The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders.

A question Ko' and I will readily admit at this moment I do not know the answer, so am genuinely looking for an honest response.

Are the Settlements within Israels present borders, or are they territories acquired by winning wars, since 1948?

Internationally, are they approved and accepted as within Israels defined borders and for a defining judgement, lets say in the view of the U.N, not Iran, or the U.S, or for that matter other posters of either side on this forum.

If you could direct me to a good reference site, I will read up for myself, but as the more logical, although I will admit vociferous and certainly passionate poster, I would like to hear your view.

Settlements have been built in the West Bank, on land purchased from Arabs, or land where no owner was found.

Current settlements are being built in areas that Israel regards as being within existing borders (not the 1948 borders, but those currently defined by the wall, by fences, so on.

The wall is not like the separation wall in Belfast, however. That had some kinks in it, due to the demographics of some streets. This wall winds all over the place, taking in settlements that are connected by fairly good roads (that are by-passing nearby Arab settlements) and form a similar frontier as that set up around the Lebanese border fifty years ago.

This whole area is a problem similar to, but far larger than, Northern Ireland. There only England and America (and Libya, to an extent) stuck their paws in. In Israel/Palestine relations we have America, UK, Iran, France, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, Egypt and others - all with slightly differing agendas. We also have different political views within Israel and two diametrically opposed factions in Palestine - the Palestinian Authority (PLO) which is socialist and secular, Hamas, which is fanatically religious (Muslim Brotherhood supported). The MB are, or were, an Egyptian radical Islamist party, now banned in Egypt and exiled in Syria. Probably responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat after his peace overtures with Israel. Iran sticks her paws in to assert it's desire for greater influence throughout the region, not for any particular sympathy for the (Sunni) Palestinians. Just causing trouble. Jordan, influenced by the West, but more influenced by the problems both on it's borders and within it's borders, wants to do it's utmost to resolve the issue and get the remaining Palestinians out of it's borders. Syria wants to get 'face' back by getting the Golan back, and putting it's guns back on top. Hopefully such will never happen. Lebanon, like Jordan, wants peace and no Palestinians. (And no Hezbollah). France wants greater influence and to lessen UK influence. UK and US want out of the whole dam_n mess, but know that it would be political suicide to say so.

That's my view, anyway.

(No sources that I am willing to quote)

OK - Wiki and a map

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

http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence.htm

Settlements have been built in the West Bank, on land purchased from Arabs, or land where no owner was found.

or land where no owner was found.

Did make me smile

'Land where no owner was found'.

Before WWII most of the Palestine Mandate was owned by a very few absentee landlords and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. When these families sided with Hitler and the Grand Mufti went to Berlin to aid and abet the Nazis, they abrogated their rights to the land after Hitler's defeat.

Much of the land was then taken over by the tenant farmers but areas that were non-productive were left as being un-owned. These are the areas to which I was referring.

Many of the tenant farmers have been on the same land for generations - have planted olive trees that are now ancient. To me they have a right to regard that land as theirs and to sell it if they wish.

Other families were made to leave before the Israeli declaration of nationhood in 1948 - some forced out by the Jewish settlers, but the vast majority by their compatriots, on the promise that "When we win the war to come, you will get back the land tenfold." Didn't happen. Many are still in places like Shatila, living worse than dogs.

I am a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist, but I have seen the other side of the coin. And I have worked with many Palestinians, listening to their tales of woe. The only ones who do not gripe about their plight are the ones who live in Israel and work outside. But then they are usually better educated and far more skilled.

'Land where no owner was found'.

Before WWII most of the Palestine Mandate was owned by a very few absentee landlords and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. When these families sided with Hitler and the Grand Mufti went to Berlin to aid and abet the Nazis, they abrogated their rights to the land after Hitler's defeat.

That's the way it works. Go to war and lose, there is a good chance you're going to lose some territory. Don't cry about "occupation" just because your gamble didn't pay off.

That's the way it works. Go to war and lose, there is a good chance you're going to lose some territory. Don't cry about "occupation" just because your gamble didn't pay off.

[/b]

How about we recognize Israel as a state within the borders that where set up in 1948?

What would be the problem with that?

How about we recognize Israel as a state within the borders that where set up in 1948?

What would be the problem with that?

"We" can do anything "we" want. It's the Arab countries that seem to matter.

They should have agreed to the borders in 1948, instead of starting and losing numerous wars.

delete

They should have agreed to the borders in 1948, instead of starting and losing numerous wars.

Why should they have agreed to some arbitrary decision by a foreign power to allow European refugees to settle in the first place?

Most of the Arabs who were in what is now Israel were from nearby Arab countries who came to the area to work for the Jews - many of whose families had been there forever - and had legally bought up lots of acreage from the former owners. There was no "Palestine" and there were no "Palestinians". These stateless Arabs had no more right to the land than Jewish immigrants.

If they had not declared war on the Jews over and over again, they could have had their own country for the last 60 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bM2QG3r-I&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bM2QG3r-I&feature=player_embedded

Powerful. I'm waiting for someone to point out ant factual inaccuracies. Good luck with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bM2QG3r-I&feature=player_embedded

Powerful. I'm waiting for someone to point out ant factual inaccuracies. Good luck with that.

Much propaganda is powerfull....to the gullible at least.

I don't think I've ever read as much spin in 5 minutes anywhere else.

Factual inaccuracies...perhaps not. Lack of balance, definitely.

I watched much of (not all of, unfortunately) a wonderful documentary series titled "Search For Destiny". It gives a balanced, factual history of the Middle East.

Britain has alot to answer for, it would seem.

If any of the pro-Israel group sincerely want to know the truth and expand their minds, I reccomend watching the doco. It is available as a bit torrent, but so far my search for a transcript has proved fruitless.

Factual inaccuracies...perhaps not.

EXACTLY, and I do not see any anti-Israel posters posting anything even remotely "balanced'.

Factual inaccuracies...perhaps not.

EXACTLY, and I do not see any anti-Israel posters posting anything even remotely "balanced'.

Which sounds like an admission that the pro-Israeli faction indeed post unbalanced information.

So.....to get to the root of it, we must all be a bit more open-minded and sincere in the information we post....right?

Lets face it, propaganda is promulgated from both sides.

All of us have been submitted to some of the propaganda (whether we like it or not, whether we are willing to admit it or not)....It is reasonable to assume that any one of us in this forum has been subjected to more of one side than the other, hence our stances.

If we truly want to know the whole truth, we have to put our opinions aside until all facts are considered and digested.

Which means actually taking into account facts that may go against our current opinions.

I am not sure where you came up with any "admission" of anything, but I always read books and articles on both sides of every issue.

Right now, I am reading an anti-Israeli account of the seven day war (1968) by an avowed commie and a pro-Israeli history of the Yom Kipper war (1973) at the same time. IMHO, that is how you get accused of being a "too smart poster".

"We" can do anything "we" want. It's the Arab countries that seem to matter.

/quote]

let's say "We" are the people of Palestine, another "We" would be the international community and another "We" would be Israelis and their supporters being the US.

I see you are trying to play the blame them game but it really is very simple.

Israel should stay within the borders assigned to them in 1948.

Palestine should accept that a part of their land has been assigned to Usrael.

Israel should stay within the borders assigned to them in 1948.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion.

Note, this is not meant to be provocative. I am just pointing out that an opinion is all that has been offered here and we all have our own.

The settlements - which I don't necessarily agree with - are being built within Israel's current borders.

A question Ko' and I will readily admit at this moment I do not know the answer, so am genuinely looking for an honest response.

Are the Settlements within Israels present borders, or are they territories acquired by winning wars, since 1948?

Internationally, are they approved and accepted as within Israels defined borders and for a defining judgement, lets say in the view of the U.N, not Iran, or the U.S, or for that matter other posters of either side on this forum.

If you could direct me to a good reference site, I will read up for myself, but as the more logical, although I will admit vociferous and certainly passionate poster, I would like to hear your view.

Thank you Hump for the reply, anybody else care for an informed, reasoned response?

Powerful. I'm waiting for someone to point out ant factual inaccuracies. Good luck with that.

Much propaganda is powerfull....to the gullible at least.

I don't think I've ever read as much spin in 5 minutes anywhere else.

Factual inaccuracies...perhaps not. Lack of balance, definitely.

I'm surprised. I thought you (and others) would point out at least some mistakes instead of admitting that it is accurate.

If someone made an anti-slavery video, would you consider it "propaganda for the gullible" if it didn't present the benefits of slavery as well?

Powerful. I'm waiting for someone to point out ant factual inaccuracies. Good luck with that.

Much propaganda is powerfull....to the gullible at least.

I don't think I've ever read as much spin in 5 minutes anywhere else.

Factual inaccuracies...perhaps not. Lack of balance, definitely.

I'm surprised. I thought you (and others) would point out at least some mistakes instead of admitting that it is accurate.

If someone made an anti-slavery video, would you consider it "propaganda for the gullible" if it didn't present the benefits of slavery as well?

"Perhaps not" is not an admission of it being accurate,

That's a bad analogy and fatuous.

Actually, it is a pretty good comparison considering the fact that the "Palestinians" have just made their situation worse and worse with constant war and violence, but keep trying to blame it all on Israelis who were more than willing to settle for the 1948 borders granted by the UN in the first place.

"Perhaps not" is not an admission of it being accurate,

Then why not point out where it is not true instead of relying on groundless insinuations and mudslinging?

Facts and figures please.

Actually, it is a pretty good comparison considering the fact that the "Palestinians" have just made their situation worse and worse with constant war and violence, but keep trying to blame it all on Israelis who were more than willing to settle for the 1948 borders granted by the UN in the first place.

So........which are the slave traders and which are the slaves in that "pretty good comparison", and was it the traders or the slaves that were making the blame?

It still looks like an entirely inapt analogy.

"Perhaps not" is not an admission of it being accurate,

Then why not point out where it is not true instead of relying on groundless insinuations and mudslinging?

Facts and figures please.

Mudslinging? Please, enough with the silly exagerations....they do you no good.

"Groundless" implies that you at least (koheesti has not gone so far as to state that it is all factual), believe every last word of it.

The reason I don't provide "facts and figures" is that I believe that it is indeed possibly true, half truths at least, albeit very one-sided. I have no intention of trying to score points by researching every last claim because I am sure that the producers of the video, like all good propagandists, used verifiable information, or at least information that can not be refuted.

BTW...information that can not be refuted is not neccessarily true

An example of a half truth would be the claim around leaflet dropping. Sure, leaflet drops may have occurred....but did the Isrealis drop leaflets EVERY time prior to dropping white phosphorous or bombs? I doubt it very much. I daresay that, pound for pound and number of incidents, they dropped more WP than paper and on mopre occassions.

Another example of something simmilar to a half truth...the video asks the question who else has ever dropped leaflets warning the civilians, implying that they are so noble, more noble than any other antogonist in the history of warfare.... They are not; the British and the Americans have practiced that....going back to WW1....and I have no doubt other combatants have too.

And so on. That's without any research or without viewing the vid again.

Snip:

In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel:

And a lot more from Chucks favorite website:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

That's without any research ...

What's new?

Just making things up does not prove diddly squat and if there is no proof offered that a historical video is not accurate, using the term "groundless insinuations" about these insinuations is more than fitting.