Live by the sword, die by the sword. You are basically saying that If there was another war and Israel lost, that would be too bad for Israel right? noone shold step in and do anything about that?
You are assuming they have broken the treaty. They certainly look like they are getting ready to break the treaty. BTW you can withdraw from the NPT at any time if you think its in your national defense interest or on 90 days notice for no reason at all.
Palestinians were put into refugee camps and denied the ability to immigrate to the nations that housed them and often denied the full ability to even acquire gainful employment. It’s a basic fact about the situation.
Just for a quick example, how about how Lebanon treats its ‘refugee’ (by which we now mean actual refugees and their children, and their children’s children, and their children’s children’s children and…) populace?
[
](http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE18/010/2007)
Jordan is the only Arab nation that’s offered its Palestinian refugees citizenship.
That too is a very basic fact. And why a ‘nonpartisan’ cite? Are you preparing to throw an ad hom fallacy? Isn’t the qualification whether or not it’s an accurate and truthful cite? In any case, some more facts:
[
](Khartoum Resolutions of 1967)
And Carter isn’t necessarily an anti-Semite, but as proven by his pattern of lying and using fictions to demonize one side and absolve the other, he’s shown beyond a doubt that he is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudiceswhen it comes to Israel.
No. Look at the Palestinans’ own casualty counts for the Gaza war which tally up militants and civilians killed. They show that in a war where Hamas was fighting from civilian cover and using human shields to drive up the casualty count, the ratio was roughly 1:2 in terms of militants to civilians killed. That is about as precise as you can manage without ninja intervention.
as is yours.
I am pretty sure that the Aliyahs were more than random market interactions between private parties. Palestine didn’t fall. Zionists hungry for a nation to call their own engaged in acts of terrorism (see King David hotel) to chase out the brits and carved their nation out of a peice of the former Ottoman empire against the wishes of the occupants of the land and all of their soon to be neighbors. The part that bothers me is why the zionists HAD to put their nation in the worst possible place.
This is something some of the arab nations have to answer for but it hardly seems fair to the Palestinians that we should view the confiscationof Palestinian land as fair because someone else got kicked out of their land.
If the Peel Commission recommendation was accepted then wouldn’t the war of 1948 would have been the war of 1937? If you want to go back to formative documents, don’t the formative documents of Israel support the right of return?
Yeah this is often lost when people talk about giving away half of Palestine. But I’m not sure why its particularly relevant to whether or not we have an injustice.
So what exactly precipitated the war of 1948? I was under the impression it started the day after the UN “created” the Israel.
Ever hear of the Balfour declaration?
And the buying of land in Palestine was by happenstance? the argument for the creation of Israel wasn’t self determination, it was a homeland for Jews.
Can you provide a link to these benfits because I can’t find it anywhere in the treaty.
Iasrael never signed the treaty, why isn’t that unfriendly? The treaty specifically allows signatory states to drop the treaty pretty much at will.
If by “deeply misleading and inaccurate” you mean “totally in accord with the facts because that’s what actually happened”? Then yes.
If not, then not so much.
This is pretty much entirely false, from start to finish.
-No, there was no “Palestine” to fall.
-Yes, the land transactions were volitional.
-No, by the time of the King David Hotel bombing the goal was to reduce the British capability to capture and imprison Jews who were fleeing to Israel from Europe and who were being imprisoned, without charges, by the British.
-No, the KDH bombing was not an act of terrorism, the target was the British military HQ. The fact that it was the military HQ is a very good hint that it was a military target.
-And yet again, as the partition that they agreed to was drawn along ethnic majority lines, your claim that they wanted to do so “against the wishes of the occupants of the land” is false to facts.
Besides, of course, you are ignoring that terrorism in the region was started by the Arabs against the Jews during the 1920’s riots, that the Haganah was founded to defend Jews, that the Irgun splintered off because of continuing attacks which the Haganah simply defended against but did not retaliate for, and so on. While that doesn’t justify or excuse civilian-targeted violence, it is an absurdity to point to only the Jewish side of things and wring one’s hands about that, in a vacuum.
Are you claiming it wasn’t accepted by the Zionists?
The reason that it didn’t lead to war is that the British weren’t quite done with their empire and didn’t pull out of the region.
- I’m not “going back to the formative documents”, I’m trying to clear up your mistakes about history.
- And no, a contract is only valid if both parties accept it. Estoppel holds sway if one rejects it and then claims, decades later, that they are entitled to the provisions of that contract.
No. The UN Partition Plan was approved on November 29, 1947.
On May 14, 1948 the declaration of independence made by Israel was met with a war of extermination by the surrounding Arab states.
Step away from the strawman and historical error, sir.
To begin with, of course the buying of land wasn’t by happenstance. Nor was it to establish an independent nation as there was no way that peasant farmers from Russia and elsewhere were expecting to move in and defeat the Ottoman Empire or the British Empire after them. The creation of the state of Israel was indeed one of self determination when the sovereign power fell and the power that administered the territory after that sovereign withdrew. Exactly as I stated.
When you said “And when the Arab nations didn’t win, the Arab nations refused to let the Palestinians go into their own country” I thought you meant that the Arab states didn’t let them return to Palestine. I knew that the Arab states for the most part were not assimilating the palestinians. I don’t see how the refusal of neighboring states to admit or naturalize Palestinians makes the confiscation of Palestinian land any less acceptable.
Because partisans on both sides of this issue make stuff up. I was hoping for AP or at least wikipedia. If the offer was made I can see why Israel thought it was reasonable (considering the expulsion of Jews from the arab states) and I can also see why the arab states did not find it acceptable but at least its something I didn’t know a moment ago.
Then why did he broker peace between Egypt and Israel?
So they killed two civilians for every militant? I have no frame of reference. How are we doing in Afghanistan in the militants versus civilian ratio? What was the ratio in Iraq? Are they comparable?
I didn’t say that.
And it’s not a question of mere ‘assimilation’, they are discriminated against, by law, in many Arab nations.
Wikipedia is only as good as its sources and the AP is hardly without bias in any case. The point is to fact-check the claims, not value faux ‘neutrality’ above accuracy.
You’d have to ask him. And it should be noted that you’re talking about Jimmy Carter[sub]1978[/sub] as if he’s the exact same person as Jimmy Carter[sub]2006[/sub]. Not only can people change, but as I said by the time 2006 hit, Carter was publishing things that he either definitely knew to be false, or should have known with even a tiny bit of fact checking. And all of those ‘errors’, without exception, served to demonize Israel and absolve groups like Hamas of wrongdoing.
We don’t keep solid causality counts and they’re in debate in any case and complicated by the number of factions fighting.
But it’s easy to reason it out in this case. You have an enemy that is holed up in a densely populated civilian area, an area from which they launch their attacks. Every time you kill one of them, roughly two civilians get caught in the crossfire. Imagine, for instance, if Manhattan was a foreign country and the United States went to war with it (or Dallas or San Fransisco, or what have you). If our enemies were launching rockets from civilian population centers, do you think we’d be able to hit them reliably with two or less civilians killed for every valid military combatant we hit?
[quote=“FinnAgain, post:86, topic:538270”]
This is pretty much entirely false, from start to finish.
-No, there was no “Palestine” to fall.
[quote]
You’re the one that used the analogy to a state falling.
that wasn’t my point. Wasn’t it more than random real estate transactions? The zionsits didn’t coincidentally find themselves owning land in Palestine when they were looking for a place to form a Jewish state, did they? Wasn’t the Aliyah a deliberate attempt to create a jewish state by creating a Jewish population in that area?
So flying that plane into the pentagon wasn’t terrorism? I mean the pentagon is kind military isn’t it?
If I drew a circle around my desk, I could say that I am the only occupant of this land. But the fact remains that the vast majority of the people in Palestine did not want a divided state. So the facts are false only if you squint a little bit.
Of course, it is also an absurdity to ignore the Zionist transgressions because they are not the only ones that have killed innocents.
I’m just going by wikipedia so feel free to correct me:
"The Arab leadership rejected the plan,[4][5] while the Jewish opinion remained heatedly divided.
My understanding is that the actual british recommendation was to give about 5% of Palestine to the creation of Israel.
I think part of our disagreement is that I believe Israel was created by the UN and then Israelis defended their nation and you believe that Israel created itself.
I thought it coincided with when the brits left Palestine.
What does Aliyah mean?
Not a Jewish State, just a Jewish Population. Some of the people there would be content living under British rule, others would not. There was no organized and accepted idea.
When they say 5%, they don’t mean 5% of modern Israel. They mean 5% of the British mandate named Palestine, which included all of Israel, the territories, and Jordan. About 1/2 of what is modern Israel was planned to be given. 50%, not 5%.
Israel created a community which was then granted the status of a state by the UN. At that point the new Israeli state defended itself.
Aliyah means to immigrate to Israel. With a capital A, it means any one of a number of waves of settlers who moved to Israel.
As for my earlier misinterpreted quote: “Their own” was referring to the Arab nations’ own nations, if that made sense.
Yeah they are discriminated against in Israel as well.
Was it ever the law to expel the Israeli born children of Palestinians when they reached a certain age even if one of their parents is Israeli (usually an Israeli Palestinian)? Is that still the law?
Well shoot man, I’ve never heard of that cite you linked to and I would have thought that something like that would be more easily verifiable than having to go to a site like that.
I guess its possible. I just have trouble believing that the only man to broker any sort of peace in the middle east when Israel needed that peace the most has suddenly decided that Israel is evil. My instinct is to think that perhaps there is something Israel is doing that it shouldn’t be doing. Maybe it just isn’t living up to unrealistic expectations that someone like Carter might hold them to or maybe Carter doesn’t feel that Israel is respecting the spirit of the reconciliation process that he helped start after decades of violence
I’m a bit more sympathetic to the Israeli perspective here. I don’t like it but I don’t know what else they can do. We can’t ask the israerlis to simply roll over and die any mroe than we can ask the palestinians to roll over and die.
My biggest criticism is that the defenders of israel defend it like it has done no wrong. They engage in some mental gymnastics to try to explain away every single criticism so that they won’t have to concede that the other side might have a point. If Israel would go back to 1967 borders, give Jerusalem to the Buddhists (they’re about as objective as youa re going to get in this) and stop the frikking building, I think people would be a lot happier with Israel.
On the other hand I think the Palestinians need to take a page out of Ghandi’s book and force the Israelis to choose between doing horrible things to peaceful protesters or give them what they want. I understand that there is an effort to try just that.
Yes, the Ottoman Empire fell.
No it wasn’t. Again, Russian peasants in, say, the late 1800’s didn’t expect to overthrow the Ottoman Empire.
Attacking the pentagon wouldn’t have been terrorism, no. Using civilians to attack the Pentagon is a bit of a different matter. But if, instead, AQ had, say, bought a Cesna and packed it to the gills with high explosives and rammed that into the Pentagon? No, not terrorism.
Yet again, *there never was a state of Palestine. Ever. *
What you’re really saying is that a number of Palestinians were racists and didn’t want Jews moving in and buying property and then didn’t want them to have the right to self determination on their own land once the sovereign power fell and the Mandatory power withdrew.
Remember, it’s not a question of ignoring them but you claiming that they were an attempt to carve out a nation. They weren’t.
[
](MidEast Web - Documents and History - Peel Partition Plan and Maps)
Well, one is a fact and the other is not. I will say that yours is a popular misconception though. Here, let me ask you:
-Which nations followed the Partition plan’s boundaries?
-Which groups involved accepted the Partition?
-Which neighboring nations crafted their boundaries so as to respect the Partition’s geography and territorial integrity?
-Was Israel created as a nation after the Partition?
-Was Israel recognized as a nation by the international community after the Partition?
-Were the borders of Israel at the end of the '48 war in accord with the Partition?
-Had the Arab states allowed the creation of a Palestinian state as called for by the Partition?
-Did the UN send troops to enforce the Partition?
-Did anybody send troops to enforce the Partition?
-Was the Partition enforced?
-Was it even implemented?
-Did the Partition plan pass, remain unimplemented and unenforced, then the British pulled out and the resulting war that was fought resulted in the creation of the state of Israel and the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the hands of Jordan with Gaza in the hands of Egypt and any potential Palestinian state crushed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively?
Yes, exactly as I said in my analogy which you disputed: the regional sovereign fell (the Ottoman Empire), Britain became the administrator of the Mandate, Britain withdrew without enforcing the Mandate and the nation of Israel declared independence and fought a defensive war as an Arab coalition attempted to exterminate them. Out of the fire of war the boundaries of the state of Israel were set, the Palestinian refugee problem was created and the land which was supposed to be Palestine was devoured by the surrounding Arab nations.
“To go up”.
Guys, this is enough. What does this have to do with walking out in protest in a UN meeting? I have to ask, I remember the Soviets doing it, did the US ever do it aganst the Soviets?
Nothing… except that in his third post in this thread, the OP turned this from a discussion of the UN to an “Israel Sucks, They Should Protest It Instead of Iran” rant.
Look at some of those errors he made. In some cases, he claims certain things that he knew and/or admitted weren’t true. In others (like claiming that Hamas hadn’t attacked Israel during a period when Hamas had taken credit for several civilian-targeted attacks) he shows that where even a tiny bit of fact-checking would clear up issues, he’s not interested in it. And on and on. All of these errors, without exception, go to demonize Israel as a nation that wants nothing to do with peace and is only an aggressive, rejectionist entity and absolves Hamas of those very traits which it actually possesses. It doesn’t matter if he does this because he holds one side to a certain standard, or what.
It’s clear that when it comes to the situation, Carter does not accept information that is contradictory to his biases and will reject it out of hand and/or invent information that he knows, or should know, to be false as long as it supports his narrative. That shows that he is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Now, that may be because he feels that Israel has to do more, or whatever, but the justification for bigotry seldom matters all that much since the result is always bigotry.
What really goes on is that one ‘side’ often does not have a point so much as they have a view, and that view is at odds with the facts. Of course there should be a two state solution with equitable land, water, agricultural, etc… rights for both states who will then live in peace and security. But, for example, predicating an argument on how Europe ‘took’ land from ‘Palestine’ and ‘gave’ it to Israel, and therefore some territorial claims are less valid than others? Well, it’ll start things off on the wrong foot.
Look at the number of mistakes the OP made, for instance.
And then of course, sometimes there are simply matters of disagreement that won’t be bridged.
I’ve advocated that the US should cut off aid to Israel if they don’t stop building. However, the 1967 boundary is not only indefensible, but you would be asking that certain areas of Jewish residence which were ethnically cleansed circa 1948 should be Palestinian population because they happened to fall on the wrong side of an armistice line. An armistice line which, I might add is not a border, but a dividing line which was specifically agreed not to be a border and not to prejudice future negotiations on where the border would actually lie.
Nor do I agree that Jerusalem should be given to a third party. Perhaps EJ should be negotiated away, but perhaps not. The last time it was in Arab hands Jews were prohibited from visiting holy sites and an ancient Jewish cemetery was demolished with the tombstones being used, among other things, to pave the Arab Legion latrines. There is no point at which EJ was sovereign Palestinian territory either. After '48 it was solidly Jordanian.
There is, but that’s also not all of the story. By 2000-2001, the Palestinians were offered virtually everything they’d asked for. Arafat chose to start a war instead of coming up with a counter-offer when he didn’t like what he’d been given. The Saudi ambassador, hardly a diehard Zionist, went as far as to say that if Arafat didn’t accept the offer it wouldn’t be a shame, it would be a crime.
Pretty sure it was his fourth post. 
But yeah, the original post itself seemed to be a stalking horse for the concepts that the OP really wanted to discuss.
I don’t see why he had to do something like that… Had he come out and said that he wants to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would have been glad to oblige.
Yeah. Sod this for a game of soldiers. Go away, buddy, come back when you’re ready to play the game straight. No Gish Galloping.
Sorry I haven’t responded earlier. My reply was a reference to a certain congressman’s unwarranted cat-call during President Obama’s address in Congress. I’m sorry that this didn’t come across in so few words.
I didn’t know if he was lying.
You ask how it was viewed.
In my personal opinion it was the same. Yelling at the President or walking out on a world leader, in both cases I think you loose credibility.
(I do think he is a wack job tho)
later, Tom.
So the goal of zionism in the 1940’s wasn’t to create a Jewish state in former Israel?
I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this because I don’t see how you convince me and I don’t want to derail this thread with a discussion about the difference between terrorism, legitimate warfare and freedom fighting.
I understand all of those technicalities and all of your arguments. Doesn’t make what they did (or what they are doing any less wrong). The fact that terrorists blow up innocent Israelis doesn’t make what the ultra zionist faction of israel any less wrong.
Yes they were. They may have had every reason to do so but they took from Peter because Paul had wronged them.
Wow thats a lot of questions. Here are a few facts that might answer or short circuit some of your questions:
population of Palestine by district in 1945
Looks like there was ONE district out of 16 districts that was majority Jewish, how did Israel end up with half the land?
land ownership in Palestine by district in 1945
There are no districts where there was majority Jewish land ownership, in fact the highest estimates put the Jewish land ownership at no higher than 10%. How did they end up with half the land?
However they ended up with half the land, is it unreasonable for Palestinians to get a little upset about the division?
This gives some background into the creation of the state of Israel. the reason you and others don’t want to acknowledge the U.N.'s role (or the British role or anyone else’s role for that matter) is because these formative documents almost unamimously support a right of return for the Palestinians and prohibits the sort of legal discrimination against palestinians that we see in Israel.
There is no doubt that Israel defended itself. Israel got some aid in the form of materiel but noone sent soliers to bleed or die for the new UN created state. “They can keep their state if they can keep it” seemed to be the attitude. Israel kept its state, they actually expanded their borders by 50%. I’m not sure how that makes the formation of Israel any less an act of the UN.
Since world war II the world has not respected the notion of “spoils of war” when it comes to land and territory except in the case of Israel. I see this notion of “we won it, its ours” pretty frequently. I wonder if the opposite would be true. If Israel’s obstinacy forces the US to cut them loose (we already have half our military there for the forseeable future), Iran develops the nuke and cuts off the nuclear option for Israel, conventional war resumes but this time Israel loses land, including Jerusalem. Are those spoils of war too?
You can make all the technical arguments you want but the fact remains that Palestine was mostly arab, the land was mostly owned by arabs, and yet Israel ended up with half the land (all of it and then some after 1948 I guess). the fact remains that there is some appallingly discrimiantory laws against palestinians in Israel. And to move forward in a negotiation for peace, there has to be some recognition that things weren’t fair. Instead, Israel’s stance seems to be taht theya re righteous and that anything they give to the Palestinians is a bribe.