Israel vs. Palestine

quote:

---

My asertion is that Israel has the right to exist.

---

Why?

if they said yes were going to remove everyone from london and turn it into the new isreal i would probably agree with it...there are an un-natural proportion of beutifull women in isreal even higher than in holland!. (though they seem to "turn" at age 25 or after the first child so i wouldnt marry an isreali)and with all of the eligable blokes teid up in the army.....thers not too much competition. (though the girls do army time too, they dont do combact and seem to get mnore free time.)anyway.but i dont think you can say that the un removed the palistinians....
the jews bought the land from the pally's with good hard currency.
then when they owned 90 percent of the land or some BS like that they had enough ownership to kick off a country....and they did.you do make a good point though john.no i doubt ver much i would in actual fact chill out....though if ian duncan smith did a george bush to win the election i also wouldnt chill out....id burn down his house for a start....and petition the quenn to disband parliment (and thats why monarchy's are so much better than republics....a queen cant be bought. (not with any money ANY political party is lickely to get its hands on anyway))
and i was suprised that there were not riots in america when bush cheated his way in.but getting back to the subject.if you were born in isreal...as an isreali (jew or muslim) and you had full rights within isreal who would you want to run your land?
the isreali goverment who although being largly run by american zionist extremists, does provide good public sector services, or the palistinian authority who have managed to squander the larger part of their budget on terroist actions....if you think about it.had the palistinians put as much effort and determiniation into building a better palistine rather thatn a more paranoid isreal they would be streets ahead.1 suicide bomber had he instead of killing himself decided to go off on his own chopping down trees, planing them into planks...and building them into houses, library's and so forth.
in his life time he would be able to build at least 1 vilage.now think if evryone put in the same effort to re-build palistine into a prosperous country....and with the economic backing of the entire arab worold, france belgium and a good chunk of the world, they could in a few years surpass isreal in wealth...especiually seeing as half the world is boycoting isreali goods and servises.and what if the $25,000 given to the families of every suicide bomber by a ceryain reacently overthown and missing middle eastern dictaor was put back inot the comunity?really the palistinians need to wake up. realise there is a whole world out there and start competing in it, because it all feels very similar to rusia vs the US in the cold war....had russia spent less on arms and mopre on public sector services it would probably still be a comunist state....anywayive waffled for long enough nowthe Bread Sultan

Because telling an Israeli who was born in Israel that they must 'go back where they came from' is just like telling a British person born in Britain to 'go home' because some of their ancestors were born in India.As far as I see it, the central question is not whether Israel has a right to exist, but how it can be persuaded or coerced into dismantling its apartheid system.

quote:

---

As far as I see it, the central question is not whether Israel has a right to exist, but how it can be persuaded or coerced into dismantling its apartheid system.

---

I agree, sort-of. It isn't the people, per se, but the government that is the problem. I wouldn't advocate forceful eviction of anyone, but I do think it will take the dismantling of the Isreali government-- and hence the nation-- before any headway can be made toward peaceful coexistence. There is simply too much blood and anger and violence associated with Isreal.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I ask these questions because I admit to being woefully ignorant of the various positions and history.My understanding of the history is that it goes something like this:In the aftermath of WWII, the country of Israel was created with significant input by the British and, if I recall correctly, the UN. This was precipitated from the aftermath of WWI when Palestine was acquired by the British in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, specifically with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people," according to the Balfour Declaration and supported by the League of Nations.Given the violence in the region between the Arabs and Jews, Britain concluded that Palestine should be divided into two countries, one Jewish and one Arab.As I understand it, the Arabs in the region refused this division. Thus, Britain split the territory into the land controlled by Jews (Israel) and gave the remaining territory to Jordan. This land annexed to Jordan, however, was predominantly what we would now call Palestinian.Later on, there is a war when the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel which Israel won, acquiring the disputed "occupied territories."Now for the questions I have:If you are attacked by countries wishing to wage war and you fight back and win, taking control of some of their territory in the process, do you have to give it back? I can understand how one might take some moral high ground in giving it back, but is there any legal precedent to give it back? Is territory one of the "spoils of war" and is there some sort of international agreement about how to dispose of such spoils?Supposing Israel were to give the land back, to whom would they give it to? It would seem that it would go back to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. In fact, I recall a return of Sinai to Egypt brokered by Carter. Thus, if Israel were to pack up and pull out of the occupied territories, how would this solve the Palestinian problem since there would still be no Palestinian state?And isn't it true that there has never been a Palestinian state as such? At least, not for an extremely long time. Wasn't the area controlled by the Ottoman Turks, and wasn't even called Palestine (unless you go back to the Roman Empire), before the British took over and then divvied up into Israel and Jordan and such? If the desire for a Palestinian state is so important ("You know when we refused to accept a Palestinian state back in the 40s? That was a mistake. We're sorry"), and given the non-contiguous nature of the occupied territories, wouldn't it make some sense to talk to Jordan and Syria to secede some of their territory to the creation of a Palestinian state? I don't see how the Gaza Strip could be incorporated into the West Bank...Israel is in the way (unless it's going to be like a little version of Hawaii and Alaska...perhaps they can make it work out.)I can comprehend, to some degree, that Palestinians living in Israel have some grievances over the treatment of Palestinians in Israel. But I'm wondering what withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories would actually accomplish since those territories wouldn't become "Palestine"...they'd return to Jordan and Syria, wouldn't they? In order to create a "Palestine" out of them, we'd need the approval of Jordan and Syria to do so. Have they weighed in on this?Yes, I am aware that there is a not insignificant number of people who cannot accept the presence of Israel. And thus, I am certain that no matter what happens, there will continue to be violence in the region. I'm just wondering what might possibly be done and the various claims that are being made.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

If you are attacked by countries wishing to wage war and you fight back and win, taking control of some of their territory in the process, do you have to give it back?

---

I don't know that one has to give such land back, but, to answer your next question, it is pretty common to give back the land after the war. We gave back Germany and Itally after WWII. Of course, the USSR did not give back thier bit of Germany. We'll march all over Iraq, then give it back.However, I don't think this really applies to Isreal. The first war with Isreal wasn't an invasion of an established country, but was a response to an invading army-- an invading army backed and armed by the most powerful nation on Earth, via the UN.

quote:

---

Supposing Israel were to give the land back, to whom would they give it to?

---

To the people from whom it was taken, perhaps? That isn't a very practical solution though.

quote:

---

It would seem that it would go back to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.

---

Prior to WWI, Palestine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, and after WWI Palestine was controlled by the British; so "going back" to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt doesn't make much sense.

quote:

---

In fact, I recall a return of Sinai to Egypt brokered by Carter.

---

Isreal, during its war for independance and in subsequent wars, took land not allotted by the UN agreements. Some of the land taken was the Sinai penisula.

quote:

---

Thus, if Israel were to pack up and pull out of the occupied territories, how would this solve the Palestinian problem since there would still be no Palestinian state?

---

There would be such a state if Israel were dismantled. It would take some international assistance for it to work. Again, it isn't a very practical solution.

quote:

---

And isn't it true that there has never been a Palestinian state as such?

---

Essentially, yes. But neither were there any of the other nations that now exist is the region. It was controlled by the Ottomans. When the Ottoman Empire fell after WWI, various regions formed themselves into states. In other words, various regions became autonomous states and were governed by local rulers. This didn't happen with Palestine. The British retained control, using the Zionist movement, and sympathy for it, as an excuse. This is the origin of the Palestinian dissent. Not to mention that in 1914, the British promised the independence of Arab lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine. While their neighbors were becoming independant nations, they were under foreign rule and were watching the mass immigration of foreign Jews subsequent to Balfour declaration in 1917, which promised the Zionists a homeland in Palestine and which was a betrayal of the promise made in 1914.

quote:

---

I can comprehend, to some degree, that Palestinians living in Israel have some grievances over the treatment of Palestinians in Israel.

---

I'd say 'mistreatment' is a gross understatement. And while I don't think this mistreatment is the primary issue, Israel's behavior has made the situation worse by orders of magnitude.

quote:

---

In order to create a "Palestine" out of them, we'd need the approval of Jordan and Syria to do so.

---

Not really, since all of the nations coalesced from the fragments of the Ottoman Empire.

quote:

---

I'm just wondering what might possibly be done and the various claims that are being made.

---

Practically speaking, the only thing we can do is withdraw support-- financial and military-- from Isreal, and hope they straighten out a bit. We need to change sides, politically, and treat Isreal as a hostile nation.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

And some native north americans would suggest that this is a good idea.

Actually the returning of land is a rather recent development. In the wars between France and Germany in the 1800's the lands of ALsaic Lorraine (sp) changed hands several times.As to England in the 1920 through early 1950's, the land was retained more for the geostrategic importance then from the Zionist movement. And while I find the claims that a diety "gave" the land to teh jews to be the utmost hubris I feel the same about the Moslems claim to the Dome of the Rock.Finally, the Brits took the land the same way that the Jews did 2500 to 3000 years ago, the same way that the Arab tribes did, and the Caliphs, andthe Christians, and the same way that the Ottoman empire did. The Brits then partitioned it to two groups of people, and teh neighboors did not like one of them.Best solution. Israel gets Israel proper as it is currently defined, Pals get Bank and Gaza if they want it, NEITHER gets Jerusealum.Providing a right of return to Israel proper is like giving me a right of return to Ireland. It's Stupid.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Taz,

quote:

---

Providing a right of return to Israel proper is like giving me a right of return to Ireland. It's Stupid.

---

Indeed, do you realise how many Irishmen want to deny me my birthright, just because I was born in England (I have no living direct Irish relatives)? The Welsh too. If I bred, my Scottish partner would be progenise a child who had relatively recent ancestry in all nations that currently compose the British Isles. Half of them the "wrong" religion as far as the other population is concerned. Prods vs Caths.Someone has to be wrong. And frankly, I couldn't give a shit who.(In case you were in doubt, I'm agreeing, not disagreeing with you!)Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hear Hear, lets lift a pint to the stupidity of mankind.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Now that's something I will drink to! CHEERS!!

John responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know that one has to give such land back, but, to answer your next question, it is pretty common to give back the land after the war.

---

But the question is: Is there any international law/mandate that says you have to give land back after a war? There was a war, Israel gained control of the territory. Is there any mandate for them to give it back? As I directly said, I understand the concept of a moral imperative of giving it back, but is there any legal imperative?We gave back Germany and Itally after WWII. Of course, the USSR did not give back thier bit of Germany. We'll march all over Iraq, then give it back.

quote:

---

However, I don't think this really applies to Isreal. The first war with Isreal wasn't an invasion of an established country, but was a response to an invading army-- an invading army backed and armed by the most powerful nation on Earth, via the UN.

---

I'm not sure what you mean here. Remember, I said I'm not up on all the pieces, so please be more explicit. Are you referring to the creation of Israel or some other conflict?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Supposing Israel were to give the land back, to whom would they give it to?

---

​

To the people from whom it was taken, perhaps? That isn't a very practical solution though.

---

That was my point: If they were to give it back to the people they took it from, there would still be no Palestinian state. The land was taken from Syria and Jordan. Considering that there was call for a Palestinian state before then, why aren't the Palestinians equally angry with Syria and Jordan? Considering that when Israel was created, there was an attempt to actually create a Palestinian state but it was rejected and the land that would have been used to create it was given to Jordan, why is there no call for Jordan to "do the right thing" and create the Palestinian state that would have been around back in 1948?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It would seem that it would go back to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.

---

​

Prior to WWI, Palestine was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, and after WWI Palestine was controlled by the British; so "going back" to Jordan, Syria, and Egypt doesn't make much sense.

---

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"?So since Israel acquired these occupied territories from Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and if they were to "give them back," wouldn't they be giving them back to Syria, Jordan, and Egypt? I mean, they already gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt. And still, no Palestinian country.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In fact, I recall a return of Sinai to Egypt brokered by Carter.

---

​

Isreal, during its war for independance and in subsequent wars, took land not allotted by the UN agreements. Some of the land taken was the Sinai penisula.

---

But the point I'm making is that the currently "occupied territories" don't belong to the Palestinians. Given so many calls for Israel to pull out of the occupied territories, what would this actually solve since the land was previously held by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt? Why are there no calls for Syria and Jordan to create a Palestinian state?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thus, if Israel were to pack up and pull out of the occupied territories, how would this solve the Palestinian problem since there would still be no Palestinian state?

---

​

There would be such a state if Israel were dismantled.

---

Why? Why does the dismantling of Israel mean the creation of a Palestine? There has never been a Palestine. Before Israel, it was under the jurisdiction of the British. And before then, it was under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Turks. They don't even exist anymore. Since there has never been a Palestine, how would the dissolution of Israel automatically create a Palestine? Wouldn't that require an international agreement?

quote:

---

It would take some international assistance for it to work. Again, it isn't a very practical solution.

---

While there is some question of practicality in my questions, I'm looking more toward logic: By what justification do we conclude that if Israel were to go away, it would become Palestine?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And isn't it true that there has never been a Palestinian state as such?

---

​

Essentially, yes.

---

So where does the conclusion come from that Israel going away means that Palestine would come into being?But that isn't my question so much as it is the question of the dispensation of the occupied territories. There is a call after call for Israel to pull out of the occupied territories.Well, suppose they do? What does that do? Does it create Palestine? How? I had thought that the "occupied territories" were previously owned by Syria and Jordan. So if the occupied territories are supposed to become Palestine, doesn't that require the acquiesence of Syria and Jordan?

quote:

---

But neither were there any of the other nations that now exist is the region.

---

So why is there no call for the dissolution of any of the other countries in the area? Why don't the Palestinians make equal demands of Syria and Jordan to make a Palestinian state?

quote:

---

In other words, various regions became autonomous states and were governed by local rulers. This didn't happen with Palestine. The British retained control, using the Zionist movement, and sympathy for it, as an excuse.

---

But they offered to create a Palestine. It was rejected.And once again, we're drifiting from the question of the occupied territories. Again, as I directly said, I know that there are people who simply will not be happy until Israel is no more...that they need to be run into the sea, if I correctly recall how one person put it.But my questions are specifically about the occupied territories. How does Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories actually do anything for the Palestinians? Won't they then simply be under the control of yet another country?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I can comprehend, to some degree, that Palestinians living in Israel have some grievances over the treatment of Palestinians in Israel.

---

​

I'd say 'mistreatment' is a gross understatement.

---

I'm deliberately staying out of that part of the argument. I am specifically referring to the question of the occupied territories.If Israel were to pull out of the occupied territories, wouldn't they revert to Syria and Jordan? How would that mean anything to the Palestinians?

quote:

---

quote:

---

In order to create a "Palestine" out of them, we'd need the approval of Jordan and Syria to do so.

---

​

Not really, since all of the nations coalesced from the fragments of the Ottoman Empire.

---

But they're sovereign nations now, aren't they? Britain no longer has control over the area. The Ottoman Turks are gone. So if Israel were to pull out of the occupied territories, where would they go?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What does JWRTFM mean? I have just been wondering.

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.

Given that WWJD is commonly known, I assume that JW is "Jesus Would"Apparently you've never heard the last resort of an engineer (though it may appear in other fields as well), which is "read the f***ing manual." Not that I have much of an idea what he really means by that....