Finnish FM: Israeli occupation is 'apartheid'

The illegal settlement activities since 1967 are not "defensive", unless Israel believes that "defense" can only be achieved by using human shields.

If Israel is not a mistake, then why does it still reject the nation of Palestine? According to the current position of the Israeli government, Israel is sad mistake.

 

It's not, Bibi said it in the UN, i think the real question is why Hamas and its newly sidekick - Islamic Jihad are against a palestinian state

 

Hamas is probably trying to be like Israel, following a mistake of an example. Often, one finds that extreme interests are far more similar than they'll ever admit.

 

Well thats the thing.

The rights of the non jewish were offended, quite severely.

Leaving the palestinians no choice but to rebel. And later as the civil war escalated leaving the arab powers no choice but to intervene.

What israel has done since at least 1920 when they really starteed to arrive in larger and large numbers has mostly been offensive. Particularly 1947, 1967
and more recently 2008.

All defensive moves, indeed all its moved since the first arrivals have really always been about protecting the land offensives it has previously undertaken succesfully. Excepting 1967 of course, which was a purely offensive move (hyped as a defensive measure of course - as usual).

 

How often do Israelis and pro-Zionists have to be told that Balfour never mentioned a Jewish state at all...in fact it was a very deliberate omission, because that was what Rothschild etc was after.

Balfour envisaged a one state solution.......and the UK abstained from the Partition vote because they could see what the result would be, given their piggy in the middle situation between the Zionists, including the Zionist terrorists and the Palestinians who were naturally incensed at the Zionist ambitions.

I wish I could say that the West had gotten better at looking past the immediate "good" idea and foreseeing possible problems since then...but no lessons have been learned at all, it seems to me.

 

Gilos;

Do you fancy denying that the speeches and writings of the pre-invasion Zionists, Ben Gurion etc., didn't urge the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in order to settle their supporters there ? You call invasion plans and their execution defensive ?

 

Holocaust refugees came in the 40's not the 20's, we had the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement in the 20's.

How were thier rights offended?
Perhaps the right to loot and murder

Until 46-47 the hagana were only defensive, when they got offensive some arabs fled (48 refugees), my grandparents who are still alive told me about those days.
When someone attacks you - you may have to hurt his rights and hurt him back, read on history about the Mufti, the riots and those that started 47 civil war.

 

We were on the offense in 67 since it was clear another war is just a matter of time so instead of be supprised the day of the attack Israel launched first and destroyed Nasser airfields, taking the west bank, keeping it under occupation and then settle in it was a grave mistake, but not the reasons for that war - for Israel at least.

Ben Gurion can write he loves white cream cheese and you'll accuse him of being a racsist, no supprise here moon

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

When those that were not supposed to be harmed - harmed others in turn, they cannot say thier own rights were offended, they had no right to refuse a jewish state, In its original form the jewish state didnt hurt anyone, Balfour said not to hurt thier rights - not to ask thier approval!.

According to which Hamas booklet? read history not propaganda crap.

Most arabs accepted the jewish state concept, the Mufti didnt.

 

This is evasive crap, as you're well aware. Let's repeat the question;

Do you fancy denying that the speeches and writings of the pre-invasion Zionists, Ben Gurion etc., didn't urge the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in order to settle their supporters there ? You call invasion plans and their execution defensive ?

 

Show my quetes and origins please

 

Which part of view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people translates, for those who read, speak and understand plain English as a Jewish State either in or of Palestine.

Which part of The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. leads anyone with a working braincell to think..."whoopee...that means a Jewish State"?

Which part of English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic. would make anyone think that there was to be a Jewish State?

According to both your links...now wasn't that easy-peasy!
Btw.I don't read Hamas crap any more than I read Zionist crap...I am against extremism wherever it exists.

What Jewish state concept?

From the Cabinet Papers of 1924

It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the special position occupied by Palestine in the eyes of the world. It is scarcely conceivable that, having reconquered the Holv Land from the Turks, we could have handed it over to the Arabs. It would have been impossible to justify such a step to the League of Nations or to the civilised world as a whole.

Our critics would probably retort that this would have been no worse than
handing it over to the Jews, The answer, which it is desired to make as emphatic as possible is that we have not handed it over to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration involved a twofold obligation, viz.: (1) to promote the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine (not to convert Palestine into a Jewish State);
and (2) to safeguard the interests of the other communities. There is no doubt that, in the early days of,the occupation, exaggerated notions were entertained by the Jewish leaders as to their future position in the country.

 

Administration of Palestine is a mandate concept, administrating and managing things until its possible to divide the land, that includes lang, stamps and whatever, live together and be nice untill Briatin is confident the boys can be left alone and play together - that diesnt change the fact that both were promissed 2 states not 1!.

I base my argument on the stated objectives of the mandate and Balfour statement, again your side will have us think 1+1 =3.....

Do you deny the partitaion plan? it's clear to all with "a working brain cell" that the mandate objective was 2 states + home to the jewish ppl results in a jewish state. why else create 2 states?

Palestines have no special rights over the land they do not occupy, they do on where they already live, Jews dwelled in some areas as long as history can go back, bought land in other areas that wasnt occupied from the ottomans and built it. according to the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement the arabs knew that immigrants are coming to dwell here too,

The UN, the Britts and some of the arabs blessed the zionist enterprise, the UN and Britts declared on the objective of 2 states and among arab leaders only the Mufti caused trouble, and i blame him cause he had no right to object - based on the original borders of Jewish state, ofc in his own actions his fears came true....

 

Do you live on a different planet speaking a different language to all the rest of us.or do Israelis just live inside their own heads?

You can try and interpret it any way you like.......but facts are chiels that winna ding.......The Balfour Letter did not offer a Jewish state, the Mandate for Palestine did not offer a Jewish State and the British Cabinet specifically said

The answer, which it is desired to make as emphatic as possible is that we have NOT handed it over to the Jews. The Balfour Declaration involved a twofold obligation, viz.: (1) to promote the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine (NOT TO CONVERT PALESTINE INTO A JEWISH STATE);
and (2) to safeguard the interests of the other communities. There is no doubt that, in the early days of,the occupation, exaggerated notions were entertained by the Jewish leaders as to their future position in the country.

and they proved that stance by not voting for Partition, did they not? If they had intended a two state solution all along, why would they have rejected the Peel Report.....and abstained on the Partition Vote?

 

Take a cold drink and relax odd i think this forum is started to get to you

Possibly the interpation of a jewish home can be disputed, when the UN voted on the mandate the terminology was vague (althou either of us thinks he is wrong), when the britts came and had to face the arab riots they chose to remain "neutral" leaning toward the arabs to quite them, but then again many didnt and we have the partition plan and finally the UN vote on Israel,

 

In 1904, Menachem Ussishkin, chairman of the Jewish National Fund, stated that:

"[Land is acquired] by force --- that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land form its owner; . . . by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. . . [The Zionist movement was limited to the third choice] until at some point we become rulers." (Righteous Victims, p. 3

In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:

"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)

In 1938 Menachem Ussishkin commented on the partition plan proposed by the British Peel Commission in 1937:

"We cannot begin the Jewish state with population of which the Arab living on their lands constitute almost half and the Jews exists on the land in very small numbers and they are all crowded in Tel Aviv and its vicinity .... and the WORST is not only the [Palestinian] Arabs here constitute 50 percent or 45 percent but 75 percent of the land is in the hands of the [Palestinian] Arabs. Such a state cannot survive even for half an hour ..... The question is not whether they will be majority or a minority in Parliament. You know that even a small minority could disrupt the whole order of parliamentary life..... therefore I would say to the [Peel] Commission and the government that we would not accept reduced Land of Israel without you giving us the land, on the one hand, and removing the largest number of [Palestinian] Arabs-particularly the peasants- on the other before we come forward to take the reins of government in our lands even provisionally." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 111-112; see also Righteous Victims, p. 143-144)

Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)


On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

and in 1937:

".... because we will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty .... And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation -- but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption --- which has been collaborated in the course of all our activity in the country -- that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force - not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Yosef Weitz, director of the Land Dept. of the Jewish National Fund, and founding member of the Population Transfer Committee of the Jewish Agency, said in 1938, “the transfer of the Arab population from the area of the Jewish State does not serve only one aim - to diminish the Arab population, it also serves a second, no less important aim which is to evacuate land presently held and cultivated by the Arabs and thus to release it for the Jewish inhabitants.”.

Vladimir Jabotinsky, the father of the Revisionist Zionism movement, wrote in 1939, “There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs (to Iraq and Saudi Arabia).”

 

Who is odd?

That is the whole point.....there is no interpretation necessary..it is written in plain English.

According to history, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British.......so bang goes your paranoid tendencies!

One reason for the riots maybe...........

“Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.” Zionist writer Ahad Ha’am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

 

Gilos youre smart enough to know better.

Jewish immigrants, came long before any holocaust. In decent numbers for the local population to object from 1920 abouts. Thats why the arab revolt first happened in 1936 rather than later.

Ill explain how their rights were offended, by allowing large numbers of immigrants intent on setting up their own state without even a by your leave of the local population - thats how.

Its true that when someone attacks you one may have to hit back. Equally when someone comes uninvited to set up their own state you may indeed have to also strike back - which is exactly what the arabs have done, yet you object to their attitude, why?

 

Even Ben Gurion knew they were going to face problems. He knew that the European/Western belief that "the white man" could do what it liked only works with white men.

I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.

* As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A Personal Memoir (197 by Nahum Goldmann, as translated by Steve Cox, p. 99


"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

Ben Gurion to Mapai in the mid 1930s... ". . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

 

Not true, riots started much sooner in the 20's
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots29.html

Calling palestine a "National Home" means every person with Jewisg nationality can consider it it's home. while you can debate on what "home" means, it is generally accepted that a "Home" is somewhere you can live in.

I object that arabs refused jews that came here to live simply because they came - they had no right to.

 

Yes, your posts show what a great man he was,

He had respect to the arabs and if it wasnt for that Mufti who knows what may have happend,

Your first quete refers to 67, i said the same thing myself, are you so full of hate that you miss statements of peace in your own posts ?

 

But they didn't object to Jews who started coming from the early 1800s to make their home in Palestine...not the Ottoman Empire and not the Arabs in Palestine....they objected to the secular political Zionists, mostly white Europeans who arrived in numbers after 1917 with the intention of taking Palestine for themselves.

They had every right to object..because, contrary to all UN Mandates, the Arabs had not had their wishes taken into account before the regular growing influx.

All other UN Mandates bar the Palestinian one, concentrated on getting the native population into a position whereby they could gain independence.

That did often mean that a monarch/leader who was suitable to the Mandate holder was shipped in to take eventual charge...but until the Mandate for Palestine (and since to my knowledge) there have been no other UN Mandates which encouraged whole swathes of complete outsiders to parachute in and receive Mandate favouritism over the native population.

Let's be honest..nobody in the UK gave a toss about "Jewish aspirations" because they cared about Jews.....just as nobody in 1915, when that agreement was signed, cared about Arab aspirations because they cared about Arabs.

All they were doing was trying to get countries onside during WWI, and if that was going to be helped by solving the West's "Jewish Problem" then that was the pragmatic way to go.

That, however did not make it right to dump Europe's problem on the Arabs of Palestine.....even Ben Gurion acknowledged that he could see why the Arabs reacted as they did....why would anyone with commonsense assume anything else could possibly have happened?

The British started the problem...the Zionist attitudes exacerbated the problem, against the wishes of even those Jews already living in Palestine before the influx, and continue to exacerbate it to this day.

And as long as there are so many Israelis who know or care so little about anything other than their Zionist indoctrination and their Western style life at the expense of others....then little is ever going to change.

 

The same thing can be said about the First People of North America. Should Canada and the US vacate the continent?

 

If you were a native american would you have fought or welcomed in the europeans in to do whatever they want?

 

Granted. So you can see that they objected much earlier.

Yes I know what a national home means. What I dont know is why you object to arab refusal.
Why didnt they have the right? What was different from them and every other people in your country my country and across the world who would seek to control immigration?