"Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland - and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 5:21 AM GMT
    In another topic I challenged several others to engage in a debate (rather than cut-and-paste hit-and-run propaganda postings) about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here is my first topic. All postings about the topic are welcome, but if anyone attempts to hijack the topic with unrelated accusations I will request RJ to delete those posts. Again, this topic is for discussion/debate. If you wish to link to sources, fine, but if someone attempts to flood the topic with masses of pictures those posts will be deleted.


    There was no region demarcated as "Palestine" - neither Arab or Turkish - within the Ottoman empire. This was the Latin/European name of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland.

    Maps equated "Palestine" with the "Holy Land" - sometimes explicitly listing them as "Ivda [Juda] et Israel" - and depicted the areas of the Jewish tribes:

    1650 Map

    1748 Map

    1849 Map

    Conder & Kitchener's "Survey of Western Palestine" helped establish Palestine as a meaningful geographical area in western politics and scholarship. In a letter dated 7 March 1875, Kitchener wrote "what a glorious land this is when one can see it through the spectacles of imagination." Not only wasn't the land self-defined, but it was glorious only in their imagination - based on Biblical stories - which were their guides.

    Keith W. Whitelam of the University of Sheffield writes "The British fixed the scope and character of the region in dialogue with the Bible." As such, Palestine "was being defined by Jewish history".

    "Palestine" was the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael - the Jewish homeland.


    In the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the entry for "Palestine" starts thus:

    || PALESTINE, a geographical name of rather loose application. Etymological strictness would require it to denote exclusively the narrow strip of coast-land once occupied by the Philistines, from whose name it is derived. It is, however, conventionally used as a name for the territory which, in the Old Testament, is claimed as the inheritance of the pre-exilic Hebrews; thus it may be said generally to denote the southern third of the province of Syria.

    Which just goes to show us that "Palestine" was not an existing Arab/Muslim country on the eve of WW I. Like in recent centuries, it was the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland.

    Kurdistan, like the Land of Israel (or "Palestine" as Europeans called it) was under foreign Ottoman occupation.
    Pretending that "Palestine" was an Arab state is as absurd as pretending that Kurdistan was an Arab state.


    Indeed, recall that it was a foreign Roman emperor who renamed the Province of Judea as "Palestina" following yet another Jewish revolt against the foreign occupiers. One day it was Judea, the next it was Palestina. Had this name-change not happend, would Arafat been the head honcho of the Judean Liberation Organization?

    Consider further that in the early 20th century the term continued to apply to Jews. When the League of Nations named the Mandate that would fulfill Jewish self-determination... they called it "Palestine". No one at the time confused this for an Arab land or an Arab group.

    During WW I, the Palestine Mule Corps was a Jewish fighting force.
    The Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper (today Israel's Jerusalem Post).
    The Palestine Brewery is today Israel's Nesher Beer.
    The Palestine Brigades during WW II were composed of Jews who volunteered to fight the nazis in the British Army.

    Before and during the Mandate, the Arabs living in the region self-identified and were known as Arabs and were represented by the "Arab Higher Committee".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 5:24 AM GMT
    Initially Arabs welcomed the idea of a Jewish return to Syria (yup, they didn't yet identify the land as "Palestine").

    Summarizing the proceedings of the 1913 Arab Congress, Abdul-Hamid Yahrawi wrote:

    || All of us, both Muslims and Christians, have the best of feelings towards the Jews.... they are our brothers in race and we regard them as SYRIANS who were forced to leave the country at one time but whose hearts always beat together with ours, we are certain that our Jewish brothers the world over will know how to help us so that our common interests may succeed and our common country will develop both materially and morally.


    At the Paris Peace conference of 1919, Emir Faisal would write:

    || ...there is room in SYRIA for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other.


    Later they outright denied the existence of "Palestine":

    Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission (1936):

    || There is no such country! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of SYRIA.


    In 1946, speaking before the Anglo-American Committee, Arab-American historian Professor Philip Hitti (Princeton University) stated:

    || There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history.


    The Arab Higher Committee [the body which represented the Arabs of Mandate Palestine] submitted a statement to the UN General Assembly in May, 1947, saying:

    || Palestine was part of the Province of SYRIA... politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political identity.


    Ahmed Shuqiri, who would later be the first chairman of the PLO, told the UN Security Council:

    || It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern SYRIA.


    Arab leaders further understood that "Palestine" was one of their colonial aquisitions, no different than Spain or Iran. Arguing against the UN partition compromise, Azzam Pasha, Arab League Secretary, spoke before the UN (16 Sep. 1947):

    || The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely... that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine.

    So they went to war and lost. But the pre-war casualness about the prospect of losing "Palestine" and defeat didn't sit well. Actually, they hadn't yet lost Palestine: the Arab armies which invaded Israel remained in control of what today we know as the disputed territories.

    Furthermore, during the 20 years that these territories were under Arab rule, there was no imperative to establish an Arab Palestine. No one considered the territories as "occupied" (by Egypt and Jordan). There was no talk of "self-determination" for Palestinian Arabs. It would have been nonsensical at that time


    It was after 1967, when Israel took the territories in a defensive war, that the modern pretense of an "Arab Palestine", retroactively creating a history that never existed, came into being.

    The reason why this was done is best explained by Zuheir Muhsin (who was Secretary-General of the Sa‘iqa terrorist group from 1971 to 1979 and a member of the PLO Executive Council):

    || There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism

    || For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.


    [Edit: Note that Samer/sxydrkhair will go back and edit posts weeks and months after the fact, with no notice, and insert additional propaganda. If it appears that I have totally ignored something he said - as has everyone else, odds are that it wasn't there at the time I replied but snuck in there much later.]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:09 AM GMT
    My foreigner's view of the situation can see points on both sides of this argument.

    The land of Isreal is the historic land of the Jews. Of course, they took it from somebody first.

    Deuteronomy 20:
    16 Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,

    17 but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee;

    (Ouch...nice god there!)

    But that was like 4000 years ago...

    Then the jewish state was destroyed by the Romans....so it has been gone for 2000 years.

    Then after WWI, under the British protectorate, they started emigrating back to the area en masse...

    And after WWII they decide to declare independence and set up a democratic jewish state....

    But other people lived there in the meantime...The people who lived there evidently didnt think much of this idea and all hell broke loose, but the Isrealis prevailed and established a modern democratic state.

    So now as an American, I look at the situation and can see points on both sides of the argument of who has "rights" to the land....I could almost go either way.....BUT...

    Looking at the here and now...(it is really hard to parse 4000 years of "who owns what"), I weigh a modern democratic state in the area as opposed to a bunch of people who havent gotten out of the 6th century yet....

    As an American, I can hardly support a plan to abolish a modern, stable, democratic state and hand the area over to a mob with a 6th century mentality and who has shown no ability to run a peaceful, democratic state.

    So since Isreal has an established modern, stable, democratic state already there at this time, that is what I support.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:57 AM GMT
    My foreigner view on it too, no matter what the land was called, it was still settled and claimed by people who were then upset and driven out of their homelands by zionists who claim it on flimsy grounds of it once being the jewish homeland centuries ago.

    I think of it like... for example, what if Mexicans invaded Texas once again and established a legal democracy on grounds that Texas was once part of Mexico? Or what if Australian Aborigines forcefully expelled white settlers from Australia? What if Native Americans had numerical superiority and suddenly demand that the Europeans give ALL their lands back?

    The important point is not that it was called Judea or Palestine, but that it was already settled when the jews came.

    By now it's far too late to make the zionists go back. What matters is that both sides need to work together and make a state that can be shared by jews, muslims, and christians alike, because the land is sacred to all three of these religions and not jews alone. Both sides are guilty. Israel is guilty of segregating Palestinians to the point that the native inhabitants of the land they now call Israel are pretty much relegated to a second class citizen status. Palestinians are guilty of extremism and using terrorism to drive out the jewish settlers. Israel is a democratic liberal state, but only for jews and non-muslims, which is the reason westerners have sided with it against other Middle Eastern nations. But that in itself isn't enough reason to deny Palestinians the simple fact that Israel was very much their home fore centuries before the jews 'reclaimed' it.

    Arguing that "Palestine" is a modern naming invention is a moot point, and you know it. Israel/Palestine/Judah whatever was HOME to people, a home that they were driven out of, a home they are now fighting for (though their method of fighting is definitely unsavory). The lack of 'legal' (as in world-approved) ownership of the original territory doesn't make it a free-for-all land grab which zionists obviously thought it was. The fact remains that the land wasn't empty when the zionists moved in. Continuing to avoid that fact isn't gonna do much good for reconciliation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 7:40 AM GMT
    Caslon> The land of Isreal is the historic land of the Jews. Of course, they took it from somebody first.

    Actually, no. Despite Biblical stories, historical and archeological evidence shows that the highlands were unsettled at the time the Israelite nation coalesced there and, furthermore, suggests that the Israelites were previously Canaanites. For example, the Tribe of Asher is referenced in earlier Egyptian works as a Canaanite tribe. I'll go into this in much greater detail in a different topic if you wish.


    Caslon> Then the jewish state was destroyed by the Romans....so it has been gone for 2000 years.

    Well, yes and no. Jews continued to revolt against Rome and Byzantium. In modern parlance, we might say that the Jewish state was "occupied" by one foreign empire after another for nearly 1900 years. Jews lived there, continuously, throughout this time.


    Caslon> after WWII they decide to declare independence and set up a democratic jewish state....

    The League of Nations, under the principle of self-determination, had already set the clock in that direction following WW I when it established the Mandate of Palestine. As I mentioned above, "Palestine" at this time was not the name of an Arab group or land but the Latin/European name for Israel. From the Mandate document we see its intent and purpose:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

    || The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions.


    Caslon> other people lived there in the meantime

    Under the 1947 UN Partition compromise, they could stay where they were. Those who did became Israeli citizens, with equal protection under the law. Indeed, 20% of Israel's population is Arab/Muslim, and they have more rights and liberties as well as a higher quality of life and standard of living, than the average Arab/Muslim in neighboring Arab/Muslim countries.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 7:59 AM GMT
    Sedative> driven out of their homelands

    The majority of the Arabs were not "driven out" but fled without ever seeing a Jewish/Israeli soldier. They fled the Arab-initiated war and many left because their leaders told them to do so (an effort to undermine the new state) and because they were threatened that those who remained to live in peace with the Jews would be considered as "collaborators" and "thrown into the sea" along with the Jews by the invading Arab armies. No Arab war --> no refugees (Arab and Jewish!).


    Sedative> zionists who claim it on flimsy grounds of it once being the jewish homeland centuries ago

    The claim, and it is correct, is that it has always been the Jewish homeland. Jews have been living on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for at least 3300 years.


    Sedative> Mexicans/Texas... Aborigines... Native Americans...

    The problem with such analogies is that the Jews are (to use your last example) the Native Americans. It's as if the Native American "indians" had reclaimed their land from the European colonists (who had never even bothered to establish a state).


    Sedative> Israel is guilty of segregating Palestinians to the point that the native inhabitants of the land they now call Israel are pretty much relegated to a second class citizen status... Israel is a democratic liberal state, but only for jews and non-muslims

    The Arabs (now known as Palestinians) are not "native" inhabitants and Israel is not guilty of making them "second class citizens". Israeli Arabs are full citizens with equal protection under the law. They (including women) vote, serve in the Knesset (parliament) - including as ministers in the ruling government coalition. They serve in the foreign office, including as ambassadors to other countries. They serve in the judiciary, including on the High (supreme) Court. They even serve in the Israeli Defence Forces, achieving ranks as high as Generals, helping to defend their country from foreign aggression.

    Israel is a democratic liberal state for all its people/citizens. In fact, a full two-thirds of the Palestinian Arabs, even at the height of the violence and terrorism known as the intifada, gave Israeli democracy and human rights high marks. (This from the Arabs living under the rule of the Palestinian Authority and who are not Israeli citizens.)


    Sedative> doesn't make it a free-for-all land grab which zionists obviously thought it was.

    Not at all. Jews/Zionists PURCHASED the lands upon which they settled, and did so without displacing the Arab population. Following complaints of such, in 1931 the British investigated and offered to provide alternative lands to anyone who had been displaced. Only 3,000 claims were submitted, and of these only about 100 were found to be valid.

    Jews often purchased land that was considered worthless (sand dunes, desert, swamp) and then cultivated it (irrigation, draining the swamps). So deep is the legacy of Jews buying land that one of the first laws enacted by the Palestinian Authority was to make the sale of land to Jews a capital offense (punishable by death). Talk about racist laws: in the PA Jews cannot buy land and if they do, they and the seller can be killed.

    Rather than being displaced, British and Jewish development led to Arab population growth precisely in those areas. In Haifa (new port & industry), the Arab population between the world wars grew by 290%. In Jaffa (adjacent to Tel Aviv) by 158%. In Jerusalem (where Jews pioneered development outside the old city walls), 131%. In contrast, in Nablus (the largest city in the so-called "West Bank") the population grew by only 42%. In Bethlehem, 39%. In Jenin (closer to Jewish areas, which is why it gained infamy a few years back as the departure point of suicide bombers), 78%.

    This development also led to Arab immigration from neighboring regions. The British recruited workers in Syria to be employed in Haifa. In the mid 1930s, 95% of illegal immigrants captured by the British were not Jews but Arabs. To stem the flow of illegal immigrants, the British built a fence along the Lebanese border in 1939. Until 1939, Arabs entering western Palestine from eastern (trans-Jordanian) Palestine weren't counted by the British as immigrants.


    Sedative> The fact remains that the land wasn't empty when the zionists moved in.

    Totally empty? No. But consider that this land had a population estimated as high as 7,000,000 in primitive times nearly 2,000 years ago... and in the 19th century the population was estimated to be as low as in the tens of thousands. Both Napoleon and the British Consul had remarked that the land was wanting for a population. Mark Twain, as late as 1869, wrote of traveling for a day without encountering another human being. This is also something I can discuss in much greater detail if you wish.

    The Jewish argument, and you can read about it in page after page of Mandatory discussions, was that with proper development there would be room for everyone. The idea was rather than squabble over a small pie to make the pie bigger for everyone. The Arabs counter-argued that the land was full and there was no more room (except for Arabs, a rather xenophobic argument).

    Today there are 10 million people between the river and the sea. History has proven that the Zionists were correct.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 10:23 AM GMT
    caesarea4The claim, and it is correct, is that it has always been the Jewish homeland. Jews have been living on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for at least 3300 years.


    And also of Arabs, Phoenicians, Philistines, and a host of other peoples. None of them have sole claim to the land. All of them have lived on that area for varying lengths of time, at varying population levels, under varying chieftains, kings, emperors, theocracies, etc. The Bedouin for example have been wandering in the Negev for quite a while, probably as far back as their supposed origin from Abraham's time (though it is more likely that Abraham was Bedouin or at least from a similar tribe).

    caesarea4It's as if the Native American "indians" had reclaimed their land from the European colonists (who had never even bothered to establish a state).


    Legalities? It's precisely why Native Americans now are left with nothing but reservation land. And their lands were bought too. After their way of life was killed (with the mass slaughter of bison), the wars, the diseases, etc. Not the same situation of course, but Native Americans had more right to American soil than the Europeans who held ownership to it by treaties. They got one-upped by Europeans who came bearing the concept of ownership bound in writing on paper.

    If no state has been declared, does that make it right for a lesser chunk of the indigenous population, bolstered by immigrants to proclaim a state in the name of everybody on the land concerned even if the others did not agree to it?

    Could I, for example, if I found a deserted, uncharted island in international waters in the Pacific and lived on it for a few years with some friends of mine with no contract as to who governs etc., suddenly declare the island as solely my property and subject to my laws and bring my relatives in?

    Probably no one bothered to declare Israel a state before zionists since it was shared by a lot of religions as a pilgrimage area and thus no one could 'claim' it without arousing the wrath of another religion. Even when declaring statehoods was all the rage in Europe in the early 1900's, and republics and S.S.R.'s and kingdoms and monarchies rose and fell in Europe like mushrooms after the rains, the concept of legally declaring boundaries, governance, and statehood was still very much an obsession of westerners and an alien concept to the rest of the world. You carved up Earth like mincemeat pie before simply because no one else bothered. Erect a flag and you can declare a land your own, regardless of the natives on it. We lost Sabah that way (Some indigenous tribes in Sabah even now speak the same language as 2/3rds of our country, and yet it was handed to Malaysia on borders drawn by the British, the Spanish, and the Americans). Why place so much importance on declaration of statehood? We're talking about the people in it.

    caesarea4The Arabs (now known as Palestinians) are not "native" inhabitants and Israel is not guilty of making them "second class citizens".


    Again on what grounds do you judge 'native' and 'non-native'?

    An Arab family who has resided in Jerusalem since the Dark Ages versus a German emigrant couple fleeing Nazi Germany. Who is native?

    Not to be one-sided, there also were Jews in Israel before the zionists arrived. The point is both have as much right to claim the land, yet only one declared sovereignty. It might be democratic and egalitiarian, but to Arabs, it still is very much Jewish.

    If there was Arab immigration into Israel, weren't there also zionists? And of course, they were British, LOL, anything from their side is legal, anything from the other side is illegal.

    It wasn't totally empty as you yourself said, though I am more inclined to view remarks on its emptiness pre-Israel as exaggerations due to the fact that it has after all Negev I think (?) plus less than ideal overcultivated land (through millennia of farming) that pretty much rendered it barren (though of course, have to give credit to the Sabras and the Kibbutz System for making it bear once again).The point is, it wasn't empty.

    I can think of only one similar incident in modern times, the Falklands War.

    And yes, they may have bought the land, but they didn't buy a nation. Does buying territory give them right to impose a government on the rest of the population trapped in them? If that was the case, the Republic of the Philippines would long have become a part of China, LOL.

    caesarea4So deep is the legacy of Jews buying land that one of the first laws enacted by the Palestinian Authority was to make the sale of land to Jews a capital offense (punishable by death). Talk about racist laws: in the PA Jews cannot buy land and if they do, they and the seller can be killed.


    caesarea4The Jewish argument, and you can read about it in page after page of Mandatory discussions, was that with proper development there would be room for everyone. The idea was rather than squabble over a small pie to make the pie bigger for everyone. The Arabs counter-argued that the land was full and there was no more room (except for Arabs, a rather xenophobic argument).


    We have heard your side, but I doubt if it is as objective as it sounds. Both sides have faults. I can not help but notice that your last line refered to zionists and not native jewish inhabitants.

    This is why I view the situation as hopeless. Both sides, can never agree on anything. Both sides argue the correctness of their stand without giving ground to the other. Both sides have a history of genocidal wars and harsh cultures borne from nomadic desert tribes. Both sides are fighting for religions which have long bloody histories. Both sides have very long memories. Both sides believe theirs to be the nobler cause.

    And the irony of it all, is that both sides are fighting for the same God. The same holy places.

    True, it may not be about God anymore, even the extremists who use God's name are actually doing it more for cultural pride from both sides. The old 'our race is better than yours, our religion is better than yours, our way of life is better than yours, our men are stronger than yours, our God loves us more than he does you' deadlock.

    Anyway, enough arguing. I'm not even there so I have only an outsiders view of the whole thing. And even if I get a sick sinking feeling whenever I see the situation, I can do nothing about it as an outsider. I shall refrain from further comments then.

    Oh and recommended gaythemed movie of the day: Walk On Water icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 1:10 PM GMT
    DIRT. ROCKS. WATER. TREES. SAND. That is what they are fighting over? Give me a break. I don't care which religion or people had it first. Site all the fundamentalist religious texts you want. It doesn't matter.

    Both side should step up, grow some balls, and accept the other's hand in peace. Form a government made from veiwpoints of both sides. Radical muslims have distorted the Koran and the Jews their Torah as well. Moreover, Fundamentalist Christians are butting in and supporting the Jews--some groups even wish to accelerate Jewish rule and the construction of the Third Temple which they believe will usher in the Rature and Armaggedon.

    Grow up people. Humans are so stupid. Live together in peace.

    "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." JFK-
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 3:37 PM GMT
    Caesararea, your arguments are amusing at best. You claim that other people use propaganda to support their arguments... and yet you post the most ridiculous things to try and support your own arguments...

    1. "Israel does not discriminate against Arab citizens" .... okay. So why are Palestinian Arabs given DIFFERENT passports than Jewish citizens? And furthermore, why are the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza treated like dogs? I wonder why they fight back.... maybe its because they have been oppressed and living in squalor for 60 years.

    2. "Israelis/Zionists bought the land...." haha, right. They stole the land, honey. They bought SOME of the land... before their immigration (which was taking place at illegal levels, by the way) became an issue with the native Arab population. Many Palestinians were told that they could sell their land voluntarily(for a ridiculously LOW price) or that it would be taken from them by force. Naturally, the Arabs refused. I know this because it happened to my grandparents.

    3. "The Jews were there FIRST..." Great. So 2,000 years isnt enough to make a fair claim to the land? What's your point? The Jews (Arab Jews- not European ones who immigrated) were there for a long time. Does that give them, or any other group for that matter, the right to displace almost a million people by force? Explain that one to me. I want an explanation of how its OKAY to force almost a million people out of the homes, farms, and history that had been a part of their lives for almost two MILLENIA.

    Obviously they weren't going to just pick up and leave when the British offered them "alternative lands"... and why should they? This is why your argument is so stupid. You clearly think that the Palestinians are not "worthy" of the "Holy Land" and that they should just take the land that was offered to them because the 'Jews were there first'.

    Well, let me see. I'd like to see your reaction when someone knocks on your door (Lets say a local gang that could be compared to the Irgun or Haganah- which were violent gangs/ terrorist organizations of their own) and says that you have to leave. You wouldnt leave, you would fight for the ownership of what belongs to you.

    Get over yourself man. Its WRONG to steal people's homes. The end. There's no further explanation needed.

    And if you want nice explanation for why the Palestinians attack the Israelis.... why dont you just go to the West Bank or Gaza and take a stroll. Check out the miserable conditions they live in, the extreme poverty and unemployment rates. All of which are caused by the Israeli oppression and isolation of the Palestinians. Then, please, go back to Israel and compare your lovely homes and beaches and modern buildings and highways that the American Taxpayers pay for.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Nov 28, 2008 4:15 PM GMT
    The Conflict in simple direct terms.

    1) Jews were miss-treated in EVERY country they entered (especially Europe) except the areas that are now modern India and China.

    2) The UN "democratically" voted to partition roughly the area that is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank without any voting members from Arabic countries (there were non-Arabic Muslim majority members).

    3) Israel effectively has an apartheid system in place.

    5) Violence has rained down from both sides, although Israel has never stated, nor acted in a way that would imply its goal is to kill every Arab living in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank.

    6) There are no credible solutions to remove the Ashkenazim from Israel (keep in mind the Sephardi Jews had lived in the Middle East during the supposed 2,000 year absence of Jews from the region).

    7) At the same time 700,000 Arabs were expelled through violence as a result of Israels creation, 1.5 million Sephardi Jews were expelled from their homes elsewhere in the Middle East.

    8 ) Israel offered to return Gaza and the West Bank to Egypt and Jordan at the time of the peace deals. Both Countries refused. (Syria is widely expected to take back the Golan Heights and Lebanon the Sheeba Farms area at the time of those peace deals.

    =================================================

    Now after rehashing the whole history, nothing is better, yes? Israel will not be driven into the sea. The Palestinians will not suddenly become the controllers of a developed nation.

    The first step in any peace process is that Gaza and the West Bank must figure out if they will be one, or two separate nations (as they are now). Step 2 is to safeguard Israel's security. Step 3 is Israel must let go. No matter what, the Muslim communities must move first. The world of Islam has very bloody borders, look around the world. The Southern Thailand, Kashmir, Punjab, Darfur, the Balkens, Sumatra, Russia, France, Turkey, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Mautirania/Senegal, and Western China. As my parents told me growing up, "If you are the one getting into a fight with everyone else, than it is not them- it's you."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 5:06 PM GMT
    I think the Palestinians would be far better off if they had taken, as offered during the Clinton Administration, the West Bank and Gaza as their state and put their energy and resources into building a country and economy, rather than fighting about this.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Nov 28, 2008 5:53 PM GMT
    Caslon8000 saidI think the Palestinians would be far better off if they had taken, as offered during the Clinton Administration, the West Bank and Gaza as their state and put their energy and resources into building a country and economy, rather than fighting about this.


    They wanted Jerusalem, which to be honest is the economic hub of the region (I'm tossing out both sides religious arguments). It is a prize for which ever groups holds it. Basically it is worth fighting for, and both sides are. There have been several points during the last 60 years where either side could have ended this- but neither has. Israel was offered full recognition by the Arab League in exchange for select parts of Jerusalem, that was turned down. The Clinton Administration had its deal that the Palestinians turned down. Then Bush's Road Map has been reject by what seems to be both groups.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Nov 28, 2008 6:14 PM GMT
    I don't understand any of it other than that this conflict has gone beyond sad to just plain absurd. How long do they plan on fighting over the territory -- for eternity? Come to a compromise, settle it, and get on with your lives. The alternative is both sides living in constant fear and fighting which to the rest of the world just looks unnecessary and ridiculous. Stop the insanity!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:21 PM GMT

    I live in Israel and I'm arab ... It's weird and maybe stupid that I don't really deal with this question although I live there .. the situation is there day by day .. but I prefer to not return to the past and stick there ...

    If there was really Palestine or Israel , which was there first, or which one have the right to be ... it's not the big deal in the personal level.

    But let me tell you .. yes I live in Israel , I like it , everything is fine , no wars and struggles, personally . But in some arab cities here people live this question daily , they make Palestine a code for their lives, future , faith and hopes .. they mention the 48 year whenever they can, and how much they hate jews .. I'm not living in this hate and illusion .. but I can't just tottaly ignore their feelings when they are my family .. people came and just threw you out of your house , how can this be fair ??



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:22 PM GMT
    cjscuba1984> Site all the fundamentalist religious texts you want

    Maybe you should have read what I wrote before trying to reply?!


    cjscuba1984> Radical muslims have distorted the Koran and the Jews their Torah as well.

    Actually, the "radical Muslims" (and this is no small fringe group) are those who argue for a strict interpretation of the Quran.

    As for the "radical Jews", they are a tiny fringe group and they actually oppose the State of Israel on the religious grounds that it was not established by the Messiah and thus it is not the legitimate Jewish state.

    While there are some religious Zionists, the State of Israel was established primarily by secular Zionists and Israel is (mostly) a secular state. Where religion does interfere (e.g. marriage laws) all religions are equal and have domain over their constituents.


    cjscuba1984> Form a government made from veiwpoints of both sides.

    As I noted already, Israel is exactly such a government. The Arabs (who make up 20% of Israel's population) vote. They not only serve in the Knesset but also as ministers in the ruling government coalition. They serve in the foreign office, including as ambassadors. They can be found in the judiciary, including on the Supreme Court. They even serve in the IDF, attaining ranks as high as Generals, and helping to defend their country.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:23 PM GMT
    Caesarea4> it has always been the Jewish homeland. Jews have been living on this land, CONTINUOUSLY, for at least 3300 years.

    Sedative> also of Arabs, Phoenicians, Philistines, and a host of other peoples. None of them have sole claim to the land. All of them have lived on that area for varying lengths of time, at varying population levels, under varying chieftains, kings, emperors, theocracies, etc.

    The Arabs first arrived in the 7th century CE.
    I have never spoken of a "sole" or "exclusive" claim.


    Sedative> The Bedouin for example have been wandering in the Negev for quite a while, probably as far back as their supposed origin from Abraham's time (though it is more likely that Abraham was Bedouin or at least from a similar tribe).

    The Bedouins are Arabs and also relatively recent arrivals. Note that Arabic is a Southern Semitic language (indigenous to Arabia), unlike Hebrew, Phoenician and other Canaanitic dialects which are Western Semitic languages.


    Sedative> Native Americans had more right to American soil than the Europeans who held ownership to it by treaties. They got one-upped by Europeans who came bearing the concept of ownership bound in writing on paper.

    For starters, unlike the Native Americans, the Arabs living in the Jewish homeland were fully familiar with the concept of land ownership. The analogy is flawed, regardless, because it would only work if the European colonists had never formed a state, started a war against the Native Americans, and lost... only to see the Native Americans establish a state.


    Sedative> does that make it right for a lesser chunk of the indigenous population, bolstered by immigrants to proclaim a state in the name of everybody on the land concerned even if the others did not agree to it?

    There was ultimately a 3-state solution. Eastern Palestine (78%) had already gained independence as Trans-Jordan. The remaining 22% was then divided, roughly equally, between the Arabs and the Jews (leaving the Jews with a total of only 12% of their historic homeland, a land where no other nation had ever existed and which had been occupied by foreign empires for 1900 years, some of which had inserted their own colonists). If the UN existed in the 18th century and had proposed a compromise by which the Europeans kept their colonies but the rest of the land became a Native American state, would you object?

    Again, though, keep in mind that in Israel the Jews are the Native Americans and that the Arabs were inserted as colonists by foreign empires. Can you imagine if that 18th century UN would have given 88% of America to the Europeans (who at that point had been present for several hundred years) and only 12% to the Native Americans? And if the Native Americans accepted this but the Europeans set out on a genocidal war to "throw them into the sea" so they could have 100% of the land exclusively to themselves...?!


    Sedative> does that make it right for a lesser chunk of the indigenous population, bolstered by immigrants to proclaim a state in the name of everybody on the land concerned even if the others did not agree to it?

    LOL. See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand


    Sedative> Probably no one bothered to declare Israel a state before zionists since it was shared by a lot of religions as a pilgrimage area and thus no one could 'claim' it without arousing the wrath of another religion

    Sorry but no. The land was tightly held by Muslims who treated non-Muslims as dhimmis. What is true is that there was no national ethos rather various different groups (Arabs originating from different places, Armenians, Bosnians, Circassians, Druze, Greeks, Kurds, Persians, Turkomen) who lived in what then was under the rule (for 400 years) of the Ottoman Empire. As I said at the start of this topic, within the Ottoman Empire there was no such concept (or jurisdiction) as "Palestine" - that was the Latin/European name for the region that was the Jewish homeland - and there was no group which identified as "Palestinians".


    Sedative> an alien concept to the rest of the world.

    Kingdoms and nations have existed all over the world, including in the middle east.


    Sedative> An Arab family who has resided in Jerusalem since the Dark Ages versus a German emigrant couple fleeing Nazi Germany. Who is native?

    It's an excellent question and my answer is the same as distinguishing between private property and sovereignty. Few Arabs in Israel date back to the Dark Ages, but I would ask by what authority they came there. The answer is likely that they came in as conquerors with the Arab/Muslim invasion of the 7th century - by which time this had already been the Jewish homeland for more than 2000 years. Consider that Arabs occupied Spain longer and more recently than Israel. Are Arabs native to Spain... or Arabia?


    Sedative> there also were Jews in Israel before the zionists arrived. The point is both have as much right to claim the land, yet only one declared sovereignty. It might be democratic and egalitiarian, but to Arabs, it still is very much Jewish.

    I appreciate you seeing both sides. But you have to ask why didn't the other side declare a state in 1948 in accordance with the UN partition compromise? Why did they reject peace after their war to "throw the Jews into the sea" failed? Why did they continue to attack Israel for the next 20 years even while Arab governments held Gaza and the West Bank? Why was there no impetus then to establish a Palestinian Arab state? (See my 2nd post above regarding how the narrative changed after 1967 and how it contradicts the earlier Arab narrative).


    Sedative> If there was Arab immigration into Israel, weren't there also zionists?

    Yes, there were. No one denies this. But people frequently disregard the massive Arab influxes... instead pretending that they were "natives". But look at the different reasons for this immigration. Jews were returning to their homeland because they had nowhere else to call home and were being discriminated pretty much everywhere. Arabs were immigrating because of job opportunities as a result of the Jewish development of a land that had been mostly fallow for hundreds of years. The Jews were saying: let's develop this land, there is room for everyone. Yet the Arabs were saying: the Jews are usurping the land, there is no room for them, kick them out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:25 PM GMT
    Sedative> Both sides, can never agree on anything. Both sides argue....

    Except that one side has been open to compromise and coexistence. In 1937 the British first suggested the two-state solution. The Jewish Agency accepted the principle, the Arabs rejected it. In 1947 the UN partition compromise was to establish two states. One Jewish (in areas with a Jewish majority) and another Arab (where Arabs were the majority). The Jewish Agency accepted and declared Israel. The Arab parties started a war not to declare their state (nothing prevented them from doing so) or even to create a "binational" state. The purpose of their war was genocidal, to throw the Jews into the sea.

    After that war, Israel was willing to make peace in accordance with UNGAR 194. The Arab parties refused, issuing their "3 NOs" for the first time: No negotiations, No recognition, No peace. They continued to attack Israel leading to the 1956 war. Israel, in a good faith move, withdrew from all territories it captured... and still the Arabs refused to consider peace and continued to threaten Israel with annihilation, leading up to the 1967 war. After the war Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" formula) but the Arab League reissued its 3 NOs... and Egypt and Syria again tried to destroy Israel in the 1973 war.

    Finally in the mid-to-late 1970s Anwar Sadat saw the light and came to Jerusalem to make peace. No other Arab party accepted President Carter's invitation to Camp David. For accepting UNSCR 242 and making peace, Sadat was assassinated and Egypt (the largest Arab country) was expelled from the Arab League.

    We can continue this story through Camp David 2000, Taba and the Roadmap - but I'll speak about those in greater detail later.


    CuriousJockAZ> How long do they plan on fighting over the territory -- for eternity? Come to a compromise, settle it, and get on with your lives.

    The problem is that it takes but one side to make war and all sides to make peace. And where you or I accept the principle of compromise as useful, in some parts of the world it is viewed negatively.


    Sedative> enough arguing.

    We're not arguing. We're having a pleastant, civilized discussion. That's a good thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:30 PM GMT
    My God! Cesarea!!! you have no peace, man!! Give us a break!!
    You are the tipycal Zionist... Ever confusing people with your hypotetical "Scientific arguments".
    People in America must know what israel really is...

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Nov 28, 2008 6:35 PM GMT
    caesarea4 said
    The problem is that it takes but one side to make war and all sides to make peace. And where you or I accept the principle of compromise as useful, in some parts of the world it is viewed negatively.



    And therein lies this seemingly never-ending problem. Compromise is the only answer - period - and unless both sides get that through their collective heads they have no one to blame but themselves for the lives they are forced to lead in that part of the world. I understand the bitterness and why it exists, but this is 2008. That was then, this is now, and they need to just GET OVER IT, compromise, and move on in peace. Kind of seems like a no-brainer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:36 PM GMT
    ZbmwM5> why are Palestinian Arabs given DIFFERENT passports than Jewish citizens?

    Israeli Arabs are issued the same passports (and license plates) as Israeli Jews.

    Palestinian Arabs living in the disputed territories are not Israeli citizens (those in Judea and Samaria were Jordanian citizens when the territory was known as Trans-Jordan's "West Bank". Today they are PA citizens).


    ZbmwM5> why are the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza treated like dogs? I wonder why they fight back.... maybe its because they have been oppressed and living in squalor for 60 years.

    They aren't treated as dogs nor living in squalor (at least not since 1967). After Israel legally took over administration of the disputed territories, the region was hooked up to the water and electric grid (allowing for modern necessities such as refrigerators), wooden plows were replaced with tractors and with the implementation of modern Israeli farming techniques (crop rotation, irrigation) the region experienced economic growth which, while smaller, outpaced economic wonders such as South Korea and Singapore. Hospitals were built (decreasing infant mortality and raising life expectancy and quality of life) as were schools and universities.

    There is a reason that 2/3rds of the Palestinian Arabs, even at the height of the violence and terrorism known as the intifada, give high marks to Israeli democracy and human rights.


    ZbmwM5> "Israelis/Zionists bought the land...." haha, right. They stole the land, honey. They bought SOME of the land... before their immigration (which was taking place at illegal levels, by the way) became an issue with the native Arab population. Many Palestinians were told that they could sell their land voluntarily(for a ridiculously LOW price) or that it would be taken from them by force. Naturally, the Arabs refused. I know this because it happened to my grandparents.

    Yes, and every person on the internet says that their grandparents still have a deed and a key to a house... yet when asked to scan and post it they can't or they talk about a foot-long ornamental key which never opened any lock.

    As I noted, there were about 100 Arabs who had legitimate claims as determined by the British. Maybe your grand-parents were amongst them. But statistically the fact of the matter is that Arabs were not displaced and the Arab population grew precisely in the regions being developed by the Jews.

    It is also not true that low prices were paid, especially given the quality of the land purchased. The price commanded was higher than prime farmland was then selling in Iowa.


    ZbmwM5> The Jews (Arab Jews- not European ones who immigrated) were there for a long time. Does that give them, or any other group for that matter, the right to displace almost a million people by force?

    The majority of the Arab refugees, as I've already discussed, were not expelled or forced out. Many (e.g. in Haifa - which itself amounts to nearly 10% of the refugees) were ordered out by their leaders. The pleas of Jewish leaders urging them to stay and together build a new country are well known. Others fled because Arab leaders threatened to treat those who stayed as collaborators and to "throw them into the sea" along with the Jews. Still others left simply to flee the Arab-initiated war.


    ZbmwM5> for almost two millenia

    Most of the Arabs of Mandate Palestine had arrived much more recently than that. Few predated the Mamluk destruction following their defeat of the Arabs. Many came in immigration waves of the 16th century, around 1840 (from Egypt) and in the 20th century.

    Recall that the UN initially wanted to define an Arab refugee as one who had resided in Mandate Palestine for a minimum of 10 years - and yet the Arab League vehemently argued the threshold down to a mere 2 years. Precisely so that scores of thousands would qualify for international assistance.

    Let's just get this perfectly clear. Consider 2 brothers who immigrated from Lebanon to Haifa to work in the new industries. One came in 1945 and the other in 1946. When the Arabs invaded in 1948, they both went back to Lebanon. One would return to normal life, the other would be designated a refugee and thrown into a camp (not by Israel but by Arab governments). A camp where his children and grandchildren are still imprisoned and denied the rights guaranteed to all other refugee populations (not by Israel but by Arab governments).


    ZbmwM5> if you want nice explanation for why the Palestinians attack the Israelis.... why dont you just go to the West Bank or Gaza and take a stroll. Check out the miserable conditions they live in, the extreme poverty and unemployment rates.

    You are reversing cause and effect. Poverty doesn't cause terrorism, but terrorism does cause poverty. Prior to the intifada, the PA economy was in recovery and the recipient of the largest (per capita) international assistance program. The Arab/Muslim terrorists even attack places like the Erez Industrial Zone which were built to foster industry and employment.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 6:53 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ> Compromise is the only answer - period - and unless both sides get that through their collective heads they have no one to blame but themselves for the lives they are forced to lead in that part of the world.

    The Jewish Agency accepted compromise in 1937. The Arab parties rejected it.

    The Jewish Agency accepted the UN partition compromise in 1947. The Arab parties turned to violence, terrorism and war.

    After the war, Israel was willing to compromise and make peace based on UNGAR 194. The Arab parties rejected it, vowing to destroy Israel.

    After the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" compromise). The Arab League rejected it. (Egypt would embrace it after yet another war to destroy Israel failed in 1973, for which it was expelled from the Arab League).

    After 7 years of peace process, Arafat not only rejected the Clinton compromise parameters at Camp David & Taba, but the very principle of compromise (to paraphrase, the argument was "why less than 100%?").

    Why? An Egyptian intellectual explains:
    http://www.tarek-heggy.com/culture_of_compromise.htm
    || there is no equivalent in the Arabic language, classical or colloquial, for the English word ‘compromise’, which is most commonly translated into Arabic in the form of two words, literally meaning ‘halfway solution’. ...If one’s way of thinking is based on a set of philosophical/religious principles, then it is normal that people raised in an Arab culture should be less inclined to use the word compromise than those whose minds were conditioned in a Latin context, where, although the philosophical dimension looms large, the religious dimension figures less prominently than it does in the Arab mind-set. ...Moving to our region of the world, we find many people, even educated people, associating the word compromise with such negative terms as ‘submission’, ‘retreat’, ‘capitulation’, ‘weakness’ and ‘defeat’. These are terms that do not occur to a westerner when he uses the word compromise

    It's probably not long before someone here makes an argument against compromise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 7:00 PM GMT
    DCEric said
    Caslon8000 saidI think the Palestinians would be far better off if they had taken, as offered during the Clinton Administration, the West Bank and Gaza as their state and put their energy and resources into building a country and economy, rather than fighting about this.


    They wanted Jerusalem, which to be honest is the economic hub of the region (I'm tossing out both sides religious arguments). It is a prize for which ever groups holds it. Basically it is worth fighting for, and both sides are. There have been several points during the last 60 years where either side could have ended this- but neither has. Israel was offered full recognition by the Arab League in exchange for select parts of Jerusalem, that was turned down. The Clinton Administration had its deal that the Palestinians turned down. Then Bush's Road Map has been reject by what seems to be both groups.

    I left out that half of Jerusalem was included in the offer. They really missed their chance then. They will never be offered any part of Jerusalem again.

    One of the great mistakes that the Palestinians made, in my humble opinion, was to take the bait from Ariel Sharon, a hard liner on the Palestinian issue.

    When he was running for election, he took a walk on the "Holy Mount" (or whatever it is called) in order to provoke the Palestinians (in my opinion) and get elected by their reaction. The Palestinians took the bait and started the Intifada. That spooked the Israeli electorate just as Ariel Sharon had wanted and he got elected and there was no resolution to the problem.

    If the Palestinians had been smart, they would have not allowed themselves to be so manipulated. But rather withheld their reaction, and thereby, controlled the situation themselves. Ariel Sharon probably would not have gotten elected and the Palestinians may have had a more conciliatory Israeli government to deal with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 7:02 PM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 saidDIRT. ROCKS. WATER. TREES. SAND. That is what they are fighting over? Give me a break. I don't care which religion or people had it first. Site all the fundamentalist religious texts you want. It doesn't matter.
    ....

    Grow up people. Humans are so stupid. Live together in peace.

    "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." JFK-


    I like this! I do want to point out my other views as well:

    The land HAS been continuously settled by people of the Jewish religion. That's satisfied by archeological research.

    I should note, so you understand I do have a preference in this argument, that I was raised by Christian Zionists. I was raised to believe that Jews are the "Chosen" people and that Gentiles were given a gift. This may explain why I have a Jewish boy fantasy...icon_redface.gif So, I would prefer to just give it all to the Jews and everyone just be happy go lucky - I mean don't Arabs have enough of the territory in the Middle East?

    HOWEVER, historical facts and foolish leadership on both sides have to override my preference. Both sides have made promises and broken promises. Both sides have lied and schemed, have murdered and raped, have destroyed lives and all over WHAT? Land - it's just land. Does it really matter WHERE something happened? Does God care that land belongs to a particular person? NO! None of that matters. He cares about what is in somebody's heart, not what locale we take our shits in. Not to mention, if God really mattered to these people, the land belongs to the Creator first and we are just tenants.

    And from a legal standpoint, there have been so many broken laws of man and state involving this piece of land that any statement can be argued by something from 5000 years of history. A war is a war, a thief is a thief, a liar is a liar. And that's all we are dealing with from the past - warriors, thiefs, and liars. None of them should even be taken seriously. While I wish Britain had not gotten involved, I think their original concept for peace was adequate initially. The biggest issue with this forum is that we are arguing about the past. None of which is fair to SOOOOOOOOOO many sides.

    I personally think the only thing reasonable would be to just make it a multi-national piece of land. Make it a mini-version of the US - multiple mini-states, a Congress, and a committee of ministers ONLY to run the country. One head of state would never work for this group. They all need to be satisfied to keep the peace. There should be a Chairman of the Committee to represent the Government from a national standpoint (i.e. Secretary of State), but that would be his only significant role aside from representing his own party. There should be not title like a Prime Minister or President, just a Chair office to represent the Country on state visits.

    No argument, whether religious or legal, can win this because both sides are wrong, both are disollusioned, both are just plain greedy, and both can fight over this land all they want, but they'll both just kill each other for dust. From ashes we came, to ashes we go, and now we'll add FOR ashes we'll go? What an awful path in life, to fight for land. AWFUL!

    As Grandma always said, "You cant take it with you!"

    It's a moot issue!

    Caesarea4, I don't know why you are asking us about our rationale on the subject? It's obvious that you have a passion for this and that you need to step away from the computer and actually voice your concerns and arguments to a crowd that has a passion for this as well. Whatever your role in the subject, at least you would be doing some good for your cause. On here, your just arguing with a bunch of queens! icon_wink.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 7:06 PM GMT
    DCEric, you make several valid points, so I'll focus only where I disagree with you. (:

    DCEric> The UN "democratically" voted to partition roughly the area that is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank without any voting members from Arabic countries

    Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen all had voting rights at the UN, as did several other Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey). No Jewish state did vote or even had representation.


    DCEric> Israel effectively has an apartheid system in place.

    Even former President Jimmy Carter (despite the title of his recent book meant to provoke and sell) disagrees with this... and we've already heard in this thread from an Israeli Arab saying the opposite.


    DCEric> Lebanon the Sheeba Farms

    Sheeba farms was part of Syria from 1948-1967 and most Lebanese government maps show it as such, too. The UN has already determined that Israel has fully withdrawn from Lebanon. Sheeba Farms is used as a pretense by Hizbullah to continue attacking Israel.


    DCEric> Jerusalem, which to be honest is the economic hub of the region (I'm tossing out both sides religious arguments).

    Jerusalem is anything but the economic hub. Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashdod and Ashkelon rate higher. Jerusalem is almost a sleeper town. It's primary "industry" is religion. (And controversy. (: )


    DCEric> Israel was offered full recognition by the Arab League in exchange for select parts of Jerusalem

    If you are refering to the Saudi Plan (in a drawer), then consider that no formal offer was ever made. Israeli President Katsav offered to travel to Riyadh to discuss the non-proposal and invited the Saudis and others from the Arab League to come to Jerusalem to discuss it. He never received an answer.


    DCEric> Bush's Road Map has been reject by what seems to be both groups.

    Israel remains committed to the Road Map... and is still waiting for the PA to implement the steps required of them at the onset of phase I. In failing to do so, the PA has effectively rejected the road map (and Hamas never even pretended to accept it).


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2008 7:10 PM GMT
    There is no argument that can be made that will settle this issue or it would have been made by now.

    The Palestinians are going to get no farther in this world arguing against Israel than the South did holding on to the idea of the Confederacy for a hundred years. They should let it go and move on. They will be better off in the long run.