UN political chief criticizes Israel for new settlement plans

[arjunadawn]

So, you are doing what you always do when caught posting dishonest crap, just continue posting more of it.

Perhaps other members can study for themselves the clear intentions of the Zionist movement in colonizing Palestine ...perhaps allowing a little more time than the 2 minutes it took you to respond so eruditely.

More current is the Likud Party's platform. This is plainly the root of the criticism in the OP'.

• The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasizes the right of settlement.

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."^[27]

They state they claim the land from the sea to the Jordan river, ie all of it.

Here, they are employing a debatable component of defensive conquest- taking lands after attacked. Under international law it is kinda vague if once attacked land can be held as defensive and if so, and if contested, transfers cannot be made into those lands. I suspect Gaza and Golan count toward this, but not the west bank. The west bank was always Israel's, even when militarily occupied by jordan until 1967.

Likud having a strategy or plan does not constitute bad faith. It is only when a government openly "transfers" people in or out of areas that there is a problem. Settlements can actually be argued under international law for Gaza and Golan if it can be proven the state did not facilitate it. I am unsure Israel can prove this. But surely israel can do what she wishes with the west bank and jerusalem. However, there is no doubt in my mind Israel is awfully complicit in currently making things opaque, and difficult to manage. Not sure in a democracy how you can restrict a free association of people to make a political party, however disagreeable, such as above. So, then accountablity must come from the international community regarding any government enacting such disagreeable policies. Yet any and all condemnations of Israel fall short of the force of law. Why?

Because Israel has a considerable body of law on its side, repugnant or not.

[Steely Dan]

In suppose Israel won't stop these settlement for the sake of global peace. Selfish Israel rears its ugly head once again.

Ah, the same old nonsense, if only Israel were to play nice the whole Islamic world would start to act like choirboys.

[Ulysses G.]

Likud having a strategy or plan does not constitute bad faith.

Likud is only one party anyway - one that has reached important agreements with the Arabs - and the MUCH more recent Likud Constitution of May 2014 does NOT rule out the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

So, you are doing what you always do when caught posting dishonest crap, just continue posting more of it.

Perhaps other members can study for themselves the clear intentions of the Zionist movement in colonizing Palestine ...perhaps allowing a little more time than the 2 minutes it took you to respond so eruditely.

More current is the Likud Party's platform. This is plainly the root of the criticism in the OP'.

• The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasizes the right of settlement.

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."^[27]

They state they claim the land from the sea to the Jordan river, ie all of it.

Here, they are employing a debatable component of defensive conquest- taking lands after attacked. Under international law it is kinda vague if once attacked land can be held as defensive and if so, and if contested, transfers cannot be made into those lands. I suspect Gaza and Golan count toward this, but not the west bank. The west bank was always Israel's, even when militarily occupied by jordan until 1967.

Likud having a strategy or plan does not constitute bad faith. It is only when a government openly "transfers" people in or out of areas that there is a problem. Settlements can actually be argued under international law for Gaza and Golan if it can be proven the state did not facilitate it. I am unsure Israel can prove this. But surely israel can do what she wishes with the west bank and jerusalem. However, there is no doubt in my mind Israel is awfully complicit in currently making things opaque, and difficult to manage. Not sure in a democracy how you can restrict a free association of people to make a political party, however disagreeable, such as above. So, then accountablity must come from the international community regarding any government enacting such disagreeable policies. Yet any and all condemnations of Israel fall short of the force of law. Why?

Because Israel has a considerable body of law on its side, repugnant or not.

Under international law and the Geneva convention, it is unlawful to settle occupied land. Gaza, Golan and East Jerusalem are deemed occupied by Israel.

If there is any argument that the land can be held for defensive purposes, then that land would be held for defensive purposes. Condominiums, houses and apartment blocks, parks, libraries, schools, shops etc full of civilians are not defensive, but settling.

[dexterm]

So, you are doing what you always do when caught posting dishonest crap, just continue posting more of it. I am not going to bother policing every quote, but the first one is yet another out and out distortion on your part. Theodor Herzl was not talking about Palestine as you claim. He was talking about Argentina and you purposely ignored that AND left out the first line of the quote - both from YOUR link:

Herzl wanted to win over non-Jewish opinion for Zionism.[34] When he was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he wrote in his diary:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us"

http://en.wikipedia....i/Theodor_Herzl

You are an amazing mind reader, UG., able to discern well over a century ago what was in Herzl’s mind. So let’s go back to the good Israeli Rabbi Dr Chaim Simons original sources.

“Herzl had not yet decided on the final location of the Jewish State. ‘Shall we choose Palestine or Argentina?’ wrote Herzl”

http://chaimsimons.net/transfer03.html

Personally, I don’t believe Herzl had any other intention than to establish a Jewish state in Palestine displacing the existing residents. But was just cosying up to any source of finance for his project by discussing other locations.

Whatever. Let’s go with your fantasy for now.

Let me get this straight. According to you, Herzl was planning sneakily to ethnically cleanse non Jewish peasants only from a Zion in Argentina, but 10 years later having chosen Palestine the leopard Herzl had suddenly changed his spots and had become the all sharing caring Mr Philanthropy 1896, despite the fact that many of his fellow Zionists were all for wholesale cleansing of non Jews.

Well, you are entitled to your beliefs, I suppose. But I seriously doubt your credulousness. However, I have no doubts at all about your disingenuousness.

[Petchou]

"If pursued, these plans would once again raise grave doubts about Israel's commitment to achieving durable peace with the Palestinians as the new settlements threaten the very viability of the future State of Palestine," Feltman said.

They do not want peace , and they do not want a palestinian state , everybody knows by now ...!

The Palestinians do not want Israel to be a state ... everybody knows that.

Yes everybody knows that this is another Zionist propaganda and lies. We agree with you.

[dexterm]

In suppose Israel won't stop these settlement for the sake of global peace. Selfish Israel rears its ugly head once again.

if only Israel were to play nice the whole Islamic world would start to act like choirboys.

We agree at last!

Yes, indeed. They have all agreed for several years now..Iran included.. to recognize the State of Israel within 67 borders (incl land swaps), compensation or a token return of refugees , a fudged shared deal over Jerusalem. Israel could also address its security concerns and a lengthy timeline. Even Hamas has agreed to an indefinite truce and respect for the 67 borders. They would be sidelined anyway when folks start to enjoy the benefits of peace.

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

Secure recognized borders. Exchange of ambassadors. Free trade, tourism. Israelis and Palestinians could be sitting on one of the most lucrative pieces of real estate in the world. Tel Aviv would become the financial hub of the whole Middle East. I foresee eventual EU membership too, so that Diaspora Jews could easily reclaim their European heritage too if they wished. With peace global Jewry would flock to Israel addressing any demographic imbalances.

The ball has always been in Israel’s court, but they keep shifting the goalposts undermining the peace process ..building more colonies and insisting on recognition of a religionist Jewish state of Israel instantly condemning 20% of its population to 2^nd class citizenship.

And if things seriously don’t work out, Israel with its powerful army and US backing could reverse the whole process over a long weekend.

Give peace a chance.

Shalom.

[dexterm]

Did anyone bother to ask the Palestinian residents what they wanted?

Yes they did. There were negotiations with them for years. At one point the Jews even accepted a deal for a country with everyone living together in peace and the Arabs controlling the government. The Arabs turned it down. What the Palestinian Arabs "wanted" was war. They started one and they LOST it.

Credible link please....otherwise I would be forgiven for thinking you are making it up.

Edited November 1, 2014 by dexterm

[Pakboong]

In my view, Palestine without Jews running the show would be like Thailand without the transplanted "Capitalist" Chinese running the show. We wouldn't want to be here if it were much like the old Burma. No need to like or dislike anybody, it is simply a practical evolution.

[Wat dee]

The so-called Palestine has never been a nation/state. The reason it isn't accepted is because it's a terrorist group. There was the PLO under Arafat and there is Hamas...

Try that one out on the UK or the US. Settle a bunch of terrorists on the border who lob rockets in and commit themselves to the destruction of the UK or US.

Now watch and see what happens.

Do you know how the current State of Israel was formed?

Do you know how many British people and Palestinians were murdered by cowardly Jewish terrorists some of whom are revered as heros in Isreal and have never faced prison or sanction but we're clearly cowards and murderers.

Do you know Palestine was a state before modern Israel was even conceived yes a state with laws and rules and general peace where Christians, Arabs and Jews lived together without too much trouble at all, shared the resources and respected the law, under British rule.

I best tell you so everyone knows a little about how the current conflict originated and why there is hatred.

Prior to the establishment of Israel, Jewish terror against the British authority and Palestinian Arabs was carried out predominantly by two semi paramilitary organisations that supported Revisionist Zionist ideologies: Etzel (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang). Both groups reflected the view of Zeev Jabotinsky that a sovereign Jewish state had to be created on both sides of the Jordan River, through violence or any means required.

Furthermore between 1939 and 1942, Etzel carried out over 60 terrorist attacks, killing more than 120 Palestinians and maiming hundreds more. In order to hasten British departure from Palestine. Significantly, Lehi operatives assassinated Lord Moyne, the minister resident in the Middle East, on November 6, 1944, in Cairo. On July 26, 1946, explosives planted by Etzel agents leveled the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the administrative center of the British Mandatory authority, killing 91 Britons and injuring close to 500 people.

Who are the real terrorists? one mans terrorist is another mans hero and if someone had stolen my land, houses, farm, factory I might be a little more than just unhappy. Isreal always uses the rocket attacks as defence of its policies. However, in reality most of the rockets are little more than big fireworks that do little damage.

You might not like it but you can't re write history :-)

So you're posing as a scholar on Jewish terrorism? Dude, if you're going to COPY large blocks of text that you didn't write (perhaps some people were actually fooled that you did write all that, but of course you didn't) you do need to post the source of the ACTUAL author. Thank you, sir.

Also Palestine was NEVER a state. That is a BIG LIE Israel demonizers try to push. British Mandate Palestine was not the state of Palestine. It was British Mandate Palestine, a GEOPOLITICAL ENTITY (again NOT a state) and before that a much bigger area than modern Israel, West Bank, and Gaza was ruled by the OTTOMAN EMPIRE. BTW, the Hebrew name for British Mandate Palestine included the term E.Y. ... ERETZ YISRAEL. Duh!

Duh?

[Wat dee]

Yes but not everyone knows about the terrorist acts that were carried out up to and including 1946. Are you denying the terrible murderous act at the St David's hotel by cowardly bombers? Or the assassinations that took place?

Stop with the troll baiting questions. Forget about any further responses. Again, you need to post SOURCE LINKS instead of acting like you have written long historical posts.

He's not a troll,obvious anti-Semitic!

[Wat dee]

Yes but not everyone knows about the terrorist acts that were carried out up to and including 1946. Are you denying the terrible murderous act at the St David's hotel by cowardly bombers? Or the assassinations that took place?

Stop with the troll baiting questions. Forget about any further responses. Again, you need to post SOURCE LINKS instead of acting like you have written long historical posts.

He's no troll,obvious anti-semitic!

[Jingthing]

Yes but not everyone knows about the terrorist acts that were carried out up to and including 1946. Are you denying the terrible murderous act at the St David's hotel by cowardly bombers? Or the assassinations that took place?

Stop with the troll baiting questions. Forget about any further responses. Again, you need to post SOURCE LINKS instead of acting like you have written long historical posts.

He's no troll,obvious anti-semitic!

Behave!

[Wat dee]

Why someone is harassed thousands of years?

Wat dee Why someone is harassed thousands of years? Simple because of fools like you

Take you pills a give mil her money it the first of the Month

I didn't have to buy mine.

[Jay Sata]

I see nothing wrong in settlements if Israel was perusing a single state solution. However they maintain they want two states but continue to develop an apartheid landscape in the West Bank.

There is a lot of global support for an embargo on goods and services from the so called settlers.

[Ulysses G.]

So, you are doing what you always do when caught posting dishonest crap, just continue posting more of it. I am not going to bother policing every quote, but the first one is yet another out and out distortion on your part. Theodor Herzl was not talking about Palestine as you claim. He was talking about Argentina and you purposely ignored that AND left out the first line of the quote - both from YOUR link:

Herzl wanted to win over non-Jewish opinion for Zionism.[34] When he was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he wrote in his diary:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us"

http://en.wikipedia....i/Theodor_Herzl

You are an amazing mind reader, UG., able to discern well over a century ago what was in Herzl’s mind.

I don't have to be a mind reader. That quote and the sentence that you deleted is from YOUR link.

You have been caught distorting facts and posting FAKE Quotes and fabrications over and over again. This is just another one to add to the list.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

arjunadawn, (exceeded thread # above) no links in last post I notice.

I apologize, sir..I didn't realize I was in the hallowed presence of other than others.

You’re playing the victim game again. It was Israel who began the 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 maybe.

[arjunadawn]

More current is the Likud Party's platform. This is plainly the root of the criticism in the OP'.

• The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasizes the right of settlement.

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."^[27]

They state they claim the land from the sea to the Jordan river, ie all of it.

Here, they are employing a debatable component of defensive conquest- taking lands after attacked. Under international law it is kinda vague if once attacked land can be held as defensive and if so, and if contested, transfers cannot be made into those lands. I suspect Gaza and Golan count toward this, but not the west bank. The west bank was always Israel's, even when militarily occupied by jordan until 1967.

Likud having a strategy or plan does not constitute bad faith. It is only when a government openly "transfers" people in or out of areas that there is a problem. Settlements can actually be argued under international law for Gaza and Golan if it can be proven the state did not facilitate it. I am unsure Israel can prove this. But surely israel can do what she wishes with the west bank and jerusalem. However, there is no doubt in my mind Israel is awfully complicit in currently making things opaque, and difficult to manage. Not sure in a democracy how you can restrict a free association of people to make a political party, however disagreeable, such as above. So, then accountablity must come from the international community regarding any government enacting such disagreeable policies. Yet any and all condemnations of Israel fall short of the force of law. Why?

Because Israel has a considerable body of law on its side, repugnant or not.

Under international law and the Geneva convention, it is unlawful to settle occupied land. Gaza, Golan and East Jerusalem are deemed occupied by Israel.

If there is any argument that the land can be held for defensive purposes, then that land would be held for defensive purposes. Condominiums, houses and apartment blocks, parks, libraries, schools, shops etc full of civilians are not defensive, but settling.

I dont disagree with you; but this is where it gets tricky (I am unsure of E. Jerusalem meets this threshold, though). The legalese of this issue has precedents, but not in the manner that Israel has enabled/facilitated/permitted these "settlements." It can be argued that the mere construction of roads, protective corridors, and the like, does not in itself facilitate "transfers" of populations to or from the areas. In my estimation, Israel has a way to go to convince me it is keeping in the spirit of this document. In that it permits civilians to build as they wish does not constitute "transfers." But I think it is plain to see the intention is to stack the deck with inhabitants that are friendly to Israel, and/or up the ante for final status negotiations. In a world of bad faith over there, this can clearly be seen as bad faith as well. However, international law actually has little precedent for which to stop these actions.

How? It seems the actions of transfers are often related to the nonpermissable use of agression under the UN charter. Israel fought defensive wars and as such... it is argued. Oh, I just re read your final part again: yes, you are correct, i think. But civilians building, moving, etc., have no prohibitions under international law. It is only the State facilitating the transfers, for which Israel only bears a fig leaf. Nevertheless, I think it is clear Israel is less interested in Gaza, except as a threat. Good! I see no indication that legally Gaza was titled. I do think Isreal is interested in Golan for overwhelming defensive purposes, but here the legalese is murky. Public opinion is less favorable to the Israeli's. Regarding the west bank- it always was Israeli!

[arjunadawn]

arjunadawn, (exceeded thread # above) no links in last post I notice.

I apologize, sir..I didn't realize I was in the hallowed presence of other than others.

I was graciously trying to exit a direction of conversation that you were having with others. I sought to provide you a person who disagrees with you, but not impolitely. I was trying to have a conversation with you where it was just about the post, and not each other. Having said that, I was plainly incorrect in thinking this possible. If ever you want to go back and forth, I prefer we do so not lumping each other into the "other" category, and just bang heads on the subject.

[arjunadawn]

arjunadawn, (exceeded thread # above) no links in last post I notice.

I apologize, sir..I didn't realize I was in the hallowed presence of other than others.

You’re playing the victim game again. It was Israel who began the 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 maybe.

See, this is a worthy and well written response. Thank you. Minus the personal stuff, great punch. However, one point: The Partition was never valid. It was rejected, if i am not mistaken, by the arabs.

[Ulysses G.]

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

I already proved that the Arabs admitted starting the war - which everyone knows anyway - so you are already ignoring the facts. Now you are going to trot out a bunch of nonsense about how it was not really the Arabs fault that a tiny, formative country beat 5 Arab armies and won the war that they started.

Jamal Husseini - chairman of the Arab Higher Committee - told the Security Council:

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Where are the Palestinian "historians" willing to challenge the Palestinian nationalist myths and propaganda? They don't exist and if they ever did, they would be murdered very quickly by their own Arab people. The biggest historical question the Arabs should be asking and they won't and can't, is whether it was just wrong and self destructive to their own people to immediately go to war against the Jews when Israel was created. Imagine how things would be different now ... but the Arabs blew it.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

So, you are doing what you always do when caught posting dishonest crap, just continue posting more of it. I am not going to bother policing every quote, but the first one is yet another out and out distortion on your part. Theodor Herzl was not talking about Palestine as you claim. He was talking about Argentina and you purposely ignored that AND left out the first line of the quote - both from YOUR link:

Herzl wanted to win over non-Jewish opinion for Zionism.[34] When he was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he wrote in his diary:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us"

http://en.wikipedia....i/Theodor_Herzl

You are an amazing mind reader, UG., able to discern well over a century ago what was in Herzl’s mind.

I don't have to be a mind reader. That quote is from YOUR link. It seems that you do not even read the links that you post to -supposedly - support your deceitful assertions. You have been caught distorting the facts and posting FAKE Quotes and fabrications over and over again. This is just one more to add to the list.

Better learn to read more carefully, UG...still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue....

No deception. So Herzl clearly had other locations in mind ... just as I said ...Palestine. Yet miraculously you claim he had somehow changed from being an ethnic cleanser of non Jews in Argentina to a future Social Services Minister of Palestinian Welfare in Palestine. Gimme a break.

Zionists have not changed..they have wanted Palestine cleansed of Arabs for over a century...and nothing has changed to this day..except the whole world is watching via the social media this time.

[Ulysses G.]

You said Palestine and nothing about Argentina or possible anything. When you get caught lying, you just keep on going. When Theodor Herzl wrote the quote that you posted, your link clearly says he was thinking of Argentina. It says NOTHING about Palestine.

Here are a few examples of Theodor Herzl’s and other early Zionists’good neighbor policy towards Palestinians

[arjunadawn]

Where are the Palestinian "historians" willing to challenge the Palestinian nationalist myths and propaganda? They don't exist and if they ever did, they would be murdered very quickly by their own Arab people. The biggest historical question the Arabs should be asking and they won't and can't, is whether it was just wrong and self destructive to their own people to immediately go to war against the Jews when Israel was created. Imagine how things would be different now ... but the Arabs blew it.

This is a really interesting perspective, and suggestive of how free people can hold each other accountable, versus the blindness of faith and nationalism. In the arab world generally, and the palestinians specifically, there are great efforts to revise history from revising history lessons for children to revising the percieved faith of the jews, such as stating david, soloman, etc., were muslims.

I understand the reasons they are doing this- they are now aware they are in a multigenerational struggle. But you can never set the foundation for good faith or negotiations with a people who cannot possible obtain stipulated-agreed to facts. When no facts can be seen to be agreed to, because of revised history, then no consensus can ever be reached.

[arjunadawn]

I have just come across a speech made by a Northwestern Professor on the status of settlements/etc. I think the presentation is fair, balanced and very useful to our forum today. Start at 12:30 mark.

[dexterm]

You said Palestine and nothing about Argentina or possible anything. When you get caught lying, you just keep on going. When Theodor Herzl wrote the quote that you posted, your link clearly says he was thinking of Argentina. It says NOTHING about Palestine.

Here are a few examples of Theodor Herzl’s and other early Zionists’good neighbor policy towards Palestinians

I didnt say anything about Uganda, Alaska, Australia either. ...proposed locations of a new Zion. The straw man fallacy...invent a non existent statement then criticize me for it.

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly” Theodore Herzl, Complete Diaries, June 12, 1985 entry

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

That's what Herzl wrote in 1885. You claim he was exclusively thinking about a Zion in Argentina. I claim he was exclusively thinking about a Zion in Palestine. In the quotes from original sources above...nobody knows. But the latter seems to have happened...surprise surprise!

It is you who is fixated with Argentina who claims that Herzl changed from being enthusiastic but sneaky about expelling non Jews on the pampas in 1885 to Yasser Arafat's favorite grandad in 1896... all sweetness and light willing to share and care for his fellow Palestinian citizens of a future Israelistine.

I dont buy it... and neither do you.

[Ulysses G.]

That's what Herzl wrote in 1885. You claim he was exclusively thinking about a Zion in Argentina.

I don't claim anything. Your link does. You got caught lying. You have been caught lying repeatedly and not just today. Face it.

Herzl wanted to win over non-Jewish opinion for Zionism.[34] When he was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he wrote in his diary:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us"

http://en.wikipedia....i/Theodor_Herzl

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

I have just come across a speech made by a Northwestern Professor on the status of settlements/etc. I think the presentation is fair, balanced and very useful to our forum today. Start at 12:30 mark.

Please, spare us the one-eyed agenda'ed rantings of the Warfare Project! It's sole purpose is to support Israel.

I didn't get to the Professor's speech because the woman introducing him was just toooooooo biased to let me for a minute think that her guest would be any different.

[japsportscarmad]

Putting myself in the shoes of the Irgun for a moment for the purposes of this post, my answer is no I don't condemn the attack on the King David.

The King David was British Army headquarters. The Irgun were not targeting a normal "hotel".

They said something similar about the UN compound they targeted and shelled No credibility now with social media exposing their lies and propaganda as it happens.