Last time I visited Jerusalem I met an Arab who said he?s ready to die in a nuclear holocaust as long as the bomb destroys Israel.
Every time I visit the country I try to talk to Arabs so that I don?t hear only the Jewish perspective. Not that there?s only one Jewish perspective, of course. Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to Israel knows the politics there are famously fractious. The overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis agree on some things, however, and you either have to talk to people on the lunatic fringe of the spectrum, to radical foreign activists, or to Palestinians if you want to hear something different. A Palestinian man who asked me to quote him as ?Ghazi? did not disappoint when I sought something different.
He sells jewelry in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem?s Old City, a place I like to go once in a while to talk politics with the shopkeepers. They?re unfailingly pleasant to sit with, and they?re interesting. They don?t always say what you?d expect. Ghazi certainly didn?t.
Some of them, though, don?t want to talk about politics whether or not I tell them I?m a journalist. It isn?t their job. That?s not what they?re there for.
The first man I talked to on my most recent trip shook his head when I asked if I could interview him. He sat on the steps outside his shop and had the posture of a man hunkering down while waiting for a storm to pass over.
?Can you at least tell me if the political situation is good or bad?? I said.
?It?s bad,? he said, but he wouldn?t elaborate. ?Somebody around here will talk to you,? he said and gestured by flicking his eyes.
Perhaps he felt overwhelmed by Zionist-imperialist colonizers. Maybe he was dismayed by his fellow Palestinians and their eternal rejectionism. He may have had a different set of complaints altogether, a set of complaints that I can?t even imagine. I don?t know, but whatever it was, he did not want to tell me.
Ghazi, though, said I had come to the right place when I asked if we could talk politics. I made it clear, though, that I didn?t want him to tell me what he thought Americans wanted to hear. Every journalist worthy of the title eventually figures out that this sort of thing happens a lot in the Middle East and needs to be factored in. I wanted to know what Ghazi really thought, and I said so.
?Promise you won?t get mad at me,? he said.
The Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem's Old City
?I?ve been working in this region for years,? I said. ?I?ve heard everything. So, no, I won?t get mad, and I won?t take it personally.?
?Promise me,? he said again. The last thing he needed as a shopkeeper catering to tourists was an American yelling at him in his store.
?I promise you I won?t get mad,? I said and grinned. I liked where this was going and that he was nervous. He was gearing up to be honest.
?You?re sure?? he said.
?Yes,? I said. ?I?m a journalist, and I?ve heard it all. There?s no point talking to you if you won?t be honest with me.?
?Okay,? he said, relieved. ?Then I will tell you what?s in my heart.?
*
Around 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Arabs. Unlike their brethren in the region?s refugee camps, they remained in Israel after the Jewish state?s declaration of independence from the post-Ottoman British Mandate, and so they were naturalized. Some people refer to them as the Palestinians of 1948, and they?re politically and culturally distinct from the Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza, most of whom will eventually become citizens of Palestine rather than Israel.
Israeli Arabs get precious little attention in the media, and as a consequence are largely ignored and even forgotten outside Israel. There?s a third group, only a few hundred thousand in number, that gets even less attention than the Palestinians of 1948, and they are who I think of as the Palestinians of 1967.
I?m referring here to the Arab residents of Jerusalem. Like Israel?s Arabs, they were offered citizenship, only this time in the wake of the 1967 war rather than the 1948 war. In June of that year Israel defensively took the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, but it never annexed the territories. Both remain beyond the borders of Israel not only according to the ?international community,? but also according to the Israeli government.
Israel did, however, annex the formerly Jordanian-occupied parts of Jerusalem. Everyone who lived in those neighborhoods at that time were Arabs because Jordan ethnically-cleansed the Jewish residents when it completed its conquest of the eastern half of the city in 1949. Victorious Israel didn?t ethnically cleanse anyone, though, so annexing east Jerusalem meant annexing its people, and the Palestinians there were offered Israeli citizenship.
Houses in Jerusalem's Old City
Some happily accepted, but most turned it down. Unlike the Palestinians of 1948, they weren?t interested in living in Israel. They said no to annexation and therefore no to naturalization. Since the Israelis didn?t want to impose citizenship upon the unwilling, the government declared them ?residents of Jerusalem,? issued them the same identification cards Israelis use, and gave them all the rights of citizenship but one. The only thing they can?t do is vote for members of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, unless they first take out citizenship.
Recently, more and more of Jerusalem?s Palestinians have taken Israel up on its offer. The number was but a trickle for decades, but it increased dramatically a few years after the second Intifada.
?For forty or so years,? historian Yaacov Lozowick explain to me, ?between 1967 and the mid-2000s, they enjoyed having this limbo status. They didn?t even vote in the municipal elections, even though they have the right to. They were able to vote in the Palestinian elections, and most of them didn?t exercise that right either. They don?t vote because they don?t want to take sides.?
Historian Yaacov Lozowick
It must be excruciatingly difficult at least for some Palestinians living in Israel. They naturally sympathize with their fellow Palestinians in a general sort of way. How could they not? And yet they enjoy nearly all the benefits of living in Israel, benefits they would instantly lose if they were placed under Palestinian sovereignty.
?Their standard of living is considerably higher than the Palestinians in the West Bank,? Lozowick said. ?It?s lower than on the western side of the city, but it?s moving up. And the people there did not participate in the second Intifada. They have a completely different state of mind than the Palestinians in the West Bank. And in the past three years, there has been an ever-growing movement among them to acquire full-fledged Israeli citizenship. Twelve to fifteen thousand of them have recently filed citizenship papers. And around 20,000 of them were already Israeli citizens. The number is growing all the time.
?There is tremendous social and political pressure on them from the Palestinians in the West Bank,? he continued, ?not to do that because everybody recognizes that if the number of Arabs in east Jerusalem reaches a critical mass of Israeli citizens, then Israel will not be able to divide Jerusalem. The entire city will be made up of Israeli citizens.?
The man I met who called himself Ghazi, however, is emphatically not one of the Palestinians of 1967 who wants to stay in Israel.
?The whole process is useless,? he told me back in his jewelry store. ?Israel has all of Jerusalem with American support. Where is our state? Where is our freedom? Everyone else has a state. The international community cares more about animal rights than Palestinian rights.?
?Are you interested in a two-state solution,? I said, ?or taking back all of historic Palestine from the Israelis??
?Israel has 80 percent of Palestine,? he said. ?I?ll compromise on the 1967 lines even though I don?t like it because if I don?t compromise on the 1967 lines, I will get nothing.?
The first time I wandered into the Old City to interview Arabs, I met a very different kind of Palestinian, the kind Lozowick was telling me about, named Samir.
?When there is, eventually, a two-state solution,? I said, ?do you want to live on the Israeli side or the Palestinian side??
?The Israeli side!? he said instantly and emphatically as if there were no other possible answer. ?None of us want anything to do with the Palestinian Authority. They are corrupt. They are impossible. They are not straight. No one can deal with those people.?
?Are the Israelis straight?? I said.
?No!? he said. ?But they are better. Which side would you rather live on??
Ghazi, though, had no interest whatsoever in living in Israel under any circumstances. ?Of course I?d rather live in a Palestinian state!? he said.
Jerusalem?s Old City might someday be divided between Israel and Palestine. Ehud Barak offered to give the Palestinians three of its four quarters while keeping only the Jewish Quarter for Israel. Yasser Arafat, instead of taking the deal, ignited the war of the suicide bombers. Bill Clinton told Arafat in no uncertain terms that if he turned down the offer that he wouldn?t get a second chance later, but the Palestinians were offered something similar by Israel?s last prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and someday their leaders might be in the mood to say yes.
I wanted to know what that might mean to me as an American. I had just walked to the Muslim Quarter from the German Colony on the Jewish side of the city. Might I someday need a visa to make that same journey? Would a border between Israel and Palestine even be open? No one can cross the Lebanese-Israeli border, nor can anyone but a handful of Druze holy men cross the Syrian-Israeli border.
?When I come here to visit,? I said, ?will I be able to quickly and easily cross the border from Israel into Palestine, or will there be a hard impenetrable border like the one up north with Lebanon??
A tunnel in Jerusalem's Old City
?You will be able to walk here,? Ghazi said. ?It won?t be like Lebanon. Lebanon, unlike Jordan, is a country of men. Hezbollah fights for its rights much better than we do. Hezbollah is more honest than me. I only care about money.?
I didn?t want to argue with him, but he deals with people for a living and could see by the look on my face that I was dismayed by his praise for Hezbollah.
?There can be no real peace with Israel or with Jews, believe me,? he said. ?You are dreaming of peace, but there will never be peace.?
?But you just had Jewish customers in your store,? I said, ?and you were friendly to them.?
?Yes,? he said, ?because I need their money and don?t care if they are Jewish. If this was a Hezbollah store, Hezbollah would tell them to leave.?
He admires Hezbollah, but isn?t necessarily willing to emulate them or to run off and join Hamas as a fighter or suicide bomber.
?I don?t want to fight,? he said. ?I just want my rights.?
He could acquire the final right of Israeli citizenship?the right to vote for members of the Knesset?just by filling out paperwork, but that?s not what he meant. He wasn?t talking about individual rights, which are far better established in Israel than in any other country around. No, he was referring to community rights, the right of his community to be sovereign in at least part of the Holy Land.
?You don?t sound optimistic,? I said.
?There will never be peace here,? he said.
?It?s quiet now, though,? I said.
A quiet street in Jerusalem's Old City
?Yes,? he said, ?because we can?t fight. Hezbollah can, though. Israel is not ready to fight Hezbollah. The Israelis could invade Syria and have lunch in Damascus tomorrow, but they can?t fight Hezbollah.?
Even though he?s a Sunni he wasn?t bothered in the least when I reminded him that Hezbollah, which is Shia, invaded Sunni West Beirut in 2008.
?Hezbollah is more honest than me,? he said.
?How so?? I said.
?They will fight,? he said, ?and they will die for what they believe in. I care about my shop and supporting my family, my children.?
I?m not sure ?honest? is precisely the word he was looking for. Perhaps what he meant is that Hezbollah fighters are more true to themselves than he is.
American counterinsurgency officers under the command of General David Petraeus helped middle class shopkeepers with microgrants precisely to turn radical would-be insurgents into people like Ghazi. Iraqis with families and a stake in the local economy, those with responsibilities and something to lose, are far less likely to fight or to tolerate fighting.
I needed to know how many of Jerusalem?s Palestinians secretly or not-so secretly had opinions like Ghazi?s compared with those with more moderate opinions. With only a few notable exceptions, hardly any of them have committed acts of terrorism, but might they in the future in a worst-case scenario? What if there?s a third Intifada? Can Jerusalem?s Arabs behave as neutrals indefinitely?
There?s no way I could find out just by talking to Arabs at random on the east side of the city. So I met up with Hillel Cohen, an Israeli who knows the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem better than almost anyone. He used to be a journalist, but now he?s a university lecturer. He has written a number of books, and his newest one available in English is a translation of The Rise and Fall of Arab Jerusalem
?So you?re an expert on the Arab side of the city,? I said.
?In Israeli eyes, yes,? he said.
?What about in Arab eyes?? I said.
?They say I?m an expert on Israeli issues,? he said.
I chuckled.
?No,? he said, ?I?m serious. I wrote a column for years about Israeli affairs. And of course everyone knows their own society better than they can ever know somebody else?s.?
Still, he knows Palestinian society far better than I do, and I hoped he could explain it to me in Western terms.
?Is it true,? I said, ?that the Arab Nationalist wing of the Palestinian movement in Jerusalem is more or less finished??
?No,? he said, ?but it?s hollowed out. They?re much weaker than they were before. They?re isolated. The Palestinians in Jerusalem, including members of the nationalist movement, are physically separated from the main body of Palestinians in the West Bank. Many of them are detached from politics. They?re not less attached to Palestinian ideology, but they are less likely to practice it.?
?What?s the political mainstream now among Jerusalem?s Arabs?? I said.
?Passivism,? he said. ?They?re passive. This is actually true of most people in most societies, but here you feel it more. They used to be extremely politicized, but now they are much less so.?
I know that he?s right about that. Hardly any of Jerusalem?s Arabs participated in the second Intifada, and they interact politely and peaceably with Israeli Jews every day in the Old City and in the historical basin?s adjacent areas.
The historical basin in central Jerusalem from the east side of the city
?There has been a development of a new identity,? he said. ?They have a separate identity within the larger Palestinian identity. There are many sub-identities. They can be Christian, Israeli, Gazan, from the West Bank and the Diaspora. Now there is a Jerusalem-Palestinian identity.?
Much hay is made out of the fact that a Palestinian identity did not really exist before the creation of Israel, and that?s true, but that hardly means it doesn?t exist today. The Jordanian identity is also new in the world and stands in marked contrast with the Palestinian identity that coexists uneasily in the same country. (An enormous percentage of Jordanian citizens are Palestinians.) And it?s equally true that, like Cohen says, there are sub-identities including the Jordanian-Palestinian identity that he forgot to mention.
The Palestinians of Jerusalem are very different indeed from the Palestinians of Hebron, for instance, who must be physically kept away from Jewish settlers in the city with ghastly security measures.
A wall separates Jews and Arabs in Hebron
Jews and Arabs there don?t even mix coldly and rudely. Hebron has the hardest of the hard-core Israeli settlers, including the infamous Baruch Goldstein who massacred 29 Palestinians at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in 1994, and a number of violent rejectionists on the Palestinian side, including a sniper who shot a baby in a carriage clean through the head. Hebron is a dark, violent, and hate-stricken, but Jerusalem, by comparison, is a city of light on a hill.
?There are many different streams in the society,? he said, ?but this is also true of many individuals. There are two different political lexicons among the Palestinians, and you can hear both from the same people. A person will tell you the Jews should be killed because they?re the enemies of God, they don?t have any rights here, and so on. But the next day he?ll say we?re all brothers, we?re all human beings, we have to co-exist here in the Holy Land. I hear both from the same people.?
?What do you make of that?? I said.
?I don?t understand it,? he said. ?If they say one thing to one person and something different to somebody else, that I can understand. I don?t have an explanation for why I hear such different things from the same person. The culture does have two different lexicons, though. It has one of peace and one of struggle, one of human rights and one of?I don?t know what.?
The only explanation I can think of is that they have two contradictory yet sincere thoughts in their hearts and their minds at the same time. Most humans have mixed feelings about some things, and it only makes sense that a Palestinian who lives in Israel and has nearly all the same rights as Israeli Jews will be pulled in opposing directions more than most people are.
?Do you think they?re sincere when they say each contradictory thing?? I asked Cohen.
?Yeah,? he said.
?Do you have ever ask them about this?? I said.
?Yes, of course,? he said.
?What do they say?? I said.
?Nothing memorable,? he said. ?I don?t remember anything significant. I became aware of this many years ago. Of course, at the beginning I was shy to ask, but then I started asking the people I knew better before I finally had to stop. They?re confused, but they don?t have anything interesting to say about it. They?ll say something like, ?Yes, you know, well, this is Islam, it?s written in our book, so we have to say it, but we don?t always mean it.? They?ll also say, ?in Islam you can also find other things, not only that we should kill the Jews.??
He wanted to know why I came to him to learn about Arabs, which is a very good question. And I have a good reason.
?Because you?ll tell me things that they won?t,? I said.
?That?s because they tell me things that they won?t tell you,? he said.
?Exactly,? I said.
?They?ll tell you about the Jews, though,? he said. ?They will tell you many interesting things. They wanted to say ?Stop using Muslim blood in your Matzoh? at their demonstrations, but it didn?t pass the slogans committee of the Israeli left.? He laughed. He?s a jokey kind of guy even in a serious interview. I don?t know if he was kidding about both halves of that sentence or only the second part.
Haifa's German Colony from the Bahai gardens. The shrine of the B?b (lower right) was covered when I was there.
Jews and Arabs are integrated in Haifa. They live in the same neighborhoods, hang out in the same coffeeshops, and go to the same parties. People on both sides of the ethnic and religious divide are proud of the fact that they?ve overcome most of their differences. There?s a coexistence center there that I intend to visit next time I?m in town.
In Jerusalem, relations are cooler. They aren?t ice cold by any means, and they certainly aren?t violently hostile as they are in Hebron, but each community for the most part keeps to itself. I almost never see Arabs in Jewish restaurants, or vice versa, outside the Old City.
Jewish West Jerusalem
?The only relations are in places where Jews and Arabs work together,? Cohen said. ?You will often see very good relations among people who work together, but it doesn?t mean they like each other or that it has any political significance. When Palestinians talk about the period before the first Intifada, they?ll say we used to work together. They say, ?we used to have many Jewish friends, they used to come to our weddings.? And it?s true. There were many cases like that, usually with the lower-middle class in Israel, or with Mizrahi Jews. It?s easier for them than for upper-middle class Ashkenazi Jews.?
A Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem
I can?t help but think the Arab side of the city will never be integrated with the Jewish side. Very few friendships exists across that civilizational divide. Aside from the Old City, hardly anyone crosses from one side to another unless they work on the other side, which also is rare. Aside from the Old City and its immediate surroundings, east Jerusalem doesn?t even appear on most tourist maps of the city. It?s as though the Arab side is not even there. Beirut is also divided by religion, with Christians on the east side and Muslims on the west side, but it?s still a single living city and downright homogenous compared with Jerusalem.
?Jews and Arabs famously get along so well in Haifa, though,? I said. ?I hear this all the time. Why do you suppose the two groups are more separate here??
?In Haifa,? he said, ?the Arabs are citizens of Israel. The Palestinians in Jerusalem aren?t. I don?t think they can be on good terms if there is no equality. That?s one reason. The Palestinians of Jerusalem are also, at least according to the narrative, in a struggle for independence. The Palestinians in Haifa aren?t struggling for independence, they?re struggling for equality inside the State of Israel. So it?s much easier for them.?
An Israeli watch tower over the Palestinian city of Bethlehem
The Palestinian residents of Jerusalem aren?t allowed to vote for the Israeli Knesset unless they take out citizenship, but they can vote in Jerusalem?s municipality elections. Very few of them, however, do.
?Why don?t they vote?? I asked Cohen.
?They don?t like to vote,? he said. ?They also don?t put letters in the mail. They don?t like to put envelopes into boxes.? He laughed at his own joke. I chuckled, too, partly because hardly anyone cracks jokes while I?m recording an interview. ?Seriously, though, they don?t have any reason to vote.?
?But they could run their own candidates and vote for their own candidates and get representation in the government if they don?t like being governed by Jews.?
?It would be wrong, politically, from their perspective,? he said.
?What?s their political mainstream?? I said. ?Is there even a mainstream??
?No,? he said. ?There?s not.?
?Which faction is the biggest??
?I don?t know,? he said. ?You?d have to conduct polls, and you?d have to ask the right questions. It?s very difficult. If you ask them if they?d rather have 1967 borders or an Islamic caliphate, well, neither is ever going to happen. But the mainstream is against armed struggle in Jerusalem. That doesn?t mean the problem will be solved soon, but I think this will continue to be the mainstream. I think it?s very difficult to be a Palestinian in Jerusalem.?
?What do you expect to see happen in Jerusalem?? I said. ?If you had to guess what it will be like here in 50 years, what would you say??
?Some war,? he said. ?Some peace. Some negotiations. The usual stuff.? We both laughed. That?s more or less what everyone in the Middle East thinks.
?What do you think the Israeli government should do?? I said.
?The government should resign,? he said.
?I don?t mean the Netanyahu government in particular,? I said, ?I mean the government in general.?
?So do I,? he said. ?In general, the government should resign.?
I laughed.
?And I mean governments in general,? he said, ?not only in Israel.?
Both of us laughed. But one man who doesn?t think any of this is funny is Ghazi back in the Old City.
*
Ghazi gave me a glass of water and a chair and let me sit behind the counter with him, but asked me to quietly let him work whenever a customer came into the store. I heard him speaking Arabic, French, Hebrew, English and Russian to various customers. When I asked him how many languages he knows, he said he also speaks fluent Italian.
At one point a very rude and aggressive French speaker came in. Ghazi?s blood pressure rose, and soon the two men yelled at each other about what a necklace should cost. The customer eventually threatened to take the necklace for 200 shekels by force. Ghazi gripped him hard around the arm and physically shoved him into the street. ?Get out!? he said. ?Get out of my store!?
His face flushed red, but he drank some cool water and calmed down.
?Where were we?? he said.
?We were discussing politics,? I said, ?so let me ask you what you think of Barack Obama.?
?I will cut off my hand if Obama makes peace in this country,? he said. ?He can?t. And when he?s gone, the next president will be the same. Obama is on Israel?s side. I don?t know if it?s because of the Jewish lobby or what, but he will never force Israel to give us a state.?
?All our recent presidents,? I said, ?including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, supported a Palestinian state.?
He dismissed what I said with a wave of his hand.
?What about Israel?s withdrawal from Gaza?? I said.
Again, he dismissed what I said with a wave of his hand.
I asked him about Barak?s and Clinton?s offers for a final settlement in 2000, which would have given the Palestinians all of Gaza, almost all of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, including the Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters of the Old City.
On the roofs above Jerusalem's Muslim Quarter
?They wouldn?t give us the mosque,? he said.
?The Al Aqsa Mosque,? I said.
?Yes, the mosque,? he said.
?Israelis don?t care about keeping the mosque,? I said. ?They just want to keep the Western Wall of the temple.?
?I hope Iran gets the bomb,? he said. ?Then we?ll be equal.?
?Don?t you think that will make the Middle East even more dangerous than it already is?? I said.
?I am ready to die,? he said. ?If Israel can be destroyed, I am willing to die.?
Ghazi may be part of a political minority among the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem. But how many who live in the West Bank and Gaza think like he does?
?I?m not ready to die,? I said. ?And I don?t want to die here.?
He placed his hand on my arm and said, ?then you should go back to your country.?
[/noae]http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/06/19/the-palestinians-of-1967/ (http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/06/19/the-palestinians-of-1967/)
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 21, 2011, 02:09:23 PM
Ghazi seems confused.
Post by: sirs on June 21, 2011, 02:56:48 PM
Post by: Plane on June 22, 2011, 02:18:10 AM
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 22, 2011, 12:26:07 PM
The Golan was ( and officially still is) officially part of Syria. The inhabitants were a mixed group of Druzes, Palestinians and Shia Muslims.
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 01:19:48 PM
The West Bank was clearly populated by Palestinians.
Still is
Theer have been Palestinians living there as long as there have been Hebrews there.
Still are. Doesn't make it their land now, does it
The Golan was (and officially still is) officially part of Syria.
No more than California was a part of Mexico, or the U.S. a part of England
The inhabitants were a mixed group of Druzes, Palestinians and Shia Muslims.
That's nice. Doesn't change the facts of the matter or truth of who's territory it is now
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 22, 2011, 05:13:31 PM
Why yes, it certainly DOES.
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 05:16:46 PM
So, no it actually doesn't.
Post by: BT on June 22, 2011, 06:25:45 PM
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 06:51:42 PM
Which is all besides the point, in this latest effort to play semantics.
- The lands in question, were not "Palestinian".
- They were lands taken from messers Egypt, Syria & Jordan, when Israel was attacked.
- They aquired those lands in defense of their country, their very existance.
Which actually puts them 1 up on us, when we defended our country from then England. Had we lost, we'd still be alive, just ruled by English law. Had Israel lost, they'd likely not exist any longer, outside of their own version of "Palestinians", as that of Israeli refugees
Post by: BT on June 22, 2011, 07:45:41 PM
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 07:51:17 PM
Post by: BT on June 22, 2011, 07:52:35 PM
How did that come about and why was it named as such?
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 08:01:12 PM
Post by: BT on June 22, 2011, 08:11:04 PM
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 08:42:27 PM
Post by: BT on June 22, 2011, 08:45:36 PM
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 08:48:23 PM
Post by: BT on June 22, 2011, 09:00:51 PM
Since I have neither the time nor inclination to do your work, I'll just sit here patiently
As you wish
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 09:03:51 PM
Post by: BT on June 22, 2011, 09:06:01 PM
Actually, its your wish not to make any substantive point with this apparent irrelevent reference to mandates. Pity....one would have thought this was a debate forum :-\
How would you know they are irrelevant points?
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 09:08:46 PM
Post by: Plane on June 22, 2011, 09:17:57 PM
The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and The British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.[1] The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948. With the League of Nations' consent on 16 September 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz in present-day Saudi Arabia, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915.[1] Following the 1922 Transjordan memorandum, the area east of the Jordan river became exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home.[1][2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine)
In other words , the English defeated the Turks , and took from the Turks these spoils.
In terms of anchient law you may claim any land , but it is yours if you can defend it.
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 09:20:27 PM
Post by: Plane on June 22, 2011, 10:13:08 PM
........and the point of Bt bringing it up would be..................?
I am not speaking for BT of course, but the British had it because they took it and the League of Nations said "Meh".
The Turks had it because they had taken it,..etc....
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 11:27:51 PM
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 22, 2011, 11:40:20 PM
Post by: sirs on June 22, 2011, 11:50:33 PM
Pretty much making any of these "mandates" moot
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 12:16:59 AM
The English were given a mandate to Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan, while the French got Syria and Lebanon by ghe League of Nations. This was worked out in collaboration with the Arabs who had been led by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) Then Lord Balfour decided to award land to the Jews for a homeland, in defiance of the mandates.
What prompted Balfour to write the Declaration in 1917 and why did he address it to Baron Rothschild?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 23, 2011, 11:52:08 AM
Baron Rothschild was a Zionist and the richest Jew in the world, which no doubt impressed Balfour greatly. I think that he was recognized to be as close to an international Jewish leader as there was at the time.
It was a bad idea. There was so much Australia that was available at the time.
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 01:42:06 PM
I am not privy to what was going on in Balfour's head, but I imagine that the British felt that a Jewish (and therefore Western-oriented) state would make manipulating the area easier for the British.
Baron Rothschild was a Zionist and the richest Jew in the world, which no doubt impressed Balfour greatly. I think that he was recognized to be as close to an international Jewish leader as there was at the time.
It was a bad idea. There was so much Australia that was available at the time.
So we have the Brits promising the same land to two groups that can help defeat the Ottomans. The Great Arab Revolt led by Lawrence and the financier of the war effort in the form of Rothschild who was close to the Zionist Organization.
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 02:22:15 PM
Pity the surrounding Arab countries took exception to this action, by constantly trying to push Israel into the Med. They would likely still have their lands, which they could allow the Palestinians to settle on and call home.
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 03:02:19 PM
With the UN apparently trumping any such "mandate" with their go ahead of returning Jews to their homeland of Israel, following WWII
Pity the surrounding Arab countries took exception to this action, by constantly trying to push Israel into the Med. They would likely still have their lands, which they could allow the Palestinians to settle on and call home.
One would think that with this position you are taking about the UN holding the ultimate trump cards that you would be urging Israel to abide by the various resolutions affirming Israels boundaries as being those pre-67.
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 03:52:54 PM
Hint: read what I say/type, and conclude from that, and not what you think I meant to say. And if not sure, ASK, vs misrepresenting my position.....AGAIN
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 04:07:34 PM
With the UN apparently trumping any such "mandate" with their go ahead of returning Jews to their homeland of Israel, following WWII
My bad. I did not realize that to you the UN trump was a one off situation. How convenient for the Israeli's.
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 04:13:00 PM
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 04:20:21 PM
What's even more bad is your continuing misrepresenting of my position that the UN trumped anything. Historical timelines/actions, not a concept you ascribe to??
You used the word trump in your statement.
See:
With the UN apparently trumping any such "mandate" with their go ahead of returning Jews to their homeland of Israel, following WWII
So was that simply a bad choice of words or did you have a different definition of trump in mind?
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 04:24:12 PM
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 04:46:21 PM
The use of the qualifier "apparently" might be a key indicator to the answer you seek. Or do you have a different definition of apparent?
Either UN resolution 181 was relevant or it wasn't. Apparently is just a wiggle word.
So let's get rid of the wiggle.
In your opinion did the UN have the authority to divide the lands of the Palestine Mandate?
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 05:24:08 PM
--------------------------------------------
The fact of the matter is Israel was attacked, after the fact
The fact of the matter is Israel then took lands, following the '67 war, that belonged NOT to the Palestinians, but to messers Egypt, Syria, & Jordan, to better defend themselves from
The "mandate" by this time is long been since null & void, punctuated by the chronology of history and above fact of the UN allowing Jews to return to their homeland, following WWII. As I said originally stated, pity the Arab nations felt compelled to attack Israel
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 05:28:52 PM
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 05:33:09 PM
What is a fact?
That the UN allowed Jews to return to a soverign homeland called Israel, following WWII. That is a fact
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 05:37:14 PM
What is a fact?
That the UN allowed Jews to return to a soverign homeland called Israel, following WWII. That is a fact
Based on what authority?
Conversely how could the UN have stopped the migration of Jews to Palestine?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 23, 2011, 05:41:27 PM
====================================================================
The British are nothing if not duplicitous.
The Zionists claimed that Palestine was empty. They told the Jewish refugees that it was a "Land without a people, for a people without a land."
The UN wanted to get rid of the problem, and Zionists seemed to be the best solution.
That didn't make it right. A nice chink of Austria and Germany would have been more fair, considering that the Arabs were not responsible for the Holocaust.
Israel claims over twice the land that the UN mandate gave them, by the way.
\
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 23, 2011, 05:44:17 PM
Being as land routes were destroyed, they came by sea. The British had the largest navy in the Mediterranean.
Had they sunk a ship or two, that would have probably put an end to it, but probably all they needed to do was threaten to sink ships.
They didn't, but it was a possibility.
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 06:00:48 PM
What is a fact?
That the UN allowed Jews to return to a soverign homeland called Israel, following WWII. That is a fact
Based on what authority?
Conversely how could the UN have stopped the migration of Jews to Palestine?
Good questions.....that still don't dispute the FACTS OF THE MATTER. Who gave them authority? Who says, what they say, goes? As far as I'm concerned, and my OPINION, is the current incarnation of the UN, is no more than an antisemetic elitist debating society
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 06:14:56 PM
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 06:46:57 PM
Which brings us full circle....pity the Arab nations had to attack the tiny country of Israel, and as a consquence of those actions, messers Egypt, Syria, and Jordan lost lands, they could have simply provided for to the Palestinians, instead of using them to attack Israel from
Alas, they're just fodder to the rest of those folks in the region
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 06:53:53 PM
In my opinion, they sure as hell do. Many lives having been sacrified in the defense of those lands in fact.
If title is validated by body counts wouldn't the Palestinians be the ones with the greater claim?
And didn't they die protecting their homeland?
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 07:08:37 PM
(You'll also note that I never made claim that body count is the ultimate trump card either, so I'd appreciate you not pulling that that misrepresentation effort. I merely pointed out yet another fact...that of Israelis dying in the defense and protection of their country. Kinda hard, by the way) for Palestinians to claim the same since they didn't even have a country/land to die for)
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 07:21:02 PM
Not with the fact that the UN allowed Jews to return to a soverign homeland called Israel, following WWII
You keep bringing this up to show Israel has clear title to its lands. Are you saying the UN had the authority to give the land to them?
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 07:44:02 PM
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 08:17:41 PM
I keep bringing it us as a fact, nothing more
So if the Arabs successfully conquered Israel, their claims on the land would be legitimate because I think what you are saying is possession is 90% of the law.
I think the constant mentioning of the UN in this story, is rather meaningless, because you seem to be unable or unwilling to bestow legitimacy on their actions.
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 08:25:33 PM
I keep bringing it us as a fact, nothing more
So if the Arabs successfully conquered Israel, their claims on the land would be legitimate because I think what you are saying is possession is 90% of the law.
In that case, as abominable as it would have been to have had the Arabs push Israel into the sea, and abolish its existence, it would have indeed been theirs.........and they'd have to deal with the repercussions of those actions, from the rest of the international community. My guess, is coming off Germany's WWII's efforts, a similar action (ridding the region of Jews) by the Arabs against the tiny country of Israel wouldn't have very good "reaction"
I think the constant mentioning of the UN in this story, is rather meaningless, because you seem to be unable to bestow legitimacy on their actions.
Who does (bestow UN legitimacy)? It would appear you're in the same boat, as it relates to the UN. The facts are still the facts, however
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 08:33:28 PM
In that case, as abominable as it would have been to have had the Arabs push Israel into the sea, and abolish its existence, it would have indeed been theirs.........and they'd have to deal with the repercussions of those actions, from the rest of the international community. My guess, is coming off Germany's WWII's efforts, a similar action (ridding the region of Jews) by the Arabs against the tiny country of Israel wouldn't have very good "reaction"
Why would it be in the US's interest to defend Israel?
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 08:42:47 PM
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 08:43:30 PM
Who does (bestow UN legitimacy)? It would appear you're in the same boat, as it relates to the UN. The facts are still the facts, however
I don't know why you would say that. The US has a seat on the Security Council with a permanent veto. I doubt they would allow any meaningful resolutions to pass that were not in the country's best interest. So i do believe Resolution 181 was legitimate and did lawfully allow for the creation of the state of Israel. The problem is that the complete resolution has not been enacted.
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 08:45:31 PM
It isn't........its merely the moral thing to do. Kinda like Lybia
Conversely if Israeli tanks rolled in the Gaza should the US intervene to protect the Palestinian civilians?
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 08:50:11 PM
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 08:53:30 PM
Depends entirely on the circumstances. My guess is that if Israel felt a need to steamroll tanks into Gaza, it was in RESPONSE to some major attack upon them, with the source being terrorist elements within Gaza. If that's the case, then absolutely not
So if Israel preemptively bombs an Iranian Nuclear facility and Iran in return invades Israel, who should the US back?
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 08:57:19 PM
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 09:01:19 PM
Post by: sirs on June 23, 2011, 09:03:14 PM
Post by: BT on June 23, 2011, 09:07:09 PM
War has them
So you would consider a preemptive strike by Israel against Iran as an act of war?
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 02:37:45 AM
In this hypothetical you keep using, don't be surprised if such an attack is taken in the very late/early morning hours, where such casualties would be at a minimum. Can't say the same about Arab terrorists targeting discos in their busiest hours, or buses, when they're at their fullest
Post by: BT on June 24, 2011, 03:20:57 AM
Yes, as Israel is already in a state of war.
In this hypothetical you keep using, don't be surprised if such an attack is taken in the very late/early morning hours, where such casualties would be at a minimum. Can't say the same about Arab terrorists targeting discos in their busiest hours, or buses, when they're at their fullest
Are their particular countries they are in this perpetual war with?
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 05:45:46 AM
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 24, 2011, 03:13:19 PM
All they do is hurl stupid insults at one another.
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 04:10:27 PM
Post by: BT on June 24, 2011, 04:17:30 PM
Didn't state there was a "state of war", merely referencing a country that Israel has an absolute legitimate military concern, that would justify an "act of war". Syria would also fall into that category, as would Lebanon
Yes you did.
Right here.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15386.msg126980#msg126980 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15386.msg126980#msg126980)
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 04:21:49 PM
Post by: BT on June 24, 2011, 04:27:47 PM
Yea, you're right. I ammend that previous statement to add that yes, Isreal is in a state of war, and justified in using whatever military interventions necessary to defend itself. Iran, Syria, and Lebanon all with Israeli sniper scopes aimed in their direction, in the event they try to pull anything
Wouldn't Iran, Syria and Lebanon be equally justified in pre-emptively attacking Israeli strongholds since they are in a state of war with Israel?
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 04:35:38 PM
Not sure what game you're playing here Bt. Israel is the one surrounded. Israel is the one that's supposed to acquiesce to an even smaller defensible territory, while the surrounding enemies don't need to do squat. Israel is the one just trying to survive, while surrounding Arab neighbors threaten their very existence, be it directly or by proxy via terrorists organizations.
And you're trying to provide a rationalization as to what they "should" be able to do?? ::)
Post by: BT on June 24, 2011, 04:42:01 PM
Why? When's the last time Isreal was threatening to push Syria....further into the desert?
Didn't Israel launch an air strike against a Syrian Nuclear facility?
Operation Orchard was an Israeli airstrike on a nuclear reactor site in the Deir ez-Zor region[5] of Syria carried out just after midnight (local time) on September 6, 2007.
Yes they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard)
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 04:45:19 PM
But by all means, messers Syria & Iran can indeed perform a preemptive strike, upon Isreal........at their own peril
Oh, and thanks for helping to validate my other point....the notion of Israel doing what it can to minimize casualties, with an airstrike carried out "just after midnight". Can't say the same for Islamic terrorists with their proxy supporters, and their strikes on discos & buses now, can we
Post by: BT on June 24, 2011, 05:04:03 PM
Done because.........? context Bt, context please. I didn't claim Israel doesn't perform pre-emptive strikes, they're done because.....................(hint, it's not to abolish the country of Syria)
But by all means, messers Syria & Iran can indeed perform a preemptive strike, upon Isreal........at their own peril
Oh, and thanks for helping to validate my other point....the notion of Israel doing what it can to minimize casualties, with an airstrike carried out "just after midnight". Can't say the same for Islamic terrorists with their proxy supporters, and their strikes on discos & buses now, can we
context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 05:26:08 PM
Post by: BT on June 24, 2011, 05:34:54 PM
Thank you for the demonstration of appropriate justification for Israel's pre-emptive military actions. We can all take note that the context was not in trying to push Syria further into the desert, analogus to Arab nations/terrorists trying to push Israel into the sea (the cessation of the country), but to deal with a determined WMD threat to the country of Israel. Ironically again validating another point I made regarding Isreal's actions vs those of its Arab neighbors & proxies
I guess we read what we want to read.
Syria is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and maintains a civil nuclear program. On September 6, 2007, Israel unilaterally bombed a site in Syria which it believed had hosted a nuclear reactor under construction. U.S. intelligence officials claimed low confidence that the site was meant for weapons development.[6
So prior to the arbitrary and unilateral bombing US intelligence had no reason to believe anything dastardly was afoot.
But conversely, considering the state of war between Syria and Israel would Syria be justified in taking out Israeli Nuclear reactors in the off chance that spent uranium could be redirected to adding to Israels Nuclear Arsenal?
Post by: sirs on June 24, 2011, 05:42:18 PM
Especially when you consider the the steps they took to minimize casualties, with a midnight raid
As it relates to Syria pre-emptively attacking Israel, they do so at their own risk, since Israel, nor any of their "proxies" have advocated the cessation of Syria, so Syria have no justification, outside of simply the existance of Israel
Unless you're privvy to such intel, but can't share it with us.
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 25, 2011, 02:57:32 PM
It is hard to think of Assad as anything other than a weasel at the moment. I imagine that there are some Israelis that prefer him to a freely elected Sunni majority government. But he is a weasel.
Post by: sirs on June 26, 2011, 03:12:34 AM
Post by: Plane on June 26, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
Syria should have the same right to take out Israeli nuclear storage sites as vice-versa.
I suppose that they do.
Just gotta decide whether it is a good idea or not.
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 27, 2011, 01:10:23 PM
Being as Syria lacked a bomb to retaliate with, it was strategically a worse idea for Syria to attack Israel, which probably explains why they have not done so.
I imagine that the Israelis know more Syrian secrets than vice versa. You have to know what to bomb before you bomb it, after all.
Post by: sirs on June 27, 2011, 03:42:44 PM
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 27, 2011, 04:14:31 PM
Post by: sirs on June 27, 2011, 04:39:08 PM
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 27, 2011, 09:03:10 PM
There was no revolutionary uprising in Golan that caused it to declare its independence from Syria.
It was stolen.
STOLEN.
Post by: BT on June 27, 2011, 09:10:50 PM
That is stupid, and you know it.
There was no revolutionary uprising in Golan that caused it to declare its independence from Syria.
It was stolen.
STOLEN.
It is land currently occupied by the Israeli's. I guess technically it still belongs to Syria. Israel has not annexed it.
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 28, 2011, 12:12:28 AM
Arab countries were deemed to be too primitive for self-rule, so the Brits got mandates in Palestine, Iraq and Transjordan, the French got a mandate Syria. The French divided the most "civilized" ie Christian part of Lebanon from the Muslim rest of Syria, so that it would be a separate nation and given independence sooner.
After the Ottoman Empire fell apart, there were nasty tribal and religious sectarian conflicts throughout this area, so the decision disqualifying them from immediate self-rule made at least some sense. The Arabs butchered the Turkish army after it surrendered, and acted in a very barbarous manner.
This was shown at the end of the film Lawrence of Arabia, which was historically rather accurate.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 12:45:25 AM
That is stupid, and you know it.
No, the stupid part is trying to claim that lands the U.S. took over by way of military intervention, in trying to defend their very existence as a country is fine, but lands Israel took by military intervention, in defense of their country, is somehow "stolen"
There was no revolutionary uprising in Golan that caused it to declare its independence from Syria.
Syria attacked Israel.....Israel DEFENDED, and took the territory used by the country trying to attack it, and as means to better defend itself. In no case was any land "stolen" I would think even a language professor would grasp that concept. Even a retired one
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 12:49:13 AM
Lebanon-1943
Syria-1946
Jordan-1946
Turkey-1923
Iraq-1932
Israel-1948
Egypt-1922
Iran-1501
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 12:51:09 AM
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 01:05:21 AM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 01:13:07 AM
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 01:29:53 AM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
Nope, we've already said so, as we largely took care of the threat
Fact is we legally occupied it under the auspices of a UN resolution. The same can not be said for the Golan Heights.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 01:35:49 AM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 01:47:18 AM
Doesn't matter. Israel took it, in defending their country.....end of story
Sure it matters. Israel is an outlaw state. Since when do we support outlaw states?
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 02:26:26 AM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 02:32:50 AM
LOL.......you, go with that one. Whatever makes you sleep better, I suppose
Perhaps you can show the class where any international authority including the UN has recognized that Israels occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights is legal under the Geneva Convention and or UN resolution.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 02:36:37 AM
And since there can be no peace, (you made that crystal clear to me) Israel has every right to hold lands it gained defending itself
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 02:46:51 AM
The UN has no credibility......it lost it a long time ago. Just because, no one outside of the U.S. is supporting Israel's right to exist & defend itself, doesn't make what everyone else say legit.
And since there can be no peace, (you made that crystal clear to me) Israel has every right to hold lands it gained defending itself
The US did not veto the resolution condemning Israels annexation of the Golan Heights. They stand alone on that one.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 02:48:12 AM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 02:59:44 AM
I don't have a problem with that. Israel has an absolute right to defend itself, and use any lands they can, that were used against them
So you have no problems supporting a rogue nation. What is sad is Israel could defend itself no matter where the borders were. That is what a superior air force gives you.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 03:46:54 AM
So, what's sad here, is a concurring that there can be no peace, and yet to force the nation trying to defend itself to reduce its level of defense
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 04:22:13 AM
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 28, 2011, 10:29:42 AM
================
I believe that is true.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 11:11:27 AM
Israel is certainly capable of retaliating tenfold to rocket and mortar attacks. They have even been known to pre-preemptively strike at possible danger. Isn't that how the 67 war started?
Sure, they can retaliate, that's what they've been doing. Thankfully with the extended lands, attacks have been far less costly in civilian lives lost, and thus less risk to Israeli soldiers as well. This is kind of a common sense thing
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 02:14:51 PM
Israel is certainly capable of retaliating tenfold to rocket and mortar attacks. They have even been known to pre-preemptively strike at possible danger. Isn't that how the 67 war started?
Sure, they can retaliate, that's what they've been doing. Thankfully with the extended lands, attacks have been far less costly in civilian lives lost, and thus less risk to Israeli soldiers as well. This is kind of a common sense thing
Common sense says that if you wanted to uses the heights as a buffer you wouldn't put Israeli settlements in the buffer area. So much for that rationale.
(http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Occupied-Golan.gif)
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 02:22:18 PM
But I do get a kick out of this effort to paint Israel as the "rogue outlaw nation". How dare they defend themselves...the bastards. Hamas and the like, should be pleased at the end roads they've made with many here in America
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 02:29:26 PM
The rationale is that the boundry is AWAY from populated regions, not simply pockets of settlements. So it works just fine
But I do get a kick out of this effort to paint Israel as the "rogue outlaw nation". How dare they defend themselves...the bastards. Hamas and the like, should be pleased at the end roads they've made with many here in America
Israel moved 20k people into the Golan, what is the cut-off for population centers. And isn't moving just one settler into harms way contrary to your rationale that the Golan is kept for just defensive measures?
And what about the water?
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 02:37:32 PM
But more specifically to your earlier inquiry, that I just became aware of, it would seem Isreal DID annex the territory as theirs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights_Law). So, I guess this is all moot now
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 02:40:35 PM
Outlaw!
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 02:42:18 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 03:01:30 PM
Outlaw!
Rogue State!
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 03:18:14 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 03:25:43 PM
Whatever makes you sleep better
I always get a good nights sleep after spending a long day educating you. ;)
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 03:28:03 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 03:32:58 PM
As long as it makes you sleep better. I can see how irrational rationalizations can cause alot of fatigue.
Seems to me you are the one doing the rationalization. Did you know Resolution 497 denouncing Israels Annexation of the Golan Passed Unanimously 15-0 including a yes vote by the United States. Under Reagan.
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on June 28, 2011, 03:54:59 PM
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 04:04:08 PM
As long as it makes you sleep better. I can see how irrational rationalizations can cause alot of fatigue.
Seems to me you are the one doing the rationalization.
Not at all. Did Israel annex the territory? Yes, they did, end of story. No rationalizations necessary
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 04:52:39 PM
As long as it makes you sleep better. I can see how irrational rationalizations can cause alot of fatigue.
Seems to me you are the one doing the rationalization.
Not at all. Did Israel annex the territory? Yes, they did, end of story. No rationalizations necessary
What they are doing is occupying it. Their annexation is not legitimate in any countries eyes but their own.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 05:00:04 PM
IF the UN had any credibility, they'd authorize force to move Israel out, if Israel is the real bad guy, as you keep trying to push
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 05:06:47 PM
What they did was annex it, per your previous inquiry. The fact the UN doesn't recognize it is pretty much meaningless, but more to the point, they did annex it, AFTER DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM AN ENEMY ATTACKING THEM FROM THAT REGION.
IF the UN had any credibility, they'd authorize force to move Israel out, if Israel is the real bad guy, as you keep trying to push
The United States does not recognize their annexation. Are you going on record as saying the Reagan Administration had no credibility?
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 05:08:13 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
I'm goin on record as stating the UN has no credibility. If you can demonstrate the U.S. runs the UN, then we can make that leap of illogic
The US voted affirmative on the UN resolution calling Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights as null and void and against the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention.
On Reagan's Watch.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 05:42:16 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 05:46:28 PM
So, they were NOT running the UN. Thank you. And news Flash....even Reagan made a mistake or 2 ::)
That explains everything. Reagan was wrong to instruct Killpatrick to cast her vote the way she did.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 05:50:22 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 06:14:57 PM
So be it.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 06:47:54 PM
Need to try a different irrational rationalization effort
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 07:03:44 PM
Following my logic, Reagan has a track record of making great end roads and progress, in the manner of bringing the country out of the misery the prior administration put us in, with the highlight of across the board tax rate reductions, but with a token few mistakes tossed in. The UN has a track record of continued worsening antisemetic actions & records, not to mention a few pot shots taken at the U.S.
Need to try a different irrational rationalization effort
Define antisemitic. I think you are conflating the people with a political movement, thus the question.
Let's put it another way. Can you be anti-zionist and not be antisemitic? Who are these semites?
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 07:13:06 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 07:16:02 PM
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 07:51:29 PM
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 08:57:37 PM
Because Israel rightly annexed territory it took from a nation that tried, not just to attack them, but to rid the region of them. When you start advocating that we need to give the U.S, or at least the east coast back to England, then you'll have a credible leg to stand on. England merely wanted to rule us from afar. Messers Syria, Jordan, and Egypt had far more nefarious goals in mind.
Perhaps you forgot about the Treaty of Paris of 1783 or the Jay treaty of 1794 which has Britain ceding the lands east of the Mississippi, South of the Great Lakes and North of Florida to the US. I believe you will find that to be satisfactory paperwork concerning Britain relinquishing its claims.
Do you have the equivalent between Syria and Israel concerning the Golan Heights?
Didn't think so.
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 11:34:40 PM
Bummers that those facts keep getting in the way
Post by: BT on June 28, 2011, 11:42:59 PM
If you did have a peace treaty it might look like this:
Olmert to Assad: Israel willing to withdraw from Golan Heights
Yedioth Ahronoth report says prime minister relayed secret message to Damascus saying Israel would return Golan to Syria in exchange for comprehensive peace, severing of all ties to Iran, regional terror groups. Right-wing MKs: Olmert trying to save his own skin, has no legitimacy to give up disputed region
Ynet
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently relayed a secret message to Syrian President Bashar Assad saying Israel knew what the price of peace was and would be willing to pay it, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.
Damascus' Response
Syria 'ready' for Israel peace talks / AFP
We would like to resume peace negotiations with Israel, Syrian official says day after Olmert said he did not want to go to war with Damascus. 'Our position is the same; we're closely following (Israeli) statements,' official adds
Full Story
According to the report, Olmert told the Syrian leader Israel would return the Golan in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement and the severing of Damascus? alliance with Iran and terror groups in the region.
A senior official in Jerusalem was quoted by the newspaper as saying that Assad has yet to respond to Israel?s offer.
It was further reported that during a phone conversation with US President George W. Bush last month, Olmert said he had decided to look into the possibility of renewing negotiations with Syria.
'Enough with incessant babble'
Bush, the report said, gave the go-ahead and said the United States would not stand in Israel?s way, prompting Olmert to convey to Assad several messages through German and Turkish mediators saying he ?realizes that a peace agreement with Syria would entail the return of the Golan Height?s to Syrian sovereignty?.
The prime minister expressed his willingness to live up to his end of the bargain if Syria would ?gradually dissolve its alliances with Iran, Hizbullah and the Palestinian terror organizations and stop funding and promoting terror?.
Syria, for its part, has not responded to the offer, apart from a few vague declarations of its willingness to enter negotiations.
In response to the report Likud Knesset Member Gideon Sa?ar called on Yisrael Beitenu and Shas to resign from the government immediately.
?Olmert has no legitimacy from the public for a withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and his administration is a danger to Israel?s security,? he said.
?Steps being taken far from the public eye which may be difficult to stop, and the responsibility lies with all of the cabinet members.?
'New strategic situation'
National Union - NRP chairman Zevulun Orlev said, "Ehud Olmert would sell the Golan Heights for his seat. He is trying to save his own skin, and his statement regarding a withdrawal from the Golan is a desperate attempt to survive."
However, politicians from the Left praised Olmert?s initiative. "The price tag for a viable peace agreement with Syria is a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights,? United Arab List-Ta?al Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi said. ?The negotiations must be renewed immediately,? he said.
Meretz faction chairperson Zahava Gal-On said that "for Olmert to demonstrate that his intentions are serious, he must not only make statements that create a new political agenda, but he must initiate a meeting between Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and the Syrian foreign minister (Walid al-Mouallem)."
According to Gal-On, only direct contact will attest to the sincerity of the prime minister's intents. "Otherwise, it would appear that the prime minister was using Syria to divert attention from the discussion surrounding the Winograd Report, and to continue his personal survival."
Meretz chairman Yossi Beilin praised the ?change in Olmert?s stance regarding negotiations with Syria?.
?An agreement with Syria has existed de facto since January 2000, when (then prime minister) Ehud Barak panicked and stopped the talks at Shepherdstown, West Virginia,? Beilin said.
?I call on Olmert to launch negotiations as soon as possible and reach an agreement based on the Arab initiative. This will directly affect Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran and will create a new strategic situation in the Middle East.?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3410174,00.html (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3410174,00.html)
Post by: sirs on June 28, 2011, 11:50:05 PM
What you don't have is a peace treaty between Israel and Syria, like between the US and Britain after the revolution.
Syria should have thought of that, before attacking Israel
Post by: BT on June 29, 2011, 12:04:52 AM
Cut Cut Cut.
Post by: sirs on June 29, 2011, 12:10:22 AM
Post by: BT on June 29, 2011, 12:13:11 AM
Post by: sirs on June 29, 2011, 12:50:55 AM
Post by: BT on June 29, 2011, 12:57:29 AM
Post by: Plane on July 02, 2011, 06:43:28 PM
I think that if the UN told any nation to accept terms that would lead to the demise of the government and or the decimation of the people the UN would get ignored and dismissed as irrellivant.
Happens a lot doesn't it?
Post by: BT on July 02, 2011, 06:47:33 PM
Are all nations potentially rogue?
I think that if the UN told any nation to accept terms that would lead to the demise of the government and or the decimation of the people the UN would get ignored and dismissed as irrellivant.
Happens a lot doesn't it?
I'm not sure it is a given that if Israel rolled back to the 67 borders they would instantly become easy prey.
I think Militarily they are stronger than that. And i think with the air force they have that a silly little line in the sand doesn't mean as much.
Post by: Plane on July 02, 2011, 06:54:58 PM
Are all nations potentially rogue?
I think that if the UN told any nation to accept terms that would lead to the demise of the government and or the decimation of the people the UN would get ignored and dismissed as irrellivant.
Happens a lot doesn't it?
I'm not sure it is a given that if Israel rolled back to the 67 borders they would instantly become easy prey.
I think Militarily they are stronger than that. And i think with the air force they have that a silly little line in the sand doesn't mean as much.
Rockets of the unsophisticated and cheap sort make every hundred yards of range precious. Especially when there are so many.
If Isreal were reduced to defending their 1967 border they woud seem vunerable to attack and just as temptingly vunerable as they did in 1967.
The 67 border did nothing to preserve peace in 67 , why would it be better for peace now as the enemy is bigger and more well armed?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 02, 2011, 08:13:18 PM
Israel's borders mean less now with drone aircraft than they ever did before.
Post by: BT on July 02, 2011, 09:20:59 PM
Rockets of the unsophisticated and cheap sort make every hundred yards of range precious. Especially when there are so many.
I'm not sure that is an issue with the Israeli's. It certainly didn't dissuade them from placing settlements in the Heights closer to the newer border with Syria, as you can see by the map.
(http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Occupied-Golan.gif)
Post by: Plane on July 02, 2011, 10:39:00 PM
Georgia was founded as a buffer to slow the raiding Spanish and serve as a base for raids on the Spanish, also as a good dumping spot for ruffians.
Post by: BT on July 02, 2011, 11:17:47 PM
Remember the War of Jenkins Ear?
Georgia was founded as a buffer to slow the raiding Spanish and serve as a base for raids on the Spanish, also as a good dumping spot for ruffians.
Your point?
Post by: Plane on July 03, 2011, 12:41:33 AM
If it serves the peace it might be the right thing to do....
When Isreal had less buffer it was a seeming weak and tempting target, it did get attacked.
Was giving up the Sainai a good decision?
If it was a good decision to trade the saiani for a Peace treaty, why don't the Isrelis think that giveing up more would also be a good decision?
Post by: BT on July 03, 2011, 12:56:56 AM
The West Bank concerns the future State of Palestine. Again there will be give and take as far as borders are concerned. That seems to be what the whole 67 borders plus land swaps means.
But does placing settlements in disputed lands further the peace or just antagonize the situation further.
Post by: Plane on July 03, 2011, 01:23:11 AM
Did Americans gain peace better with segregation or with integration?
Giveing back to the looser what he lost in the game doesn't change the game in a way that ends the game , it just stratsd the next play a few yards downfeild.
I don't see why there should be any expectation of improvement from moving the border west snd hsrdening the apartied.
Post by: BT on July 03, 2011, 01:31:52 AM
Post by: Plane on July 03, 2011, 09:57:19 AM
Interesting that you introduce apartheid. Is that not what the Israeli plan is with the demands of recognition of a Jewish State, and how that affects the so called right of return?
Is it the Isrelis that insist on aparthied or the Palestinians?
There have been Arab citizens of Isreal from the first, Palistinians have been striveing for ethnic purity in government and neighborhoods.
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 03, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
Muslim calls to prayer annoy non-Muslims. Mosques tend to be large,and there is a lot of traffic on streets leading to them.
Orthodox Jews like to string up a wire around their areas so they can consider the entire neighborhood as "home", thereby lessening Shabbat restrictions. The Orthodox do not want anyone operating vehicles on Shabbos. Some will throw rocks at cars driven by Jews to break their windshields and teach them a lesson about how to keep the Shabbos holy.
Here in Florida, Jews expect to live in Jewish communities. Builders expect this as well. When they built the California Club in North Miami-Dade County, each apartment was built with two kitchens a Mezuza screwed to the doorjamb. Gentiles do not have Mezuzas, and will not pay extra for two kitchens.
Surprise! Jews who immigrate to Israel prefer to live amidst other Jews. That is why the immigrate, probably a major reason for many or maybe most.
The main reason for walling off the Palestinians is supposed to be a security thing, but Israeli Jews mostly prefer to have Jewish neighbors. Palestinians prefer to have Palestinian neighbors. These people are not Americans. Israeli Jews do not think like Americans, as a rule. American Jews who prefer the US do not immigrate to Israel.
Lots of Israeli Jews get fed up with Israel and come here. I think we have more Israeli Jews coming here than American Jews going there.