Netanyahu declares 'victory' in Gaza

[Morch]

Well, I don't know if there EVER will be a two state solution, but I'm sure unless Israel's enemies manage to win militarily that part of any deal will need to include significant security allowances for Israel, like buffer zones, because a new Palestinian state won't be the only threat to Israel and Israel is indeed VERY SMALL compared to her surrounding NEIGHBORS. Whether Israel's enemies think that is "fair" or not isn't really relevant.

Such buffer zones are rather the norm, if previous agreements are anything to go by. Their different levels of effectiveness can

be attributed to various factors, the main being having a solid leadership on the other side of the border. While buffer zones do

provide protection from certain threats, the increasing range of weapons in the region diminishes some of their importance.

[Ulysses G.]

Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

The Palestinian Arabs owned very little land of their own - as has been pointed out to you repeatedly - and plenty them were also "illegal aliens" who had come to the area to take advantage of the economic boom that mainly the Jews were responsible for. The Arabs had no more right to land than the Jews did, but the Jews accepted the UN deal and the Arabs didn't. That is why the Palestinian Arabs are still stateless and whining about it, 66 years later.

I suggest you take another look at the 1950 UN published map land ownership

I suggest you quit linking to crazy websites with erroneous information and FAKE QUOTES, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

If you go look at the actual UN map, it lists ARAB ownership and that was mainly wealthy, absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins that didn't own squat.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

The Palestinian Arabs owned very little land of their own - as has been pointed out to you repeatedly - and plenty them were also "illegal aliens" who had come to the area to take advantage of the economic boom that mainly the Jews were responsible for. The Arabs had no more right to land than the Jews did, but the Jews accepted the UN deal and the Arabs didn't. That is why the Palestinian Arabs are still stateless and whining about it, 66 years later.

I suggest you take another look at the 1950 UN published map land ownership?

I suggest you quit linking to crazy websites with erroneous information and FAKE QUOTES, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

If you go look at the actual UN map, it list ARAB ownership and that was mainly wealthy, absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.

Sources please for your land ownership lies! I'm sticking with the UN map.

So on your planet it's OK to dispossess and ethnically cleanse debt ridden peasants. So much for Israel's Declaration of Independence

• Israel is to be a state of development for the benefit of all its inhabitants;

• Israel is to be a state based on the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace, a state in which all the inhabitants will enjoy equality of social and political rights, along with freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/decind.html

or for the Balfour Declaration too.

“ His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”

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

Edited August 31, 2014 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

“ His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people [whatever that means..no-one seems to know], and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

I am pretty sure that was before the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" declared war on them, backed up by 5 Arab armies.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm sticking with the UN map.

So am I and it's not the one on your nutty website. It is the one that lists "Arab" ownership - not "Palestinian" - and that was mainly wealthy, absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins who owned no land.

[Morch]

"Handing control over some of the West Bank to Palestinians". Oh joy. Maybe next Israel may consider giving Palestine back some of their stolen land to have control over.

And "withdrawal from Gaza" indeed. More hasbaric spin. You make it sound like Israel was being a responsible Catholic and practicing the rhythm method. The reality - as I am sure you know - is that Israel was forced to leave the Gaza strip because it had become far too expensive and contentious to have to maintain substantial IDF forces to protect the few ratbag settlers who were the advance troops of the colonists.

You could play cricket for England, you know. The public has been bemoaning the lack of a good spinner in the side.

Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel.

...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps).

It's like stealing someone's house, holding onto it but allowing the victims to camp out in the back garden.

I am amazed that someone such as yourself who professes to be educated on the subject, could dish up such naive baloney spin.

Well, things could have gone differently in 1947 had the Palestinians accepted the partition resolution instead of rejecting it,

going to war and losing. There's a certain point where some responsibility for actions taken needs to be acknowledged.

Discounting Hamas's wishes for total territorial gain, most formulations for final peace agreements revolve around the 1967

lines, not 1947. The differences in territory between 1947 and 1967 are less dramatic. Since 1967, Israel did not expand it

territory in any meaningful lasting way, quite the contrary.

I can see you’re anxious to deflect debate away from the nefarious Zionist background to Israel’s foundation. Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

And a very neat sweeping under the carpet of 47-67, Morch, which just happens to have created most of the refugees currently living in Gaza, who are still resisting.

Then we have since 1967... “ Israel did not expand its territory in any meaningful lasting way”

Nice try with the weasel words, Morch. But you ain’t fooling anyone. I’m amazed you are naive enough to think you could.

You are playing with statistical land areas..the Sinai Peninsula is a huge 60,000 sq kms compared with Israel’s present 20,770 sq kms. It’s like carjacking and mugging the passengers, and saying “Look I have already returned the car to the driver? What more do you want?” while you’re still kicking the passengers on the ground.

Of course statistically Israel gave a lot of empty desert back to its rightful owner..Egypt. It had to if it wanted peace with them.

Better refresh your memory about Israel’s expansion here...

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

Israel should try returning land to the Palestinians on the West Bank, if it wants a permanent peace.

Israel's existence is a fact. If you wish to claim it should not have existed in the first place or something along this line, that's not something I would bother arguing about. You could probably take this argument further and apply it to most of the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia.

The Negev desert, a mostly uncultivated and sparsely uninhabited area, made a large part of what was to become Israel. The lion's share of the land there was not under Arab ownership. Not something which was considered quality land at the time.

The issue discussed was territorial gains - if you wish to bring the refugee problem into it as well, than re-phrase what your point was. I was addressing the claim that Israel increased its territory, which you try to compound and deflect by throwing in the refugee issue. In the same way, the link provided deals with population figures rather than territory, not the same.

Thanks for making the point - Israel handed back land for peace (Sinai peninsula for peace with Egypt). Israel preferred a solid peace treaty over territorial expansion. Israel withdrew from land when holding on to it was not attainable (even with no gains whatsoever) - as was done in Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Israel traded partial control over parts of the West Bank to the PA, and got partial peace.

I have no argument that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians should involve the Palestinians getting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (figuring out how to connect the two is another issue). The question, for me, is more to do with sides not being up to make the leap, not being able to muster enough public support, extremist elements not into the whole thing and weak leaderships to boot. In terms of actual arrangements, many of the issues are doable, if not easy.

[Seastallion]

Fast forward to the future...."Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

In a democratic society people pander to various constituencies. Perhaps he was doing this here. But it doesn't matter if his remarks reinforce the perceptions of the arabs he will deal with. So, it has the effect of not being true but incidentally effecting peace possibilities as if it were true, or being true, which effects the peace process possibilities. Either way, it makes you wonder what the hell these people are thinking some times- all of them!

I think in one form or another this is/was a subtle policy in prep for later conceding in negotiations. I think this underlies the settlement policies as well as some other expansions that seems incredulous.

On the day before Israel expands a settlement a Palestinian negotiator may consider these tracts of land as negotiable, and calculate accordingly. The next day they become Israel's tracts of lands so later, at negotiations, Israel has more to give. However, that which they are offering up in concessions consists of details which were only recently added to the Israel real estate folder. Yes, I think many people see this. I rationalize this activity as Israel preparing for overwhelming pressure to concede 67 borders, etc. I am uncertain. I have a view but others here speak to this better than me.

I almost don't want to reply because I am so taken aback by your post. I don't suffer fools very well, .... a character flaw in me that I readily confess to. For that I apologise.

Allow me to reflect upon a measured reply.

[Seastallion]

Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel.

...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps).

It's like stealing someone's house, holding onto it but allowing the victims to camp out in the back garden.

I am amazed that someone such as yourself who professes to be educated on the subject, could dish up such naive baloney spin.

Well, things could have gone differently in 1947 had the Palestinians accepted the partition resolution instead of rejecting it,

going to war and losing. There's a certain point where some responsibility for actions taken needs to be acknowledged.

Discounting Hamas's wishes for total territorial gain, most formulations for final peace agreements revolve around the 1967

lines, not 1947. The differences in territory between 1947 and 1967 are less dramatic. Since 1967, Israel did not expand it

territory in any meaningful lasting way, quite the contrary.

I can see you’re anxious to deflect debate away from the nefarious Zionist background to Israel’s foundation. Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

And a very neat sweeping under the carpet of 47-67, Morch, which just happens to have created most of the refugees currently living in Gaza, who are still resisting.

Then we have since 1967... “ Israel did not expand its territory in any meaningful lasting way”

Nice try with the weasel words, Morch. But you ain’t fooling anyone. I’m amazed you are naive enough to think you could.

You are playing with statistical land areas..the Sinai Peninsula is a huge 60,000 sq kms compared with Israel’s present 20,770 sq kms. It’s like carjacking and mugging the passengers, and saying “Look I have already returned the car to the driver? What more do you want?” while you’re still kicking the passengers on the ground.

Of course statistically Israel gave a lot of empty desert back to its rightful owner..Egypt. It had to if it wanted peace with them.

Better refresh your memory about Israel’s expansion here...

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

Israel should try returning land to the Palestinians on the West Bank, if it wants a permanent peace.

Israel's existence is a fact. If you wish to claim it should not have existed in the first place or something along this line, that's

not something I would bother arguing about. You could probably take this argument further and apply it to most of the Middle

East, Africa and parts of Asia.

The Negev desert, a mostly uncultivated and sparsely uninhabited area, made a large part of what was to become Israel.

The lion's share of the land there was not under Arab ownership. Not something which was considered quality land at the

time.

The issue discussed was territorial gains - if you wish to bring the refugee problem into it as well, than re-phrase what your

point was. I was addressing the claim that Israel increased its territory, which you try to compound and deflect by throwing

in the refugee issue. In the same way, the link provided deals with population figures rather than territory, not the same.

Thanks for making the point - Israel handed back land for peace (Sinai peninsula for peace with Egypt). Israel preferred a

solid peace treaty over territorial expansion. Israel withdrew from land when holding on to it was not attainable (even with

no gains whatsoever) - as was done in Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Israel traded partial control over parts of the

West Bank to the PA, and got partial peace.

I have no argument that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians should involve the Palestinians getting

the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (figuring out how to connect the two is another issue). The question, for me, is more to

do with sides not being up to make the leap, not being able to muster enough public support, extremist elements not into

the whole thing and weak leaderships to boot. In terms of actual arrangements, many of the issues are doable, if not easy.

Why do you state the fact that "Israel exists" Has anybody suggested that it doesn't exist? Should I too, preface my posts with statements such as, "the sky is blue"?

Never mind, it's not important.

What is important to the debate is that you refuse to discuss a topic that has never been proven either way. You're insisting that "the right to exist" is a given, yet there is no evidence of it given (especially if we transcend strict legal speech and just discuss it from a moral POV)

[Ulysses G.]

You're insisting that "the right to exist" is a given, yet there is no evidence of it given (especially if we transcend strict legal speech and just discuss it from a moral POV)

It is given, because it is there, the UN sanctioned it and no one can do anything about it. Any further discussion is nothing but

[Morch]

Well, things could have gone differently in 1947 had the Palestinians accepted the partition resolution instead of rejecting it, going to war and losing. There's a certain point where some responsibility for actions taken needs to be acknowledged.

Discounting Hamas's wishes for total territorial gain, most formulations for final peace agreements revolve around the 1967 lines, not 1947. The differences in territory between 1947 and 1967 are less dramatic. Since 1967, Israel did not expand it territory in any meaningful lasting way, quite the contrary.

I can see you’re anxious to deflect debate away from the nefarious Zionist background to Israel’s foundation. Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

And a very neat sweeping under the carpet of 47-67, Morch, which just happens to have created most of the refugees currently living in Gaza, who are still resisting.

Then we have since 1967... “ Israel did not expand its territory in any meaningful lasting way”

Nice try with the weasel words, Morch. But you ain’t fooling anyone. I’m amazed you are naive enough to think you could.

You are playing with statistical land areas..the Sinai Peninsula is a huge 60,000 sq kms compared with Israel’s present 20,770 sq kms. It’s like carjacking and mugging the passengers, and saying “Look I have already returned the car to the driver? What more do you want?” while you’re still kicking the passengers on the ground.

Of course statistically Israel gave a lot of empty desert back to its rightful owner..Egypt. It had to if it wanted peace with them.

Better refresh your memory about Israel’s expansion here...

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

Israel should try returning land to the Palestinians on the West Bank, if it wants a permanent peace.

Israel's existence is a fact. If you wish to claim it should not have existed in the first place or something along this line, that's not something I would bother arguing about. You could probably take this argument further and apply it to most of the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia.

The Negev desert, a mostly uncultivated and sparsely uninhabited area, made a large part of what was to become Israel. The lion's share of the land there was not under Arab ownership. Not something which was considered quality land at the time.

The issue discussed was territorial gains - if you wish to bring the refugee problem into it as well, than re-phrase what your point was. I was addressing the claim that Israel increased its territory, which you try to compound and deflect by throwing in the refugee issue. In the same way, the link provided deals with population figures rather than territory, not the same.

Thanks for making the point - Israel handed back land for peace (Sinai peninsula for peace with Egypt). Israel preferred a solid peace treaty over territorial expansion. Israel withdrew from land when holding on to it was not attainable (even with no gains whatsoever) - as was done in Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Israel traded partial control over parts of the West Bank to the PA, and got partial peace.

I have no argument that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians should involve the Palestinians getting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (figuring out how to connect the two is another issue). The question, for me, is more to do with sides not being up to make the leap, not being able to muster enough public support, extremist elements not into the whole thing and weak leaderships to boot. In terms of actual arrangements, many of the issues are doable, if not easy.

Why do you state the fact that "Israel exists" Has anybody suggested that it doesn't exist? Should I too, preface my posts with statements such as, "the sky is blue"?

Never mind, it's not important.

What is important to the debate is that you refuse to discuss a topic that has never been proven either way. You're insisting that "the right to exist" is a given, yet there is no evidence of it given (especially if we transcend strict legal speech and just discuss it from a moral POV)

I stated this to counter a possible derailment of the previous relevant posts which were to do with Israel's territorial gains. If you would bother reading back, you'll note that this was what I was talking about and that dexterm threw in additional points in order to muddy the waters (which in this case were pretty clear - territorial gains, not refugees, populations figures or Israel right to exist).

Would be of help if you read the previous posts leading to the last one.

What you propose to discuss is both of off topic (and I believe there was a Mod reference to that earlier) and frankly, not much more than a theoretical proposition, with very little chance of not derailing this topic further. It was suggested several times (not by me) that such topic could be taken to outside of the box or to PM. My messenger is readily accessible and most people willing to engage in civil, fact oriented and calm discussion are most welcome.

[dexterm]

I'm sticking with the UN map.

So am I and it's not the one on your nutty website. It is the one that lists "Arab" ownership - not "Palestinian" - and that was mainly wealthy, absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins who owned no land.

Still not naming your sources I notice. Sounds like your usual myths and fabrications..nothing new there then.... A bit like Mark Regev’s fantasies...unless he allows the IDF to testify before an international tribunal to verify events.

Mai ben rai. So you’re saying that if I were a New Yorker who owned land in Texas, I could sell leasehold land to Mexicans from under the feet of a Texan home owner and they could then legitimately transfer it to Mexican sovereignty?

I’m afraid you won’t win many friends with that idea...not even on Fox News.

[Ulysses G.]

Texas is a STATE in a COUNTRY. There has NEVER been an independent Arab country called Palestine and very few of the Arabs who lived in the area even owned any land. Your comparison makes no sense.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

Morch said,

Israel's existence is a fact. If you wish to claim it should not have existed in the first place or something along this line, that's not something I would bother arguing about. You could probably take this argument further and apply it to most of the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia.

I accept that Israel is here to stay and I recognize the state of Israel..but not the Jewish State of Israel...that just smacks of apartheid. It would have been preferable if Israel had stayed within the 47 borders. But that's history. Would that the Israelis would recognize a Palestinian state.

The 67 borders (incl land swaps) is a very generous compromise by the Palestinians, compensation is easy for both displaced Palestinians and Jews, plus a token return of a few elderly Palestinians, a deal over Jerusalem has been accepted in the past at Camp David.

I agree partial handing back of land will always equal partial peace...which is of no long term value for either of the parties.

[dexterm]

Texas is a STATE in a COUNTRY. There has NEVER been an independent Arab country called Palestine and very few of the Arabs who lived in the area even owned any land. Your comparison makes no sense.

Still not naming your sources for your land ownership myth. To be expected I suppose.

There is no such thing as the Jewish people. Judaism is a religion; Jews are are not a race..they vary from jet black falashas to blonde haired blue eyed Azkhenazis. They are simply a loose knit cultural group diluted by centuries of intermarriage and conversions, Who after a 2000 years silence are now hearing voices from their imaginary supernatural friends that they have somehow a divine right to Palestine.

There doesn't appear to be a state of Israel either. Please let us know where its borders are...they seem to keep moving.

Of course there has been a Palestinian state. The Romans called it Syria Palæstina

But it goes back even further...

The term Peleset (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c.1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt.

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.

Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.

More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_%22Palestine%22

Edited August 31, 2014 by dexterm

[dexterm]

“ His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people [whatever that means..no-one seems to know], and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

I am pretty sure that was before the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" declared war on them, backed up by 5 Arab armies.

Yet another of your myths and fabrications, UG.

You’re playing the victim game again. It was Israel who began the 48 war by violating the 1947 partition plan and ethnically cleansing Palestinians. Jews had occupied most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948, that was even before the end of the British mandate.

The Jewish historian Avi Shlaim ridiculed your myth in his book "the Iron Wall"...."This popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war has been used extensively in Israeli propaganda and is still taught in Israeli schools. It is a prime example of the use of a nationalistic version of history in the process of nation building. In a very real sense history is the propaganda of the victors, and the history of the 1948 war is no exception."

Make that 2 Arab armies for starters. The 48 war was not quite the David and Goliath scenario you make it out to be. It was more like Arab lions led by donkeys.

Just because the bully picks a fight and wins against a weaker opponent doesn’t make it justified.

Arab forces were initially limited to 30,000 poorly equipped men (later reinforced to 68,000), while Israel had 90,000 well armed soldiers with very short lines of supply. All against the better advice of the Arab armies’ chiefs of staff to their corrupt incompetent governments not to invade Palestine because of troubles in their home countries. (Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths And Realities p. 123-124).

No country or generation has a premium on stupid political leaders sacrificing their young soldiers..take George Dubya, Blair and Netanyahu for starters.

In May 1948 the lineup was: Egyptians 5,500 men, Syrians 6,000, Iraqis 4,500, Palestinian irregulars 3,000, Lebanese 2,000, Jordanians 9,000 (the best trained but never fought)

Only the Egyptian and Syrian armies and the Palestinians (although their leaders had been exiled since 1936) actually fought the Israelis.

Under American and French pressure, the Lebanese Army never crossed the border

Israel had bribed, with money and land, King Abdullah of Jordan (who controlled the Jordanians and Iraqis) not to move beyond the West Bank

.

Another huge factor was the softening up by Jewish terrorist gangs prior the war. When the war started on May 15, 1948, close to 400,000 Palestinian refugees were already ethnically cleansed and clogging the roads, burdening local economies, and demoralizing the Arab populations and armies, as was intended. Talk about human shields. (Israel: A History, p. 218 & Benny Morris, p. 211)

In "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" pp. 14-18 Israeli historian Benny Morris lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population. In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin

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

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Dayr-Yasin/

Although there was an arms embargo in the Middle East, it harmed the Arabs more than the Israelis. While the Arab armies were running down their ammunitions, the Israeli army was stockpiling weapons and ammunitions from a large arms shipment from Czechoslovakia that arrived in early May, 1948.

The Arab armies who were actually allowed to fight were badly organised. There was no common military headquarters to coordinate armies. It wasn't until April 30, 1948 that the Arab armies' chiefs of staff met for the first time to work out a plan and that was later wrecked by King Abdullah, when he made last minute changes just before the entry of any Arab army into British Mandated Palestine. (Simha Flapan, p. 133)

As Ben Gurion admitted: "Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever?" (Simha Flapan, p. 238)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0901/S00132.htm

Prophetic words perhaps. Time is on the side of the Palestinians.

[Jingthing]

Is THIS thread (on Gaza) really the place for yet another endless debate on conflicting historical narratives about the origin of the Jewish state of Israel on part of the land that used to be called British Mandate Palestine and before that other stuff ... etc. etc. etc.?

[Thorgal]

Is THIS thread (on Gaza) really the place for yet another endless debate on conflicting historical narratives about the origin of the Jewish state of Israel on part of the land that used to be called British Mandate Palestine and before that other stuff ... etc. etc. etc.?

OP is about Israel who clame victory for the latest conflict.

But Palestinians still live in colonial conditions.

If someone claims victory today, because Palestinians didn't own land titles before 1947 and that the region was not economicaly functioning properly, I think that's not forbidden to provide historical and regional correct info in this forum.

Turn it like you want but it's not logic and fair that Israel claims victory on innocent Palestinian civilian casualities.

Knowing that under Islamic rule (638-1099) the majority of the Jews in Palistine became Arabized in culture and language, many also adopting the new faith of Islam. Today, common genetic roots but diffirent faith still brings war !

Under crusader rule (1099-1291) the Jews and Muslims fought together against the Christian 'invaders'...

Edited August 31, 2014 by Thorgal

[Jingthing]

Again with the Israel shouldn't exist implication. It's too much. PLEASE deal with the political situation as it is TODAY. Israel exists. The Palestinians want a state. BOTH sides claimed "victory" in the recent violent conflict. Anyone who cares to know understands WHY that was done politically. So now what? Not Israel shouldn't exist again because here is my historical narrative proving she shouldn't exist. It's not fooling anyone what that's about.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Jingthing

[dr_lucas]

Texas is a STATE in a COUNTRY. There has NEVER been an independent Arab country called Palestine and very few of the Arabs who lived in the area even owned any land. Your comparison makes no sense.

Still not naming your sources for your land ownership myth. To be expected I suppose.

There is no such thing as the Jewish people. Judaism is a religion; Jews are are not a race..they vary from jet black falashas to blonde haired blue eyed Azkhenazis. They are simply a loose knit cultural group diluted by centuries of intermarriage and conversions, Who after a 2000 years silence are now hearing voices from their imaginary supernatural friends that they have somehow a divine right to Palestine.

There doesn't appear to be a state of Israel either. Please let us know where its borders are...they seem to keep moving.

Of course there has been a Palestinian state. The Romans called it Syria Palæstina

But it goes back even further...

The term Peleset (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c.1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt.

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.

Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.

More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_%22Palestine%22

Actually UG is correct.

It's not the same Palestine, not the same people, most of them not even remotely related to the people who call themselves the Palestinians nowadays.

We've been over and over this on these threads, you really ought to do some reading as it gets boring repeating the same things.

Quick Zionism Background:

Whether I or you like it or not, we must acknowledge the facts - the state of Israel has been established from the very beginning, following the 1917 Balfour declaration and other consecutive events until the UN partition plan - first and foremost - as the national home of the Jewish people, an ethnic group that has proven historical roots in that land that go back more than 3,500 years, until banished from Israel around 2,000 years ago, by the Romans, of the ancient Rome empire.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

Forget religion, forget god, forget bible, forget beliefs. Most Israelis are secular anyway. Let's refer to this group of people as an ethnic Israeli group.

Now, let's focus on basic math & facts for a moment. Approximately 99% of Jews are born Jews. It is well known, according to written history and historical & archaeological findings, that Jews origin is Israel.

Jews were banished from Israel and distributed in the world (Disapora), yet since approximately 99% of Jews are born Jews, and since it's very difficult to convert to become a Jew (Jews discourage conversions), unlike Muslim & Christians (both strongly encourage, sometimes force/d conversions) the vast majority of Jews nowadays are the ancestors of those same Jews who lived and "owned" the land of Israel.

No other ethnic group existing in this world have such strong proof of previous & initial, longest-term relationship to, "ownership" of, rights on the land of Israel, as Jews have, a land which historical evidences clearly indicate - has been stolen from them, before it belonged to anyone else living today.

[theoldgit]

One post removed that breaches Forum Rules.

If you post text from a commercial source you must provide a link to that source and only quote the first few lines.

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[Ulysses G.]

“ His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people [whatever that means..no-one seems to know], and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

I am pretty sure that was before the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" declared war on them, backed up by 5 Arab armies.

Yet another of your myths and fabrications, UG.

You’re playing the victim game again. It was Israel who began the 48 war by violating the 1947 partition plan and ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

How could Israel "violate" a partition plan that the Palestinian Arabs REJECTED. Your false propaganda does not work very well in a world with the Internet which proves all your fabrications and fantasies are complete nonsense and that all your "QUOTES" are FAKE!.

[Ulysses G.]

As Ben Gurion admitted: "Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever?" (Simha Flapan, p. 238)

Probably the only true thing in your post. Yes, Arab armies suck and that is not likely to change. They LIE to each other about any problems that they are having and they LIE to each other about losses. That is why they lost in 1973 despite launching a sneak attack, being armed by the Soviets and told exactly what to do to win and provided with all the intelligence to do so.

In 1948, the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan and Egypt attacked from the north, east and south starting with an Egyptian air attack on Tel Aviv. They were fully equipped with the common weapons of a regular army of the time - artillery, tanks, armored cars and personnel carriers, as well as machine guns, mortars and the usual small arms in great quantities, and full supplies of ammunition, oil, and gasoline. Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had air forces. Because they were sovereign states, they had no difficulty (as had the pre-state Jewish defense force) in securing whatever armaments they needed through normal channels from Britain and other friendly powers.

The Jews had no matching artillery, no tanks, and no warplanes in the beginning of the war. Some of these weapons arrived in the days that followed, however, and turned the tide, but the Jews had little more than small arms at the start of the war.

The Arabs had much bigger armies and were much better armed. The fact that they underestimated the Jews will to fight, were too stupid to send all their troops in the first days and got their butts kicked is THEIR problem.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[JDGRUEN]

The laws of land warfare... lands becomes taken land in war - whether smoldering war or hot war ... Lesson to be learned = - don't kidnap and kill Israelis and ... don't start wars with Israel...

IDF expands land holdings in West Bank

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IDF-expands-state-land-in-West-Bank-by-4000-dunams-373032

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Someone mentioned earlier how Israel would be gobsmacked without arms shipments from the US. Not so. Israel is one of the top arms producers in the world.

So, by your admission Israel is as much, or perhaps even more, of a military power than the USA.

Yet this major, advanced military power starts a war that kills almost 2,000 civilians - because, the Israelis claim, al-Qassam (Hamas military wing) fired some home made rockets that lack even primitive guidance systems.

Now, do you see something wrong with this picture?

Look closely, and you'll see my assertion ('one of the top arms producers in the world') is quite different than the words you put for me ('Israel is as much, or perhaps even more, of a military power than the USA')

Putting that aside, it's clear that dialogue is best for resolving differences, but just as clear that dialogue hasn't worked for the 60-year old festering problems between Israelis and Palestinians. What works? Old fashioned might is what commands the stage. Currently, Israel has the might to keep its sworn enemies from destroying it (and shipping all Israelis elsewhere?). Personally, I don't have a problem with Israel being a country, so I hope it doesn't get destroyed and have its people killed and/or shipped to other regions.

[Thorgal]

The laws of land warfare... lands becomes taken land in war - whether smoldering war or hot war ... Lesson to be learned = - don't kidnap and kill Israelis and ... don't start wars with Israel...

IDF expands land holdings in West Bank

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IDF-expands-state-land-in-West-Bank-by-4000-dunams-373032

Jewish immigration to Palestine started long time before any declaration of 1947 and thereafter...

No need to kill or kidnap Israeli's and/or start provocing a war.

In fact, settlers nowadays remain important on the Israeli political agenda.

Latest legislation of Netanyahu 'arranged' more than 6000 new colonies.

More than all previous 4 legislations together.

Jewish terrorist organisations like Irgun and Jewish Underground Movement received multiple time grace and protection from the Israeli governments for their terror acts necause they acted with and for the settlers cause.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-jewish-underground-convict-receives-more-than-nis-1-3-million-from-state.premium-1.503357

Every PM in Israel is in fact politically a little slave of his own settlers.

Netanyahu claims victory now, but he's well aware that public opinion from settlers can be against him.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Thorgal

[Ulysses G.]

The laws of land warfare... lands becomes taken land in war - whether smoldering war or hot war ... Lesson to be learned = - don't kidnap and kill Israelis and ... don't start wars with Israel...

IDF expands land holdings in West Bank

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IDF-expands-state-land-in-West-Bank-by-4000-dunams-373032

Jewish immigration to Palestine started long time before any declaration of 1947 and thereafter...

No need to kill or kidnap Israeli's and/or start provocing a war.

Yes it did and the Arabs started attacking and murdering Jewish families that had been there for thousands of years in the early 1900s. What goes around comes around.

[CBR250]

Putting that aside, it's clear that dialogue is best for resolving differences, but just as clear that dialogue hasn't worked for the 60-year old festering problems between Israelis and Palestinians. What works? Old fashioned might is what commands the stage. Currently, Israel has the might to keep its sworn enemies from destroying it (and shipping all Israelis elsewhere?). Personally, I don't have a problem with Israel being a country, so I hope it doesn't get destroyed and have its people killed and/or shipped to other regions.

Personally, I have never intimated that I have a problem with the existence of Israel. Nor do I wish harm on its people. I have made that clear in endless posts. What I do have a problem with is that Israel is prepared to use that "military might" of which you seem so proud to slaughter innocent women and children in Gaza - and the West Bank & Jerusalem.

And why does Israel do this? Why does this military power you are so proud of start wars with people who have virtually no weapons, no armaments other than stones, home made rockets and some second hand K-47s? When you see a professional boxer punching the crap out of a kindergarten kid does this also hit the sweet spot for you? Your position implies you are ok with this, just so long as the professional boxer is Jewish and the kid is Palestinian.

(PS The easy answer to my question "why does Israel do this?" is "To keep stealing land from Palestinians". That is the bottom line - the rest of the complications are just window dressing).

[CBR250]

Well, I don't know if there EVER will be a two state solution, but I'm sure unless Israel's enemies manage to win militarily that part of any deal will need to include significant security allowances for Israel, like buffer zones, because a new Palestinian state won't be the only threat to Israel and Israel is indeed VERY SMALL compared to her surrounding NEIGHBORS. Whether Israel's enemies think that is "fair" or not isn't really relevant.

Such buffer zones are rather the norm, if previous agreements are anything to go by. Their different levels of effectiveness can

be attributed to various factors, the main being having a solid leadership on the other side of the border. While buffer zones do

provide protection from certain threats, the increasing range of weapons in the region diminishes some of their importance.

You want to comment on the new 400 hectares (4 square kilometres) of land that Israel announced last night that it is now stealing. Is this also a "buffer zone"? Because it seems that the IDF, the "political leadership" of Israel and even the settlements council of Gevaot think the land is being stolen in revenge for the deaths of the 3 Israeli teenagers. You know, the same ones whose deaths were used as justification for the Gaza war. (http://www.dw.de/israel-to-expropriate-400-hectares-of-west-bank-land/a-17891802)

So now it seems that Israel believes revenge is also a legitimate excuse for land theft. You can add it to the other paltry excuses like"buffer zones" if you like, but Israel doesn't really care what anyone thinks. It is blindly, immorally and murderously adhering to its Zionist colonial agenda of ethnically cleansing ALL Palestinians.

[Thorgal]

The laws of land warfare... lands becomes taken land in war - whether smoldering war or hot war ... Lesson to be learned = - don't kidnap and kill Israelis and ... don't start wars with Israel...

IDF expands land holdings in West Bank

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IDF-expands-state-land-in-West-Bank-by-4000-dunams-373032

Jewish immigration to Palestine started long time before any declaration of 1947 and thereafter...

No need to kill or kidnap Israeli's and/or start provocing a war.

Yes it did and the Arabs started attacking and murdering Jewish families that had been there for thousands of years in the early 1900s. What goes around comes around.

Why did the Arabs started to attack and murdering Jewish immigrants ?

[jacky54]

Why did the Arabs started to attack and murdering Jewish immigrants ?

Cos they were Jewish?, just a wild guess!