Israel vs. Palestine

quote:

---

But the question is: Is there any international law/mandate that says you have to give land back after a war?

---

And I answered it...

quote:

---

Are you referring to the creation of Israel or some other conflict?

---

The creation of Israel triggered a series of wars with several middle eastern states. In the initial conflict Jewish militants siezed control of Isreal, fairly blatantly violating UN guidelines for the borders, and declared it a state. Page not found | TIMENo webpage found at provided URL: http://domino.un.org/maps/m0082.gifThere was an initial arab response and several subsequent wars. These have basically been wars of conquest on the part of the Isreali state. The Israelis market much of it as defense but there is pretty good evidence that Isreal has intentionally expanded its borders.

quote:

---

The land was taken from Syria and Jordan.

---

No, it wasn't. Isreal was created from a region governed by the British. Syria was governed by the French until 1946, and the Golan Heights were not lost to Israel until 1967. Jordan was under British rule until 1946, when it became an independant nation. These countries were born at roughly the same time.

quote:

---

Considering that there was call for a Palestinian state before then, why aren't the Palestinians equally angry with Syria and Jordan?

---

Because Syria and Jordan aren't Palestine. Palestine has had a cultural/social identity for centuries, even while part of larger empires. And, unlike Syria and Jordan, the region was not released into the hands of local rulers, but was instead taken by minority of immigrants, who, in the aftermath of WWII had the sympathy of the western powers.

quote:

---

No, I'm talking about the occupied territories. Does that not mean the land captured by Israel in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt? Isn't that the complaint that I hear? Israel is establishing settlements in the "occupied territories"?

---

I'm not. I am talking about Israel proper.

quote:

---

And still, no Palestinian country.

---

Because the Palestinian country is within the borders of Israel. It IS Israel. That is the land that was occupied by the palestinians until the coup in 1946, when it was taken over by a minority of immigrants. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.iap.org/pop48.gif

quote:

---

But the point I'm making is that the currently "occupied territories" don't belong to the Palestinians.

---

Some of what is refered to as the 'occupied territories' are lands taken by Isreal from surrounding countries. Some 'occupied territories' are not-- such as the West Bank.

quote:

---

Since there has never been a Palestine, how would the dissolution of Israel automatically create a Palestine? Wouldn't that require an international agreement?

---

Do you not read my posts? This is exactly what I said. It would take an international agreement along the same lines as that which resulted in the existence of Syria, Jordan, etc. after the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the close of WWI. In fact, just this state of Palestine was promised to the Palestinians in 1914 but it never happened. Syria, Jordan, Egypt, all came out of the mess as independant nations, but Palestine did not. The British held onto it, for strategic reasons probably, using the Zionist movement as an excuse. And ultimately the Jewish immigrants seized control.

quote:

---

But they offered to create a Palestine. It was rejected.

---

If you mean the initial UN proposal to divide Palestine into two countries, the proposal was hopeful, perhaps, but pretty absurd. The plan gave a small minority a huge chunk of land. Look at the population map I posted and compare it to the UN Partition Plan. Accepting the plan, in hindsight, may have solved a lot of problems, but rejecting it seems to have been a perfectly reasonable decision.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 05-31-2003]

John,

quote:

---

There was an initial arab response and several subsequent wars. These have basically been wars of conquest on the part of the Isreali state. The Israelis market much of it as defense but there is pretty good evidence that Isreal has intentionally expanded its borders.

---

You can't be serious? This reminds me of the old labour supporter claim in the early 80's that Margaret Thatcher had somehow engineered the Falklands "conflict" for political gain, increasing her popularity & thereby gaining re-election. Like Thatcher, weren't the Iraelis just a little on the lucky side to find an opponent that was prepared to lose a war for their enemies political & material gain?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

You can't be serious?

---

Serious that Isreal has expanded its borders via military action? It is history.

quote:

---

Like Thatcher, weren't the Iraelis just a little on the lucky side to find an opponent that was prepared to lose a war for their enemies political & material gain?

---

Now I have to ask if you are serious? Who said anything about the opponents cooperating? Isreal has taken every oppurtunity afforded it to expand its borders. Why is this such an odd statement to make?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,You're right, I forgot 1956 & 1967, which were Israeli aggressions (British & French too). Apologies, especially for my tone, I actually meant it to be a John MacEnroe "you cannot be serious", which was meant to be humourous, on rereading it was pretty rude. This, combined with being factually incorrect makes me the dunce-of-the-day. Please excuse me whilst I make a conical hat with a big "D" written on it. I'll be facing the wall in the corner if you need me. I've got a beer in one hand, & the glass I put my brain in for the night in the other........ You have to make allowances Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-31-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 05-31-2003]

Thanks for the insight! I don't know exactly what he means by it either...maybe we should ask him!

Hi John. I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate characterization. The '48 war was arguably defensive, unless you want to consider that the mere formation of the state of Israel was a "war of conquest". The '73 War was also arguably defensive in nature. The '67 war was unquestionably pre-emptive, OTOH.The '56 War is, IMO, a special case - it is interesting to speculate as to whether Israel would even been involved (setting aside the relatively constant border clashes between Israel and Egypt between 1949-56) if Nasser had merely contented himself with nationalizing the Canal and if he hadn't at the same time blockaded Israeli access to the Red Sea via Aqaba. Of course, Israel was also pretty nervous about the new Czech arms deal Nasser signed, so it's possible that war was inevitable. In any case, Israel relinquished ALL territorial gains in the Sinai after the war - which was exclusively against Egypt and didn't involve the other Arab states.IMO, the only real "naked aggression for territorial expansion" Israel has undertaken since independence was the '67 war. Even the '82 invasion of Lebanon resulted in only a temporary occupation. Ultimately, even most of the gains from '67 were relinquished (the notable exception being Jerusalem and bits of the West Bank where the disputed fortified settlements have been established.)If the Israelis were really as interested in conquest as you suppose, I find it unlikely - given their demonstrated military capability - that the country would have the current boundaries. I'm a bit surprised at you. You're usually more rational and careful with your facts than this.

Quetzal,This is what I was trying to say so badly earlier in the thread. I have one thing to add; the reason the Israelis held ground was to gain territory in order to maneouvre forces should they find themselves involved in another war of annihilation. My point, that I made so badly to John, was that the IDF wouldn't have stepped outside its own borders had it not been surrounded by states committed to its destruction. Were their intentions not the strategic defensive, they would not need to have annexed territory to provide room for a defence in depth, by way of compensating for their small size.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 06-03-2003]

I would agree. This is certainly the case pre-1973 in both the Sinai and on the Golan Heights. In the former, the extremely small size of the permanent forces required a huge amount of space-for-time to permit full mobilization in the event of war with Egypt. In the latter case, the seizure and retention of the Golan was designed to push Syrian artillery batteries out of range of Israeli settlements. I think the fact that Israel was willing eventually to give up both these strategic advantages seems to speak against John's contention that Israel is "intentionally expanding its borders".Please note, I am not an apologist for Israel. I think their politics are self defeating, and a number of their past actions have been despicable (notably the invasion of Lebanon). I also think their current actions are shooting themselves in the foot and certainly counterproductive from the US standpoint. OTOH, to be honest, since things have fallen to such a low point, I don't really know what else they could do - I just feel that what they ARE doing isn't working and is undoubtedly causing more harm than good...

Quetzal, I agree. It's difficult to see an outcome that will please everyone to the point where violence ends. There will always be, IMO, the extremists who will never settle for anything less than the destruction of Israel. It will be interesting to see how successful the roadmap that is currently on the table fares. Both sides have agreed to it in principle, which is more than I thought would happen. Let's hope.Perhaps we will see a day when the extremists on both sides are marginalised to such a degree that they will be forced into inaction, perhaps like the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland (the activity on both sides is much reduced, as a direct result of 70+% of Northern Irish folks voting for the Good Friday agreement).Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate characterization. The '48 war was arguably defensive, unless you want to consider that the mere formation of the state of Israel was a "war of conquest".

---

The 'mere' formation, Quetzal? It was a violent takeover of the land by Jewish miltants/Zionists. They declare Israel a state, and were then attacked. Are you saying this makes it war a 'war of defense?' You could say the same about the US Revolutionary war. We declared independance and thus the war was 'a war of defense.' But we both know this isn't true. We weren't defending, we were taking over.1956: Isreal, backed by France and GB, went to war with Egypt to gain access to the Suez canal. This war was fought on Egyptian soil. Israel held onto the Gaza strip until 1957.

quote:

---

Suez Crisis - Wikipedia

---

1967: Israel attacks Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (June 5), in response to military buildup in those countries and threats of war. Israel walked out with the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, Arab East Jerusalem, West Bank, Golan Heights. It tripled the size of Israeli controlled territory.

quote:

---

The '73 War was also arguably defensive in nature.

---

You mean the war were Egypt and Syria attempted the regain what Israel had been lost in 1967?1978: Israel occupied Lebanon up to the Litani river. The reason was to get at some major PLO bases.1982: Another attack on Lebanon to get at the PLO.

quote:

---

If the Israelis were really as interested in conquest as you suppose, I find it unlikely - given their demonstrated military capability - that the country would have the current boundaries.

---

Israel is in a very precarious position. It is surrounded by enemies and vastly outnumbered. Israel has a tremendous military-- easily the best in the region, but it couldn't survive a sustained war. In the '67 war, I believe, Israel lost 46 of its 200 fighter planes. It also suffers huge losses of soldiers, proportional to its population, in these wars. Israel is dependant upon oil imports. International support for Israel has gone a long way toward it victories as well. The US funded 1 billion or the 5 billion Israel spent during one of its conflicts. This international support is also impetus for not getting too terribly out of hand. So, I don't think it is accurate to say that Israel hasn't expanded because it isn't interested in expansion. I think Israel is quite interested, but has been thwarted.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

In the aftermath of WWII, the country of Israel was created with significant input by the British and, if I recall correctly, the UN.quote}

This is a misconception that Brits like floating around. Half the problems with the arabs (before formation of Israel) were caused by the brits greedy oil rich dreams. the brits were in staunch opposition for the nation to be formed and tried to bully the commonwealth in abstaining or voting against the formation of Israel. luckily the commonwealth showed more balls thatn the brits, and the nation was formed.
Dividing up the palestines into a muslim rich belt and a jew rich belt is what the Brits had successfully done with India and look .. that belt has the same problem , with both the Pakis ans the Indians fighting for a tiny piece of land!!!!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If Israel were to pull out of the occupied territories, wouldn't they revert to Syria and Jordan?

---

​

Probably not, at this point - just as, when the southern states withdrew from the union during the American civil war, they didn't automatically become part of Britain or France.

---

That's because the South maintained its independence and population. That is, the South seceded. It isn't like the US "pulled out" of the South.My question is: What would happen to the occupied territories if Israel were to pull out? Wouldn't there be an expectation that they be given back to the countries from whom they were taken?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

He_who-knows_Most writes:

quote:

---

I don't know exactly what he means by it either...maybe we should ask him!

---

(*chuckle*)It means pretty much what it directly states: Jesus would read the frickin' manual.I've spent most of my career doing tech support.Does it mean I believe in Jesus or am a Christian? No.Does the "manual" in question refer to the Bible? No.Is it a joke at Jesus' expense? No.Is it a joke at those that think that the message of Jesus can be reduced to a bumper sticker mentality? No, not really.It's just an acronymic response to an acronymic question that I thought was humorous enough.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This is an interesting take on the history of the region. Shall we take a look at the actual history of what occured - using, where ever possible the original sources - and see if your characterization makes sense?Bear with me, we'll eventually get to the 1948 war. However, it is apparent that a bit of background might be necessary. The story really begins, of course, back in the 1880's with the creation of the Zionist movement, but I don't think we need to start that far back.Recent history really starts with the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, where the as-yet-to-be-won territories of the Arabian Penninsula (including the area later to be known as Palestine) were divvied up between France and Britain.

quote:

---

That France and great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

​

That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

---

Although most of the agreement was later overcome by events, what I think interesting about it is the fact that both sides have used the agreement as justification for their own claims. The Arabs claim that the agreement specifically relates to "Arab state or confederation of Arab states", whereas the Brits have used the part about "shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control...as they may think fit" as both justification for subsequent control AND subsequent disposal of bits of the territory.The proximate/ultimate cause of all the modern problems is probably the British Mandate. In 1920, the League of Nations, in one of the most blatantly colonialist actions of its short history, both ratifies British control of the area (a la Sykes-Picot) through the creation of the Palestinian Mandate, AND completely caves in to then-British support for the Zionists:

quote:

---

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

​

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty (Q: this refers to the (in)famous Balfour Declaration supporting the creation of a Zionist state), and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

​

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; ...

---

Article 4 created a Jewish Agency in Palestine, and Article 6 sets up the sale of Palestinian land:

quote:

---

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. (article 6)

---

Needless to say, the Arabs of Palestine went utterly ballistic, culminating in the bloody riots of 1921. Meantime, Sharif Hussein al-Hashemi had been soundly defeated by ibn Saud in 1919 during a rather nasty Penninsula civil war (so much for Brit assurances of support if Hussein helped them against the Turks) and Faisal had been deposed by the French in Syria. As a booby prize, the Brits made Hussein's son Abdullah Emir of Transjordan in 1921 (thus fulfilling the "Arab state" part of Sykes-Picot, according to them, in spite of it being a violation of the MacMahon agreements). Curiously, the new emirate was given control of almost three quarters of the original Mandate territory, and in spite of the wording of the Mandate itself, Jews were prohibited from owning land or settling in Transjordan. In 1923, the Brits again pulled a fast one, and ceded the Golan Heights (also a part of the original Palestine Mandate), to the French Mandate of Syria. Once again, part of the deal was that Jews were prohibited from settling in or owning land on the Golan.In 1929, another series of strikes and riots broke out - this time quite plainly instigated by Palestinian Arabs concerned over increasing Jewish immigration and alleged job discrimination. There were several "unintended consequences" of the unrest. One of the most significant was the creation of the Jewish Haganah (armed militia) following the mob-related murders in Hebron (three of the Arabs implicated in the massacre were later executed by the Brits). The Haganah later formed the core of the Israeli forces in the 1948 war.The second most significant result was the formation of a special commission to investigate the causes of the violence. The Shaw Commission report included condemnation of the Arabs for inciting sectarian violence AND an acknowledgement that Jewish immigration in 1925-26 "had been excessive" and that British policy against Arab self-determination had played a critical role. Of course, in a masterful example of equivocation, the Shaw Commission report ALSO stated, "Jewish enterprise and Jewish immigration, when not in excess of the absorptive capacity of the country, have conferred material benefits upon Palestine, in which the Arab people share." (quoted from statements by British Parlimentary Undersecretary of State for the Colonies, Dr. T. Drummond Shiels, to the 17th Session of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission on 21 June 1930. I honestly don't know whether Shiels took Shaw's words out of context, as I don't have a copy of the commission report. However, the full transcript of the 18-day 17th Session is on line here and makes for a fascinating glimpse into League politics and personalities during this timeframe). The Shaw Commission Report, the Hope-Simpson Report, and the Passfeild White Paper - all of which more or less came out simultaneously - mark the first time the British finally woke up to the fact that Jewish immigration and especially Jewish land purchases were a potential problem. However, the MacDonald Letter (from Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald to Chaim Weizmann) trumped the Passfield Paper.

quote:

---

"The language of this passage needs to be read in the light of the policy as a whole. It is desirable to make it clear that the landless Arabs, to whom it was intended to refer in the passage quoted, were such Arabs as can be shown to have been displaced from the lands which they occupied in consequence of the land passing into Jewish hands, and who have not obtained other holdings on which they establish themselves, or other equally satisfactory occupation. The number of such displaced Arabs must be a matter for careful inquiry. IT is to landless Arabs within this category that his Majesty’s Government feels itself under an obligation to facilitate their settlement upon the land. The recognition of this obligation in no way detracts from the larger purposes of development which his Majesty’s Government regards as the most effectual means of furthering the establishment of a national home for the Jews

​

Further, the statement of policy of his Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional lands by Jews. It contains no such prohibition, nor is any such intended. What it does contemplate is such temporary control of land disposition and transfers as may be necessary not to impair the harmony and effectiveness of the scheme of land settlement to be undertaken. His Majesty’s Government feels bound to point out that it alone of the governments which have been responsible for the administration of Palestine since the acceptance of the mandate has declared its definite intention to initiate an active policy of development, which it is believed will result in a substantial and lasting benefit to both Jews and Arabs.

​

Cognate to this question is the control of immigration. It must first of all be pointed out that such control is not in any sense a departure from previous policy. From 1920 onward, when the original immigration ordinance came into force, regulations for the control of immigration have been issued from time to time, directed to prevent illicit entry and to define and facilitate authorized entry. The right of regulation has at no time been challenged.

​

But the intention of his Majesty’s Government appears to have been represented as being that no further immigration of Jews is to be permitted as long as it might prevent any Arab from obtaining employment. His Majesty’s Government never proposed to pursue such a policy."

---

The fact the Brits were utterly incapable of effecting land reform, and even when their own commissioners recommended that immigration and land issues be addressed were unwilling to take a stand, meant that by the time the first formal partition proposal (the Peel Commission Report of 1937) was made, the Zionists already owned a huge chunk of Palestine - purchased from both large and small Arab landholders - to the point that a partition was almost a recognition of the de facto control of the area by the Zionists. The 1936 Arab revolt was a result. The whole mess came to a head in the 1939 White Paper - the Brits finally figured out they'd bollexed the whole Mandate up:

quote:

---

"This interpretation has been supported by resolutions of the Permanent Mandates Commissioner. But His Majesty's Government do not read either the Statement of Policy of 1922 or the letter of 1931 as implying that the Mandate requires them, for all time and in all circumstances, to facilitate the immigration of Jews into Palestine subject only to consideration of the country's economic absorptive capacity. Nor do they find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absrobed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension. The methods employed by Arab terrorists against fellow Arabs and Jews alike must receive unqualified condemnation. But it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East. His Majesty's Government cannot take the view that either their obligations under the Mandate, or considerations of common sense and justice, require that they should ignore these circumstances in framing immigration policy."

---

The 1939 White Paper marked the beginning of serious Zionist opposition to the Brits, and since it was essentially too little too late by this point, didn't do much to mollify the Arabs, either, especially since later in the paper it explicitly states that while immigration would be limited (to 75,000 over five years), it wouldn't be halted. Of course, that lasted until 1946, when the "Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry" recommended an immediate authorization of 100,000 additional immigrants into Palestine - but Atlee's Labour government continued to enforce the "limited immigration" policy of 1939.In what was probably the last great incredibly short-sighted act in a long series of incredibly short-sighted acts in Palestine, the Brits unilaterally granted unconditional independence to Transjordan - leaving a whopping 13% of the original mandate divided between 1.2 million Arabs and 608,000 Jews - with Transjordan completely "Arab". The Zionists went completely ballistic, culminating in the terrorist attack on the King David Hotel.In 1947, the British declared their mandate unworkable, and dumped the whole mess on the fledgling United Nations. Harking back to the Peel partition plan, the UN adopted resolutions 181 (partition) and 232 (creation of Israel). The last day of the Mandate was slated for May 14, 1948. On May 15th, the Zionists proclaimed the state of Israel - and five Arab nations invaded to put an end to it. The point here is that preparations for war from BOTH sides had begun nearly a year earlier. The Israelis ended up with control of most of what had been established by the UN as the Jewish state, the Egyptians ended up with the new territory of Gaza, and Jordan ended up with the West Bank - which it was to continue to claim jurisdiction over until 1988 (in spite of not actually occupying it after 1967).So, to make a very long story shorter: the UN created the state, the British created the problem, the Arabs tried to end it, and the Israelis were able to hold on to what had been granted them, first by the League of Nations, and then be the UN. This is NOT a war of conquest - because nothing was conquered. Try reading some actual history, rather than either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian apologetics. Who knows - you might learn something.

Quetzal,I really don't want to fight with you about this. The operative word is fight. I'll discuss, but that is a different animal. We disagree, but I have been civil, especially on this thread and certainly with you. I'm not sure what I did to tick you off. If this is going to be nasty, I just won't participate-- not with you. Wordswordsman, nos, sure, but not you.

quote:

---

This is NOT a war of conquest - because nothing was conquered.

---

What part of your essay was intended to demonstrate that a small minority of recent immigrants to Palestine did not take control of the region despite the blatantly obvious objections of the majority of the people living there? What wasn't conquered? Land was taken. People were evicted. An exclusively Jewish government was erected in a predominantly arab/Islamic land, where no such government had existed before.

quote:

---

Try reading some actual history, rather than either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian apologetics. Who knows - you might learn something.

---

You might try reading some history as well-- particularly the history of Zionism, as its leaders played a big role in this mess. You seem to be only vaguely aware of this movement's involvement. I base much of my statements about the Israeli war of indepence on this group's stated goals. If you wonder how entrenched it was in the formation of Israel, you only have to look at the first sentence of Israeli declaration of independance issued at Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948. Zionists worked for 80 years or so to take Israel. It was a master work of machievellian politics. They finally did. The war in '48 was the crown of that effort. I see that as conquest. It seems that the Zionist saw it as conquest as well, albeit (re)conquest of God given but long lost land.You also seem to rest a lot on the UN mandate. You might want to consider what right the League of Nations or the UN had to create a state, and what reasonable justifications there could be for handing that state to 10 or 11 percent of the population. Doesn't that strike you as a bit absurd? Yes, yes, I know. There was supposed to be a Palestinian state as well. The fact remains that a vastly disproportional amount of land was granted to 10% of the population, and the creation of Israel meant the eviction of people whose families had lived in the area for centuries. It was occupied land. I wouldn't have accepted the deal either. It was awful.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 06-05-2003]