MOD ALERT Palestinians - Their hatred is the cause of their misery.

Palestine Used by Ancient WritersSeveral ancient Greek writers use the term "Palestine," [Palaistinh,(*)Palaistine] referring to the broad region which included Judea. Aristotle, Herodotus, Philo the Jew, and Plutarch all use this term.(*)The citation from Aristotle is very interesting - he is describing what he has heard about what we call the Dead Sea,Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them. (*)(*)(*)Meteorology II.3This is a clear example of using the term in a broad sense that includes Israel. Herodotus, speaking of circumcision, gives us an interesting text in(*)Euterpe(*)that includes Syria in Palestine,The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians; and the Syrians...say that they have recently adopted it from the Colchians. Now these are the only nations who use circumcision, and it is plain that they all imitate herein the Egyptians. (*)(*)(*)Euterpe II.104Philo is an interesting source since he was a contemporary of Jesus(*)and(*)a Jew. Speaking of the Essenes,Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety...because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity. (*)(*)(*)Every Good Man Is Free XII.75Philo is also interesting because he represents the Hellenized Jews - Greek Jews scattered around the Roman Empire, unable to worship according to the Laws of Moses. Philo lived in Alexandria, Egypt with around 1 million Jews, the largest Jewish population outside of Jerusalem. Notice that he refers to "Palestine" as a(*)region(*)that includes the Jews.(*)It is clear from these citations that the term "Palestine" was used to refer to the(*)region(*)in broad terms, including Judea. McCall is mistaken when he claims that this term was not used until Hadrian. He says this in another Zola Levitt letter, "it should be recognized that the term ["Palestine"] was never used in the New Testament, and that it was coined much later by the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish pagan Emperor Hadrian." [ http://www.levitt.com/newsletters/1...w.churchhistory101.com/century1-palestine.php

 

Oh dear. I guess you aren't aware of the clustermuck of the Congo. A people who have been persevering for at least a couple of centuries, but never mind.

Dreams and hopes are marvellous things.
Hopefully Palestinian youth will make the most of them and not be brought down by the continuous stream of hatred eminating from Hamas and IJ and PFLP and the rest of the alphabet.

I guess you don't know many muslims. Hospitality is an integral part of the arab/muslim culture. This is not in any way unique to palestinians.

As for your contention that they suffer human rights abuses 7/24, were you expecting ANY difference. It is a belligerent military occupation after all, and I don't recall a single one in history where the rights of the occupied were not curtailed in regular and often severe fashion. And in this case, the occupied's leadership, their arab allies and the quasi independent gangs of armed thugs have contributed to its excessive prolongation.

That you do not see the hate, is merely an indication that you aren't looking.

You are also completely incorrect in your characterization of Israel deliberately killing children. Firstly, the IDF does deliberately kill teenagers with guns and/or who are actively supporting/participating in "resistence". Innocent people including children to tragically die in armed conflict, but the Israelis are NOT deliberately killing "children".

Using the body count is a specious argument. Since, the resistence provocations can't come close to the israeli retaliations they invite, one could say that the resistence is welcoming the deaths of civilians, since it is a useful propaganda tool. You should examine exactly how ruthless Hamas and the PLO have proven themselves in sacrificing their own people.

And finally, I do accuse a number of palestinian organizations of unmitigated hatred, not the least of which are the PLO and Hamas.
Then again, I also accuse many Israelis (particularly the settler extremist arses) of similar hatred even if manifested in a culturally different fashion.

 

Not at all. I believe it was the white man that "invented" imperialism and the "devine right" of kings.

It wasn't the black kings who "conquered the world".
And interesting observation, but I believe that at one time or another, nearly every single non white nation was "conquered" by the white man (with a few notable exceptions).

The West Bank, Gaza and Golan. look at any map of 1949 and today.

 

Well Jonsa this is for you... Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the Golan were part and parcel of the Mandate in addition to today's Jordan... So What happened you asked...

THE STATUS OF JUDEA & SAMARIA ~by Hbendor
Under the norm of International Law, the status of Judea & Samaria could only be considered "occupied" by Israel, if, in fact they had previously belonged to another sovereign state… Jordan, as everyone knows, never existed prior to 1946, it gained control over the West Bank of the river Jordan and East Jerusalem in 1948, by an act of naked aggression against the newly RECONSTITUTED State of Israel. No country in the world apart from Great Britain (which created Jordan by fiat in the first place), and Pakistan recognized this annexation. This invasion did not give it legal title under International Law. In 1967, following Jordan's second all out renewed and failed try for a new invasion of Israel and its consequent loss of Control over Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in that attempt... The juridical situation returned to what it had been previously since the League of Nations Mandate… Israel is therefore not occupying these areas, as they never belonged to Jordan or any other Arab country historically IN THE FIRST PLACE. The question is… If Judea, Samaria are not "occupied territory,” what then are they? One of the foremost International Legal Scholars, former Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, describes these lands as the " unallocated parts of the British Mandate still governed by the original provisions contained in THE ORIGINAL MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that was sanctioned by the League of Nations in 1922. One of these provisions, Article 6, of the Mandate for Palestine allowed " close settlement...." of all western Palestine by the Jewish People, as Eastern Palestine was by then wrested away ignominiously from the Mandate by the then British Colonial Secretary Mr. Winston Churchill for the creation of the ARTIFICIAL Palestinian/Arab Emirate named Trans-Jordan now called Jordan. The Jewish settlements in these areas are the physical link of the People of Israel, with the Land of Israel from " Time Immemorial," a link that stretches back to the Bible, the Balfour Declaration, and its International recognition in the PREAMBLE of the Mandate for Palestine, that was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922. Quote:- Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine.... Etc. Unquote.
No one can dispute Israel's right to return and redeem this part of its MOTHERLAND, be it Judea, Samaria or any other part of the Mandate, for this right is firmly implanted in International Law, Archeology, Historical Association, Security and Political Justice. P.S. ARTICLE 6 The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other section 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.

As far as the Golan is concerned ~by HBendor
The ‘Golan Heights’ was part and parcel of the “Palestinian Mandate Territory” and not part of Syria!

The 'Palestine Mandate' was assigned to Great Britain at the San-Remo Conference in 1920, and later confirmed by the then [League of Nations] on July 1922…

The borders of this ‘Palestine Mandate’ were internationally agreed upon, because they corresponded with those of the “Historical and Geographical Land of Eretz Israel”. And, were intentionally delineated as a basis for the RECONSTITUTION of the Jewish National Home.

The Golan Heights was illegally given away to the ‘French Mandate Powers’ of the Levant (Syria -Lebanon) on March 1923. This territorial transfer was surreptitiously made in a capricious and arbitrary fashion by the British whose sole interest was to secure Mosul's oil fields to Iraq (The Mandate for Mesopotamia), and reduce the constant friction with the French Mandatory Powers in Syria-Lebanon, which had designs on these oil fields. The Golan Heights became part of Syria upon the termination of the French Mandate in 1944.

The Syrians held the Golan Heights from day one of their Independence in 1946 until they lost it to the IDF in 1967 a total of 21 years… Israel has regained/liberated the Golan Heights in 1967 [after it was illegally given away to the French Mandatory Powers (Syria-Lebanon in 1923)] to this year 2012 it totaled 45 years in Israel hands... So by sheer power of accumulated years the "Golan Height" seem to have been restored to Israel's sovereignty.

A Mandate is a Trust, according to ART. 80 of the UN Charter… Israel's decision to impose its Laws on the Golan Heights on December 14, 1981, had in reality, RIGHTED the WRONG that was committed by the British in March 1923.

I am practically sure that Syria could not make a standing claim in an 'International Court of Law' as Syria was not an “Independent Country” then (in 1923), but rather in its formative years under the ‘French Mandatory Powers.’ Once Again the "Golan Heights/Bashan" as it is known in history was never part of any Syrian Real Estate, but part of the Palestine Mandate!

US President Bill Clinton told the late Hafez Assad that Israel accepted US proposal to go to arbitration at the World Court in The Hague to determine the exact line of June 4, 1967.
Ha'aretz 30 March 2000.

U.S. President Bill Clinton also proposed to late Syrian President Hafez Assad that Israel and Syria go to arbitration at the World Court in The Hague to determine the exact line of June 4, 1967. (Arab newspaper a-Sharq al-Awsat reported). Asked if this was an Israeli proposal, Clinton replied that it was an American proposal accepted by Israel, according to the paper.

Hafez Assad, according to the report, rejected the proposal, saying "the very appeal to an International Court would mean that Syria doubts its absolute sovereignty over the entire Golan Heights according to the borders it occupied until the outbreak of the 1967 war."

Can anyone imagine why Hafez Assad refused to go to The Hague? The answer is so simple… Syria became Independent in 1946! The illegal transfer of the Golan by the British to the French Mandatory Powers was on March 1923!

 

I do not dispute the borders of the palestinian mandate. I dispute your weird claim that the entire mandate was to be the jewish homeland and while the partition plan never came to fruition, the objectives of that severely flawed plan were quite obvious. TWO peoples - palestinian and jew sharing the land.

You can use sophistry, specious misrepresentation and avoidance of Israeli legal opinion as to the nature of the relationship between Israel and the inhabitants of the occupied territories.

Dont take this personally, but I'll take the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court as far more valid and legal than your opinions and interpretations of the law.

This means that the West Bank and Gaza are in a state of beligerent occupation with Israel being the occupiers. There is considerable Israeli case law that reflects this fundamental ruling.

The occupation is an enormous financial strain on Israel, a continuing threat to internal security, a bludgeon for the jew haters and anti-zionists, a rallying point for Islamists everywhere and morally the antithesis of Israel democratic ideals. You can justify it six ways til sunday but excuses will not change bad into good.

 

Well the rulings of the high court of justice go in tandem with the latest Israel government meetings and decisions, of Oslo I and Oslo II, Madrid and elsewhere... once these decisions become 'one sided' the rulings will automatically change
Here is what transpired during a short period that reflects exactly my sentiments... (I will ignore the rest of your retort.)

“TRANS-JORDAN” THE EXCISION FROM THE MANDATE

The territory known as "Transjordan" had been an integral part of the Land of Israel from the beginning of recorded History and the ancient Hebrew era… it was inhabited by the tribes of Gad, Ruben, and half the tribe of Menasheh. The territory was thus viewed through all the years of the Diaspora by Historians, Geographers, Travelers, Statesmen, Scholars, Officials of all Religions and denominations… and anyone concerned with the history of the region, and always recognized as such in modern times, when it was liberated, with the rest of Palestine, from Turkish rule after World War I…
The Muslims went as far as calling *Eretz Israel* [ARAD-ABNA’ IHAL-ASLI-YN] = [BELONGING TO THE SONS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS] Ref. The Jews!!

In 1921 leading British statesmen held a conference in Cairo to deal with problems of the Middle East, and according to Colonel T.E. Lawrence, quote: - "The decisions of the Colonial Secretary were prepared by us in London. It was decided to include Trans-Jordanian-Palestine, to make it indistinguishable from Palestine and to open it to Jewish immigration."
Notable among those Jews who fought alongside the British in World War I was the Jewish Legion (Battalions 38 and 39 of the "Royal Fusiliers") who were active in the Jordan passes and in the conquest of Umm-a-Shart, twelve kilometers north of the Allenby Bridge (22 September 1917).
When the war in this region ended, most of the territory of Palestine was in British hands. British forces reached Damascus along with Prince Feisal, son of Hussein the Sharif of Mecca. With British support and under the supervision of the allied forces, Feisal [Eldest son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca] took control of Syria. In March 1920 the Syrian National Congress crowned Hussein king, but his reign was brief. In July 1920 the French, who sought control of the area, as they were granted the Mandate for the Levant (Syria-Lebanon) by the then ‘League of Nations.’ [Later on, the British placed Feisal on the throne in Iraq (August 1921) as a compensation for the loss of his crown in Syria]. At the end of 1920 Abdullah, [Feisal's younger brother,] set out from Hedjaz with a force of 1,200 Bedouins in order to attack the French, avenge his banished older brother, and renew the rule of the Hashemite dynasty in Syria.
In March 1921 they reached Amman. The British, who wished to avoid armed confrontation with its ally the French Mandatory Power, still felt a sense of obligation toward the Hashemite Dynasty, and, invited Abdullah to Jerusalem.
In a meeting with Winston Churchill, Colonel Lawrence, and Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner in Palestine (May26, 1921), they unilaterally decided to create the Emirate of Trans-Jordan on the Eastern side of Historical Palestine. By imperial fiat, the British Mandatory regime entered into what was then defined as a “temporary arrangement” for a period of six months with now Emir Abdullah… But, this son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca found himself ruler of approximately 77% of the Mandate for Palestine after these six months elapsed. (If this is not a demented action by the above three characters then, I do not know what is?)

At the same time, the League of Nations was about to complete its discussions of ratification of the Mandate when the British decided to insert a brand new Art. 25 in the Mandate for Palestine, quote:-

>>>In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provision of Articles 15, 16 and 18.<<<

This new insertion was indeed ratified by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and two months later, on 16 September 1922, the League decided, at Britain's request, that mandate regulations would not apply to Transjordan. Thus an ancient geographical-historical unit was split into two portions: the Eastern part of Transjordan, extending over an area of 91,000 square kilometers (including 60,000 square kilometers of desert annexed to it by the British in 1925) and the large eastern portion which included the Bashan and the Gilead, from ancient times the most fertile lands of Israel. In total, 77% of the entire area originally intended as the Jewish National Home was surreptitiously cut out from it..
On 3 June 1922 the leadership of the World Zionist Organization received from Britain the document known as the *Churchill White Paper*. In this paper Britain hinted at its intention of *excising* Transjordan from the territory of the Jewish National Home and urgently requested Zionist agreement to this, lest the mandate under discussion fail to receive League of Nations approval.
The Zionist leadership, interested in the ratification of the mandate, found itself forced to agree, but did not come to terms in principle with this violation of the intent of the Balfour Declaration. The Zionists never accepted this new step, even though the document specifies "postpone or withhold" and not "cancel" and although the phrase "existing local conditions" indicates a temporary situation and leaves open the possibility of change of conditions in the future. This attitude was evident at the thirteenth Zionist Congress of August 1923, with the unanimous adoption of the resolution to demand return of the excised territory to its former status.
The claim to eastern Transjordan was openly and persistently brought up by both Zionist camps [Left and Right] they both expressed the firm belief that this injustice would indeed be rectified one day. At the beginning of 1946, the first news of Britain's intention to conclude her mandate over the emirate and make it an independent kingdom filled everyone with dissatisfaction. This feeling prevailed even among those considered moderate among the Zionists&#8230; Moshe Shertok (Sharet), head of the political division of the Jewish Agency, stated in a Jerusalem news conference on 24 January 1946 that "we never saw the partial severance of Transjordan from Palestine as a permanent situation" but as a "temporary cancellation".
In an article entitled "Concession Never Was", published in the daily Haaretz, Moshe Sneh, a head of the Jewish Agency, declared that "just as we never conceded *Eastern Transjordan*, we do not concede it today" (1 February 1946). But this severance was already a fait accompli. The new kingdom, moreover, quickly became a bridgehead for attempts to liquidate Zionist and Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel. Even before the signing of the agreement between Britain and Emir Abdullah, which erased any remaining connection between the emirate and the Mandate (22 March 1946), Abdullah announced in an interview with a United Press correspondent in the &#8220;Shuna Palace&#8221; that his country was already engaged in a campaign against the Yishuv (Jewish Nat. Home), and that from the tops of these hills the blow will fall on the Zionist dreams". Indeed, not more than two years later Abdullah's "Arab Legion" set out, under the command of British officers, on a campaign intended to eliminate the Jewish National Home from the world scene.
In the 1948 War of Independence. The aim of liquidation was not achieved, but the conquest of Judea and Samaria by the Arab Legion added 5,500 square kilometers to the territory of the Kingdom of Jordan and multiplied its population, from 50,000 to 1.2 million. In June 1949 the name of the Kingdom of Jordan was amended to "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", after the king's dynasty, and in April 1950 Judea and Samaria were officially annexed to the Kingdom. [Recognized by the UK and Pakistan only].

Bibliography: Bernard (Dov) Joseph, British Rule in Palestine.
Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939, Vol. IV
L. B. Namier, in the Margin of History

 

Hbendor,
what transpired in 1920's, what the intent of this person or that was, is absolutely irrelevant to the situation today.

In referencing Oslo 1 and 2, you understand that in both these conferences Israel AGREED that the Palestinians had a claim to the wb and gaza to the extent they AGREED to the formation of the Palestinian Authority.

Israel's position is pretty clear and categorical.

So, perhaps you can come up with something a more current substantiation of your claim that Israel "owns" the WB and gaza.

 

What is irrelevant is the following.... I will tend to give another aspect of your country relevance soon...



And the following VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejd4XoDJxQA&feature=player_embedded#at=18

 

Why doesn't Pat talk about 650,000 Jews inflicting their nation upon 1.2 million Arabs in 1958 Mandate Palestine?

 

As a start, Israel should unilaterally withdraw to the Hafrada wall and remove all settlers beyond it.

That way Israel's Jewish majority is ensured for decades to come.

 

How many settlers would that displace?

 

Luv the cartoon, but it employs a logical fallacy.

Prior to 1947 wars of aggressive territorial expansion were not considered "illegal" under international law. After that time, I think you;d have a hard time finding any country who conquered neighbouring land and annexed it. the issue becomes moot when put into that context and the fact that America has not expanded their territories thru conquest since the end of the 19th century.

- - - Updated - - -

irrelevant, unless you buy into Sharon's "facts on the ground" strategy.

 

Why do you single out 1947... Alsace and Lorraine were under German yoke and returned to France... Israel had to beat the Jordanians to recoup Judea and Samaria. No moot at all if for example Israel forces on Jordan to take back their own people (approx. 800,000)

Not at all!!!!!!!!!! There are (approx. 600,000) Jews) living in Judea and Samaria today. Please keep your Liberal 'DESIDERATA' to yourself... I would be a lot happier if you would jump ship/fence and advocate for the terrorists.

 

Israel didn't "recoup" the West Bank from Jordan. It never belonged to Israel.

 

What did?

 

Go open a book fella... I do not want to win this argument and lose you as a fellow debator. Better yet go open a book or perhaps the Preamble and the articles of the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE.

http://www.justicenow4israel.com/mandatemap.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/zeev_zeev/map.jpg

http://www.justicenow4israel.com/mandatemap.html

 

I single out 1947 as the year when the UN outlawed land acquistion thru conquest. Since Alsace was way before 1947 and Israel occupying the territories, was after your argument is moot.

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

http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil1a.htm

While west bank settlement began in late 67 in jerusalem, Sharon codified the expansion of settlements into a long term strategy. He called it "Facts on the ground" and the result after decades is that there are 500,000 plus jews living in occupied lands.

I realize its tough when facts speak louder than opinions and emotions, but them be the facts and there ain't much you can do to spin them into meaning something different.

 

Er, not to put to fine a point to it, but the Mandate's objective of creating a jewish homeland, was more or less achieved.
The only "demarcation" was the territory east of the Jordan, which was to be treated differently than the territory west of the Jordan. so borders for the jewish homeland were to be established at some future date - it most definitely does not in anyway state that all land west of the Jordan was to be included in the new jewish homeland or that it was the arabs "share".

Indeed, the UN partition plan did not reflect jewish possession of all of land west of the Jordan. did they know something about their intentions that you do not?

 

If it wasn't for the Intifada, Israel would have NEVER made any offers to the Palestinians for their own state in West Bank. The Israelis would have just rolled all over Palestinoan human rights.

 

You underestimate the power of my country friend... it is the benevolent Israel attempt to make Peace with the opponents and this should not be considered weakness.
Israel could have rolled over the Arabs and completely annihilated them for their savageries... and then you would have had the opportunity to call Jews by all kind of pejorative.

 

Yes, Israel could treat the Arabs like the Nazis treated the Jews. Some Neo-Zionists wish to do this.

 

The territory West of the river Jordan was conquered by the Jordanian Army led by British officers in 1947... they conquered Judea and Samaria, they also tried to annex it but not a single Arab country recognized this annexation, it was only Great Britain and Pakistan that recognized this illegal annexation (where was the UN then???) It was 19 years after in 1967 when Israel LIBERATED Judea and Samaria that this became an overwhelming problem.
Israel has more right than anyone else to that Land and would consider it disputed territory just to calm spirits down and sit at the table to discuss it... We liberated our Land from the Jordanian conquerors and not the so called Palestinians... and still most of you consider Israel the belligerent party.

 

Why do you say that the West Bank was "liberated" by Israel?

Most of the people who lived in the West Bank before 1948 were Arabs, not Jews.

 

Are you for real? Are you worth debating with? The multitude of Arabs in Israel are the best treated Arabs in comparison with the 21 Arab countries... they draw the same salaries as Jews for the same work, in addition to benefits (health and Pension)
>>>MOD EDIT: OFF TOPIC<<<.

 

Go check it out in a dictionary... Judea is the name of a Jewish kingdon, Samaria is Jewish.

ALL the Arabs in Israel are a 20% MINORITY... but in addition this is the Land of the Jews from time immemorial and even the sherif Hussein called it 'ARAD ABNA'A IHAL ASLYIN' reference to Jews. Also go check your Qur'an.

- - - Updated - - -

YOU ARE NOW ON IGNORE... adios.