Predicating an argument that this is my land I am giving you when you don’t believe I am giving you my land but I am returning your land to you starts things off on the wrong foot as well especially when you keep building stuff on that land.
If we can’t bridge enough of these, we don’t get anywhere.
I don’t think we can reward settlement building in any way shape or form.
So just the arab side should be given to third parties? Is tehre anything on the jewish side that arabs might have an interest in?
Yeah except the right of return. I’ve heard different versions of this meeting from a whole slew of people that weren’t there. I’ve also talked to people taht were there and Arafat wasn’t there just to waste everyone’s time or simply give the appearance of suing for peace. He wanted the right of return, Israel said “never”
You have a cite for that? Something other than the mideastweb.org?
Zionism started in the 19th century. Pointing to what the goals were by the mid to late 1940’s is an entirely different matter.
Those aren’t technicalities. You essentially claimed that people who didn’t own the land in question, and due to their racist objections, had a right to prevent the Jews in the region from achieving self determination.
It’s just as strange as you claiming that attacking military targets is an act of terrorism.
Yet again, this simply isn’t factual. They bought land from those who owned it, casting that as some sort of wrong is nonsense.
By the way, are you claiming that the Partition was drawn along the district lines? Are you ignoring that much of the land that the Partition awarded to an Israeli state was desert that was unowned?
No, the reason that the facts prove you wrong is because you are wrong, and the reason you couldn’t answer any of my questions about what the Partition actually did is because it did nothing, and the reason why your mention of the British is absurd is because they armed the Arabs, imprisoned Jews trying to enter Israel, withdrew in such a manner that the Arabs were able to mobilize for war first while the Jews were still kept under British control and that the British went on to hold Jews are prisoners and not let them into Israel even after Israel existed as a sovereign nation.
The reason you are ignoring the function of estoppel is that even though the contracts were never agreed to by both partners, you would like them to have the force of law. The reason you are ignoring all the UNSC resolutions that came after that which stated that a compromise must be negotiated and/or that refugees were entitled to compensation if they weren’t to given the ‘right of return’ (to land that most of them did not own in the first place) is for a similar reason.
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.
Answer any of the questions that you ignored please, what did the UN/British actually do to create the nation of Israel. Not what did they say but what did they do?
I guess I’m not fit to debate you, as I didn’t realize that the 1940s were in the late 1800s.
Technicalities? If I claim that George Bush Sr. is not a pink elephant, you wouldn’t call that a technicality. In the same way, the FACT that there has never been a Palestinian state is not a technicality.
Modern Israel constitutes about 1/3rd. And keep in mind that during the War of Independence many Arabs simply LEFT “Palestine”, so your percentages are off.
Care to point out where anyone said the UN had no role? However, the UN made people recognize the new state as valid. It DIDN’T found the state. It approved the plan to be sure, but the division plan gave Israelis the “right” to found a state (which they could have done without the UN’s blessing) but didn’t actually found it.
[quote]
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?
Likewise, this too is a non sequitor coupled with a strawman.
No such “right” exists.
Any other valid cites you’d like to exclude?
And honestly, these are all basic facts we’ve been discussing. It’s generally bad to make claims and then investigate the facts and context.
Of course, there are other cites all over the place as it was common knowledge, but I’m going to cite mideastweb anyways.
Let me just add that the Right of Return would literally cause Israel to cease to exist. Palestinian refugees and Arabs who pretend to be Palestinian would vote Israel dead.
Ah well, I’ll give you another cite for even more of the context, if you want to challenge other cites it’s probably best to show that their facts are wrong. Mideastweb is a perfectly fine cite.
You seem to throw the term Zionist around an awful lot, in a way that implies that you don’t know what the term means. Do you in fact know what it means? I’d be glad to define it for you.
Why does it matter when man first conceived of the notion of a jewish state? The question here is why that Jewish state was created in such hostile territory? Your response is “well, that’s where the Jews were” And my response is "was there some reason why there was such a concentration of Jews in palestine or was is just coincidence?
If Israel was created from Jewish owned land alone, then I can see your point but that is not what happened. Jews owned a modest percentage of the land.
[quote]
It’s just as strange as you claiming that attacking military targets is an act of terrorism.
[quote]
Perhaps we can start a new thread for this topic.
Once again, if the Isrqael was being created from jewish owned land alone, then you might have a point. That is not what happened.
No I am not claiming that the partition was along district boundaries, I am merely pointing out how little land was actually owned by Jews at the time of the partition. I think those charts merely reflect land records so it will only count land that somebody owns and those records show that Jews owned a relatively modest percentage of the land.
Your saying so doesn’t make it so.
Its because you asked a series of questions all trying to tease out ways in which the UN didn’t help Israel fight the war. I already stipulated that they didn’t help israel fight the war but without the groundwork laid by the Brits and the UN, there would be no Israel today.
I believe almost all non-Arab nations voted for the partition.
What?
Pretty much. Israel “declared independencde” the day before it was all supposed to go into effect but yeah pretty much Israel was created by the partition. That was what Israel thought its boundaries were when it “declared independence” That is when the arab nations invaded Israel.
Once again, almost the entire UN except for the arab states voted to create the state. I don’t see what you are trying to get at? That Israel “created itself” the day before the UN would have created them? Israel recognized the partition when it declared its independence so it seems like Israel thought the partition meant something. Why does it seem like such a non-event now?
No but by Israel’s reckoning the borders of israel were in accordance with the partition prior to the 1948 war weren’t they? So even if current day zionists don’t recognize the UN’s role or authority, the zionists at the time were certainly relying on it at least somewhat.
They had no choice, they were voted down.
Nope (see “they can have their state if they can keep it”).
Yeah, by Israel.
Yeah by Israel.
My understanding is that the arab states invaded on the day the partition took effect, in fact they had been planning on it for some time and didn’t bother moving up their plans to accomodate Israel’s declaration of independence.
I didn’t realize I was ignoring it. I just hadn’t heard that Israel was putting that option on the table.
We’re talking about the UN here. It seems like you are saying that the UN was nto isntrumental in the creation of Israel because they didn’t send troops.
Are you saying that zionism only existed in the late 1800’s? Are you saying that zionism didn’t exist in the 1940’s?
What does that have to do with the fact taht Israel was created by the UN? Sure Palestine wasn’t a state when Israel was created by the UN but it wasn’t uninhabited either.
Ermm, all those numbers are post 1920 so they do not count Syria, which had been handed over to the French in 1920.
The whole THEY LEFT RIGHT BEFORE WE GOT INVADED SO THEY DON’T COUNT never carried any water with me. If the argument that the partition was equitable is based on the fact taht tehre were so many Jews there then the population at the time of partition seems to be the relevant statistic, it doesn’t matter that they fled the coming war after the partition was made.
Care to point out where I accuse anyone of saying that the UN had no role?
I accuse people of ignoring the role the necessary and pivotal role the UN played int eh creation of Israel.
OK so then why doesn’t the conditions of that right to found a state (I think they did a lot more tahn that when they drew up borders) apply? One of those conditions being the right of return.
No lets say Iran develops nukes so Israel cannot use the nuclear option and Israel’s neighbors invade and drive back the IDF off of half of modern day Israel. They can’t get any further so they call it a day. Is the land they took rightfully theirs? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I was under the impression that the child of a Palestinian born in Israel would not be Israeli (while the child of a Chinese national born in Israel would be) and would have to leave Israel when they reached a certain age. This would be true even if one of the parents was an Israeli citizen. My understanding is that the effect of this law is to prevent Israeli arabs from marrying Palestinians and creating more Palestinian Israeli citizerns. Its like a demographic speedbump to push back the point in time when the arab population in Israel exceeds the Jewish population in Israel.
I’ve tried to amke sense of your posts, please try to make sense of mine. There are many reasons why thre are illegal Jewish settlements but one of them is to influence the future borders of Israel under a two state solution. When setllers realized that their presence on the land was going to influence where Israel’s borders were likely to be drawn, they decided it would be a good idea to have more places with their presence. I think we should ignore the presence of settlements when we draw up the two state solution.
Didn’t you just say that we couldn’t give up the Jewish side of Jerusalem to the Buddhists but we could give up the rest of Jerusalem?
Its not respected by Israel but it exists in everything from the Balfour declaration to the UN resolution 181 (which created the states of Israel and Palestine out of the dependent state of Palestine)
If these are such basic facts then why is it so hard to find another cite that can confirm this hearsay (I agree that the Clinton plan would give Palestine most of what they wanted (except for those areas where the settlers had moved in) and I agree that there was no right of return in that proposal (in fact, I thought that was the issue that queered the deal). In fact I don’t even mention those facts. They are in fact fairly basic facts.
I was just interested to hear that Prince Bandar thought it would have been a crime not to accept the deal. It adds a gloss if Bandar thinks taht the refugee issue is entirely resolved with the creation of a Palestinian state.
You might say that Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state but that’s different than saying Israel would cease to exist, isn’t it?
I had read that if given the choice between the right of return and restitution, most of the Palestinian regugees prefer restitution. I don’t know if that is a prctical answer but there is an alternative to recognizing the right of return (on which the creation of the state of Israel is based)
I had heard this version of the story (without the references to Prince bandar) as well and it had never been clear to me why Arafat was obligated to take the best deal the Israelis were willing to offer him if the offer did not include the right of return.
It would still be informative if Bandar took the stance you claim and if he said the things you claim. Arafat might have had his back against the wall with Hamas radicals wanting more than the world would allow but it seems to me that if Arafat had such an influential member of the arab league telling him to take the deal, then his back wasn’t really up against the wall because hamas opposition to the deal would mean a lot less if Bandar’s sentiments were shared throughout the arab league.
It seems to me that ongoing settlement activity in Jerusalem is intended to move the goalposts on the division of Jerusalem.
I thought zionism was the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state. In practice around the 1940’s this meant a Jewish state in Palestine (I believe there was some support to put this state somewhere in South America but there were some big shot zionists that really really really wanted Israel to be where it is today.
Because your claim was that they were there to “carve out” a state and that they were taking from peter to pay paul, or whatever the expression is. Except, if they were immigrating to land that they bought because of its historical significance, and were promised the rights to close settlement and a homeland in the Mandate, and then wanted self determination when it was clear that the Mandate would fall, that’s a significantly different situation.
As I’ve stated several times, the other land that was given to them was mostly desert and was not privately owned in the first place. Moreover, the land that was marked for inclusion in the state of Israel was not to be taken from anybody. Arabs who owned property there would have kept it. Except for the war of extermination that was waged against the Israeli state.
No, it was a series of questions designed to get you to elaborate on your claim that the UN/Britain/anybody did anything at all. You don’t have to “tease out” ways that an entity that did nothing at all, did nothing at all. The burden of proof is on you, and you have yet to address it. Not to mention the factual errors you’ve just made, like:
Alternate history at best. You might as well claim that the Peel Commission created the state of Israel. The fact is that the nations that voted for UN resolution only did so based on Israel’s ability to militarily defend itself without any outside intervention. That points to the fact that Israel being able to hold sovereign power in both word and deed was the deciding factor, not the resolution itself. Nor is there any real evidence that if the Peel Commission was the last word on the subject and Israel was created exactly as it was in '48, that nations would have refused to recognize it.
So you admit that not one neighboring state crafted their boundaries to reflect the divisions in the Partition? And that, in fact, Jordan and Egypt crushed any potential Palestinian state by taking the territory for themselves, showing that the UN Partition was considered totally moot by everybody involved?
You are contradicting yourself and ignoring history. There was no nation of Israel after the partition. Nothing was created. If not for the Israeli declaration of independence months later there would never have been a state of Israel because nobody at all did anything to implement the Partition other than the state of Israel. It was the declaration of independence that set the process in motion and it was the war the determined the boundaries.
You are still unable to show what the resolution did, largely because it did nothing. You can point to lip service, but that’s all.
No, the UN was never going to create anything, that’s the whole point. If you claim otherwise, please identify which nations were providing UN Peacekeepers and what their rules of engagement were, and when they’d be inserted into the region. if not, then all you can point to is that Israel used the resolution as a justification. But that’s post hoc. If there was no UN resolution and Israel had instead said “we are an independent nation due to our historical connection to the land” would you be claiming that 2000 years of history, and not the UN, “created Israel?” What if instead of the UN resolution they cited biblical prophecy? Would you say that instead of the UN, “God created Israel?”
Because God did exactly as much as the UN.
Nothing.
No. By their reckoning those would be the borders if the Arabs accepted them and if not there would be a war to determine what Israel looked like. Which, of course, is exactly what happened. It was the war that established the state of Israel. And you’re using the word “Zionist” very strangely. It means “someone who thinks that the state of Israel should exist.”
You’re calling defying the resolution and trying to wage a war of genocide having no choice and accepting it since they were voted down?
So by your own admission, the defining issue was not the resolution, but whether or not Israel could defend and enforce their claims to sovereignty. Again, the UN did nothing.
So you’re pretty much admitting that your entire argument on this point is sophistry and that nobody else did anything and no resolution did anything but I am 100% correct when I have stated the fact that the thing which created the state of Israel was Israel winning the war.
Of course, your sophistry is still a bit silly as Israel didn’t enforce the partition, they fought for survival and had a state when the dust settled. They didn’t then give away all the territory beyond the Partition.
The Partition wasn’t to take effect until two months after the British withdrew.
I already did. They’re basic facts and unless you provide proof to the contrary, i take it that you can not refute them.
Because a viable state with billions in compensation for refugees was preferable to war and a worse deal whenever the PA came back to the negotiating table? Bandar made that quite clear.
You can’t rebut the facts because they’re true, making insinuations about them is hardly useful. It’s a matter of factual record.
Then I’m confused. What was your porposal for Jerusalem?
The comment was that they were taking from peter because paul had wronged them.
And there was no movement to encourage that immigration to Palestine? Who promised them rights to close settlement or a homeland in the mandate?
At which point Israel refused the Arabs the right to return to their homes and confiscated their land and goods. I’d also mention that 45% of the population of the Israeli portion of the partition was Arab (1% of the Palestinian portion was Jewish). I don’t know what the porportionof land ownership was but I’m not sure that land ownership is the critical issue in this case.
How can a statement about what WOULD have happened if the UN and the UK didn’t get involved be factually incorrect?
But that’s not what happened and that is not what would have happened. Without the resolution, the state of Israel would not exist today, that is about as close to fact aas you can get when speculating about what would have happened.
Are you saying that because noone sent troops, noone else had a role in the creation of Israel but Israel itself? Since when was the UN a mutual defense organization?
Did God draw lines on a map and say “This is Israel and this is Palestine”? Because the UN did that.
When Israel declared its sovereignty, what did they believe their borders were? Did Israel come into existence when they declared they were Israel or after the war of 1948? If they didn’t come into existence until 1948 then WTF were they doing declaring a nation in 1948 that was populated 45% by Palestinians?
I know what Zionist means but by the 1940’s teh zionist movement was determined that the state of Israel would be in palestine and not jsut because that is where the Jews were but because that is where they told the jews to come.
I think we’re talking past each other. The UN shoved Israel down their throats of teh arab league and they defied the UN, or at the very least engaged in an unprovoked invasion of a neighbor, but the UN was the entity that created Israel,
They gave them a state to defend. The UN is not NATO, they have no obligation to defend their members from invasion do they?
No. Thats just what YOU think, Israel was created by the UN.
If the frikking state didn’t exist then who was fighting for survival, whose survival were they fighting for? The UN gave them something to fight for, the UN gave them the state and after the state was created by teh UN, Israel had to defend itself like a sovereign nation has to do from time to time (and in this case the circumstances meant they had to defend themselves immediately (and they knew it going in otherwise they would not have amassed an army larger than the combined forces that invaded them (some 35,000 Israeli soldiers to 23,000 arab soldiers (plus or minus some irregulars)).
Is THAT your point? The partition hadn’t technically taken effect when hostilities commenced? There was certainly baptism by fire but the birth (while premature) was from the womb of the UN and the British efforts to facilitate a Jewish homeland in palestine.
I don’t know if citing to the same website is a corroborating cite.
[/quote]
Because a viable state with billions in compensation for refugees was preferable to war and a worse deal whenever the PA came back to the negotiating table? Bandar made that quite clear.
[/quote]
Billions in compensation for over 5 million refugees and their descendants. How many billions were they talking about? $5 billion would be about $1000 per refugee, or about 3% of Israel’s GDP per capita.
The deal only gets worse if the Palestinians accept the worse deal otherwise the violence and death continue.
You are making an assertion about a non-public comment that was made almost in passing as if though it was fact. That’s called hearsay. As proof you cite several times to the same website (that I have never heard of before). I can find websites that make all sorts assertions that may or may not be true At least wikipedia is sorta peer reviewed and at least something like the AP and CNN have some credibility.
Israel would never had the opportunity to hold sovereign power without teh actions of the UN and the UK. Is there anything to indicate that Israel otherwise?
When I reply with by saying “what???” that means I didn’t understand what you were trying to get at. I said up front that none of the neighboring states voted for the partition, it was shoved down their throats. Almost every other country in the world votes for the partition however and THAT is what created the state of Israel. Sure they had to defend themselves from immediate assault but they would never have had the opportunity to defend their state if the UN didn’t give it to them.
Your argument seems to be that because the international community didn’t fight the war of 1948 for Israel, the UN merely created the state of Israel “on paper”. Israel effectively created itself. The UN is not a mutual defense organization like NATO.
Without the resolution, the state of Israel would not exist today, that is about as close to fact as you can get when speculating about what would have happened.