outcome except those who are still living in tents in refugee camps.

Isn't it time to move on?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:58 PM

Bobad: martin Luther King was a mighty fine man, but that doesn't mean he was right about everything. Case in point: "the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord" ....uh, actually it was a section of the Jewish population, headed by the priestly sect known as the Pharisees, who murdered Our Lord. Pontius Pilate (the Roman governor at the time) actually offered to release Jesus and have a convicted murderer called Barabbas, crucified instead. He explained that he could find no fault in Jesus. But the mob, incensed to hate and riot by the Pharisees demanded the blood of Jesus "His blood be upon us and our children!" they shouted. And so Pilate washed his hands of the fate of Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. Ever after, Pilate's name was associated with 'washing your hands of some situation with which you do not wish to be involved". I'm not making this up - you can check it for yourself in the Gospel (see Luke: 18:28 - 19:17 for example). Interestingly Jesus (who was a Jew, as you know) was hated by the Pharisees precisely because He tried to tell them His 'kingdom was not of this world' - in other words, it was not a political kingdom. The Pharisees and many Jews had wanted a political leader who would free them from the Romans. They thought they had found one in Jesus. But once they realised what he was about they turned on Him.

""Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land"

As I've said before, zionism is in fact basically nationalism. I've also said that nationalism in measure can be a good thing, being proud of your country etc., But in excess leads to the xenophobia typical of the British imperialist, or the notions of racial supremacy emnating from Nazi Germany (just two examples, there are many more). Put the way Martin Luther King put it, zionism sounds as wholesome as granola, and indeed could be. But his rhetoric hides another reality - dispossession and harrassment of Palestinians. In an interesting parallel, Hitler spoke in glowing terms of 'Lebensraum' - literally, 'living space'. And who could argue with such a wholesome concept? Except that of course, nice terms hid genocidal reality, as this living space came at the expense of Poles, Bylorussians, Ukranians etc., just as Israeli 'lebensraum' is currently achieved at the expense of the West Bank Palestinians. The Nazis, too, made it sound as if they were settling into empty space to make it a productive haven.

And does being anti-nazi also mean being anti-German? Or being opposed to Bush's war in Iraq mean hating Americans? That's the argument of those who want to shout down any criticism of what Bush and his gang are up to. I suppose that the Americans who are opposed to Bush's war (and apparently there are many of them) should be called 'self-hating Americans'! Yes, that has a nice ring to it!
That is the logic of phrases like 'being anti-zionist is being anti-semitic'. Let's distinguish here: zionism is a form of nationalism. Semites are a race of people (including the arabs).

Martin Luther King might also have reflected a bit more (perhaps he didn't know) on how Jewish organisations and some middle-upper class Jewish communities in the USA worked hard AGAINST the interests of black civil rights movement; when the civil rights movement moved from demands of political and legal to economic equality (see for example Norman Finklestein, "The Holocaust Industry" p.36 / ISBN 1 85984 773 0)

Wolfgang: "I see what you mean but I strongly disagree that this thinking should be applied between nations without consideration of the consequences. It would be disastrous when applied to Europe. German Neonazis argue the same way in this question"

I think I understand what you are saying. In effect, that past wrongs, if they are of a sufficent scale, cannot be rectified without upheaval in the present. But as you know, certain Jewish organistaions have been zealous in recovering money, art and property that was seized from Jews over 60 years ago by the Third Reich. The sums are vast, running into the billions of dollars. Obviously, this kind of repatriation cannot be achieved without some degree of upheaval to those affected. Nonetheless, in an absolute sense, I'm sure you'll agree that it is the correct thing to do where - especially where ownership of the property can be proved. While you speak of no right of return for offspring (I don't agree you here though) you msut accept hat there are yet Palestinian refugees alive who still have the title deeds and keys to their houses. Why are these not allowed return? If someone is illegally occupying their house or farm, that shouldn't be the refugees problem - rather the government that allowed it to happen. They should be brought to account for allowing (and actively encouarging) the situation to arise in the first place. Of course they are hoping that all these refugees will die off and apathy will do the rest.

"German Neonazis argue the same way in this question" - So? Are you trying to say 'guilty by association'? G.W Bush says he reads the Bible - that doesn't mean I'll stop reading it myself!

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:30 PM

Well said, Nickhere.

I especially liked this part, "Jewish organistaions have been zealous in recovering money, art and property that was seized from Jews over 60 years ago by the Third Reich. The sums are vast, running into the billions of dollars."

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:13 AM

I'm sure I have a lot of things in common with German Neonazis like wiping my ass and brushing my teeth. But if I would agree with them in a major political question like in this instance the right of Germans (based on deeds, of course) to take back much of the Western part of Poland I'd think at least twice about it.

Yes, the argument is an instance of "guilty by association" but not by a meaningless association like Bible reading but by agreement in a major political question. That might make you think.

The meaningless guilt by association would be if I remarked that your Mudcat name has the same vowels as Hitler. That would be a stupid attempt to smear your name for something that has nothing to do with what you have posted.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:25 AM

"1948 was almost 60 years ago."

So, if the desired effect was already done 60 years ago, you will not admit it exists?


"Isn't it time to move on? "

YOU dop not seem to think so- the wrongs done 60 years ago to Arabs you seem willing to address, but not the ones done to Jews at the same time.

How about we swap the assets left by the present Palestinian refugess ( because of Arab efforts) with the properties and assets left by the Jews who were driven out of Arab countries? Or isn't THAT enough in the Palestinian's favor ( since they were only 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of the Jews driven out) ?

So, since Israel has already settled the Jewish refugees, it is the responsibility of the Arab nations to settle the Palestinian ones.

We will leave the whole aspect of the League of Nations Mandate as too far back in the past for YOU to have any concern with.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:10 AM

BTW, the West Bank was annexxed by Jordan in 1948. After being conquered in 1967, the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty decided the border between Israel and Jordan was ( with minor exception) the Jordan River.

1. Israel has already settled the Palestinians on Israeli territory.

2. The offer BY Israel of a Palestinian state on the West bank is far more than than any other country has done.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:38 PM

bb - As I have said previously, I am not aware that the Jews who were settled in Israel have any desire to leave Israel. You seem to argue that because all Jews have a centralized government that speaks for them, all Arabs do to. Agreements between Jordan and Israel have overlooked the needs of Palestinians.

One Jewish nation speaks for the Jews but there is not one Arab nation that speaks for all Arabs. When Israel feels wronged by Jordan or Syria or..., does it mean the Palestinians have to suffer? These people are caught in between with nowhere to go. Unless another, agreeable solution is found, it makes sense that they should be able to return home.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:56 PM

"Unless another, agreeable solution is found, it makes sense that they should be able to return home. "

An agreeable solution- I am sure that YOU mean only one THEY agree with, not one the larger number of Jews driven out of Arab nations and settled in Israel agree with.

It makes sense that the Jews should get just compensation, and that the Palestinians should get the same.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:57 PM

BB, why waste your time?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:03 PM

Maybe I can demonstrate that those who state that the Palestinians should get what they want without regard to the rights of the other refugees of the 1948 conflict are being one-sided ( bigoted, incorrect, unfair, etc)

I do think that most of those advocating Palestinian rights are well-meaning- just not thinking about the entire situation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:37 PM

From UNR 194 ....



"and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:22 PM

bb - The Jew who found refuge in Israel have homes.
The Palestinians are living in tents in the desert and have no homes.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:24 PM

"The Palestinians are living in tents in the desert and have no homes. "

And they have the "right of return" any time they want- TO Mandate Palestine's ARAB Homeland, which Jews were forbidden to immigrate to. Obviously, they have chosen not to.

Now, about that compensation for the GREATER number of Jews driven out of Arab nations...

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:30 PM

BTW, you obviously have no idea of what the "right of return" for Jews IS.

Any Jew, anywhere in the world, regardless of where they were born, has the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen if they are willing to accept the obligations of citizenship.



"Jordan has a law that states that any Palestinian may immigrate and obtain Jordanian citizenship, but must remit his/her Palestinian claim. It should also be noted that Palestinians are not allowed to purchase land unless they give up their Palestinian citizenship."

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 05:17 PM

bb - You know, bb, it doesn't matter what Jordan offers because most have declined.

Palestinians want the liberation of their homeland. They want to live peacefully with their Jewish neighbors but not under Zionism which they see as a racist and imperialistic political system which divides the people of the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:28 PM

BBruce: "2. The offer BY Israel of a Palestinian state on the West bank is far more than than any other country has done"

I'm not so sure about this one? What kind of Palestinian state did Israel offer and when? Arafat got something of an autonomous zone on the understanding he act as a kind of policeman for the Israelis. 'keeping his people in line' as the phrase used to go in the media after Oslo.
I don't see how Israel could have, in practicality, offered any kind of Palestinian state in the last few decades, given that they have also extensively colonised it and criss-crossed it with roads. What remains are scattered parecls of land more like a collection of reservations than a country. Thanks to this incursion, the West Bank is fragmented, deprived of infrastructure useful to Palestinians (first off they need a decent airport) and whose borders are controlled by the Israeli army. It is difficult to imagine Palestinians accepting 'statehood' on this basis, and indeed difficult to see how it would function in practice. Palestinians would probably insist on Israel removing the settlements from their land, a demand Israelis are unlikely to concede. Looks like deadlock.

"Maybe I can demonstrate that those who state that the Palestinians should get what they want without regard to the rights of the other refugees of the 1948 conflict are being one-sided ( bigoted, incorrect, unfair, etc)"

I think if you look back along the posts a bit, I've already agreed that Jews expelled from Jordan or wherever should be allowed to return if they wish. They should be allowed to return to their homes if possible, and the current occupants relocated or compensated by the government. It'd cost a bit, but it'd be money far better spent on both sides than all the money spent on ways of killing each other. It would go some way to restoring a badly-needed sense of justice to the region.

As for Palestinians "being allowed to return to mandated Jordan" ....

It reminds me of a certain low-cost airline that promises more-or-less to 'fly you DIRECTLY to cities NEAR cities where you want to go!' ;-}

So I get kicked out of my home, or am forced to flee (and whatever Arab leaders might have told Palestinians back in '48, only a fool would hang round to stay in the middle of a war anyway. Wars have always created refugees and displaced persons, and no warnings to leave are needed when the guns arrive). When the dust settles I am allowed back - not to my house, because the people that kicked me out are living in it, but to a house (maybe) in another country with which I had no ties..... ?-[

Wolfgang: "I'm sure I have a lot of things in common with German Neonazis like wiping my ass and brushing my teeth. But if I would agree with them in a major political question like in this instance the right of Germans (based on deeds, of course) to take back much of the Western part of Poland I'd think at least twice about it"

And I'd say, don't let neonazis dictate your thinking to you. So, if neonazis started to clamour loudly in support of Israel (e.g on the basis that it concentrated Jews in a country far away and got them out of Germany) surely you wouldn't do a 90-degree turn and start to say that Israel was a bad thing, because the neonazis were in favour of it?

So I stand over what I said about Bush & the Bible. Just do your thinking independently - if an idea stands on its own merits it doesn't need the support or condemnation of this or that lobby group.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

BB, the people you are arguing with do not think Israel should HAVE any rights. However, what you do is not my business, so I retract the question. Best to you.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:04 PM

People have rights.

Jews and Palestinians both have rights. They have human rights.

What Israel becomes is at the mercy of the people who have rights.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:09 PM

That's the first time you have mentioned Isrealis having rights--human or otherwise--on this thread. How magnominous.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:09 PM

magnaminous

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:39 PM

Of course Jews have rights. They are human beings. They do not, however, have more rights than anyone else.

Just remember that where the freedom of Israelis end, the freedom of Palestinians begin and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:16 AM

Nickhere - 09 Mar 07 - 05:53 PM

Question:
But if Jordan has recognised Israel's 'right to exist' and Israel grabbed the West Bank during the 1967 war, and has promised to hand back / vacate land grabbed in return for peace and recognition, why didn't it simply withdraw from the West Bank (which wasn't part of the original mandated state of Israel in the first place) and there would have been no PLO / Hamas etc.,?

Answer:
The deals struck with Egypt and with Jordan took a bit of time to come to fruition. In that intervening period there were some changes, particularly in Jordan. Of all the countries that Arab Palestinian refugees fled to during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War Jordan probably treated them best, especially following the total defeat of the Arab armies in 1967. In response, Tosser Arafat then tried his utmost to overthrow the Hashemite rulers of Jordan and for his pains he and his paramilitaries were thrown out – Tosser toddled of to Tunisia, where he helped himself to large chunks of cash donated by the gullible for the supposed intent of helping the "Palestinian" people (sole invention of Arafat), which it did, I suppose, it helped one of them enormously, Tosser Arafat himself - $300 million plus – not bad eh?

But go back a bit. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, this territory was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War saw the establishment of Israel in the former mandate, while the Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt. The West Bank, which was part of what was considered to be the "Jewish Homeland" under the British Mandate, was captured and annexed by Jordan, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements defined its interim boundary. From 1948 until 1967, the area was under Jordanian rule (Jordan formally claimed it in 1950, Great Britain was the ONLY country to recognise the West Bank as being Jordanian territory), though Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988. It has been occupied by Israel following the conclusion of the Six-Day War. With the exception of East Jerusalem, it was not annexed by Israel. The West Bank is currently considered under international law to be a territory not part of any state. It is considered by the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross to be Israeli occupied.

In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Pretty generous gesture really when you consider that they took the place by force of arms forty years before. But doubly generous to give it to the very people who had tried to take over their kingdom only eighteen years before.

The 1993 Oslo Accords declared the final status of the West Bank to be subject to a forthcoming settlement between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. Following these interim accords, Israel withdrew its military rule from some parts of West Bank, which was then split into:
•        Palestinian-controlled, Palestinian-administered land (Area A)
•        Israeli-controlled, but Palestinian-administered land (Area B)
•        Israeli-controlled, Israeli-administered land (Area C)
Areas B and C constitute the majority of the territory, comprising the rural areas and the Jordan River valley region, while urban areas – where the majority of the Palestinian population resides – are mostly designated Area A.

Now rather than negotiate and actually display a bit of leadership Nickhere, tell us exactly what path Tosser Arafat elected to follow? It was all there for the taking, all he had to do was talk about it. But he chose not to didn't he.

So Nick, its not so cut and dried as you would like to have people think. Now on right of return, what about return of Jewish property on the West Bank to its rightful owners, or are you trying to tell us that no Jewish settlers were displaced as the Jordanian Army swept in to capture the place?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:15 AM

Nickhere - 09 Mar 07 - 05:56 PM

"Some people keep repeating that Hamas wants the state of Israel 'wiped off the map' like a mantra or a jingle, as if it required no further comment or context, and was self-evident proof of Hamas' (and by extension, since they voted for Hamas, the Palestinian people) unreasonable pathology. The first question of course is to wonder if the translation from Arabic is accurate in the first instance. But even assuming it is, the phrase is more ambiguous than has been suggested and could as easily mean scrapping Israel's borders (but leaving the population intact) as the more-usually ascribed meaning of exterminating the Israeli population. Of course, either scenario is bad news for Israelis, but the idea that it is simply the wanton badness of Hamas that prompts them to make such utterances in the first instance requires further comment."

The principles of Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter (18th August 1988), the following are some highlights:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Now Nick what do you understand "obliterate" to mean? Why does Hamas believe that "Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."?

From Article Seven of the Hamas Charter Nickhere:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Article Eleven:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that.

Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:
"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

No question of confusion of meaning due to translation in any of the above Nick, it all comes from the "Official" Hamas translation of their Charter.

From your same post, you state:
"The most obvious point is that is seems to be forgotten or overlooked that since 1967 Israel has occupied and aggressively expanded into the area known as the West Bank, home to many Palestinians, and Gaza to a lesser extent (afterall, Gaza is mainly desert)."

On this you are simply wrong, or being deliberately selective, both Gaza and the West Bank were formerly part of the Palestinian Mandated Territories that were allocated to Jewish Settlement. In 1948, Egypt attacked and seized Gaza, while the Jordanians attacked and seized the West Bank. That is a matter of record, both Gaza and the West bank are territories taken by conquest by the pan-arabic forces during the 1948 war. Can you please tell me why Egypt and Jordan can hold land won in time of war but why Israel cannot?

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:00 AM

Nickhere,

"When the dust settles I am allowed back - not to my house, because the people that kicked me out are living in it,"


Except the JEWS invited the Palestinians to return- and many DID. It was the Arab nations who told them not to, and then kept them in camps.

Please tell me what Arab country invited the JEWS to either remain, or return to their property, after 1948?????????
try reading the article I posted.


The Palestinians in the camps are the ones are those who did not choose to return to the land when it was offered to them. SO, if Jews have no rights if they do not chose to return to the Arab lands they were removed from ( as dianavan states must be the case, in spite of them NOT BEING ALLOWED to even take their posessions with them, much less return to their property, and most consider they were lucky top even escape alive) THEN the Palestinians who CHOSE to believe the other Arab nations, that they would get all of the land and kick out or kill all the Jews HAVE NO RIGHT to the property left behind, since they declined to return in 1948.

All Palestinians have the "right of return" to the ARAB HOMELAND of Mandate Palestine, Jordan. All Jews have the "right of return" to the JEWISH homelan of Mandate Palestine, Israel.

If you don't like that, please complain to the League of Nations, or the Mandate Power, Great Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 02:31 AM

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15154

"Many adults in Israel believe their government should talk with the new Palestinian administration, according to a poll by Maagar Mochot released by Israel Radio. 52 per cent of respondents think Israel should have day-to-day contacts with the Palestinian unity government."

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 04:53 PM

The current edition of the Economist (a no-nonsense periodical) carries a special report on the versions of history taught to both Israeli and Palestinian school children. "Few foundation myths" it says "are as diametrically opposed as those of Jews and Palestinians"

It adds that things have changed a bit, with most Palestinians accepting that the State of Israel is here to stay, with most Israelis coming to accept the Palestinian's own right to self determination. "Israeli revisionist historians have rewritten the academic accounts of the country's birth to reflect its mistreatment of the native population" It points out that 'old skool' desciptions of the 1948 era "tended to suggest that Palestinians either left their homes voluntarily, selling them to Jews, or were encouraged to lave by other Arabs - rather than, as sometimes happened, being forced out violently"

The view that Palestinians abandoned their homes so Arab armies would have an one field to slaughter Jews borders on a kind of evil racism. It depicts Palestinians as part of an evil conspiracy due to their evil nature and of course deserving their subsequent exile. By contrast, the Israelis who occupied their homes are only enjoying the fruit of surviving yet another assault on them. In short, the Palestinians, thanks to their evilo nature that led them to conspire against Jews, deserve everything they got......
(sounds a lot like anti-semitic 'conspiracy' theories drummed up over the years to justify outbursts against Jews)

As I've pointed out before, it is normal human instinct to flee danger, and take only what you can carry. Millions of Lebanese civilians fled their homes last summer thanks to threats by Israel to bomb their homes whether they stayed or not. Should they be sent into exile, and their homes given to someone else, now that they've been out of them a while?
People sent their kids to the countryside during the London Blitz - maybe the kids shouldn't have been allowed to return?
And if you have five so-called Arab armies and an Israeli one converging for a scrap on your neighbourhood, don't tell me you'd hang round if you had a choice. People fled with what they could carry - and importantly (since people here keep on insisting on legalities) the title deeds to their properties. Some of those exiles, though advanced in years, are stilla live. Even Wolfgang concedes first-generation refugees have some right to return. So why are these guys still in exile? They are first generation (though I don't see why the second generation shouldn't return - Jews 'returned' to Israel after 67 generations) AND they hold the title deeds to their property.
Seems to me simply that we have a two-tier system and a level of discrimination that can't simply be explained away.

No-one has yet been able to satisfactorily answer my comment that if it is acceptable for Israel to create a Jewish state (combining ethnicity and religion), then it is also logically Ok for any other country to create a legally mono-cultural mono-religious state, and to discriminate against or expel or block entry to people who don't fit the bill (this is the general gist of the argument given as to why Palestinians dispossessed shouldn't be allowed to return to their property).
Where then, does that leave the foundation stone of our Western-style liberal democracy (of which Israel and its proponents claim to be a part - indeed the ONLY example in the Middle East) based on pluralistic inclusivness and equality??

It's quite a headache when you think about it.....

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: mg
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:46 PM

It is so tied in with guilt over the Holocaust, even if we were on the side fighting it (unknowningly), remnants of our colonialist thinking that we had these lands to dispense with as we felt best, relatives who were Jewish and not Palestinian who could speak forcefully, lots of dollars going to American politicians and knowledge they would not be elected did they not speak and vote a certain way.....it is complex. No one would speak of it. I do remember the nuns told us to always call it the Holy Land as it was under dispute so I still try to do that. But they way they said it made me always a bit puzzled. It is time for new generations to look at it historically and compassionately for all sides and do what is fair to the extent that they can. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Nickhere
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 08:07 PM

Well, funny you should say it, but I came across a (true) news story the other day about how Palestinian police returned a lost 3-year old Israeli girl to her parents after she got lost in the West Bank area. Apparently she had wandered off to play with some Palestinian children she'd met. It made me think that perhaps, as they say, politics is far too important to be left to the politicians. Perhaps the kids should be running things there.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM

Futile discussion. A short glimpse into history shows that "right" is written by the sword in most cases.

Subject: RE: BS: A Palestinian State?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

There is no solution where everyone is happy but there could be some where at least peoples' rights to water and land are secured and peoples' rights to not be attacked or blown up are secured. There will have to be massive immigration (emigration?)and setting of final borders and protection of all holy sites. mg