Israel vs. Palestine

deleted double post[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-05-2003]

Perhaps the wording you used is misleading. I translate the following - to which I responded in kind - as meaning "Quetzal, you're either stupid or too blinded to see the obvious." If I misunderstood, I apologize. Otherwise, civil is as civil does...

quote:

---

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.

---

No, the US revolution was a rebellion against duly constituted authority. As such, it was an aggressive act - however justified. OTOH, as I thought my last post showed, the factors that led up to the 1948-49 war were external: League neocolonialism, British ineptitude, Zionist manipulation, and a brand-new UN suddenly confronted with its first real challenge. Whether or not the UN or any of the other players had a "right" to do what they did in the 30+ years leading up to the war, once an Israeli state existed - sanctioned by the UN and recognized by numerous members of that organization - it had the "right" to defend itself. Which is what it did, rather successfully.Now, as to some of your other claims: Reread the post. "A small minority" is misleading: about one third of the population of non-Jordanian Palestine was Jewish by the time of partition (608,000 vs 1.269 million Arabs), and 60% of THAT population lived on land owned outright by the Jewish National Fund or individual Zionists (233 of 305 communities and towns). The land ownership pattern by 1947 roughly parallels the territorial partition plan. 54% of the Mandate not already given to Transjordan was allocated to a Jewish State, the remaining 46% was to be used for the creation of an Arab State. Note that the above is from a pro-palestinian website. As such, the actual landownership (left-hand map) is probably under-reported. Compare, therefore, the land ownership in the above with the 1947 UN Partition plan: Notice any similarities? It certainly appears - even in pro-Palestinian sources, that the JNF and the Zionists owned quite a bit of the land that they were eventually to occupy.Now, note the post-1949 Rhodes Armistice line: The new Israeli state took a bit of additional land - notably around Jerusalem and the northern Nazareth-Acre-Lebanese border area. So why wasn't there a Palestinian Arab state created at the same time? The majority of the land was still under Arab control? Doesn't look all that aggressive to me - of course, I'm just an ignorant boob who doesn't understand how evil and illegitimate the Israeli's are, apparently. You really should re-read my post. From the very first line, I discuss Zionism. Obviously, I assumed that a reader would realize that all those references in the post to "Zionists" would indicate that I knew about the influence of the Zionist movement. I even mentioned Chaim Weizmann and the Jewish National Fund. I didn't think we needed to hash it out explicitly. I don't remember commenting one way or the other on its influence as that is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the 1948-49 war was a "war of conquest" as you claim OR a defensive war (my claim). I agree with the first bit. However, you have as yet failed to actually support the part about "conquest", merely asserted it in several different ways. Also, with the exception of a few statements by Ben Gurion (and a few others), you'll have to provide some evidence that the Zionist World Congress, and the rest of the Zionists in what became Israel considered it "conquest" or "reconquest". This is your assertion. If you wish to maintain it, please provide specific references. Please provide some support for your claim that Jews constituted only 10% of the population. Was the land distribution equitable? As for sheer terrain, as I noted the distribution was 54%/46%, so skewed in favor of the Israelis (they also controlled quite a bit of the best agricultural land as well). However, looking at the actual demographics, from here, it appears that the areas ceded to the Jewish state in 1947 were pretty much the areas of major Jewish presence, whereas the areas ceded to the putative Arab state were very much areas where there was little or no Jewish presence (about 10,000 were estimated to live in that area, as compared to 800,000 Arabs). From a strict distribution standpoint, I'll agree it was skewed. From a population demographics standpoint, however, I would argue that IF the land was to be partitioned, the lines drawn by the UN were pretty close to what actually existed. Note: I have said nothing about the type of state created, nor have I said whether or not I think the creation of Israel by fiat was justified, nor whether I think that the form the state took was by any stretch democratic. My entire last two posts have been in response to YOUR unsupported assertion that the 1948-49 war was a war of conquest. I have provided support for my side. You provide support for yours.The sources you are using to get your "facts" appear to be misleading you. We can certainly argue about whether the UN had the authority to create the partition in the first place, but once their decision was made, the aftermath had less to do with Zionist conquest than Zionist opportunism and Arab perfidy. Perhaps YOU can explain why - since the majority of the originally ceded territory planned for the Arab state was still in Arab hands - the existence of the Palestinian state had to wait another 60 years?

quote:

---

Perhaps the wording you used is misleading. I translate the following - to which I responded in kind - as meaning "Quetzal, you're either stupid or too blinded to see the obvious." If I misunderstood, I apologize. Otherwise, civil is as civil does...

---

What I wrote in no was intended to imply "Quetzal is stupid." And I am sorry for leaving that impression. I respect you and would like to remain friends in that peculiar internet way. What I wrote did express shock that you could consider the creation of Israel a non-aggressive act, but I now think I understand why and will get to that in a bit.

quote:

---

No, the US revolution was a rebellion against duly constituted authority. As such, it was an aggressive act - however justified.

---

Does an aggressive act have to be against a duly constituted authority? Isn't the act aggressive no matter whom it is directed toward?

quote:

---

OTOH, as I thought my last post showed, the factors that led up to the 1948-49 war were external: League neocolonialism, British ineptitude, Zionist manipulation, and a brand-new UN suddenly confronted with its first real challenge.

---

I'm not sure how you can call the Zionist movement an external factor. The Zionist movement is probably the reason Israel was formed. It is that movement that orchestrated the settlement plans and land purchases, as well as manipulated world sympathies to preasure the various other organizations involved. The Israeli state is zionist.

quote:

---

Notice any similarities? It certainly appears - even in pro-Palestinian sources, that the JNF and the Zionists owned quite a bit of the land that they were eventually to occupy.

---

Certainly. But you cannot look at those maps and claim that the land ownership was sufficient justification for the drawn, or proposed, borders. The partition plan was certainly better than what actually resulted, but was still grossly unfair. On these maps, the lower sections are cut off. These regions were awarded to Israel. The land area is enormous and the Jewish population very small. It seems to me that any allocation to Israel of land below the 'pinch' about two thirds down the left-hand map, just below Tel Aviv, is utterly unjustifiable. Page not found - Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem (ARIJ)Keep in mind also, that much of this immigration and land purchase had been illegal in the first place. Edward Said, in "The Question of Palestine" concludes that Jewish settlers in 1947-48 legally owned about 6% of the land occupied.

quote:

---

The new Israeli state took a bit of additional land - notably around Jerusalem and the northern Nazareth-Acre-Lebanese border area.

---

The proposed land area was about 56%. Israel at the close of 1948 Israel occupied 78% of the land. Some of that occupation was initiated prior to any invasion of arab armies. Assuming that the UN mandate and the Israeli declaration of Statehood was justifiable, how is this additional action not aggressive? How is it not expansionist? Page non trouve - Pmwatch

quote:

---

So why wasn't there a Palestinian Arab state created at the same time?

---

Because the palestinians did not accept the partition plan. If you are going to divide a region the division needs to be accepted by all parties in the region, not just by one faction. Otherwise the division is by default going to be forced. There were hundreds of thousands of people dispossessed by the Isreali state. And the creation of the state was against the will of the majority of the people living in the area. The situation, as I see it, is that the Jewish immigrants claimed land, evicted inhabitants and justify it by saying, "They could move out and make there own state." It doesn't make sense. Why should they move out in deference to a minority of recent immigrants who want to create a state? Why should the Palestinians create there own state in conformance to a plan they did not approve? And a plan that involves massive displacement of populations and loss of land? It really makes no sense.

quote:

---

The majority of the land was still under Arab control?

---

You have a strange conception of majority. You stated above that the Palestians were left with 46% of the land, and this was according to the UN plan and before the new Israeli state took land not allotted it.

quote:

---

Obviously, I assumed that a reader would realize that all those references in the post to "Zionists" would indicate that I knew about the influence of the Zionist movement.

---

I meant to imply that you seem to downplay the importance of the movement, not that you where completely unaware of it.

quote:

---

I don't remember commenting one way or the other on its influence as that is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the 1948-49 war was a "war of conquest" as you claim OR a defensive war (my claim).

---

Sure it is relevant. The Zionists are the conquerers, or the usurpers, or whatever you want to call those taking control of a region they hadn't previously controlled, and doing so against the will of the majority of those living in the area.

quote:

---

Also, with the exception of a few statements by Ben Gurion (and a few others), you'll have to provide some evidence that the Zionist World Congress, and the rest of the Zionists in what became Israel considered it "conquest" or "reconquest". This is your assertion. If you wish to maintain it, please provide specific references.

---

Take the definition of Zionism for starters, as given by the Jewish Virtual Library. Note, "the resumption of Jewish sovereignty." How do this not imply "conquest"? Even if wholly political, it still implies taking control of the land.And again. In anything you read about Zionism-- pro or con-- it is pretty clear that it goal was the taking of land, by whatever means, on which a Jewish state could be erected. After 1905, Palestine became the official location for that Israeli State. This is Zionism by definition. I'm not sure how you can argue that it isn't about taking over land in Palestine. You agree that the Zionists worked for 80 years to take Israel, but disagree that there was anything like 'conquest' involved? Please tell me you aren't going to play with words. You don't like 'conquest.' How about 'take over'? 'Gain control'? 'Usurp'? 'Rise to power'? It is all roughly the same, given that, in this case, it was all done over the objections of the indigenous population.If that isn't sufficient, the King-Crane commission concluded that ... Now, how is it that you can dismiss the statements of the leaders of the movement? What other means is there to determine the intented purpose of the movement?

quote:

---

Please provide some support for your claim that Jews constituted only 10% of the population.

---

My mistake.

quote:

---

From a population demographics standpoint, however, I would argue that IF the land was to be partitioned, the lines drawn by the UN were pretty close to what actually existed.

---

Yet still give a minority group control of the land, and the people. The lines drawn, or proposed, give a Jewish minority --30 or so percent-- who own 5 or 6 % of the land, 54% of the country. How does this make sense? This is without including land the nascent state occupied prior to the war, and/or held after it.

quote:

---

Note: I have said nothing about the type of state created, nor have I said whether or not I think the creation of Israel by fiat was justified, nor whether I think that the form the state took was by any stretch democratic.

---

The type of state created and the justifications for it are critical. Do you think there would have been a problem if a joint government were erected?

quote:

---

My entire last two posts have been in response to YOUR unsupported assertion that the 1948-49 war was a war of conquest. I have provided support for my side.

---

So far, you have but recounted the history of the region. That history includes the fact that the Jews in Palestine declared Israel a state, despite the objections of more than half of the population and knowing full well that it was going to start a war. This was an aggressive act, however you wish to paint it. One population gained sovereignty over the majority indigenous population. This acquisition was the stated goal of the Zionists, who worked for it diligently for nearly a century. This war was the pinnacle of that effort, and thus I call it a war of conquest-- the conquest of Palestine by Jewish Zionists. Call it a civil uprising if you will. It doesn't change anything.

quote:

---

We can certainly argue about whether the UN had the authority to create the partition in the first place, but once their decision was made, the aftermath had less to do with Zionist conquest than Zionist opportunism and Arab perfidy.

---

And thus you divorce the driving force-- Zionism-- from the result? That makes no sense. Besides which, the UN did not create Israel. The UN passed a resolution in the General Assembly. This means that it had all the force of 'we think this would be a really good idea,' rather than the force of international law.From the UN's own site... Zionists declared Israel a state knowing it would not be handed to them without a fight. This makes it an aggressive act. Knowing it would not be handed to them, they declared Israel a state nonetheless. This certainly implies they intended to take and hold the country, does it not?

quote:

---

Perhaps YOU can explain why - since the majority of the originally ceded territory planned for the Arab state was still in Arab hands - the existence of the Palestinian state had to wait another 60 years?

---

How do you conclude that the MAJORITY of the ceded land is in Arab hands? Just above you state that 46% was left to the 70% or so of the non-Jewish palestinians. And in fact, Israel occupied more like 78% of Palestine by the end of the war.But if you want my guess...No Palestinian state has been created because the Palestinians consider Israel there homeland and feel it has been taken. Creating more than an interum government would give credence to Israel's claim to statehood.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Good Lord, you guys really know your ins & outs about Israel & Palestine! It always interests me how people can know so much about one subject yet hold completely different positions while presented with essentially the same facts.My problem with hotly-debated issues stems from people throwing words around devoid of meaning and expecting others to understand. I turned 23 before I truly comprehended what people meant when they labelled things as "fascist". I would hear people pigeonhole my music as "fascist" because it didn't contains beats or tunes, I have no idea why.So I approach this with a layman's eyes in terms of jargon. But reading lots of history books, online sources, and magazines has enabled me to piece this together: 1939's British White Paper on Palestine came under fire from Zionist leaders in London who urged its cancellation. They stated that 100,000 Jews should go into Palestine.A Labour government came into office and, in a party conference in 1944, made a resolution that Jews shouldn't make a national home in Palestine since they didn't form a majority. But they did state that "the Arabs should be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in." Since the Arabs remained at heart a fierce & proud race you could only force them out. They didn't want to go, especially as they accounted for two-thirds of the population.In August 1945 President Truman of the USA endorsed the immigration of 100,000 Jews into Palestine. Simultaneously the US Congress called for unrestricted Jewish entry to the country's absorptive capacity limit.Now this pissed off Ernest Bevin - Britain's foreign secretary, also in charge of Britain's Palestine policy. He had always railed against "unreasonable Zionist demands" that the Zionists convert Palestine into a Jewish State. He set up an Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry which reported back in April 1946. In "Chapter I - Recommendations and Comments - The European Problem" it stated that:

"Palestine alone cannot meet the emigration needs of the Jewish victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution; the whole world shares responsibility for them and indeed for the resettlement of all 'displaced persons'. ​ "We therefore recommend that our Governments together, and in association with other countries, should endeavor immediately to find new homes for all such 'displaced persons', irrespective of creed or nationality, whose ties with their former communities have been irreparably broken."

Accordingly it recommended continuing the mandate and admitting 100,000 Jewish refugees. It also criticised the existence of an estimated Jewish "underground" of around 65,000 folks.Fine & dandy, except - according to Christopher Sykes in CROSS ROADS TO ISRAEL, 1967 - that two years after the war America itself had not done much to alleviate this problem, having only admitted 5,000 Jewish refugees. President Truman pushed for an immediate admission of those 100,000 Jews into Palestine, but Britain demanded that the Jewish irregulars disband.This left the mandate government dealing with massive illegal immigration and a widespread campaign of Zionist terrorism culminating in July 1946. At this time Zionist terrorists blew up Jerusalem's King David Hotel which housed Britain's military offices and Government.Britain fell prey to strong economic & political pressure from the US on behalf of the Zionists, but didn't want to make things worse for itself with Arab States. And so a UN Special Committee on Palestine (with everpresent wit abbreviated to "UNSCOP") recommended (in document A/364) partitioning Palestine into Arab & Jewish states, with Jerusalem and its surrounding areas remaining under firm international control.The UN General Assembly, November 29th, adopted these recommendations in Resolution 181. To quote it exactly:

"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem...shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948."

In reference to Jerusalem:

"The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations."

The Assembly took this as its official view after a vote of 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions. Strong US pressure on a number of smaller nations led to this favourable vote, as well as the Soviet Union voting in favour. ALL the Islamic Asian countries voted against. Many Arabs wanted to ask the International Court of Justice to judge the competence of the General Assembly. In essence the GA wanted to partition a country against the wishes of its majority population. They narrowly lost this motion.This resulted in a formation of a Jewish state when, at that time, Jews formed 30% of the population and held a mere 8% of land. Britain refused to supervise this partition and announced it would abnegate its mandate for Palestine on 15th May 1948.This UN resolution kicked off violent Arab protests followed by communal fighting, armed volunteers from Syria arriving to bust some heads, etc. Then came the unbelievably atrocious massacre of innocent villagers in Deir Yasin by Irgunists. This scared off huge numbers of Arabs who left their homes en masse in terror. According to the Encarta Encyclopedia this drove so many away that their numbers dropped from around 700,000 to 165,000.In his book THE REVOLT (Begin, M. {1964}. The Revolt: The Story Of The Irgun), former Prime Minister Menachem Begin boasted about his rle in the massacre of as many as 254 Palestinians at Deir Yasin, most of them elderly men, women and children who remained in the Israeli-occupied village.A Red Cross doctor Jacques de Reynier, chief representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jerusalem, detailed this in his official report in 1950. He said one of the Israelis (I can only describe them as "terrorists") called it a "mopping up" using machine guns, then grenades, then finally knives. These Jews beheaded a number of their victims, fatally maimed 52 children in sight of their mothers and cut open 25 pregnant women's wombs then butchered their babies right in front of them.On April the 4th 1972 a major Jewish publication called Yediot Ahronot published this from Colonel Meir Pa'el, an Israeli Haganah officer present at Deir Yasin:

"The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and began to 'clean' the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children included. The commanders did not try to stop the massacre..."

and

"They were taken to the quarry between Deir Yasin and Giv'at Shaul, and murdered in cold blood."

Zvi Ankori, commander of the Haganah unit in charge of controlling Deir Yasin after the massacre said this to an Israeli newspaper, called Davar, on April the 9th 1982:

"I went into six to seven houses. I saw cut off genitalia and women's crushed stomachs. According to the shooting signs on the bodies, it was direct murder."

Begin points out in THE REVOLT that terror against Palestinians formed a crucial factor in creating Israel. It established the Jewish state and it seems to have truly set the tone for ongoing atrocities against Palestinians ever since.Anyhoo, the Zionists secured Haifa on the 22nd of April and Jaffa on the 13th of May - before British mandate ended. On the 14th of May 1948 the last British troops along with their High Commissioner left. On that day Zionists proclaimed the state of Israel which the US and the Soviet Union both officially recognised.------------------

quote:

---

All the boys think she's a spy

---

, 07-25-2003

This thread's been idle for months, so I thought I'd reinvigorate it.http://www.alertnet.org/printable.htm?URL=/thenews/newsde...Israel govt memo admits flouting "road map"-source
By Dan WilliamsJERUSALEM, Nov 12 (Reuters) - A secret Israeli memorandum says the country has failed to honour commitments under a U.S. peace plan to evacuate illegal settler outposts and has sought "in every way to whitewash their existence and build more".Government sources on Wednesday quoted the memorandum as saying: "We promised the United States that we would dismantle the outposts and have not done so. That is our Achilles' heel.""International criticism is growing because of our lack of creative ideas for getting out of the conflict," it said.Israel lacked credibility when it claimed to be fulfilling its obligations under a U.S.-backed plan for ending three years of fighting with the Palestinians, the memorandum said."Our claim that Israel has fulfilled its side of the (peace) road map is seen as lacking credibility because not only have we not evacuated the illegal outposts, we are working in every way to whitewash their existence and build more," it said.The sources said the memorandum was prepared at Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's behest. A Shalom spokesman said he was unaware of the memorandum.A senior government source acknowledged the memorandum but denied Israel had acted in bad faith."We moved on the outposts, whereas the Palestinians never even intended to act in parallel," the source said, referring to the Palestinians' failure under the road map to rein in militants who have waged an uprising since September 2000.The memorandum, intended for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's inner circle, contradicted public assertions the Palestinians alone had reneged on their commitments.The road map envisages a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by 2005. Among its reciprocal requirements is Israel halt construction in Jewish settlements and dismantle recently built settler outposts on occupied land.Most of the international community regards the settlements, built on land seized by Israel in a 1967 war, to be illegal. Israel disputes this.Israel razed a handful of small West Bank outposts after it and the Palestinians embraced the peace road map in June, but left dozens more untouched. The government has issued tenders for building hundreds of new settler homes.Plus: Dr. Strangelove Goes Live.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-14-2003]