Scrat wrote: I'd think he was in Israel. Granted most Israelis would love to live in peace with the Palasts there are just too many of his type still living and conditioning the next generation.
That is so funny. Of COURSE we want to live in peace! ALL of us! We want nothing more but it's not us that's the trouble makers!
I find it amazing that people can't see that!
Maybe it's because they start from part way along a path - a path that started by the declaration of war against us the day after our nation was formally recognized by the UN. Or maybe it's because they start after the first intifada that arafact created when he tried to get us to leave him and his mob to re-arm by pulling our security forces out from where they were at least providing us with some protection and that came to a stop with the Oslo accord which he then ignored and even rejected (despite having agreed to) almost before the ink was dry, or maybe the second 'intifada' that arafat created when things were getting too quiet for his agenda and only see the fighting that resulted.
As for too many of my ‘type’, if there were NOT my ‘type’ there would probably by now also be no Israel. My ‘type’ have a continuing and a vital role to play. We have been fulfilling it for hundreds if not thousands of years and we’re not going to stop now. My 'type' are in the world to stay. get used to it.
What's Going On?
What's Going On?
golem wrote: As for too many of my ‘type’, if there were NOT my ‘type’ there would probably by now also be no Israel. My ‘type’ have a continuing and a vital role to play. We have been fulfilling it for hundreds if not thousands of years and we’re not going to stop now. My 'type' are in the world to stay. get used to it.And it matters not a damn what gets broken in the process? When did European humanist philosophy evaporate from the Israeli viewpoint you present? Have you discovered that you can become Übermensch by breaking from once-treasured idealisms? Must we all now say, as was said at one time in Israel, "Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint"?
Throughout this thread I've tried to stand back and see paths of compromise, ways in which both sides can give up an aspect of their ideal desire in exchange for a means of peaceful and productive coexistence. I see no corresponding willingness on your part. I believe you need to re-evaluate your priorities, golem, rather than strutting proudly in your extremist presentation of superiority over others.
Throughout this thread I've tried to stand back and see paths of compromise, ways in which both sides can give up an aspect of their ideal desire in exchange for a means of peaceful and productive coexistence. I see no corresponding willingness on your part. I believe you need to re-evaluate your priorities, golem, rather than strutting proudly in your extremist presentation of superiority over others.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote:
And it matters not a damn what gets broken in the process? When did European humanist philosophy evaporate from the Israeli viewpoint you present? Have you discovered that you can become Ãœbermensch by breaking from once-treasured idealisms? Must we all now say, as was said at one time in Israel, "Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint"?
Ah! Godwin’s law demonstrated once again!
Never mind.
But what once treasured idealisms? If you refer to our tradition of respect for ‘strangers’ ( “You shall love the stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.†- Ex 22:20) or that despite all the bad press we really are a generous people, then no, that is something that has not changed and will not change. The Oslo accord and our continued attempts to reach a peaceful co-existence with the palests bears witness to that.
However there’s a VERY much treasured ideal and that is not to stand back and let someone repeatedly hit you, especially someone sworn to achieve your destruction!
spot wrote: Throughout this thread I've tried to stand back and see paths of compromise, ways in which both sides can give up an aspect of their ideal desire in exchange for a means of peaceful and productive coexistence. I see no corresponding willingness on your part. I believe you need to re-evaluate your priorities, golem, rather than strutting proudly in your extremist presentation of superiority over others.
But how much more compromise can we make? How many more things can we offer to do? And how can compromise be made with one party sworn to achieve your destruction and continue to deny you the right to even exist as a nation? A party to whom compromise is the same as defeat?
Get real.
This is not a matter of superiority over others, this is a matter of trying to get through to the blinkered ignorant or the bigoted prejudiced who perceive by error or by desire something that is actually poles away from reality just what IS REALLY going down, and to present to those who really do want to know what’s taking place and why it is taking place the REA: facts and not the spin from the palests and their apologists and supporters.
There’s another factor to always consider when dealing with islam and its followers. Islam is (as far as I know) the ONLY religion that not only recommends lying but under circumstances directs that lies should be told ad if needed I can dig out the actual sources where it is written as such.
That, and spin put on words and phrases by unspecified inference can make words such as ‘achieve peace’ and ‘for peaceful use’ have an entirely different meaning from what they seem to mean to a non-moslem.
And it matters not a damn what gets broken in the process? When did European humanist philosophy evaporate from the Israeli viewpoint you present? Have you discovered that you can become Ãœbermensch by breaking from once-treasured idealisms? Must we all now say, as was said at one time in Israel, "Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint"?
Ah! Godwin’s law demonstrated once again!
Never mind.
But what once treasured idealisms? If you refer to our tradition of respect for ‘strangers’ ( “You shall love the stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.†- Ex 22:20) or that despite all the bad press we really are a generous people, then no, that is something that has not changed and will not change. The Oslo accord and our continued attempts to reach a peaceful co-existence with the palests bears witness to that.
However there’s a VERY much treasured ideal and that is not to stand back and let someone repeatedly hit you, especially someone sworn to achieve your destruction!
spot wrote: Throughout this thread I've tried to stand back and see paths of compromise, ways in which both sides can give up an aspect of their ideal desire in exchange for a means of peaceful and productive coexistence. I see no corresponding willingness on your part. I believe you need to re-evaluate your priorities, golem, rather than strutting proudly in your extremist presentation of superiority over others.
But how much more compromise can we make? How many more things can we offer to do? And how can compromise be made with one party sworn to achieve your destruction and continue to deny you the right to even exist as a nation? A party to whom compromise is the same as defeat?
Get real.
This is not a matter of superiority over others, this is a matter of trying to get through to the blinkered ignorant or the bigoted prejudiced who perceive by error or by desire something that is actually poles away from reality just what IS REALLY going down, and to present to those who really do want to know what’s taking place and why it is taking place the REA: facts and not the spin from the palests and their apologists and supporters.
There’s another factor to always consider when dealing with islam and its followers. Islam is (as far as I know) the ONLY religion that not only recommends lying but under circumstances directs that lies should be told ad if needed I can dig out the actual sources where it is written as such.
That, and spin put on words and phrases by unspecified inference can make words such as ‘achieve peace’ and ‘for peaceful use’ have an entirely different meaning from what they seem to mean to a non-moslem.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Ah! Godwin’s law demonstrated once again!Not at all. It's a relevant quote showing a similar approach to your own, from "About The Soft And The Delicate" in which Israeli writer Amos 0z quotes a monologue by another such Israeli (whom he reasonably leaves unidentified), and published in the US by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in 1983. The full context is:
"As far as l'm concerned, you can call the State of Israel by any pejorative you like. Call it Judeo-Nazi, the way Professor Leibowitz did. Why not? How does the saying go – "Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint"? Me, I don't mind being Qaddafi. l'm not looking to the gentiles for admiration and I don't need their love. But I don't need it from your kind of Jew, either. I want to survive. And my intention happens to be that my children will survive, too. With or without the blessing of the Pope and assorted Torah sages from the New York Times. If anyone raises a hand against my children, I'll destroy him – and his children – with or without your vaunted 'purity of arms.' And I don't give a damn if he's a Christian or a Moslem or a Jew or a pagan. Throughout history, anyone who thought he was above killing got killed. It's an iron-clad law.
"Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz immigrated to Israel in 1935, joined the faculty of Hebrew University and taught chemistry, physiology, and history and philosophy of science. He authored many books and articles, lectured publicly, and was an editor of several volumes of the Encyclopedia Hebraica. He laboured publicly against government corruption and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Following the Six Day War, he objected staunchly to retaining any Arab territory, arguing that occupation morally destroys the conqueror." The reference in the foregoing passage is to this expression of concern at events in 1982:
The big crisis of the Jewish people is that the overwhelming majority of the Jews genuinely desire to be Jewish -- but they have no content for their Judaism other than a piece of colored rag attached to the end of a pole and a military uniform. The consciousness and the desire to be Jewish did not vanish, rather they are transformed today into a Judeo-Nazi mentality.(I think "content" in the above quote from Yediot Aharonot, February 13, 1983 is a misprint for "context", but obviously I've no way of finding that out.)
"As far as l'm concerned, you can call the State of Israel by any pejorative you like. Call it Judeo-Nazi, the way Professor Leibowitz did. Why not? How does the saying go – "Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint"? Me, I don't mind being Qaddafi. l'm not looking to the gentiles for admiration and I don't need their love. But I don't need it from your kind of Jew, either. I want to survive. And my intention happens to be that my children will survive, too. With or without the blessing of the Pope and assorted Torah sages from the New York Times. If anyone raises a hand against my children, I'll destroy him – and his children – with or without your vaunted 'purity of arms.' And I don't give a damn if he's a Christian or a Moslem or a Jew or a pagan. Throughout history, anyone who thought he was above killing got killed. It's an iron-clad law.
"Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz immigrated to Israel in 1935, joined the faculty of Hebrew University and taught chemistry, physiology, and history and philosophy of science. He authored many books and articles, lectured publicly, and was an editor of several volumes of the Encyclopedia Hebraica. He laboured publicly against government corruption and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Following the Six Day War, he objected staunchly to retaining any Arab territory, arguing that occupation morally destroys the conqueror." The reference in the foregoing passage is to this expression of concern at events in 1982:
The big crisis of the Jewish people is that the overwhelming majority of the Jews genuinely desire to be Jewish -- but they have no content for their Judaism other than a piece of colored rag attached to the end of a pole and a military uniform. The consciousness and the desire to be Jewish did not vanish, rather they are transformed today into a Judeo-Nazi mentality.(I think "content" in the above quote from Yediot Aharonot, February 13, 1983 is a misprint for "context", but obviously I've no way of finding that out.)
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: Not at all. It's a relevant quote showing a similar approach to your own, from "About The Soft And The Delicate" in which Israeli writer Amos 0z quotes a monologue by another such Israeli (whom he reasonably leaves unidentified), and published in the US by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in 1983. The full context is:
"Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz immigrated to Israel in 1935, joined the faculty of Hebrew University and taught chemistry, physiology, and history and philosophy of science. He authored many books and articles, lectured publicly, and was an editor of several volumes of the Encyclopedia Hebraica. He laboured publicly against government corruption and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Following the Six Day War, he objected staunchly to retaining any Arab territory, arguing that occupation morally destroys the conqueror." The reference in the foregoing passage is to this expression of concern at events in 1982:
(I think "content" in the above quote from Yediot Aharonot, February 13, 1983 is a misprint for "context", but obviously I've no way of finding that out.)
So what? Simply people expressing an opinion. There are FAR more of us who rightly hold a very different opinion, one vased on common sense and experience.
There are some people in all societies who do not hold with what their society generally does. It’s the same in the US, it’s the same in the UK, it’s the same everywhere.
Thankfully there are even some muslims who don’t hold with the general views and actions of islamic terrorists or the overall declared aims of islam.
Just as it’s always possible to dig up impractical ivory tower dwelling fools such as you present it’s also possible to dig up those with equally extreme and stupid opinions that include going on an all out war on the palests and cleansing the whole lot out of the region.
In both cases the end result would be a disaster for Israel.
Thankfully wiser heads rule and people who subscribe to both such idiotic foolish viewpoints are kept at bay.
"Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz immigrated to Israel in 1935, joined the faculty of Hebrew University and taught chemistry, physiology, and history and philosophy of science. He authored many books and articles, lectured publicly, and was an editor of several volumes of the Encyclopedia Hebraica. He laboured publicly against government corruption and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Following the Six Day War, he objected staunchly to retaining any Arab territory, arguing that occupation morally destroys the conqueror." The reference in the foregoing passage is to this expression of concern at events in 1982:
(I think "content" in the above quote from Yediot Aharonot, February 13, 1983 is a misprint for "context", but obviously I've no way of finding that out.)
So what? Simply people expressing an opinion. There are FAR more of us who rightly hold a very different opinion, one vased on common sense and experience.
There are some people in all societies who do not hold with what their society generally does. It’s the same in the US, it’s the same in the UK, it’s the same everywhere.
Thankfully there are even some muslims who don’t hold with the general views and actions of islamic terrorists or the overall declared aims of islam.
Just as it’s always possible to dig up impractical ivory tower dwelling fools such as you present it’s also possible to dig up those with equally extreme and stupid opinions that include going on an all out war on the palests and cleansing the whole lot out of the region.
In both cases the end result would be a disaster for Israel.
Thankfully wiser heads rule and people who subscribe to both such idiotic foolish viewpoints are kept at bay.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: So what? Simply people expressing an opinion. There are FAR more of us who rightly hold a very different opinion, one vased on common sense and experience.I doubt that you are correct. I suspect that the position I advance here is a majority opinion. You come over, to me, as a provocateur willfully playing with the topic rather than as someone with any desire to seek out centrist overlap. It's a pity that you prefer the pleasure of spitting out frothed intransigence instead of exploring new ground.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: I doubt that you are correct. I suspect that the position I advance here is a majority opinion. You come over, to me, as a provocateur willfully playing with the topic rather than as someone with any desire to seek out centrist overlap. It's a pity that you prefer the pleasure of spitting out frothed intransigence instead of exploring new ground.
Centrist overlap?
With a situation where one side is dedicated to the utter destruction of the other?
Because that is what the reality is on the ground and in spite of the glimmer of hope after the too late and much unlamented death of arafat that is where things have returned to with the election of hammas.
How is it possible to negotiate a peaceful coexistence without a partner with a similar aim, one not only without a similar aim but a sworn declaration for our total destruction.
Get real.
And ‘new ground’. What new ground is possible?
Maybe how about Israel being dismantled as a nation and the Jewish people leave?
That’s all that would satisfy the majority of the palests.
How about pulling our settlements out and trying to get the palests to adopt a less confrontational position and accepting our right to exist as a nation? Oh sorry – been tried, they didn’t want that. It wasn’t enough. We would still be here.
How about trying to work with them? Been tried, they send in the homicide bombers.
Maybe how about building a damned big fence to separate them from us so that they can’t send in the homicide bombers? Maybe even give time for wounds on BOTH sides to heal so that progress might be made some time in the future? Oh no – seen as identifying a border so ‘legitimizing’ Israel in their eyes. THAT won't do.
Intransigence? How much MORE accommodating can we try to be short of rolling on our backs and waiting for the sword? :wah:
Look, Israel is a nation. It is a country. It is faced with a territory as a neighbour that is filled with a majority of people who want our destruction as a matter of face and faith. Today we have troops in those territories trying to keep the population from banding together and attacking us.
You doubt it would happen? Look at what has taken place in the Gaza Strip since we pulled out.
So taking that into account what solution would YOU propose that left Israel intact and secure as a nation and with neighbors no longer dedicated to and continually engaged in attempting our destruction?
Centrist overlap?
With a situation where one side is dedicated to the utter destruction of the other?
Because that is what the reality is on the ground and in spite of the glimmer of hope after the too late and much unlamented death of arafat that is where things have returned to with the election of hammas.
How is it possible to negotiate a peaceful coexistence without a partner with a similar aim, one not only without a similar aim but a sworn declaration for our total destruction.
Get real.
And ‘new ground’. What new ground is possible?
Maybe how about Israel being dismantled as a nation and the Jewish people leave?
That’s all that would satisfy the majority of the palests.
How about pulling our settlements out and trying to get the palests to adopt a less confrontational position and accepting our right to exist as a nation? Oh sorry – been tried, they didn’t want that. It wasn’t enough. We would still be here.
How about trying to work with them? Been tried, they send in the homicide bombers.
Maybe how about building a damned big fence to separate them from us so that they can’t send in the homicide bombers? Maybe even give time for wounds on BOTH sides to heal so that progress might be made some time in the future? Oh no – seen as identifying a border so ‘legitimizing’ Israel in their eyes. THAT won't do.
Intransigence? How much MORE accommodating can we try to be short of rolling on our backs and waiting for the sword? :wah:
Look, Israel is a nation. It is a country. It is faced with a territory as a neighbour that is filled with a majority of people who want our destruction as a matter of face and faith. Today we have troops in those territories trying to keep the population from banding together and attacking us.
You doubt it would happen? Look at what has taken place in the Gaza Strip since we pulled out.
So taking that into account what solution would YOU propose that left Israel intact and secure as a nation and with neighbors no longer dedicated to and continually engaged in attempting our destruction?
What's Going On?
golem wrote: So taking that into account what solution would YOU propose that left Israel intact and secure as a nation and with neighbors no longer dedicated to and continually engaged in attempting our destruction?A negotiated Federation of equals. I've explained earlier why two separate nations won't fly if foreign policy is never to be an option to one party.
I recall engaging an equally intransigent bigot on Usenet, back before the Hume-Adams talks, a one-time Ulster Defence Association volunteer who boasted a youth spent egging on the Unionist cause by painting "No Surrender Here" on sectarian partition walls across Belfast. Any suggestion that peace might one day emerge in his native land was enough for him to engage autopilot and hurl abuse. It was as though negotiation would bring an end to something he treasured.
I recall engaging an equally intransigent bigot on Usenet, back before the Hume-Adams talks, a one-time Ulster Defence Association volunteer who boasted a youth spent egging on the Unionist cause by painting "No Surrender Here" on sectarian partition walls across Belfast. Any suggestion that peace might one day emerge in his native land was enough for him to engage autopilot and hurl abuse. It was as though negotiation would bring an end to something he treasured.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: A negotiated Federation of equals. I've explained earlier why two separate nations won't fly if foreign policy is never to be an option to one party.
But what is this ‘federation’ that you propose? What does it consist of?
Certainly a federation between Israel and the territories is a non-starter as that would amount to a federation of a sovereign nation and territories that some day will probably be a sovereign nation in their own right, neother of whom want to form a federation. A form of commonwealth - that's a different matter, but a federation? No. There's insufficient common ground and always will be.
I think that you are trying to re-define reality in order to come up with an answer.
Firstly The reality is that apart from anything else the palests simply do not want Israel to exist. That has been reinforced by the election of hammas.
Secondly you are totally ignoring islam as under islam an area once captured by islam becomes a sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’.
So sorry, Spot, your bird won’t fly.
spot wrote: I recall engaging an equally intransigent bigot on Usenet, back before the Hume-Adams talks, a one-time Ulster Defence Association volunteer who boasted a youth spent egging on the Unionist cause by painting "No Surrender Here" on sectarian partition walls across Belfast. Any suggestion that peace might one day emerge in his native land was enough for him to engage autopilot and hurl abuse. It was as though negotiation would bring an end to something he treasured.0……0.
Peace in Ulster? The peace in Ulster, if there really IS peace and not simply a cessation on an ongoing war, is the effective surrender by Blair to the IRA of a part of the United Kingdom to a foreign power - Eire.
What’s more the comparison with the Ulster case is different. There is no desire by the people of Eire to drive the protestants from their land and into the sea. Eire is about territory and politics, not genocide which is the driving force behind the palests.
No. Ulster is not a good comparison.
But what is this ‘federation’ that you propose? What does it consist of?
Certainly a federation between Israel and the territories is a non-starter as that would amount to a federation of a sovereign nation and territories that some day will probably be a sovereign nation in their own right, neother of whom want to form a federation. A form of commonwealth - that's a different matter, but a federation? No. There's insufficient common ground and always will be.
I think that you are trying to re-define reality in order to come up with an answer.
Firstly The reality is that apart from anything else the palests simply do not want Israel to exist. That has been reinforced by the election of hammas.
Secondly you are totally ignoring islam as under islam an area once captured by islam becomes a sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’.
So sorry, Spot, your bird won’t fly.
spot wrote: I recall engaging an equally intransigent bigot on Usenet, back before the Hume-Adams talks, a one-time Ulster Defence Association volunteer who boasted a youth spent egging on the Unionist cause by painting "No Surrender Here" on sectarian partition walls across Belfast. Any suggestion that peace might one day emerge in his native land was enough for him to engage autopilot and hurl abuse. It was as though negotiation would bring an end to something he treasured.0……0.
Peace in Ulster? The peace in Ulster, if there really IS peace and not simply a cessation on an ongoing war, is the effective surrender by Blair to the IRA of a part of the United Kingdom to a foreign power - Eire.
What’s more the comparison with the Ulster case is different. There is no desire by the people of Eire to drive the protestants from their land and into the sea. Eire is about territory and politics, not genocide which is the driving force behind the palests.
No. Ulster is not a good comparison.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: But what is this ‘federation’ that you propose? What does it consist of?Ah. Finally. Light at the end of the tunnel. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=87 refers. Go back and read it. Twice, perhaps.
golem wrote: Certainly a federation between Israel and the territories is a non-starter as that would amount to a federation of a sovereign nation and territories that some day will probably be a sovereign nation in their own right, neother of whom want to form a federation. A form of commonwealth - that's a different matter, but a federation? No. There's insufficient common ground and always will be.The question of several sovereign nations on the territory is a non-starter unless all have control of their respective foreign policies, which you've discounted. That's why the Federated States model is so applicable - it transfers such control to the federal level which speaks for the entire area, while leaving domestic and economic legislation within the sphere of the individual states' governments. What cannot stand is the notion that one subset of the entire area can dictate policy to those people who have no electoral say in the legislative body which controls that part of their lives.
golem wrote: Firstly The reality is that apart from anything else the palests simply do not want Israel to exist.Neither, of course, did the IRA want Ulster to exist, nor once it did were they content that it should continue to do so. Until negotiation found a compromise, common ground was established and disarmament of both sectarian factions achieved.
golem wrote: Secondly you are totally ignoring islam as under islam an area once captured by islam becomes a sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’.I must mention that to my Spanish friends, of whom I have none. And those Austrians, of course, against whose capital's walls Islamic armies once beat.
golem wrote: Peace in Ulster? The peace in Ulster, if there really IS peace and not simply a cessation on an ongoing war, is the effective surrender by Blair to the IRA of a part of the United Kingdom to a foreign power - Eire.Thank you golem. Your words do far more than I can to demonstrate your grasp on reality. Eire became a sovereign nation in 1923, if I remember right, since when the UK has never expressed any territorial demand for its return to the fold. You seriously think that Blair effectively surrendered the UK's aspiration to re-absorb Eire within its national boundary?
golem wrote: What’s more the comparison with the Ulster case is different. There is no desire by the people of Eire to drive the protestants from their land and into the sea.Perhaps you're unacquainted with the history of the area. There most certainly was such a desire, if "into the sea" is a euphemism for returning the Orangemen whence they came. Scotland, mostly, in this instance.
golem wrote: Certainly a federation between Israel and the territories is a non-starter as that would amount to a federation of a sovereign nation and territories that some day will probably be a sovereign nation in their own right, neother of whom want to form a federation. A form of commonwealth - that's a different matter, but a federation? No. There's insufficient common ground and always will be.The question of several sovereign nations on the territory is a non-starter unless all have control of their respective foreign policies, which you've discounted. That's why the Federated States model is so applicable - it transfers such control to the federal level which speaks for the entire area, while leaving domestic and economic legislation within the sphere of the individual states' governments. What cannot stand is the notion that one subset of the entire area can dictate policy to those people who have no electoral say in the legislative body which controls that part of their lives.
golem wrote: Firstly The reality is that apart from anything else the palests simply do not want Israel to exist.Neither, of course, did the IRA want Ulster to exist, nor once it did were they content that it should continue to do so. Until negotiation found a compromise, common ground was established and disarmament of both sectarian factions achieved.
golem wrote: Secondly you are totally ignoring islam as under islam an area once captured by islam becomes a sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’.I must mention that to my Spanish friends, of whom I have none. And those Austrians, of course, against whose capital's walls Islamic armies once beat.
golem wrote: Peace in Ulster? The peace in Ulster, if there really IS peace and not simply a cessation on an ongoing war, is the effective surrender by Blair to the IRA of a part of the United Kingdom to a foreign power - Eire.Thank you golem. Your words do far more than I can to demonstrate your grasp on reality. Eire became a sovereign nation in 1923, if I remember right, since when the UK has never expressed any territorial demand for its return to the fold. You seriously think that Blair effectively surrendered the UK's aspiration to re-absorb Eire within its national boundary?
golem wrote: What’s more the comparison with the Ulster case is different. There is no desire by the people of Eire to drive the protestants from their land and into the sea.Perhaps you're unacquainted with the history of the area. There most certainly was such a desire, if "into the sea" is a euphemism for returning the Orangemen whence they came. Scotland, mostly, in this instance.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: That is so funny. Of COURSE we want to live in peace! ALL of us! We want nothing more but it's not us that's the trouble makers!
No, you want peace your way – no compromise no toleration of other's needs
golem wrote: I find it amazing that people can't see that!
I find it amazing how little you are prepared to see
golem wrote: Maybe it's because they start from part way along a path - a path that started by the declaration of war against us the day after our nation was formally recognized by the UN. Or maybe it's because they start after the first intifada that arafact created when he tried to get us to leave him and his mob to re-arm by pulling our security forces out from where they were at least providing us with some protection and that came to a stop with the Oslo accord which he then ignored and even rejected (despite having agreed to) almost before the ink was dry, or maybe the second 'intifada' that arafat created when things were getting too quiet for his agenda and only see the fighting that resulted.
That's the third or fourth time you've used the Oslo accords as an example of Arafat "going back on his word".
Might I give a quote?
Both sides see the lack of full compliance with agreements reached since the opening of the peace process as evidence of a lack of good faith. This conclusion led to an erosion of trust even before the permanent status negotiations began.
Divergent Perspectives: During the last seven months, these views have hardened into divergent realities. Each side views the other as having acted in bad faith; as having turned the optimism of Oslo into suffering and grief of victims and their loved ones. In their statements and actions, each side demonstrates a perspective that fails to recognize any truth in the perspective of the other.
This from a report be Senator George Mitchell
You seem to have a favourite saying, “GET REALâ€. Might I suggest that you “GET REAL†and recognise that the world is not the stark, black and white place that you see and that there’s antagonism and fault on both sides?
And as for your example of the wall (post #107) – maybe it would have been accepted if it had stuck to the internationally accepted line of demarcation, but having such a blatant land grab built into it, I don’t think anyone is surprised that it raising international objection, never mind objections from the Palestinians.
No, you want peace your way – no compromise no toleration of other's needs
golem wrote: I find it amazing that people can't see that!
I find it amazing how little you are prepared to see
golem wrote: Maybe it's because they start from part way along a path - a path that started by the declaration of war against us the day after our nation was formally recognized by the UN. Or maybe it's because they start after the first intifada that arafact created when he tried to get us to leave him and his mob to re-arm by pulling our security forces out from where they were at least providing us with some protection and that came to a stop with the Oslo accord which he then ignored and even rejected (despite having agreed to) almost before the ink was dry, or maybe the second 'intifada' that arafat created when things were getting too quiet for his agenda and only see the fighting that resulted.
That's the third or fourth time you've used the Oslo accords as an example of Arafat "going back on his word".
Might I give a quote?
Both sides see the lack of full compliance with agreements reached since the opening of the peace process as evidence of a lack of good faith. This conclusion led to an erosion of trust even before the permanent status negotiations began.
Divergent Perspectives: During the last seven months, these views have hardened into divergent realities. Each side views the other as having acted in bad faith; as having turned the optimism of Oslo into suffering and grief of victims and their loved ones. In their statements and actions, each side demonstrates a perspective that fails to recognize any truth in the perspective of the other.
This from a report be Senator George Mitchell
You seem to have a favourite saying, “GET REALâ€. Might I suggest that you “GET REAL†and recognise that the world is not the stark, black and white place that you see and that there’s antagonism and fault on both sides?
And as for your example of the wall (post #107) – maybe it would have been accepted if it had stuck to the internationally accepted line of demarcation, but having such a blatant land grab built into it, I don’t think anyone is surprised that it raising international objection, never mind objections from the Palestinians.
What's Going On?
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
But what is this ‘federation’ that you propose? What does it consist of?
Ah. Finally. Light at the end of the tunnel.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=87 refers. Go back and read it. Twice, perhaps.
I did ad I have re-read it, but didn’t think that you were being serious as the proposition simply doesn’t align with either the reality as it is where there is NOT a single territory nor with the wishes of a sovereign nation people – i.e. US nor with the wishes of the palests. Your solution is based on a false premise therefore it is no solution.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Certainly a federation between Israel and the territories is a non-starter as that would amount to a federation of a sovereign nation and territories that some day will probably be a sovereign nation in their own right, neother of whom want to form a federation. A form of commonwealth - that's a different matter, but a federation? No. There's insufficient common ground and always will be.
The question of several sovereign nations on the territory is a non-starter unless all have control of their respective foreign policies, which you've discounted. That's why the Federated States model is so applicable - it transfers such control to the federal level which speaks for the entire area, while leaving domestic and economic legislation within the sphere of the individual states' governments. What cannot stand is the notion that one subset of the entire area can dictate policy to those people who have no electoral say in the legislative body which controls that part of their lives.
But again with ‘the territory’ as if it is a single entity.
IT ISN’T.
Israel is a single entity. It’s a nation. It’s a sovereign state. Then there are other places. TWO territories are involved (note the absence of the capitalisation of the 't')
And why SHOULD we give up our national identity?
Israel is a nation. We are satisfied with that. End of story.
If the palests ever stop behaving in the manner that they do by accepting that Israel does have a right to exist within secure borders then things can move on and they may be allowed to become a nation within their own secure borders providing that they would no longer be a threat as a result if treaties that they, as a nation, established with other states having vested interests in the destruction of Israel.
In any case, if the palests stopped interfering in the lives of the Israeli people by bombing and otherwise attacking US there would be no NEED for any ‘interference’.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Firstly The reality is that apart from anything else the palests simply do not want Israel to exist.
Neither, of course, did the IRA want Ulster to exist, nor once it did were they content that it should continue to do so. Until negotiation found a compromise, common ground was established and disarmament of both sectarian factions achieved.
The situation in Ireland where Blair has in effect surrendered the British people of Ulster to Eire by the setting up of a ‘Road Map’ that will inexorably lead to that situation existing is not a valid model with which to compare the situation in The Middle East.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Secondly you are totally ignoring islam as under islam an area once captured by islam becomes a sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’.
I must mention that to my Spanish friends, of whom I have none. And those Austrians, of course, against whose capital's walls Islamic armies once beat.
I have no doubt that if this conflict between the islamic empire and the ROW was not focused on Israel as the point of greatest hurt then it would be taking place elsewhere. The situation in Europe and especially the UK is already clearly showing the effectiveness of islamic invasion by immigration.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Peace in Ulster? The peace in Ulster, if there really IS peace and not simply a cessation on an ongoing war, is the effective surrender by Blair to the IRA of a part of the United Kingdom to a foreign power - Eire.
Thank you golem. Your words do far more than I can to demonstrate your grasp on reality. Eire became a sovereign nation in 1923, if I remember right, since when the UK has never expressed any territorial demand for its return to the fold. You seriously think that Blair effectively surrendered the UK's aspiration to re-absorb Eire within its national boundary?
And you have failed to understand that Eire is one of two countries on the island of Ireland. One, Eire, did achieve independence, the other, Northern Ireland comprising of what little was left of Ulster, remained a part of Great Britain. Blair has effectively surrendered a part of GB to a foreign power by agreeing to power sharing as that will inevitably lead to full government by Eire and that is a well recognized fact.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
What’s more the comparison with the Ulster case is different. There is no desire by the people of Eire to drive the protestants from their land and into the sea.
Perhaps you're unacquainted with the history of the area. There most certainly was such a desire, if "into the sea" is a euphemism for returning the Orangemen whence they came. Scotland, mostly, in this instance.
Only an euphemism in so far as so long as we were killed or evicted wouldn’t matter just so long as the end result was achieved.
That was not the situation with the Ulster conflict, nor will the likley outcome of the recent surrender by Blair see mass murder of the former Brits in what was a part of GB by people from Eire hence once again Ulater is NOT an appropriate comparison.
Originally Posted by golem
But what is this ‘federation’ that you propose? What does it consist of?
Ah. Finally. Light at the end of the tunnel.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=87 refers. Go back and read it. Twice, perhaps.
I did ad I have re-read it, but didn’t think that you were being serious as the proposition simply doesn’t align with either the reality as it is where there is NOT a single territory nor with the wishes of a sovereign nation people – i.e. US nor with the wishes of the palests. Your solution is based on a false premise therefore it is no solution.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Certainly a federation between Israel and the territories is a non-starter as that would amount to a federation of a sovereign nation and territories that some day will probably be a sovereign nation in their own right, neother of whom want to form a federation. A form of commonwealth - that's a different matter, but a federation? No. There's insufficient common ground and always will be.
The question of several sovereign nations on the territory is a non-starter unless all have control of their respective foreign policies, which you've discounted. That's why the Federated States model is so applicable - it transfers such control to the federal level which speaks for the entire area, while leaving domestic and economic legislation within the sphere of the individual states' governments. What cannot stand is the notion that one subset of the entire area can dictate policy to those people who have no electoral say in the legislative body which controls that part of their lives.
But again with ‘the territory’ as if it is a single entity.
IT ISN’T.
Israel is a single entity. It’s a nation. It’s a sovereign state. Then there are other places. TWO territories are involved (note the absence of the capitalisation of the 't')
And why SHOULD we give up our national identity?
Israel is a nation. We are satisfied with that. End of story.
If the palests ever stop behaving in the manner that they do by accepting that Israel does have a right to exist within secure borders then things can move on and they may be allowed to become a nation within their own secure borders providing that they would no longer be a threat as a result if treaties that they, as a nation, established with other states having vested interests in the destruction of Israel.
In any case, if the palests stopped interfering in the lives of the Israeli people by bombing and otherwise attacking US there would be no NEED for any ‘interference’.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Firstly The reality is that apart from anything else the palests simply do not want Israel to exist.
Neither, of course, did the IRA want Ulster to exist, nor once it did were they content that it should continue to do so. Until negotiation found a compromise, common ground was established and disarmament of both sectarian factions achieved.
The situation in Ireland where Blair has in effect surrendered the British people of Ulster to Eire by the setting up of a ‘Road Map’ that will inexorably lead to that situation existing is not a valid model with which to compare the situation in The Middle East.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Secondly you are totally ignoring islam as under islam an area once captured by islam becomes a sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’.
I must mention that to my Spanish friends, of whom I have none. And those Austrians, of course, against whose capital's walls Islamic armies once beat.
I have no doubt that if this conflict between the islamic empire and the ROW was not focused on Israel as the point of greatest hurt then it would be taking place elsewhere. The situation in Europe and especially the UK is already clearly showing the effectiveness of islamic invasion by immigration.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Peace in Ulster? The peace in Ulster, if there really IS peace and not simply a cessation on an ongoing war, is the effective surrender by Blair to the IRA of a part of the United Kingdom to a foreign power - Eire.
Thank you golem. Your words do far more than I can to demonstrate your grasp on reality. Eire became a sovereign nation in 1923, if I remember right, since when the UK has never expressed any territorial demand for its return to the fold. You seriously think that Blair effectively surrendered the UK's aspiration to re-absorb Eire within its national boundary?
And you have failed to understand that Eire is one of two countries on the island of Ireland. One, Eire, did achieve independence, the other, Northern Ireland comprising of what little was left of Ulster, remained a part of Great Britain. Blair has effectively surrendered a part of GB to a foreign power by agreeing to power sharing as that will inevitably lead to full government by Eire and that is a well recognized fact.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
What’s more the comparison with the Ulster case is different. There is no desire by the people of Eire to drive the protestants from their land and into the sea.
Perhaps you're unacquainted with the history of the area. There most certainly was such a desire, if "into the sea" is a euphemism for returning the Orangemen whence they came. Scotland, mostly, in this instance.
Only an euphemism in so far as so long as we were killed or evicted wouldn’t matter just so long as the end result was achieved.
That was not the situation with the Ulster conflict, nor will the likley outcome of the recent surrender by Blair see mass murder of the former Brits in what was a part of GB by people from Eire hence once again Ulater is NOT an appropriate comparison.
What's Going On?
Bryn Mawr wrote: No, you want peace your way – no compromise no toleration of other's needs
As long as the needs of the palests include our decimation too damm right. :wah:
Bryn Mawr wrote: And as for your example of the wall (post #107) – maybe it would have been accepted if it had stuck to the internationally accepted line of demarcation, but having such a blatant land grab built into it, I don’t think anyone is surprised that it raising international objection, never mind objections from the Palestinians.
The security barrier was not and is not intended as a declaration of the borders of Israel. Had that actually been the case then no courts in Israel would have even heard appeals for movement let alone have ordered such movement and nor would it have taken place.
The really big-time objection to our security fence and our policy of disengagement and dismantling of settlements is that they loose the option of negotiation over anything and effectively are being told “you had your chances time and time again. You failed to cooperate and reach a peaceful accord with us. You’re now on your ownâ€. Keep out of our country.
I like the use of the term ‘cordon santitare’ in this. It sums the situation up rather well.
As long as the needs of the palests include our decimation too damm right. :wah:
Bryn Mawr wrote: And as for your example of the wall (post #107) – maybe it would have been accepted if it had stuck to the internationally accepted line of demarcation, but having such a blatant land grab built into it, I don’t think anyone is surprised that it raising international objection, never mind objections from the Palestinians.
The security barrier was not and is not intended as a declaration of the borders of Israel. Had that actually been the case then no courts in Israel would have even heard appeals for movement let alone have ordered such movement and nor would it have taken place.
The really big-time objection to our security fence and our policy of disengagement and dismantling of settlements is that they loose the option of negotiation over anything and effectively are being told “you had your chances time and time again. You failed to cooperate and reach a peaceful accord with us. You’re now on your ownâ€. Keep out of our country.
I like the use of the term ‘cordon santitare’ in this. It sums the situation up rather well.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: I did ad I have re-read it, but didn’t think that you were being serious as the proposition simply doesn’t align with either the reality as it is where there is NOT a single territoryNow you're just redefining terms - if you don't like to use "Territory" in the sense I defined it, then by all means suggest a different word and we'll use that. To reject debate because I use or propose words and then find you use them differently is deflection rather than engagement. We can call that "single piece of land, bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Red Sea" the Island, rather than the Territory, if you prefer, at which point it's a single Island. Or a single Park, or a single Arcade, or a single Mall, or a single Gulch. You nominate a term that allows us to refer to that space of the planet, and we can make progress. Tripping over a label is quite often half the battle. Labelling things with words we can both use is essential if we're to discuss the things labelled, and I regard it as positive that we're finally entering that phase of negotiation in this thread.
To close off the section on Eire, I merely note that wherever you've used "inexorably", "inevitably" and "surrender", I disagree with your premise and I shall watch the news with interest. To close off the section on Islamic imperial expansion, I note that your insistence that "sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’" relates to issues over 500 years old, and that no retaking by any means has yet been attempted. Asimov's "Foundation" may plan in aeons, but I don't think anyone in the second millenium CE did.
golem wrote: The really big-time objection to our security fence and our policy of disengagement and dismantling of settlements is that they loose the option of negotiation over anythingI'm sure people would mind the Security Wall less but for two crucial aspects. If it separated the State of Israel from the some portion of the rest of the world to protect Israeli land, people would mind less, but that's not what it does. If it were even built on land occupied by Israelis, to protect Israeli citizens in the settlements on the West Bank, people would mind less, but that's not where it is either. There's a map of where the Wall's situated at http://www.jmcc.org/images/maps/wall.pdf from which you can see that the Israeli border isn't protected by the Security Wall at all. What's protected are the majority of the Israeli West Bank settlements. What you can't see from the small-scale map is that the Wall's constructed beyond the settlement boundaries, on land still (until construction) occupied by Palestinians. It's a further incursion additional to the settlements themselves, taking yet more West Bank territory than had been built on already.
For anyone who wonders whether "fence" is truly an more appropriate term than "wall", the photos by my fellow-Bristolian Banksy at http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/06.5.html might help settle their mind.
To close off the section on Eire, I merely note that wherever you've used "inexorably", "inevitably" and "surrender", I disagree with your premise and I shall watch the news with interest. To close off the section on Islamic imperial expansion, I note that your insistence that "sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’" relates to issues over 500 years old, and that no retaking by any means has yet been attempted. Asimov's "Foundation" may plan in aeons, but I don't think anyone in the second millenium CE did.
golem wrote: The really big-time objection to our security fence and our policy of disengagement and dismantling of settlements is that they loose the option of negotiation over anythingI'm sure people would mind the Security Wall less but for two crucial aspects. If it separated the State of Israel from the some portion of the rest of the world to protect Israeli land, people would mind less, but that's not what it does. If it were even built on land occupied by Israelis, to protect Israeli citizens in the settlements on the West Bank, people would mind less, but that's not where it is either. There's a map of where the Wall's situated at http://www.jmcc.org/images/maps/wall.pdf from which you can see that the Israeli border isn't protected by the Security Wall at all. What's protected are the majority of the Israeli West Bank settlements. What you can't see from the small-scale map is that the Wall's constructed beyond the settlement boundaries, on land still (until construction) occupied by Palestinians. It's a further incursion additional to the settlements themselves, taking yet more West Bank territory than had been built on already.
For anyone who wonders whether "fence" is truly an more appropriate term than "wall", the photos by my fellow-Bristolian Banksy at http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/06.5.html might help settle their mind.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: Quote:
Originally Posted by golem
I did ad I have re-read it, but didn’t think that you were being serious as the proposition simply doesn’t align with either the reality as it is where there is NOT a single territory
Now you're just redefining terms - if you don't like to use "Territory" in the sense I defined it, then by all means suggest a different word and we'll use that. To reject debate because I use or propose words and then find you use them differently is deflection rather than engagement. We can call that "single piece of land, bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Red Sea" the Island, rather than the Territory, if you prefer, at which point it's a single Island. Or a single Park, or a single Arcade, or a single Mall, or a single Gulch. You nominate a term that allows us to refer to that space of the planet, and we can make progress. Tripping over a label is quite often half the battle. Labelling things with words we can both use is essential if we're to discuss the things labelled, and I regard it as positive that we're finally entering that phase of negotiation in this thread.
OK – let’s call it The Region. I’m NOT simply redefining terms as I am sure you realise, I’m making a very important point, but nonetheless let's go with it.
The region comprises of an area of land that was the area that was mandated to GB on the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire.
That region, the totality of which, was originally intended as modern day Eretz Yisrael but which by the machinations of the British was partitioned to form the Arab nation, (Trans) Jordan, and the remainder that was to be Israel.
Time moved on and the remainder of what was to have been OUR land was further partitioned into Israel as per the 1948 UN declaration and the remainder that was to be for the non-aligned arab tribes.
So there we have it. Within the region there are THREE territories and NOT one, with Israel and Jordan as independent sovereign states and nations, and thirdly territories that are occupied by a rag tag bunch of arabs who got caught up in the war but have now been generally (wrongly) called the palestsinians.
Israel is independent, Jordan is independent, the palests could be if they were to behave in a civilised manner and accept that Israel IS independent, HAS a right to exist, and stopped trying to destroy us.
spot wrote: To close off the section on Eire, I merely note that wherever you've used "inexorably", "inevitably" and "surrender", I disagree with your premise and I shall watch the news with interest.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens in the future. I suspect that realisation of the true effect of membership of the EU and the implications of the loss of real national identity and true independence strike home there will be a sad acceptance of what is now beyond change as all European states will find themselves part of what will soon be Eurabia and being ruled from Brussels with their present national parliaments reduced to little more than glorified councils or more likely (and in keeping with EU parlance) Regional Assemblies.
spot wrote: To close off the section on Islamic imperial expansion, I note that your insistence that "sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’" relates to issues over 500 years old, and that no retaking by any means has yet been attempted. Asimov's "Foundation" may plan in aeons, but I don't think anyone in the second millenium CE did.
Not my insistence! It’s all there in chapter and verse if you care to look into islam in any depth. It also forms part of the hammas charter.
Like everything else in islam, it’s as real and intended today as it was when it was invented 1300 years ago.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
The really big-time objection to our security fence and our policy of disengagement and dismantling of settlements is that they loose the option of negotiation over anything
I'm sure people would mind the Security Wall less but for two crucial aspects. If it separated the State of Israel from the some portion of the rest of the world to protect Israeli land, people would mind less, but that's not what it does.
Well, yes it does actually.
spot wrote: If it were even built on land occupied by Israelis, to protect Israeli citizens in the settlements on the West Bank, people would mind less, but that's not where it is either.
We want a clear area between our borders and the security fence.
spot wrote: There's a map of where the Wall's situated at http://www.jmcc.org/images/maps/wall.pdf from which you can see that the Israeli border isn't protected by the Security Wall at all.
Where is it stated that the security fence is to protect our borders? It’s to protect our PEOPLE.
On June 30th 2004 the Israeli Supreme Court stated that the security fence was built for reasons of national security ONLY. It has. It works.
The ruling did go on to require “proportionality between humanitarian and operational considerations†and as a result the path the fence had taken and would take was reviewed and a new plan proposed that was approved by our government security branch.
This fence is hated by the palests because it is an ‘on the ground’ denial of their assertion that there IS no Israel as they teach to their kids even today. It is also hated because it is part of our program of disassociation whereby as they haven’t reached peace with us we are now simply putting up the shutters and letting them stew.
spot wrote: What's protected are the majority of the Israeli West Bank settlements.
No. What’s protected are Israeli people.
spot wrote: What you can't see from the small-scale map is that the Wall's constructed beyond the settlement boundaries, on land still (until construction) occupied by Palestinians. It's a further incursion additional to the settlements themselves, taking yet more West Bank territory than had been built on already.
And the fence will be removed if and when there is no longer a need for it.
The fence is a security measure, not a statement of an extension of our borders. It is a contiguous obstacle in the path of intended terrorists and those intent on infiltrating OUR nation. Nothing more.
spot wrote: For anyone who wonders whether "fence" is truly an more appropriate term than "wall", the photos by my fellow-Bristolian Banksy at http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/06.5.html might help settle their mind.
The construction is matched to the need at different points. That is simple common sense.
Originally Posted by golem
I did ad I have re-read it, but didn’t think that you were being serious as the proposition simply doesn’t align with either the reality as it is where there is NOT a single territory
Now you're just redefining terms - if you don't like to use "Territory" in the sense I defined it, then by all means suggest a different word and we'll use that. To reject debate because I use or propose words and then find you use them differently is deflection rather than engagement. We can call that "single piece of land, bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Red Sea" the Island, rather than the Territory, if you prefer, at which point it's a single Island. Or a single Park, or a single Arcade, or a single Mall, or a single Gulch. You nominate a term that allows us to refer to that space of the planet, and we can make progress. Tripping over a label is quite often half the battle. Labelling things with words we can both use is essential if we're to discuss the things labelled, and I regard it as positive that we're finally entering that phase of negotiation in this thread.
OK – let’s call it The Region. I’m NOT simply redefining terms as I am sure you realise, I’m making a very important point, but nonetheless let's go with it.
The region comprises of an area of land that was the area that was mandated to GB on the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire.
That region, the totality of which, was originally intended as modern day Eretz Yisrael but which by the machinations of the British was partitioned to form the Arab nation, (Trans) Jordan, and the remainder that was to be Israel.
Time moved on and the remainder of what was to have been OUR land was further partitioned into Israel as per the 1948 UN declaration and the remainder that was to be for the non-aligned arab tribes.
So there we have it. Within the region there are THREE territories and NOT one, with Israel and Jordan as independent sovereign states and nations, and thirdly territories that are occupied by a rag tag bunch of arabs who got caught up in the war but have now been generally (wrongly) called the palestsinians.
Israel is independent, Jordan is independent, the palests could be if they were to behave in a civilised manner and accept that Israel IS independent, HAS a right to exist, and stopped trying to destroy us.
spot wrote: To close off the section on Eire, I merely note that wherever you've used "inexorably", "inevitably" and "surrender", I disagree with your premise and I shall watch the news with interest.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens in the future. I suspect that realisation of the true effect of membership of the EU and the implications of the loss of real national identity and true independence strike home there will be a sad acceptance of what is now beyond change as all European states will find themselves part of what will soon be Eurabia and being ruled from Brussels with their present national parliaments reduced to little more than glorified councils or more likely (and in keeping with EU parlance) Regional Assemblies.
spot wrote: To close off the section on Islamic imperial expansion, I note that your insistence that "sacred space belonging for all time to to the umma and must be retaken by all means if it ‘falls’" relates to issues over 500 years old, and that no retaking by any means has yet been attempted. Asimov's "Foundation" may plan in aeons, but I don't think anyone in the second millenium CE did.
Not my insistence! It’s all there in chapter and verse if you care to look into islam in any depth. It also forms part of the hammas charter.
Like everything else in islam, it’s as real and intended today as it was when it was invented 1300 years ago.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
The really big-time objection to our security fence and our policy of disengagement and dismantling of settlements is that they loose the option of negotiation over anything
I'm sure people would mind the Security Wall less but for two crucial aspects. If it separated the State of Israel from the some portion of the rest of the world to protect Israeli land, people would mind less, but that's not what it does.
Well, yes it does actually.
spot wrote: If it were even built on land occupied by Israelis, to protect Israeli citizens in the settlements on the West Bank, people would mind less, but that's not where it is either.
We want a clear area between our borders and the security fence.
spot wrote: There's a map of where the Wall's situated at http://www.jmcc.org/images/maps/wall.pdf from which you can see that the Israeli border isn't protected by the Security Wall at all.
Where is it stated that the security fence is to protect our borders? It’s to protect our PEOPLE.
On June 30th 2004 the Israeli Supreme Court stated that the security fence was built for reasons of national security ONLY. It has. It works.
The ruling did go on to require “proportionality between humanitarian and operational considerations†and as a result the path the fence had taken and would take was reviewed and a new plan proposed that was approved by our government security branch.
This fence is hated by the palests because it is an ‘on the ground’ denial of their assertion that there IS no Israel as they teach to their kids even today. It is also hated because it is part of our program of disassociation whereby as they haven’t reached peace with us we are now simply putting up the shutters and letting them stew.
spot wrote: What's protected are the majority of the Israeli West Bank settlements.
No. What’s protected are Israeli people.
spot wrote: What you can't see from the small-scale map is that the Wall's constructed beyond the settlement boundaries, on land still (until construction) occupied by Palestinians. It's a further incursion additional to the settlements themselves, taking yet more West Bank territory than had been built on already.
And the fence will be removed if and when there is no longer a need for it.
The fence is a security measure, not a statement of an extension of our borders. It is a contiguous obstacle in the path of intended terrorists and those intent on infiltrating OUR nation. Nothing more.
spot wrote: For anyone who wonders whether "fence" is truly an more appropriate term than "wall", the photos by my fellow-Bristolian Banksy at http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/06.5.html might help settle their mind.
The construction is matched to the need at different points. That is simple common sense.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: OK – let’s call it The Region. I’m NOT simply redefining terms as I am sure you realise, I’m making a very important point, but nonetheless let's go with it.
The region comprises of an area of land that was the area that was mandated to GB on the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. That region, the totality of which, was originally intended as modern day Eretz Yisrael but which by the machinations of the British was partitioned to form the Arab nation, (Trans) Jordan, and the remainder that was to be Israel.So pick another word besides Region, to refer to the space I was defining.
As for the Region (and we can carry on using that word for the space you want to use it for), you've made this claim previously, and then ignored my request for clarification:
spot wrote: [QUOTE=golem]The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.I wonder, for example, whether you could indicate an authority for this statement, and whose intention you refer to.[/QUOTE]The exchange is in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=84, together with my own summary of the historical setting of the Zionist proposals.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to address that question.
The region comprises of an area of land that was the area that was mandated to GB on the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. That region, the totality of which, was originally intended as modern day Eretz Yisrael but which by the machinations of the British was partitioned to form the Arab nation, (Trans) Jordan, and the remainder that was to be Israel.So pick another word besides Region, to refer to the space I was defining.
As for the Region (and we can carry on using that word for the space you want to use it for), you've made this claim previously, and then ignored my request for clarification:
spot wrote: [QUOTE=golem]The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.I wonder, for example, whether you could indicate an authority for this statement, and whose intention you refer to.[/QUOTE]The exchange is in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=84, together with my own summary of the historical setting of the Zionist proposals.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to address that question.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote:
So pick another word besides Region, to refer to the space I was defining.
The space that you define is A) Jordan. B) Israel. C) various territories that are not part of the state of Israel and are occupied predominantly by the palests.
If you read back to my previous posting you will see that that has been spelled out there already.
spot wrote: As for the Region (and we can carry on using that word for the space you want to use it for), you've made this claim previously, and then ignored my request for clarification:
Originally Posted by golem
The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.
I wonder, for example, whether you could indicate an authority for this statement, and whose intention you refer to.
The exchange is in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=84, together with my own summary of the historical setting of the Zionist proposals.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to address that question.
Fine by me!
To quote directly from the Palestine Mandate document
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood etc. etc.
The intended purpose of the mandated area was in line with the Balfour declaration. The WHOLE region was to form the Jewish homeland.
Britain played games in order to gain benefit from the other states and parties in the region. Not least was the creation of Trans Jordan as a non-independent state so getting round article 5 right up to immediately prior to the recognition of Israel by the UN when Trans Jordan was given independence by the Brits as one of their last acts before being chased out by people like my father.
As for article 25, this was related to the establishment of areas that would not be accessible to immigrant Jewish people to settle. It was never envisaged that a separate state would be created and then given independence.
Anyway - must dash - I've got my vote to cast!
So pick another word besides Region, to refer to the space I was defining.
The space that you define is A) Jordan. B) Israel. C) various territories that are not part of the state of Israel and are occupied predominantly by the palests.
If you read back to my previous posting you will see that that has been spelled out there already.
spot wrote: As for the Region (and we can carry on using that word for the space you want to use it for), you've made this claim previously, and then ignored my request for clarification:
Originally Posted by golem
The ORIGINAL Jewish homeland was intended to be the WHOLE of the area of the Ottoman empire that was put under the British mandate.
I wonder, for example, whether you could indicate an authority for this statement, and whose intention you refer to.
The exchange is in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=84, together with my own summary of the historical setting of the Zionist proposals.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to address that question.
Fine by me!
To quote directly from the Palestine Mandate document
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood etc. etc.
The intended purpose of the mandated area was in line with the Balfour declaration. The WHOLE region was to form the Jewish homeland.
Britain played games in order to gain benefit from the other states and parties in the region. Not least was the creation of Trans Jordan as a non-independent state so getting round article 5 right up to immediately prior to the recognition of Israel by the UN when Trans Jordan was given independence by the Brits as one of their last acts before being chased out by people like my father.
As for article 25, this was related to the establishment of areas that would not be accessible to immigrant Jewish people to settle. It was never envisaged that a separate state would be created and then given independence.
Anyway - must dash - I've got my vote to cast!
What's Going On?
golem wrote: The space that you define is A) Jordan. B) Israel. C) various territories that are not part of the state of Israel and are occupied predominantly by the palests.
If you read back to my previous posting you will see that that has been spelled out there already.Good - now, can we have a single word that we agree will refer to that space, please?
golem wrote: To quote directly from the Palestine Mandate document
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood etc. etc.
The intended purpose of the mandated area was in line with the Balfour declaration. The WHOLE region was to form the Jewish homeland.
As you correctly state, and as I explicitly pointed out earlier, the League of Nations Mandate and the Balfour declaration explicitly authorize the creation of a national home for the Jewish people *in* Palestine, not *of* Palestine. The wording was quite deliberate. "Of" comprises the whole, "in" comprises a portion. Do please check any dictionary for confirmation. You do seem to acknowledge the truth of this in mentioning Article 25 and the "areas that would not be accessible to immigrant Jewish people to settle".
If you read back to my previous posting you will see that that has been spelled out there already.Good - now, can we have a single word that we agree will refer to that space, please?
golem wrote: To quote directly from the Palestine Mandate document
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood etc. etc.
The intended purpose of the mandated area was in line with the Balfour declaration. The WHOLE region was to form the Jewish homeland.
As you correctly state, and as I explicitly pointed out earlier, the League of Nations Mandate and the Balfour declaration explicitly authorize the creation of a national home for the Jewish people *in* Palestine, not *of* Palestine. The wording was quite deliberate. "Of" comprises the whole, "in" comprises a portion. Do please check any dictionary for confirmation. You do seem to acknowledge the truth of this in mentioning Article 25 and the "areas that would not be accessible to immigrant Jewish people to settle".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
golem wrote:
We want a clear area between our borders and the security fence.
As you admit that the wall is built outside of your borders answer me this :-
By what right do you fence in and build on other people's land?
We want a clear area between our borders and the security fence.
As you admit that the wall is built outside of your borders answer me this :-
By what right do you fence in and build on other people's land?
What's Going On?
spot wrote: Good - now, can we have a single word that we agree will refer to that space, please?
No. It is part of the overall world. There is no other single identifiable space as such. It is not a collective of states, it is a global region. The best that you could do would e to have a series of co-ordinates that set out the region on which the two states and the ‘palest’ territories are founded
spot wrote:
As you correctly state, and as I explicitly pointed out earlier, the League of Nations Mandate and the Balfour declaration explicitly authorize the creation of a national home for the Jewish people *in* Palestine, not *of* Palestine. The wording was quite deliberate. "Of" comprises the whole, "in" comprises a portion. Do please check any dictionary for confirmation. You do seem to acknowledge the truth of this in mentioning Article 25 and the "areas that would not be accessible to immigrant Jewish people to settle".
The use of ‘in’ is absolutely acceptable in referring to the whole of the Palestine Mandate land. The use of ‘in’ identifying the area that would be where it would be established, not the identity of the resultant state which the use of the word ‘of’ would do.
So that certainly does not preclude the entire area being the intended Jewish homeland, and that there would be a designated areas that would not be accessible to Jewish immigration was decided by the Brits.
They had no right to do so.
No. It is part of the overall world. There is no other single identifiable space as such. It is not a collective of states, it is a global region. The best that you could do would e to have a series of co-ordinates that set out the region on which the two states and the ‘palest’ territories are founded
spot wrote:
As you correctly state, and as I explicitly pointed out earlier, the League of Nations Mandate and the Balfour declaration explicitly authorize the creation of a national home for the Jewish people *in* Palestine, not *of* Palestine. The wording was quite deliberate. "Of" comprises the whole, "in" comprises a portion. Do please check any dictionary for confirmation. You do seem to acknowledge the truth of this in mentioning Article 25 and the "areas that would not be accessible to immigrant Jewish people to settle".
The use of ‘in’ is absolutely acceptable in referring to the whole of the Palestine Mandate land. The use of ‘in’ identifying the area that would be where it would be established, not the identity of the resultant state which the use of the word ‘of’ would do.
So that certainly does not preclude the entire area being the intended Jewish homeland, and that there would be a designated areas that would not be accessible to Jewish immigration was decided by the Brits.
They had no right to do so.
What's Going On?
Bryn Mawr wrote: As you admit that the wall is built outside of your borders answer me this :-
By what right do you fence in and build on other people's land?
Self defence.
End of story.
By what right do you fence in and build on other people's land?
Self defence.
End of story.
What's Going On?
golem wrote:
So that certainly does not preclude the entire area being the intended Jewish homeland, and that there would be a designated areas that would not be accessible to Jewish immigration was decided by the Brits.
They had no right to do so.
Are you not "forgatting" the entire UN involvement and resolution 181.
It wasn't the UK who unilaterally decided what should or should not be Israel.
Neither was the League of Nations who had the final say.
So that certainly does not preclude the entire area being the intended Jewish homeland, and that there would be a designated areas that would not be accessible to Jewish immigration was decided by the Brits.
They had no right to do so.
Are you not "forgatting" the entire UN involvement and resolution 181.
It wasn't the UK who unilaterally decided what should or should not be Israel.
Neither was the League of Nations who had the final say.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: No. It is part of the overall world. There is no other single identifiable space as such. It is not a collective of states, it is a global region. The best that you could do would e to have a series of co-ordinates that set out the region on which the two states and the ‘palest’ territories are foundedAll I asked for is a label for the space. I'll settle for the Holy Land, while noting that I make no claim thereby and merely wishing to avoid a more loosely related label like Canaan.
golem wrote: So that certainly does not preclude the entire area being the intended Jewish homelandIndeed it doesn't. The intended Jewish homeland designated by the League of Nations Mandate could have encompassed anything from some of the Mandated Territory to all of it. Britain chose, as it was authorised to do, and with the League's explicit agreement, to divide out Trans-Jordan the same year the Mandate came into effect, leaving the Holy Land which the UN subsequently proposed partitioning into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem under international administration.
Yesterday's election results were far less decisive than they might have been - I'd be interested in your opinion regarding the implications for stable government. From http://info.jpost.com/C006/Supplements/ ... inals.html :
28 Kadima
20 Labor
13 Shas
12 Yisrael Beitenu
11 Likud
9 National Union / NRP
7 Gil (senior citizens)
6 United Torah Judaism
4 Meretz
4 United Arab List
3 Balad
3 Hadash
and my favourite quote of the election is Pnina Rosenblum's "I will fight against drugs, alcohol, children and other problems."
golem wrote: So that certainly does not preclude the entire area being the intended Jewish homelandIndeed it doesn't. The intended Jewish homeland designated by the League of Nations Mandate could have encompassed anything from some of the Mandated Territory to all of it. Britain chose, as it was authorised to do, and with the League's explicit agreement, to divide out Trans-Jordan the same year the Mandate came into effect, leaving the Holy Land which the UN subsequently proposed partitioning into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem under international administration.
Yesterday's election results were far less decisive than they might have been - I'd be interested in your opinion regarding the implications for stable government. From http://info.jpost.com/C006/Supplements/ ... inals.html :
28 Kadima
20 Labor
13 Shas
12 Yisrael Beitenu
11 Likud
9 National Union / NRP
7 Gil (senior citizens)
6 United Torah Judaism
4 Meretz
4 United Arab List
3 Balad
3 Hadash
and my favourite quote of the election is Pnina Rosenblum's "I will fight against drugs, alcohol, children and other problems."
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Are you not "forgatting" the entire UN involvement and resolution 181.
It wasn't the UK who unilaterally decided what should or should not be Israel.
Neither was the League of Nations who had the final say.
Res 181 also took account of the facts on the ground. i.e. that Jordan existed as a result of the illegal actions of the Brits (leading from the Peel commission that in itself came about because the Brits would not stand up to the arabs) and that there were still arabs who would not or could not enter the emerging state of Israel and who would not or could not enter Jordan. These people had to be catered for.
As a result the proposed land area that was to form Israel under 181 was (reluctantly but nevertheless) accepted by Israel. The arabs that were to live in the land that was not Israel and was not Jordan did not and immediately declared war of Israel. The outcome? They were beaten and borders changed. Jerusalem was included in the Jewish state as it always should have been and had it not been for the lack of cooperation duplicity and intransigence of the Brits (a letter exists that is in the public domain that Truman wrote on this very matter) things might well have been very different all round.
The really sad part is that if these people had accepted res 181 then by now things would have been so very different.
So no, I am neither forgetting what took place nor who the guilty parties were.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are so ignorant, either by design or ability, of what the situation really is and has been in this region.
What I find particularly sad is how many often (only so called or self professed) intellectuals express opinions that are based on ignorance, bias, or just plain lack of ‘grey matter’. Worst of all are those who then teach others based on their own ignorance and prejudice.
It wasn't the UK who unilaterally decided what should or should not be Israel.
Neither was the League of Nations who had the final say.
Res 181 also took account of the facts on the ground. i.e. that Jordan existed as a result of the illegal actions of the Brits (leading from the Peel commission that in itself came about because the Brits would not stand up to the arabs) and that there were still arabs who would not or could not enter the emerging state of Israel and who would not or could not enter Jordan. These people had to be catered for.
As a result the proposed land area that was to form Israel under 181 was (reluctantly but nevertheless) accepted by Israel. The arabs that were to live in the land that was not Israel and was not Jordan did not and immediately declared war of Israel. The outcome? They were beaten and borders changed. Jerusalem was included in the Jewish state as it always should have been and had it not been for the lack of cooperation duplicity and intransigence of the Brits (a letter exists that is in the public domain that Truman wrote on this very matter) things might well have been very different all round.
The really sad part is that if these people had accepted res 181 then by now things would have been so very different.
So no, I am neither forgetting what took place nor who the guilty parties were.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are so ignorant, either by design or ability, of what the situation really is and has been in this region.
What I find particularly sad is how many often (only so called or self professed) intellectuals express opinions that are based on ignorance, bias, or just plain lack of ‘grey matter’. Worst of all are those who then teach others based on their own ignorance and prejudice.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: [quote=spot]For anyone who wonders whether "fence" is truly an more appropriate term than "wall", the photos by my fellow-Bristolian Banksy at http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/06.5.html might help settle their mind.The construction is matched to the need at different points. That is simple common sense.Could you show us a corresponding photo of some part of the construction looking more like a fence and less like a wall?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: All I asked for is a label for the space. I'll settle for the Holy Land, while noting that I make no claim thereby and merely wishing to avoid a more loosely related label like Canaan.
Indeed it doesn't. The intended Jewish homeland designated by the League of Nations Mandate could have encompassed anything from some of the Mandated Territory to all of it. Britain chose, as it was authorised to do, and with the League's explicit agreement, to divide out Trans-Jordan the same year the Mandate came into effect, leaving the Holy Land which the UN subsequently proposed partitioning into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem under international administration.
Yesterday's election results were far less decisive than they might have been - I'd be interested in your opinion regarding the implications for stable government. From http://info.jpost.com/C006/Supplements/ ... inals.html :
28 Kadima
20 Labor
13 Shas
12 Yisrael Beitenu
11 Likud
9 National Union / NRP
7 Gil (senior citizens)
6 United Torah Judaism
4 Meretz
4 United Arab List
3 Balad
3 Hadash
and my favourite quote of the election is Pnina Rosenblum's "I will fight against drugs, alcohol, children and other problems."
I wonder how many people understand the full implications of the win by Olmert. As far as the palests are concerned the writing really is on the wall this time.
Arial Sharon realised that Likud was no longer able to offer what Israel now needs. Likud is hard line with an agenda of confrontation against the palest outrages and even an expansionist program that unsurprisingly has failed. But Kadima – that’s a very different matter indeed. It is being presented as some sort of middle of the road party in the British and European press which in fact it most defiantly is not.
Kadema is actually a very hard line retractionist party with a strategy based firmly on reaching a permanent negotiated settlement with the palests – none of this ‘truce’ rubbish, that’s just a delay, but a permanent settlement, or total disengagement including a real physical barrier to them gaining access to our people.
After all, one way to win a war is simply to no longer engage with the enemy and to prevent your enemy from engaging you.
Naturally the cerebral element within the palest camp are horrified by this as just as we with no partner to negotiate a permanent peace deal can not make progress towards OUR aim, so the palests with no ‘partner’ that they can access to attack can make no progress on THEIR present agenda.
The term ‘cordon sanitere’ becomes daily more appropriate.
The palests really are drinking in the last chance saloon. If they don’t take this final opportunity to reach a permanent negotiated peace with us then I dread to think of what their future will become. It’s a shame that so many people have been so abused by their own leaders.
I genuinely pity them. They have and continue to be badly mislead.
Here’s the high points of the speech by Olmert.in which he said he was ready for new peace talks and was prepared to make painful compromises.
Quote ---
"In the coming period, we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel, a Jewish state with a Jewish majority,"
"We will try to achieve this in an agreement with the Palestinians."
To palest leader Abbas, Olmert said:
"We are prepared to compromise, give up parts of our beloved land of Israel, remove, painfully, Jews who live there, to allow you the conditions to achieve your hopes and to live in a state in peace and quiet."
"The time has come for the Palestinians ... to relate to the existence of the state of Israel, to accept only part of their dream, to stop terror, to accept democracy and accept compromise and peace with us. We are prepared for this. We want this,"
Olmert said he would not indefinitely wait for the Palestinians.
"It is time for the Palestinians to change their ethos, to accept compromise as soon as possible. If they manage to do this soon, we will sit and work out a plan. If not, Israel will take control of its own fate, and in consensus among our people and with the agreement of the world and US President George Bush, we will act. The time has come to act"
Indeed it doesn't. The intended Jewish homeland designated by the League of Nations Mandate could have encompassed anything from some of the Mandated Territory to all of it. Britain chose, as it was authorised to do, and with the League's explicit agreement, to divide out Trans-Jordan the same year the Mandate came into effect, leaving the Holy Land which the UN subsequently proposed partitioning into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem under international administration.
Yesterday's election results were far less decisive than they might have been - I'd be interested in your opinion regarding the implications for stable government. From http://info.jpost.com/C006/Supplements/ ... inals.html :
28 Kadima
20 Labor
13 Shas
12 Yisrael Beitenu
11 Likud
9 National Union / NRP
7 Gil (senior citizens)
6 United Torah Judaism
4 Meretz
4 United Arab List
3 Balad
3 Hadash
and my favourite quote of the election is Pnina Rosenblum's "I will fight against drugs, alcohol, children and other problems."
I wonder how many people understand the full implications of the win by Olmert. As far as the palests are concerned the writing really is on the wall this time.
Arial Sharon realised that Likud was no longer able to offer what Israel now needs. Likud is hard line with an agenda of confrontation against the palest outrages and even an expansionist program that unsurprisingly has failed. But Kadima – that’s a very different matter indeed. It is being presented as some sort of middle of the road party in the British and European press which in fact it most defiantly is not.
Kadema is actually a very hard line retractionist party with a strategy based firmly on reaching a permanent negotiated settlement with the palests – none of this ‘truce’ rubbish, that’s just a delay, but a permanent settlement, or total disengagement including a real physical barrier to them gaining access to our people.
After all, one way to win a war is simply to no longer engage with the enemy and to prevent your enemy from engaging you.
Naturally the cerebral element within the palest camp are horrified by this as just as we with no partner to negotiate a permanent peace deal can not make progress towards OUR aim, so the palests with no ‘partner’ that they can access to attack can make no progress on THEIR present agenda.
The term ‘cordon sanitere’ becomes daily more appropriate.
The palests really are drinking in the last chance saloon. If they don’t take this final opportunity to reach a permanent negotiated peace with us then I dread to think of what their future will become. It’s a shame that so many people have been so abused by their own leaders.
I genuinely pity them. They have and continue to be badly mislead.
Here’s the high points of the speech by Olmert.in which he said he was ready for new peace talks and was prepared to make painful compromises.
Quote ---
"In the coming period, we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel, a Jewish state with a Jewish majority,"
"We will try to achieve this in an agreement with the Palestinians."
To palest leader Abbas, Olmert said:
"We are prepared to compromise, give up parts of our beloved land of Israel, remove, painfully, Jews who live there, to allow you the conditions to achieve your hopes and to live in a state in peace and quiet."
"The time has come for the Palestinians ... to relate to the existence of the state of Israel, to accept only part of their dream, to stop terror, to accept democracy and accept compromise and peace with us. We are prepared for this. We want this,"
Olmert said he would not indefinitely wait for the Palestinians.
"It is time for the Palestinians to change their ethos, to accept compromise as soon as possible. If they manage to do this soon, we will sit and work out a plan. If not, Israel will take control of its own fate, and in consensus among our people and with the agreement of the world and US President George Bush, we will act. The time has come to act"
What's Going On?
spot wrote: Could you show us a corresponding photo of some part of the construction looking more like a fence and less like a wall?
Well I could go and take a photo but as I live just outside of Netanya it’s a bit of a schlep.
Here’s a link to a part of the security fence that is less robust than some other areas.
First a picture that sums up the situation rather well
But here’s the real item from the web
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/templates/Big ... J0cv20.jpg
and again
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/templates/Big ... J0cym0.jpg
Well I could go and take a photo but as I live just outside of Netanya it’s a bit of a schlep.
Here’s a link to a part of the security fence that is less robust than some other areas.
First a picture that sums up the situation rather well
But here’s the real item from the web
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/templates/Big ... J0cv20.jpg
and again
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/templates/Big ... J0cym0.jpg
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Kadema is actually a very hard line retractionist party with a strategy based firmly on reaching a permanent negotiated settlement with the palests – none of this ‘truce’ rubbish, that’s just a delay, but a permanent settlement, or total disengagement including a real physical barrier to them gaining access to our people.
After all, one way to win a war is simply to no longer engage with the enemy and to prevent your enemy from engaging you.You know, if this involved the end of Israeli incursions into Southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank beyond the Wall, on the ground and in the air, I'd be quite pleased with the air of quiet that would descend. Has Kadema made any statements to that effect?
golem wrote: here’s the real item from the webYou must be aware, surely, that neither of those photos is of the separation wall, they're of the roadside fencing alongside the main Israeli-only through routes which has existed for a long time now. You've carefully excluded the context by pointing at the photos rather than the web pages which display them.
After all, one way to win a war is simply to no longer engage with the enemy and to prevent your enemy from engaging you.You know, if this involved the end of Israeli incursions into Southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank beyond the Wall, on the ground and in the air, I'd be quite pleased with the air of quiet that would descend. Has Kadema made any statements to that effect?
golem wrote: here’s the real item from the webYou must be aware, surely, that neither of those photos is of the separation wall, they're of the roadside fencing alongside the main Israeli-only through routes which has existed for a long time now. You've carefully excluded the context by pointing at the photos rather than the web pages which display them.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: You know, if this involved the end of Israeli incursions into Southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank beyond the Wall, on the ground and in the air, I'd be quite pleased with the air of quiet that would descend. Has Kadema made any statements to that effect?
You must be aware, surely, that neither of those photos is of the separation wall, they're of the roadside fencing alongside the main Israeli-only through routes which has existed for a long time now. You've carefully excluded the context by pointing at the photos rather than the web pages which display them.
You need to understand what is said by the various factions and I guess to really understand what’s going on you need first hand knowledge and not just sit miles away in a different country guessing and working from ignorance, propaganda, and prejudice
Olmert has used well chosen words and they should be carefully read and understood in context with time and place as well as events.
"In the coming period, we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel, a Jewish state with a Jewish majority,"
"We will try to achieve this in an agreement with the Palestinians."
To palest leader Abbas, Olmert said:
"We are prepared to compromise, give up parts of our beloved land of Israel, remove, painfully, Jews who live there, to allow you the conditions to achieve your hopes and to live in a state in peace and quiet."
The ‘incursions’ into The Gaza Strip and beyond our security fence could be stopped at a stroke. All it would take is for the palests to lock up the murderers and stop the attacks against our country. There’s no wish to kill and maim just for the sake of it from our side. We are unlike our enemy.
As regards the pictures, they form part of the overall security border. Personally if peace can’t be reached, real peace, not a lull before a storm, I would like ten meter high reinforced concrete walls with a 30,000 volt high current capability electric barrier, automatic machine guns, razor wire, and a liberal scattering of land mines as well.
You must be aware, surely, that neither of those photos is of the separation wall, they're of the roadside fencing alongside the main Israeli-only through routes which has existed for a long time now. You've carefully excluded the context by pointing at the photos rather than the web pages which display them.
You need to understand what is said by the various factions and I guess to really understand what’s going on you need first hand knowledge and not just sit miles away in a different country guessing and working from ignorance, propaganda, and prejudice
Olmert has used well chosen words and they should be carefully read and understood in context with time and place as well as events.
"In the coming period, we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel, a Jewish state with a Jewish majority,"
"We will try to achieve this in an agreement with the Palestinians."
To palest leader Abbas, Olmert said:
"We are prepared to compromise, give up parts of our beloved land of Israel, remove, painfully, Jews who live there, to allow you the conditions to achieve your hopes and to live in a state in peace and quiet."
The ‘incursions’ into The Gaza Strip and beyond our security fence could be stopped at a stroke. All it would take is for the palests to lock up the murderers and stop the attacks against our country. There’s no wish to kill and maim just for the sake of it from our side. We are unlike our enemy.
As regards the pictures, they form part of the overall security border. Personally if peace can’t be reached, real peace, not a lull before a storm, I would like ten meter high reinforced concrete walls with a 30,000 volt high current capability electric barrier, automatic machine guns, razor wire, and a liberal scattering of land mines as well.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: As regards the pictures, they form part of the overall security border. Personally if peace can’t be reached, real peace, not a lull before a storm, I would like ten meter high reinforced concrete walls with a 30,000 volt high current capability electric barrier, automatic machine guns, razor wire, and a liberal scattering of land mines as well.How very Soviet of you. If we're swapping cartoons, I quite liked the implications of this one:
Attached files
Attached files
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: How very Soviet of you. If we're swapping cartoons, I quite liked the implications of this one:
I suspect that Iknow where you're coming from but if so then once again you're in error as the actuakl verse from the NT (Mat 2:1) reads 'Wise men came from the East'.
No mention of how many there were!
I suspect that Iknow where you're coming from but if so then once again you're in error as the actuakl verse from the NT (Mat 2:1) reads 'Wise men came from the East'.
No mention of how many there were!
What's Going On?
golem wrote: I suspect that Iknow where you're coming from but if so then once again you're in error as the actuakl verse from the NT (Mat 2:1) reads 'Wise men came from the East'.
No mention of how many there were!There's enough inept biblical exegesis going on in other threads for us to want to pollute this one as well - three's derived from the number of gifts and it's easier to paint than a dozen. Nobody bothers to represent whatever servants they had in tow anyway.
I think we've made fair progress from the OP. Would you like me to prepare a summary post now, or are there other issues you'd like to go over first?
No mention of how many there were!There's enough inept biblical exegesis going on in other threads for us to want to pollute this one as well - three's derived from the number of gifts and it's easier to paint than a dozen. Nobody bothers to represent whatever servants they had in tow anyway.
I think we've made fair progress from the OP. Would you like me to prepare a summary post now, or are there other issues you'd like to go over first?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: There's enough inept biblical exegesis going on in other threads for us to want to pollute this one as well - three's derived from the number of gifts and it's easier to paint than a dozen. Nobody bothers to represent whatever servants they had in tow anyway.
I think we've made fair progress from the OP. Would you like me to prepare a summary post now, or are there other issues you'd like to go over first?
Based on your obviously little understandding let alone grasp of the realities of what is taking place in my country it should make amusing reading andprobably little else. :wah:
Have a go - I'll correct it if I feel inclined. :wah:
I think we've made fair progress from the OP. Would you like me to prepare a summary post now, or are there other issues you'd like to go over first?
Based on your obviously little understandding let alone grasp of the realities of what is taking place in my country it should make amusing reading andprobably little else. :wah:
Have a go - I'll correct it if I feel inclined. :wah:
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Have a go - I'll correct it if I feel inclined.From what I've seen here, you haven't either the ability or the inclination to correct material, but by all means comment once I've posted it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: From what I've seen here, you haven't either the ability or the inclination to correct material, but by all means comment once I've posted it.
LOL! Again demonstrating blinkered vision! :wah: :wah: :wah:
LOL! Again demonstrating blinkered vision! :wah: :wah: :wah:
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Res 181 also took account of the facts on the ground. i.e. that Jordan existed as a result of the illegal actions of the Brits
Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?
golem wrote: (leading from the Peel commission that in itself came about because the Brits would not stand up to the arabs) and that there were still arabs who would not or could not enter the emerging state of Israel and who would not or could not enter Jordan. These people had to be catered for.
Interesting document, the Peel Report, and interesting response from the Jewish leadership
Another interesting quote, this one from the Zionist Exposition, “The Peel Report was outstanding in it lucidity and its depth of understanding of the situation in Palestine. Seeing no reason that one nation should rule another, the Peel Report recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish.â€. Hardly a response to the UK caving in to the Arabs.
Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?
golem wrote: (leading from the Peel commission that in itself came about because the Brits would not stand up to the arabs) and that there were still arabs who would not or could not enter the emerging state of Israel and who would not or could not enter Jordan. These people had to be catered for.
Interesting document, the Peel Report, and interesting response from the Jewish leadership
Another interesting quote, this one from the Zionist Exposition, “The Peel Report was outstanding in it lucidity and its depth of understanding of the situation in Palestine. Seeing no reason that one nation should rule another, the Peel Report recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish.â€. Hardly a response to the UK caving in to the Arabs.
What's Going On?
spot wrote: You know, if this involved the end of Israeli incursions into Southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank beyond the Wall, on the ground and in the air, I'd be quite pleased with the air of quiet that would descend. Has Kadema made any statements to that effect?
The most obvoius problem with Israel walling herself in is that the land enclosed includes Jerusalem. With that being a Holy city to the three major religions of the area it's unilateral partition is bound to be seen as confrontational.
The most obvoius problem with Israel walling herself in is that the land enclosed includes Jerusalem. With that being a Holy city to the three major religions of the area it's unilateral partition is bound to be seen as confrontational.
What's Going On?
golem wrote:
The ‘incursions’ into The Gaza Strip and beyond our security fence could be stopped at a stroke. All it would take is for the palests to lock up the murderers and stop the attacks against our country. There’s no wish to kill and maim just for the sake of it from our side. We are unlike our enemy.
You know, I well remember the same sort of rhetoric coming from Ireland – both sides saying they'd stop if only the murdering bastards on the other side would stop attacking poor innocent them.
golem wrote: As regards the pictures, they form part of the overall security border. Personally if peace can’t be reached, real peace, not a lull before a storm, I would like ten meter high reinforced concrete walls with a 30,000 volt high current capability electric barrier, automatic machine guns, razor wire, and a liberal scattering of land mines as well.
And what of the Arabs living and working in the enclosed area?
The ‘incursions’ into The Gaza Strip and beyond our security fence could be stopped at a stroke. All it would take is for the palests to lock up the murderers and stop the attacks against our country. There’s no wish to kill and maim just for the sake of it from our side. We are unlike our enemy.
You know, I well remember the same sort of rhetoric coming from Ireland – both sides saying they'd stop if only the murdering bastards on the other side would stop attacking poor innocent them.
golem wrote: As regards the pictures, they form part of the overall security border. Personally if peace can’t be reached, real peace, not a lull before a storm, I would like ten meter high reinforced concrete walls with a 30,000 volt high current capability electric barrier, automatic machine guns, razor wire, and a liberal scattering of land mines as well.
And what of the Arabs living and working in the enclosed area?
What's Going On?
golem wrote: LOL! Again demonstrating blinkered vision! :wah: :wah: :wah:
Talk about having a splinter in the eye! Pots and kettles come to mind.
Talk about having a splinter in the eye! Pots and kettles come to mind.
What's Going On?
Bryn Mawr wrote:
By golem –
The ‘incursions’ into The Gaza Strip and beyond our security fence could be stopped at a stroke. All it would take is for the palests to lock up the murderers and stop the attacks against our country. There’s no wish to kill and maim just for the sake of it from our side. We are unlike our enemy.
You know, I well remember the same sort of rhetoric coming from Ireland – both sides saying they'd stop if only the murdering bastards on the other side would stop attacking poor innocent them.
There was marked parity in the form and nature of that attacks between the IRA and their associates and the Loyalist gangs and theirs.
The same is not so in Israel. The Eire – Great Britain conflict over Ulster is NOT even remotely similar far less close to congruent.
Israeli security forces do respond to attacks by mobs, they do take out terrorist activists, they do police and control isralei settlers who try to take the law into their own hands.
The palests attack any target of opportunity but concentrate on civilian targets in order to create an environment of fear.
In addition this ongoing conflict was started in 1948 by the arabs attacking Israel; Every time since then after a cease fire it has ALWAYS been the palests who have started the attacks again. We sincerely want peace. They sincerely want our destruction. The onus is without question for the palests to cease their attacks, recognise our rights to exist – here – and then be patient as their genuineness is established over a period of time.
Bryn Mawr wrote: And what of the Arabs living and working in the enclosed area?
Have you actually studied the map?
http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/map_eng.htm
they want to cross the security fence? Not a problem, there are gates. All they need is a bona fide reason and there they go. Minus bombs, guns, etc.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The most obvoius problem with Israel walling herself in is that the land enclosed includes Jerusalem. With that being a Holy city to the three major religions of the area it's unilateral partition is bound to be seen as confrontational.
Jerusalem is and has been the capital city of the Jewish nation for three thousand years plus. Israel has continued to provide open access to all and sundry. ANY claim on Jerusalem by muslims is tenuous to say the very least.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?
Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Interesting document, the Peel Report, and interesting response from the Jewish leadership
And just why do you think that the Peel Report came about? Check it out in history. If the Brits had done as they should in the first place leading up to the ’36 riots and undertaken their mandated responsibility even handedly and diligently there would have not been a NEED for the Peel report.
By golem –
The ‘incursions’ into The Gaza Strip and beyond our security fence could be stopped at a stroke. All it would take is for the palests to lock up the murderers and stop the attacks against our country. There’s no wish to kill and maim just for the sake of it from our side. We are unlike our enemy.
You know, I well remember the same sort of rhetoric coming from Ireland – both sides saying they'd stop if only the murdering bastards on the other side would stop attacking poor innocent them.
There was marked parity in the form and nature of that attacks between the IRA and their associates and the Loyalist gangs and theirs.
The same is not so in Israel. The Eire – Great Britain conflict over Ulster is NOT even remotely similar far less close to congruent.
Israeli security forces do respond to attacks by mobs, they do take out terrorist activists, they do police and control isralei settlers who try to take the law into their own hands.
The palests attack any target of opportunity but concentrate on civilian targets in order to create an environment of fear.
In addition this ongoing conflict was started in 1948 by the arabs attacking Israel; Every time since then after a cease fire it has ALWAYS been the palests who have started the attacks again. We sincerely want peace. They sincerely want our destruction. The onus is without question for the palests to cease their attacks, recognise our rights to exist – here – and then be patient as their genuineness is established over a period of time.
Bryn Mawr wrote: And what of the Arabs living and working in the enclosed area?
Have you actually studied the map?
http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/map_eng.htm
they want to cross the security fence? Not a problem, there are gates. All they need is a bona fide reason and there they go. Minus bombs, guns, etc.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The most obvoius problem with Israel walling herself in is that the land enclosed includes Jerusalem. With that being a Holy city to the three major religions of the area it's unilateral partition is bound to be seen as confrontational.
Jerusalem is and has been the capital city of the Jewish nation for three thousand years plus. Israel has continued to provide open access to all and sundry. ANY claim on Jerusalem by muslims is tenuous to say the very least.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?
Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Interesting document, the Peel Report, and interesting response from the Jewish leadership
And just why do you think that the Peel Report came about? Check it out in history. If the Brits had done as they should in the first place leading up to the ’36 riots and undertaken their mandated responsibility even handedly and diligently there would have not been a NEED for the Peel report.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr]You know, I well remember the same sort of rhetoric coming from Ireland – both sides saying they'd stop if only the murdering bastards on the other side would stop attacking poor innocent them.There was marked parity in the form and nature of that attacks between the IRA and their associates and the Loyalist gangs and theirs.
The same is not so in Israel. The Eire – Great Britain conflict over Ulster is NOT even remotely similar far less close to congruent.Were it merely the terrorist gangs involved, there might have been a marked parity in the form and nature of the attacks. One side was actively supported by the police force and the entire UK army, though, who killed more Roman Catholics than any loyalist paramilitary group did. The parity you claim to see isn't there at all.
golem wrote: Israeli security forces do respond to attacks by mobs, they do take out terrorist activists, they do police and control isralei settlers who try to take the law into their own hands.As a point of information, when "policing" each side they change their ammunition. There's even two flavours of "rubber bullets" employed - rubber rubber, and rubber-coated steel, the former used exclusively on settlers and the latter exclusively on Palestinians. No Israeli settler has been killed by one. Many Palestinians have.
golem wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr]Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.We've all done that, golem. Now give a hint as to which jurisdiction would find the action illegal. You don't say unwarranted, or unethical, or unnecessary, you say illegal. Treat it as a technical term rather than a vague epithet, and explain the sense in which you claim it was illegal.
The same is not so in Israel. The Eire – Great Britain conflict over Ulster is NOT even remotely similar far less close to congruent.Were it merely the terrorist gangs involved, there might have been a marked parity in the form and nature of the attacks. One side was actively supported by the police force and the entire UK army, though, who killed more Roman Catholics than any loyalist paramilitary group did. The parity you claim to see isn't there at all.
golem wrote: Israeli security forces do respond to attacks by mobs, they do take out terrorist activists, they do police and control isralei settlers who try to take the law into their own hands.As a point of information, when "policing" each side they change their ammunition. There's even two flavours of "rubber bullets" employed - rubber rubber, and rubber-coated steel, the former used exclusively on settlers and the latter exclusively on Palestinians. No Israeli settler has been killed by one. Many Palestinians have.
golem wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr]Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.We've all done that, golem. Now give a hint as to which jurisdiction would find the action illegal. You don't say unwarranted, or unethical, or unnecessary, you say illegal. Treat it as a technical term rather than a vague epithet, and explain the sense in which you claim it was illegal.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
What's Going On?
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
There was marked parity in the form and nature of that attacks between the IRA and their associates and the Loyalist gangs and theirs.
The same is not so in Israel. The Eire – Great Britain conflict over Ulster is NOT even remotely similar far less close to congruent.
Were it merely the terrorist gangs involved, there might have been a marked parity in the form and nature of the attacks. One side was actively supported by the police force and the entire UK army, though, who killed more Roman Catholics than any loyalist paramilitary group did. The parity you claim to see isn't there at all.
That is a matter of opinion. The form of the attacks, the targets chosen, there is the parity.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Israeli security forces do respond to attacks by mobs, they do take out terrorist activists, they do police and control isralei settlers who try to take the law into their own hands.
As a point of information, when "policing" each side they change their ammunition. There's even two flavours of "rubber bullets" employed - rubber rubber, and rubber-coated steel, the former used exclusively on settlers and the latter exclusively on Palestinians. No Israeli settler has been killed by one. Many Palestinians have.
Not that many IDF members have been shot at or blown up by the Settlers. The nature of the confrontation is different, the tools employed should differ.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?
Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.
We've all done that, golem. Now give a hint as to which jurisdiction would find the action illegal. You don't say unwarranted, or unethical, or unnecessary, you say illegal. Treat it as a technical term rather than a vague epithet, and explain the sense in which you claim it was illegal.
‘K, let’s look at the articles.
ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country (so the whole area of what was defined as Palestine) under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self¬ governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Self governing institutions are not the same as parturition into different states. That sentence simply enshrines the right for the arabs to live their way and the Jewish population to live their own. Was it a vain hope? Possibly, but it is there in article 2.
ARTICLE 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
Reinforces that, still not permission to partition into separate nations though.
ARTICLE 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co¬operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
(Again – ALL of Palestine.)
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co¬operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
Keep that in mind – it will come back when the actions of the Brits sought to bar immigrants into OUR nation in later years and we, or at least people of my fathers generation, had to kick them out with their collective tails between their legs.
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
Now that’s where the illegality really starts. By creating Jordan and the granting independence Brits placed a vast area of what was all to be our homeland under a foreign power – the power of an independent Jordan.
ARTICLE 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co¬operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
Note the reference to both state lands and to waste lands so recognising that there were lands that were unassigned
Moving on --- (only to save time and space ---)
ARTICLE 9. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Considering the subsequent actions of the Brits that’s a joke. A joke in bad taste though.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
Interesting things, wakfs. can be evry useful.
ARTICLE 25. 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 provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
This what GB used as an excuse to create Trans-Jordan. Although it was a legitimate clause to use to prohibit the automatic right of Jewish people to immigrate to that area it did NOT give GB the right to grant what was Trans-Jordan independence.
Thereby lies another aspect of the illegality of actions by the Brits.
What is significant is that by the granting of independence to Trans-Jordan the Brits did in fact legitimize the palest state. Jordan is it. What remained SHOULD have been ALL Israel. On that basis the palests HAD their independent state BEFORE Israel. It was and still is Jordan.
That there were a bunch of arabs who for one reason or another could or would not go into Jordan should have been beside the point. They would have been welcomed into the new nation of Israel and in fact were formally not only invited to join but almost begged to join but no, instead they took the path of war.
Eventually the very much smaller than intended are that was to become Israel was once more partitioned, this time some for the Jews, the rest for the residual arabs. Again that the best areas of land were designated for the arabs also seems to get overlooked.
I’m getting bored and I have work to do.
I realise that no matter how much of the reality of the history of my country is presented to those who really have their fixed (and wrong) ideas that they then propagate and infect others with, such people will never change their opinions.
Shame really that ignorance is so prevalent and so often associated with bigotry and prejudice.
Never mind, we’ve now got what is at least part of ours, we’re going to really ‘put the shutters up’ unless the palests come to their senses, so all will be well in the end.
As an aside I do think that unless the ROW and Europe in particular are very careful the US may soon pull up its drawbridge and go down an isolationist path.
There’s a limit to how long a nation will put up with having the hand that it feeds so many with being continually bitten.
If the US does turn inwards, and I think it’s a very real and present danger, then the ROW and Europe, so far along the road to becoming Eurabia, will have something to really get worried about.
Originally Posted by golem
There was marked parity in the form and nature of that attacks between the IRA and their associates and the Loyalist gangs and theirs.
The same is not so in Israel. The Eire – Great Britain conflict over Ulster is NOT even remotely similar far less close to congruent.
Were it merely the terrorist gangs involved, there might have been a marked parity in the form and nature of the attacks. One side was actively supported by the police force and the entire UK army, though, who killed more Roman Catholics than any loyalist paramilitary group did. The parity you claim to see isn't there at all.
That is a matter of opinion. The form of the attacks, the targets chosen, there is the parity.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Israeli security forces do respond to attacks by mobs, they do take out terrorist activists, they do police and control isralei settlers who try to take the law into their own hands.
As a point of information, when "policing" each side they change their ammunition. There's even two flavours of "rubber bullets" employed - rubber rubber, and rubber-coated steel, the former used exclusively on settlers and the latter exclusively on Palestinians. No Israeli settler has been killed by one. Many Palestinians have.
Not that many IDF members have been shot at or blown up by the Settlers. The nature of the confrontation is different, the tools employed should differ.
spot wrote:
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
Please justify your statement – in what way were the actions of the UK government illegal?
Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.
We've all done that, golem. Now give a hint as to which jurisdiction would find the action illegal. You don't say unwarranted, or unethical, or unnecessary, you say illegal. Treat it as a technical term rather than a vague epithet, and explain the sense in which you claim it was illegal.
‘K, let’s look at the articles.
ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country (so the whole area of what was defined as Palestine) under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self¬ governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Self governing institutions are not the same as parturition into different states. That sentence simply enshrines the right for the arabs to live their way and the Jewish population to live their own. Was it a vain hope? Possibly, but it is there in article 2.
ARTICLE 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
Reinforces that, still not permission to partition into separate nations though.
ARTICLE 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co¬operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
(Again – ALL of Palestine.)
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co¬operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
Keep that in mind – it will come back when the actions of the Brits sought to bar immigrants into OUR nation in later years and we, or at least people of my fathers generation, had to kick them out with their collective tails between their legs.
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
Now that’s where the illegality really starts. By creating Jordan and the granting independence Brits placed a vast area of what was all to be our homeland under a foreign power – the power of an independent Jordan.
ARTICLE 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co¬operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
Note the reference to both state lands and to waste lands so recognising that there were lands that were unassigned
Moving on --- (only to save time and space ---)
ARTICLE 9. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Considering the subsequent actions of the Brits that’s a joke. A joke in bad taste though.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
Interesting things, wakfs. can be evry useful.
ARTICLE 25. 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 provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
This what GB used as an excuse to create Trans-Jordan. Although it was a legitimate clause to use to prohibit the automatic right of Jewish people to immigrate to that area it did NOT give GB the right to grant what was Trans-Jordan independence.
Thereby lies another aspect of the illegality of actions by the Brits.
What is significant is that by the granting of independence to Trans-Jordan the Brits did in fact legitimize the palest state. Jordan is it. What remained SHOULD have been ALL Israel. On that basis the palests HAD their independent state BEFORE Israel. It was and still is Jordan.
That there were a bunch of arabs who for one reason or another could or would not go into Jordan should have been beside the point. They would have been welcomed into the new nation of Israel and in fact were formally not only invited to join but almost begged to join but no, instead they took the path of war.
Eventually the very much smaller than intended are that was to become Israel was once more partitioned, this time some for the Jews, the rest for the residual arabs. Again that the best areas of land were designated for the arabs also seems to get overlooked.
I’m getting bored and I have work to do.
I realise that no matter how much of the reality of the history of my country is presented to those who really have their fixed (and wrong) ideas that they then propagate and infect others with, such people will never change their opinions.
Shame really that ignorance is so prevalent and so often associated with bigotry and prejudice.
Never mind, we’ve now got what is at least part of ours, we’re going to really ‘put the shutters up’ unless the palests come to their senses, so all will be well in the end.
As an aside I do think that unless the ROW and Europe in particular are very careful the US may soon pull up its drawbridge and go down an isolationist path.
There’s a limit to how long a nation will put up with having the hand that it feeds so many with being continually bitten.
If the US does turn inwards, and I think it’s a very real and present danger, then the ROW and Europe, so far along the road to becoming Eurabia, will have something to really get worried about.
What's Going On?
golem wrote:
Have you actually studied the map?
Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.
And just why do you think that the Peel Report came about? Check it out in history. If the Brits had done as they should in the first place leading up to the ’36 riots and undertaken their mandated responsibility even handedly and diligently there would have not been a NEED for the Peel report.
And this is considered argument – my, my, how low some people will sink!
Yes, I have studied the map, and read the mandate, and the background of the Peel commission – so shall we consider what they actually show?
Are you seriously suggesting that there are no indigenous Arabs living in Jerusalem - or in the rest of the territory surrounded by the wall? These are the people to whom I was referring – not those living outside the wall whose jobs are inside. Last I heard the Arab population of Israel was about 20%.
The Mandate was given to Britain and France – the Principle Allied Powers given that the US were not interested, to fill the vacuum left by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. It was intended to implement the Balfour Declaration in as far as it could be implemented.
The tern of the Balfour declaration were included the Mandate and state “.... in favour of the establishment IN Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights or existing non-Jewish communities in Palestineâ€. As Spot has previously pointed out, English, especially legal English, is un-ambiguous over the use of IN and OF in such cases.
So where, in Article 2, the mandate mentions the country, the relevant phrase is “the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble†i.e. IN Palestine.
Again in Article 4 the statement is IN Palestine, but, yes, the hope was for a Jewish Agency and an Arab Agency to “assist and take part in†“in consultation with His Britannic Majesties Government†in the governing of the mandated territory.
golem wrote: Keep that in mind – it will come back when the actions of the Brits sought to bar immigrants into OUR nation in later years and we, or at least people of my fathers generation, had to kick them out with their collective tails between their legs.
Given that the Mandate stated that the Mandatory was obliged to protect the economic and civil rights of the indigenous population. I believe that the relevant statement in the talks leading to the Mandate were “immigration should not exceed the absorptive capacity of the countryâ€.
golem wrote:
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
Now that’s where the illegality really starts. By creating Jordan and the granting independence Brits placed a vast area of what was all to be our homeland under a foreign power – the power of an independent Jordan.
Given that TransJordan had been specifically separated from Palestine in June 1922 – before the Mandate was agreed on the 24th July of that year, that is just not true.
In a White Paper of 3rd June 1922, setting out the UK's intention in proposing the mandate to the League of Nations, Winston Churchill wrote “it is not the imposition of Jewish Nationality on the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews of other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on the grounds of religion and race, an interest and a prideâ€. HMG had not contemplated, at any time “the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestineâ€.
Quoting Michael Cohen of the University of California, “Palestine and TransJordan remained a single administrative unit until 1946 but in 1922, TransJordan was detached from the area to which the Balfour declaration applied. This has remained a grievance with the Zionist side, but it should be remembered that the area to the east of the river Jordan was definitely included in the area promised to Husayn in 1915â€
Article 6
How would you suggest that the UK government could comply with this article whilst turning the whole of Palestine into a Jewish National Homeland? How could they do this whilst “ensuring the rights and position of other sections of the population are not predudiced�
golem wrote:
ARTICLE 9. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Considering the subsequent actions of the Brits that’s a joke. A joke in bad taste though.
And how have the Israelis fared in “ safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion†and ensuring “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language.†(Article 15 – I notice you didn't quote that one).
Article 24 (another you ignored) provides that the Mandatory must make an annual report back to the League of Nations detailing all measures taken, laws enacted etc. Do you imaging that, If HMG were acting illegally, these reviews would have passed without incident?
golem wrote:
ARTICLE 25. 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 provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
This what GB used as an excuse to create Trans-Jordan. Although it was a legitimate clause to use to prohibit the automatic right of Jewish people to immigrate to that area it did NOT give GB the right to grant what was Trans-Jordan independence.
Thereby lies another aspect of the illegality of actions by the Brits.
As I said before, TransJordan was created BEFORE the Mandate was put into place.
golem wrote:
That there were a bunch of arabs who for one reason or another could or would not go into Jordan should have been beside the point. They would have been welcomed into the new nation of Israel and in fact were formally not only invited to join but almost begged to join but no, instead they took the path of war.
That is kind of stretching the truth a bit. As is you repeated previous assertion that the Arabs declared war on Israel on the day of its creation. In truth, the Israeli army we fighting against the Arab population of Palestine for months beforehand, capturing Haifa on April 22nd and Jaffa on May 13th. The local Arab forces had collapsed by the time Israel declared UDI and the neighbouring states intervened to protect the native population. Just one month before UDI, Irgun massacred 250 civilians in the village of Deir Yasin yet – those bastard Arabs attacked us!
“Shame really that ignorance is so prevalent and so often associated with bigotry and prejudice.â€
Have you actually studied the map?
Read and do try to understand the terms under which the Brits were given the Mandate over the area in the first place.
And just why do you think that the Peel Report came about? Check it out in history. If the Brits had done as they should in the first place leading up to the ’36 riots and undertaken their mandated responsibility even handedly and diligently there would have not been a NEED for the Peel report.
And this is considered argument – my, my, how low some people will sink!
Yes, I have studied the map, and read the mandate, and the background of the Peel commission – so shall we consider what they actually show?
Are you seriously suggesting that there are no indigenous Arabs living in Jerusalem - or in the rest of the territory surrounded by the wall? These are the people to whom I was referring – not those living outside the wall whose jobs are inside. Last I heard the Arab population of Israel was about 20%.
The Mandate was given to Britain and France – the Principle Allied Powers given that the US were not interested, to fill the vacuum left by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. It was intended to implement the Balfour Declaration in as far as it could be implemented.
The tern of the Balfour declaration were included the Mandate and state “.... in favour of the establishment IN Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights or existing non-Jewish communities in Palestineâ€. As Spot has previously pointed out, English, especially legal English, is un-ambiguous over the use of IN and OF in such cases.
So where, in Article 2, the mandate mentions the country, the relevant phrase is “the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble†i.e. IN Palestine.
Again in Article 4 the statement is IN Palestine, but, yes, the hope was for a Jewish Agency and an Arab Agency to “assist and take part in†“in consultation with His Britannic Majesties Government†in the governing of the mandated territory.
golem wrote: Keep that in mind – it will come back when the actions of the Brits sought to bar immigrants into OUR nation in later years and we, or at least people of my fathers generation, had to kick them out with their collective tails between their legs.
Given that the Mandate stated that the Mandatory was obliged to protect the economic and civil rights of the indigenous population. I believe that the relevant statement in the talks leading to the Mandate were “immigration should not exceed the absorptive capacity of the countryâ€.
golem wrote:
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
Now that’s where the illegality really starts. By creating Jordan and the granting independence Brits placed a vast area of what was all to be our homeland under a foreign power – the power of an independent Jordan.
Given that TransJordan had been specifically separated from Palestine in June 1922 – before the Mandate was agreed on the 24th July of that year, that is just not true.
In a White Paper of 3rd June 1922, setting out the UK's intention in proposing the mandate to the League of Nations, Winston Churchill wrote “it is not the imposition of Jewish Nationality on the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews of other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on the grounds of religion and race, an interest and a prideâ€. HMG had not contemplated, at any time “the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestineâ€.
Quoting Michael Cohen of the University of California, “Palestine and TransJordan remained a single administrative unit until 1946 but in 1922, TransJordan was detached from the area to which the Balfour declaration applied. This has remained a grievance with the Zionist side, but it should be remembered that the area to the east of the river Jordan was definitely included in the area promised to Husayn in 1915â€
Article 6
How would you suggest that the UK government could comply with this article whilst turning the whole of Palestine into a Jewish National Homeland? How could they do this whilst “ensuring the rights and position of other sections of the population are not predudiced�
golem wrote:
ARTICLE 9. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Considering the subsequent actions of the Brits that’s a joke. A joke in bad taste though.
And how have the Israelis fared in “ safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion†and ensuring “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language.†(Article 15 – I notice you didn't quote that one).
Article 24 (another you ignored) provides that the Mandatory must make an annual report back to the League of Nations detailing all measures taken, laws enacted etc. Do you imaging that, If HMG were acting illegally, these reviews would have passed without incident?
golem wrote:
ARTICLE 25. 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 provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
This what GB used as an excuse to create Trans-Jordan. Although it was a legitimate clause to use to prohibit the automatic right of Jewish people to immigrate to that area it did NOT give GB the right to grant what was Trans-Jordan independence.
Thereby lies another aspect of the illegality of actions by the Brits.
As I said before, TransJordan was created BEFORE the Mandate was put into place.
golem wrote:
That there were a bunch of arabs who for one reason or another could or would not go into Jordan should have been beside the point. They would have been welcomed into the new nation of Israel and in fact were formally not only invited to join but almost begged to join but no, instead they took the path of war.
That is kind of stretching the truth a bit. As is you repeated previous assertion that the Arabs declared war on Israel on the day of its creation. In truth, the Israeli army we fighting against the Arab population of Palestine for months beforehand, capturing Haifa on April 22nd and Jaffa on May 13th. The local Arab forces had collapsed by the time Israel declared UDI and the neighbouring states intervened to protect the native population. Just one month before UDI, Irgun massacred 250 civilians in the village of Deir Yasin yet – those bastard Arabs attacked us!
“Shame really that ignorance is so prevalent and so often associated with bigotry and prejudice.â€
What's Going On?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that there are no indigenous Arabs living in Jerusalem - or in the rest of the territory surrounded by the wall? These are the people to whom I was referring – not those living outside the wall whose jobs are inside. Last I heard the Arab population of Israel was about 20%.
No arabs? Not at all. Where did you conclude that from?
Bryn Mawr wrote: The Mandate was given to Britain and France – the Principle Allied Powers given that the US were not interested, to fill the vacuum left by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. It was intended to implement the Balfour Declaration in as far as it could be implemented.
GB was mandated to the area that was to be the Jewish homeland. (GB was also given the mandate for the land that is now Iraq. The land was actually three tribal areas but GB decided it would be in their interests to keep it as one. Today we pay.)
Bryn Mawr wrote: The tern of the Balfour declaration were included the Mandate and state “.... in favour of the establishment IN Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights or existing non-Jewish communities in Palestineâ€. As Spot has previously pointed out, English, especially legal English, is un-ambiguous over the use of IN and OF in such cases.
Not so. The use of the term ‘in’ does not in some way limit the homeland to a area. ‘In’ is the correct word to use when relating statehood to land as ‘they shall reside in the land of XXXX where XXXX reltes to an area. As there WAS no land called ‘palestine’ at the time and both the name and the delineation were constructed to suite the needs of the document it is even more apparent.
Just as until the ‘palestinians’ were invented as being a single entity so the name of the land area was invented to suite the needs of the day.
Bryn Mawr wrote: So where, in Article 2, the mandate mentions the country, the relevant phrase is “the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble†i.e. IN Palestine.
See above.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Again in Article 4 the statement is IN Palestine, but, yes, the hope was for a Jewish Agency and an Arab Agency to “assist and take part in†“in consultation with His Britannic Majesties Government†in the governing of the mandated territory.
It happened as much as was possible in the face of British pro-arab policies both in the latter years of WW1 and during the lead up to and during WW2.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Given that the Mandate stated that the Mandatory was obliged to protect the economic and civil rights of the indigenous population. I believe that the relevant statement in the talks leading to the Mandate were “immigration should not exceed the absorptive capacity of the countryâ€.
And it did not. Nor would it have if the whole world ‘s Jewish population were to arrive.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Given that TransJordan had been specifically separated from Palestine in June 1922 – before the Mandate was agreed on the 24th July of that year, that is just not true.
Not so.
Bryn Mawr wrote: In a White Paper of 3rd June 1922, setting out the UK's intention in proposing the mandate to the League of Nations, Winston Churchill wrote “it is not the imposition of Jewish Nationality on the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews of other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on the grounds of religion and race, an interest and a prideâ€. HMG had not contemplated, at any time “the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestineâ€.
Nor had the returning Jewish population. Note also the words ‘Jewish Nationality’. Not Israeli nationality, Jewish Nationality.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Quoting Michael Cohen of the University of California, “Palestine and TransJordan remained a single administrative unit until 1946 but in 1922, TransJordan was detached from the area to which the Balfour declaration applied.
This has remained a grievance with the Zionist side, but it should be remembered that the area to the east of the river Jordan was definitely included in the area promised to Husayn in 1915â€
Precisley. GB was promising two different things to two different interests at the same time and in contradiction to the letter and intent of the sykes - pickot agreement and later the mandate. Nothing new there then. Trans Jordan was detached as a scurrilous act by the Brits but it did have one important aspect that gets overlooked.
By setting aside part of OUR homeland and designating it ‘Trans – Jordan’ what the Brits had actually done was to create the arab state that the so called palest should have gone to long before the eventual formalising of Israel by the UN.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Article 6
How would you suggest that the UK government could comply with this article whilst turning the whole of Palestine into a Jewish National Homeland? How could they do this whilst “ensuring the rights and position of other sections of the population are not predudiced�
How would the rights etc. of other people be prejudiced had this been done? As long as they were allowed to keep their institutions, culture, religion, holy sites holy, etc. then that is satisfied.
Bryn Mawr wrote: And how have the Israelis fared in “ safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion†and ensuring “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language.†(Article 15 – I notice you didn't quote that one).
Question #15 if you want. It’s not particularly significant to this. In fact the only problems taht exist today are as a result of our eed to defend ourselves. End of story.
In any case considering the lengths that we have gone to in preserving the ‘holy places’ of the moslems, and we have, in spite of there being more than ample evidence to show that many are Jewish holy sites INCLUDING the ‘al asqua’ mosque, there is nothing that could be construed that we have breached that in the past or now.
The terrorism FROM the arabs obviously results in some necessary control being imposed. Stop the terrorism, recognise OUR right to exist, and things will return to normal.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Article 24 (another you ignored) provides that the Mandatory must make an annual report back to the League of Nations detailing all measures taken, laws enacted etc. Do you imaging that, If HMG were acting illegally, these reviews would have passed without incident?
Do you imagine that GB were full, open and honest in their reports? That they were not biased in favour OF GB?
Get real.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
ARTICLE 25.
This what GB used as an excuse to create Trans-Jordan. Although it was a legitimate clause to use to prohibit the automatic right of Jewish people to immigrate to that area it did NOT give GB the right to grant what was Trans-Jordan independence.
As I said before, TransJordan was created BEFORE the Mandate was put into place.
No it wasn’t.
The mandate was established in scope and intent in advance.
Control of The southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was ‘mandated’ to France and Britain in 1916 under the Sykes-Picot Agreement which divided former Ottoman empire. This was further divided into ‘Zones of Influence’ with Lebanon and Syria going to France and ‘palestine’ to GB.
Bryn Mawr wrote: As is you repeated previous assertion that the Arabs declared war on Israel on the day of its creation.
In truth, the Israeli army we fighting against the Arab population of Palestine for months beforehand, capturing Haifa on April 22nd and Jaffa on May 13th.
Assertion? It's a recorded act.
The arabs declared all out war on Israel immediatly after Iasrael was recognised by the UN.
The arabs in ‘palestine’ either put their heads down, in which case they were pretty much left alone by us, of fled under the advice of the neighboring states who told them we would massacre them (we didn’t) or that they would be in the way and they could have all the spoils when WE had been massacred.
We fought. We won. We didn’t get massacred. We didn’t massacre.
Prior to the recognition of Israel there was no Israel Army.
There was an armed force that was under the control of the to-be Israeli government, there were independent groups such at the Stern gang (who were stamped down on by us as they were being counterproductive apart from anything else) but there was no Israeli army. What there was would become the core of the IDF but that’s another story.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The local Arab forces had collapsed by the time Israel declared UDI and the neighboring states intervened to protect the native population.
Rubbish. Pure unadulterated utter rubbish.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Just one month before UDI, Irgun massacred 250 civilians in the village of Deir Yasin yet – those bastard Arabs attacked us!
Oh yes – Deir Yasin. I wonder why we did what we did. I wonder why we tried to target just the terrorists. I wonder why we tried to help the injured. I wonder why so much propaganda dreck is spouted about Der Yasin.
The REAL story is very different from the propaganda. My late Uncle took part in that raid, He told it as it really was.
You want to open up tye Deir Yasin issue? I'll gladly deal with THAT one.
Now, if you want to see a REAL bit of British duplicitous double dealing at work then the history behind the Balfour declaration is interesting. You will find that you even get ensnared with T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) and his acts as an agent of GB in their machinations to destroy the Turkish army (Turkey was aligned with Germany).
Then look at the US politics of the day and the need by GB to bring the US ‘on song’ in what was seen as a ‘European War’.
The Balfour declaration was right, but it resulted in a situation that GB really didn’t want happen and tried doggedly to reverse – until we eventually kicked them out of what little was left of OUR land.
I repeat what a shame that ignorance is so prevalent and so often associated with bigotry and prejudice.
No arabs? Not at all. Where did you conclude that from?
Bryn Mawr wrote: The Mandate was given to Britain and France – the Principle Allied Powers given that the US were not interested, to fill the vacuum left by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. It was intended to implement the Balfour Declaration in as far as it could be implemented.
GB was mandated to the area that was to be the Jewish homeland. (GB was also given the mandate for the land that is now Iraq. The land was actually three tribal areas but GB decided it would be in their interests to keep it as one. Today we pay.)
Bryn Mawr wrote: The tern of the Balfour declaration were included the Mandate and state “.... in favour of the establishment IN Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights or existing non-Jewish communities in Palestineâ€. As Spot has previously pointed out, English, especially legal English, is un-ambiguous over the use of IN and OF in such cases.
Not so. The use of the term ‘in’ does not in some way limit the homeland to a area. ‘In’ is the correct word to use when relating statehood to land as ‘they shall reside in the land of XXXX where XXXX reltes to an area. As there WAS no land called ‘palestine’ at the time and both the name and the delineation were constructed to suite the needs of the document it is even more apparent.
Just as until the ‘palestinians’ were invented as being a single entity so the name of the land area was invented to suite the needs of the day.
Bryn Mawr wrote: So where, in Article 2, the mandate mentions the country, the relevant phrase is “the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble†i.e. IN Palestine.
See above.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Again in Article 4 the statement is IN Palestine, but, yes, the hope was for a Jewish Agency and an Arab Agency to “assist and take part in†“in consultation with His Britannic Majesties Government†in the governing of the mandated territory.
It happened as much as was possible in the face of British pro-arab policies both in the latter years of WW1 and during the lead up to and during WW2.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Given that the Mandate stated that the Mandatory was obliged to protect the economic and civil rights of the indigenous population. I believe that the relevant statement in the talks leading to the Mandate were “immigration should not exceed the absorptive capacity of the countryâ€.
And it did not. Nor would it have if the whole world ‘s Jewish population were to arrive.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Given that TransJordan had been specifically separated from Palestine in June 1922 – before the Mandate was agreed on the 24th July of that year, that is just not true.
Not so.
Bryn Mawr wrote: In a White Paper of 3rd June 1922, setting out the UK's intention in proposing the mandate to the League of Nations, Winston Churchill wrote “it is not the imposition of Jewish Nationality on the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews of other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on the grounds of religion and race, an interest and a prideâ€. HMG had not contemplated, at any time “the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestineâ€.
Nor had the returning Jewish population. Note also the words ‘Jewish Nationality’. Not Israeli nationality, Jewish Nationality.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Quoting Michael Cohen of the University of California, “Palestine and TransJordan remained a single administrative unit until 1946 but in 1922, TransJordan was detached from the area to which the Balfour declaration applied.
This has remained a grievance with the Zionist side, but it should be remembered that the area to the east of the river Jordan was definitely included in the area promised to Husayn in 1915â€
Precisley. GB was promising two different things to two different interests at the same time and in contradiction to the letter and intent of the sykes - pickot agreement and later the mandate. Nothing new there then. Trans Jordan was detached as a scurrilous act by the Brits but it did have one important aspect that gets overlooked.
By setting aside part of OUR homeland and designating it ‘Trans – Jordan’ what the Brits had actually done was to create the arab state that the so called palest should have gone to long before the eventual formalising of Israel by the UN.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Article 6
How would you suggest that the UK government could comply with this article whilst turning the whole of Palestine into a Jewish National Homeland? How could they do this whilst “ensuring the rights and position of other sections of the population are not predudiced�
How would the rights etc. of other people be prejudiced had this been done? As long as they were allowed to keep their institutions, culture, religion, holy sites holy, etc. then that is satisfied.
Bryn Mawr wrote: And how have the Israelis fared in “ safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion†and ensuring “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language.†(Article 15 – I notice you didn't quote that one).
Question #15 if you want. It’s not particularly significant to this. In fact the only problems taht exist today are as a result of our eed to defend ourselves. End of story.
In any case considering the lengths that we have gone to in preserving the ‘holy places’ of the moslems, and we have, in spite of there being more than ample evidence to show that many are Jewish holy sites INCLUDING the ‘al asqua’ mosque, there is nothing that could be construed that we have breached that in the past or now.
The terrorism FROM the arabs obviously results in some necessary control being imposed. Stop the terrorism, recognise OUR right to exist, and things will return to normal.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Article 24 (another you ignored) provides that the Mandatory must make an annual report back to the League of Nations detailing all measures taken, laws enacted etc. Do you imaging that, If HMG were acting illegally, these reviews would have passed without incident?
Do you imagine that GB were full, open and honest in their reports? That they were not biased in favour OF GB?
Get real.
Bryn Mawr wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
ARTICLE 25.
This what GB used as an excuse to create Trans-Jordan. Although it was a legitimate clause to use to prohibit the automatic right of Jewish people to immigrate to that area it did NOT give GB the right to grant what was Trans-Jordan independence.
As I said before, TransJordan was created BEFORE the Mandate was put into place.
No it wasn’t.
The mandate was established in scope and intent in advance.
Control of The southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was ‘mandated’ to France and Britain in 1916 under the Sykes-Picot Agreement which divided former Ottoman empire. This was further divided into ‘Zones of Influence’ with Lebanon and Syria going to France and ‘palestine’ to GB.
Bryn Mawr wrote: As is you repeated previous assertion that the Arabs declared war on Israel on the day of its creation.
In truth, the Israeli army we fighting against the Arab population of Palestine for months beforehand, capturing Haifa on April 22nd and Jaffa on May 13th.
Assertion? It's a recorded act.
The arabs declared all out war on Israel immediatly after Iasrael was recognised by the UN.
The arabs in ‘palestine’ either put their heads down, in which case they were pretty much left alone by us, of fled under the advice of the neighboring states who told them we would massacre them (we didn’t) or that they would be in the way and they could have all the spoils when WE had been massacred.
We fought. We won. We didn’t get massacred. We didn’t massacre.
Prior to the recognition of Israel there was no Israel Army.
There was an armed force that was under the control of the to-be Israeli government, there were independent groups such at the Stern gang (who were stamped down on by us as they were being counterproductive apart from anything else) but there was no Israeli army. What there was would become the core of the IDF but that’s another story.
Bryn Mawr wrote: The local Arab forces had collapsed by the time Israel declared UDI and the neighboring states intervened to protect the native population.
Rubbish. Pure unadulterated utter rubbish.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Just one month before UDI, Irgun massacred 250 civilians in the village of Deir Yasin yet – those bastard Arabs attacked us!
Oh yes – Deir Yasin. I wonder why we did what we did. I wonder why we tried to target just the terrorists. I wonder why we tried to help the injured. I wonder why so much propaganda dreck is spouted about Der Yasin.
The REAL story is very different from the propaganda. My late Uncle took part in that raid, He told it as it really was.
You want to open up tye Deir Yasin issue? I'll gladly deal with THAT one.
Now, if you want to see a REAL bit of British duplicitous double dealing at work then the history behind the Balfour declaration is interesting. You will find that you even get ensnared with T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) and his acts as an agent of GB in their machinations to destroy the Turkish army (Turkey was aligned with Germany).
Then look at the US politics of the day and the need by GB to bring the US ‘on song’ in what was seen as a ‘European War’.
The Balfour declaration was right, but it resulted in a situation that GB really didn’t want happen and tried doggedly to reverse – until we eventually kicked them out of what little was left of OUR land.
I repeat what a shame that ignorance is so prevalent and so often associated with bigotry and prejudice.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: No arabs? Not at all. Where did you conclude that from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
And what of the Arabs living and working in the enclosed area?
Quote:
golem wrote: they want to cross the security fence? Not a problem, there are gates. All they need is a bona fide reason and there they go. Minus bombs, guns, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
Are you seriously suggesting that there are no indigenous Arabs living in Jerusalem - or in the rest of the territory surrounded by the wall? These are the people to whom I was referring – not those living outside the wall whose jobs are inside. Last I heard the Arab population of Israel was about 20%.
I ask about Arabs “living and working†in the enclosed areas, you talk about Arabs coming in from outside, I bring the conversation back to the Arabs within the enclosed areas. Now are you going to answer the question?
golem wrote:
GB was mandated to the area that was to be the Jewish homeland. (GB was also given the mandate for the land that is now Iraq. The land was actually three tribal areas but GB decided it would be in their interests to keep it as one. Today we pay.)
Not so. The use of the term ‘in’ does not in some way limit the homeland to a area. ‘In’ is the correct word to use when relating statehood to land as ‘they shall reside in the land of XXXX where XXXX reltes to an area. As there WAS no land called ‘palestine’ at the time and both the name and the delineation were constructed to suite the needs of the document it is even more apparent.
Just as until the ‘palestinians’ were invented as being a single entity so the name of the land area was invented to suite the needs of the day.
See above.
In what way do you read “in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people†as mandating that the said national home MUST occupy the whole of Palestine. It does not say this is English and it most certainly does not say it in Legalese.
The name Palestine was hardly coined just for the needs of the Mandate. Apart from its use in the Balfour declaration 6 year previously, Theodor Herzl's stated aims in starting the Zionist Movement in 1897 were to “strive to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public lawâ€.
(an aim not supported by one of the most prominent of the early members, Ahad Ha'am, on the grounds of smallness of the country and the fact that it was inhabited by a large native population)
golem wrote:
And it did not. Nor would it have if the whole world ‘s Jewish population were to arrive.
Can we have some sense here. You cannot bring an indefinite number of new settlers into a restricted territory without at some point exceeding the absorptive capacity of the country and its infrastructure.
golem wrote:
Not so.
Hardly a cogent argument. Could you provide supporting documentation to back up your assertion that the July 1922 mandate instrument did not exclude TransJordan from inclusion in the Jewish National Home?
golem wrote:
Nor had the returning Jewish population. Note also the words ‘Jewish Nationality’. Not Israeli nationality, Jewish Nationality.
You do not consider that, had the state of Israel occupied the whole of Palestine as you say is its right, Jewish nationality would have been forced on the existing inhabitants of Palestine?
BTW. What point are you trying to make with your Note?
golem wrote:
Precisley. GB was promising two different things to two different interests at the same time and in contradiction to the letter and intent of the sykes - pickot agreement and later the mandate. Nothing new there then. Trans Jordan was detached as a scurrilous act by the Brits but it did have one important aspect that gets overlooked.
By setting aside part of OUR homeland and designating it ‘Trans – Jordan’ what the Brits had actually done was to create the arab state that the so called palest should have gone to long before the eventual formalising of Israel by the UN.
Not in the slightest. The Zionist Movement was never promised the whole of Palestine and TransJordan and, beside, the promise to Hasayn pre-dated the Balfour declaration. TransJordan was never part or YOUR homeland and the Mandate dictated that the rights and position of the indigenous population should not be prejudiced. Position, not only as a self governing people but also in terms of the land occupied.
golem wrote:
Do you imagine that GB were full, open and honest in their reports? That they were not biased in favour OF GB?
Get real.
I've noted before your excessive reliance on that phrase – it doesn't exactly advance your case.
Do you imagine that the League of Nations were blind? That certain other countries wound not have been watching for any opportunity to get a dig in at the UK? Certainly, any blatant breach of the Mandate or any illegal actions such as you allege would have been impossible to hide.
golem wrote:
No it wasn’t.
The mandate was established in scope and intent in advance.
Control of The southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was ‘mandated’ to France and Britain in 1916 under the Sykes-Picot Agreement which divided former Ottoman empire. This was further divided into ‘Zones of Influence’ with Lebanon and Syria going to France and ‘palestine’ to GB.
As I said before, by the Mandate Instrument of 1922.
The Sykes-Picot agreement did not establish the scope of the Mandate it was “what shall we do when we beaten the Ottoman Empireâ€. The area it “Mandated†to the UK was in eastern Iran.
It also says nothing about a Jewish National Homeland – indeed, it says “That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states. “
In what way does this oblige the UK to set up a Jewish National Home in the whole of Palestine and TransJordan (of which only the West Bank and TransJordan were included in the UK's “area of influence†and none of which was in the “area of direct controlâ€).
golem wrote:
Assertion? It's a recorded act.
The arabs declared all out war on Israel immediatly after Iasrael was recognised by the UN.
The arabs in ‘palestine’ either put their heads down, in which case they were pretty much left alone by us, of fled under the advice of the neighboring states who told them we would massacre them (we didn’t) or that they would be in the way and they could have all the spoils when WE had been massacred.
We fought. We won. We didn’t get massacred. We didn’t massacre.
So you're saying there was no fighting before UDI? That Haifa and Jaffa did not fall as stated in the histories. Could you provide your sources for this?
golem wrote:
Prior to the recognition of Israel there was no Israel Army.
There was an armed force that was under the control of the to-be Israeli government, there were independent groups such at the Stern gang (who were stamped down on by us as they were being counterproductive apart from anything else) but there was no Israeli army. What there was would become the core of the IDF but that’s another story.
Obviously before Israel there was no Israeli Army. There were, however, Jewish military forces who, for the sake of brevity, I referred to as the Israeli Army.
golem wrote:
Rubbish. Pure unadulterated utter rubbish.
Again, could you substantiate this?
golem wrote:
Oh yes – Deir Yasin. I wonder why we did what we did. I wonder why we tried to target just the terrorists. I wonder why we tried to help the injured. I wonder why so much propaganda dreck is spouted about Der Yasin.
The REAL story is very different from the propaganda. My late Uncle took part in that raid, He told it as it really was.
You want to open up tye Deir Yasin issue? I'll gladly deal with THAT one.
Yes, I'd be very interested hear the real story – especially if it's backed up with independent evidence. No disrespect to your uncle but it is often said that history is written by the victors and someone so close to the event is unlikely to be able to give an unbiased view of it.
golem wrote:
Now, if you want to see a REAL bit of British duplicitous double dealing at work then the history behind the Balfour declaration is interesting. You will find that you even get ensnared with T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) and his acts as an agent of GB in their machinations to destroy the Turkish army (Turkey was aligned with Germany).
Then look at the US politics of the day and the need by GB to bring the US ‘on song’ in what was seen as a ‘European War’.
The Balfour declaration was right, but it resulted in a situation that GB really didn’t want happen and tried doggedly to reverse – until we eventually kicked them out of what little was left of OUR land.
I have looked at the politics of the day – my main interest in history is the why rather than the what. Which particular bits would you care to point out?
You have made a lot of statements of “fact†but have shown nothing to support your views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
And what of the Arabs living and working in the enclosed area?
Quote:
golem wrote: they want to cross the security fence? Not a problem, there are gates. All they need is a bona fide reason and there they go. Minus bombs, guns, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr
Are you seriously suggesting that there are no indigenous Arabs living in Jerusalem - or in the rest of the territory surrounded by the wall? These are the people to whom I was referring – not those living outside the wall whose jobs are inside. Last I heard the Arab population of Israel was about 20%.
I ask about Arabs “living and working†in the enclosed areas, you talk about Arabs coming in from outside, I bring the conversation back to the Arabs within the enclosed areas. Now are you going to answer the question?
golem wrote:
GB was mandated to the area that was to be the Jewish homeland. (GB was also given the mandate for the land that is now Iraq. The land was actually three tribal areas but GB decided it would be in their interests to keep it as one. Today we pay.)
Not so. The use of the term ‘in’ does not in some way limit the homeland to a area. ‘In’ is the correct word to use when relating statehood to land as ‘they shall reside in the land of XXXX where XXXX reltes to an area. As there WAS no land called ‘palestine’ at the time and both the name and the delineation were constructed to suite the needs of the document it is even more apparent.
Just as until the ‘palestinians’ were invented as being a single entity so the name of the land area was invented to suite the needs of the day.
See above.
In what way do you read “in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people†as mandating that the said national home MUST occupy the whole of Palestine. It does not say this is English and it most certainly does not say it in Legalese.
The name Palestine was hardly coined just for the needs of the Mandate. Apart from its use in the Balfour declaration 6 year previously, Theodor Herzl's stated aims in starting the Zionist Movement in 1897 were to “strive to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public lawâ€.
(an aim not supported by one of the most prominent of the early members, Ahad Ha'am, on the grounds of smallness of the country and the fact that it was inhabited by a large native population)
golem wrote:
And it did not. Nor would it have if the whole world ‘s Jewish population were to arrive.
Can we have some sense here. You cannot bring an indefinite number of new settlers into a restricted territory without at some point exceeding the absorptive capacity of the country and its infrastructure.
golem wrote:
Not so.
Hardly a cogent argument. Could you provide supporting documentation to back up your assertion that the July 1922 mandate instrument did not exclude TransJordan from inclusion in the Jewish National Home?
golem wrote:
Nor had the returning Jewish population. Note also the words ‘Jewish Nationality’. Not Israeli nationality, Jewish Nationality.
You do not consider that, had the state of Israel occupied the whole of Palestine as you say is its right, Jewish nationality would have been forced on the existing inhabitants of Palestine?
BTW. What point are you trying to make with your Note?
golem wrote:
Precisley. GB was promising two different things to two different interests at the same time and in contradiction to the letter and intent of the sykes - pickot agreement and later the mandate. Nothing new there then. Trans Jordan was detached as a scurrilous act by the Brits but it did have one important aspect that gets overlooked.
By setting aside part of OUR homeland and designating it ‘Trans – Jordan’ what the Brits had actually done was to create the arab state that the so called palest should have gone to long before the eventual formalising of Israel by the UN.
Not in the slightest. The Zionist Movement was never promised the whole of Palestine and TransJordan and, beside, the promise to Hasayn pre-dated the Balfour declaration. TransJordan was never part or YOUR homeland and the Mandate dictated that the rights and position of the indigenous population should not be prejudiced. Position, not only as a self governing people but also in terms of the land occupied.
golem wrote:
Do you imagine that GB were full, open and honest in their reports? That they were not biased in favour OF GB?
Get real.
I've noted before your excessive reliance on that phrase – it doesn't exactly advance your case.
Do you imagine that the League of Nations were blind? That certain other countries wound not have been watching for any opportunity to get a dig in at the UK? Certainly, any blatant breach of the Mandate or any illegal actions such as you allege would have been impossible to hide.
golem wrote:
No it wasn’t.
The mandate was established in scope and intent in advance.
Control of The southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was ‘mandated’ to France and Britain in 1916 under the Sykes-Picot Agreement which divided former Ottoman empire. This was further divided into ‘Zones of Influence’ with Lebanon and Syria going to France and ‘palestine’ to GB.
As I said before, by the Mandate Instrument of 1922.
The Sykes-Picot agreement did not establish the scope of the Mandate it was “what shall we do when we beaten the Ottoman Empireâ€. The area it “Mandated†to the UK was in eastern Iran.
It also says nothing about a Jewish National Homeland – indeed, it says “That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states. “
In what way does this oblige the UK to set up a Jewish National Home in the whole of Palestine and TransJordan (of which only the West Bank and TransJordan were included in the UK's “area of influence†and none of which was in the “area of direct controlâ€).
golem wrote:
Assertion? It's a recorded act.
The arabs declared all out war on Israel immediatly after Iasrael was recognised by the UN.
The arabs in ‘palestine’ either put their heads down, in which case they were pretty much left alone by us, of fled under the advice of the neighboring states who told them we would massacre them (we didn’t) or that they would be in the way and they could have all the spoils when WE had been massacred.
We fought. We won. We didn’t get massacred. We didn’t massacre.
So you're saying there was no fighting before UDI? That Haifa and Jaffa did not fall as stated in the histories. Could you provide your sources for this?
golem wrote:
Prior to the recognition of Israel there was no Israel Army.
There was an armed force that was under the control of the to-be Israeli government, there were independent groups such at the Stern gang (who were stamped down on by us as they were being counterproductive apart from anything else) but there was no Israeli army. What there was would become the core of the IDF but that’s another story.
Obviously before Israel there was no Israeli Army. There were, however, Jewish military forces who, for the sake of brevity, I referred to as the Israeli Army.
golem wrote:
Rubbish. Pure unadulterated utter rubbish.
Again, could you substantiate this?
golem wrote:
Oh yes – Deir Yasin. I wonder why we did what we did. I wonder why we tried to target just the terrorists. I wonder why we tried to help the injured. I wonder why so much propaganda dreck is spouted about Der Yasin.
The REAL story is very different from the propaganda. My late Uncle took part in that raid, He told it as it really was.
You want to open up tye Deir Yasin issue? I'll gladly deal with THAT one.
Yes, I'd be very interested hear the real story – especially if it's backed up with independent evidence. No disrespect to your uncle but it is often said that history is written by the victors and someone so close to the event is unlikely to be able to give an unbiased view of it.
golem wrote:
Now, if you want to see a REAL bit of British duplicitous double dealing at work then the history behind the Balfour declaration is interesting. You will find that you even get ensnared with T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) and his acts as an agent of GB in their machinations to destroy the Turkish army (Turkey was aligned with Germany).
Then look at the US politics of the day and the need by GB to bring the US ‘on song’ in what was seen as a ‘European War’.
The Balfour declaration was right, but it resulted in a situation that GB really didn’t want happen and tried doggedly to reverse – until we eventually kicked them out of what little was left of OUR land.
I have looked at the politics of the day – my main interest in history is the why rather than the what. Which particular bits would you care to point out?
You have made a lot of statements of “fact†but have shown nothing to support your views.
What's Going On?
Deir Yassin was certainly not the deliberate bloody massacre of innocents that is is repeatedly presented as being. Less than 100 arabs were killed and all these in the course of ir the collateral damage associated with the fighting.
First – the background and WHY Deir Yassin was attacked.
There had been a series of attacks particularly in Jerusalem against Jewish people as well as widespread attacks on both communications links and other Jewish targets in the area. Especially the road up to Jerusalem. Dier Yassim was a key village in these attacks and was absolutely known to be a major terrorist base.
Early April (’48) things became e Deir Yassin ven worse. Shots were repeatedly being fired from firing points in Dier Yassim at Jewish people and sites at both Bet Hakerem and Yefe Nof and Deir Yassin was being further reinforced as a base for the terrorists. Defensive earthworks had been built and a substantial armed guard was in place at what was now a serious and well established terrorist facility. In short Dier Yassim was no longer a simple arab village, it was a big military site being used for attacks against Jewish people and Jewish sites and facilities, especially during the battle for Kastel as well as forming the main site that was behind the attacks on the road to Jerusalem.
A group of Irgun fighters led by Mordechai Rannan rightly decided enough was enough. Mordechai well understood that the conduct of the attack was as important as the outcome and cautioned his men that the attack was one of conquest and NOT of pure reprisal and went on to make it clear that civilians and any arab fighters who surrendered were to be taken prisoner.
To do otherwise would be bound to be fuel for the propagandists from all quarters who were ever ready to demonize us ‘Jeeews’. This was further emphasised by a letter from Dovid Shaltiel, the Jerusalem based Haganah leader who also was very sensitive to the politics as well as the needs of the events that were taking place.
In what many people then and now find amazing this was to even go so far as to send an armed car with a loudspeaker on it to warn the civilians that they were surrounded and they had the option to leave to go to Ein Karem in safety and with guaranteed safe passage for all who wanted to.
Remember, the objective on this occasion was NOT reprisals, it was neutralization of a terrorist base camp, something that was both understood and more to the point accepted by our people all of whom understood the politics involved. Mordechai himself had brought this point home at the briefing when he said that there would be (his actual words but translated) “little point in destroying the enemy if we were to destroy our reputation in the process when our intent was to destroy our enemies capability and still win the war of credibility as a civilised people.â€
At the morning of the attack the Israeli forces positioned themselves ready and the armored car (with the loudspeaker ready) started forward. It was about then that things went wrong. Guards had been posted further out than had been the case in the past. One of these guards must have heard something (hardly surprising) and called out in arabic the name ‘Mahmaoudâ€. One of our people THOUGHT this was the first part of the agreed password (Ahdut) and replied with the agreed response (Lohemet). All hell broke loose as the guard fired towards the sound and his comrades joined in.
In site of this in a continued attempt to minimise civilian casualties the loudspeaker car continued but was faced with a freshly dug trench. In spite of all that was taking place the loudspeaker was used only to be met with heavy firepower from a house across the street from where it was stuck.
The attack then got under way in earnest against massive firepower from the village where every house contained fighters and substantial weaponry of all types. This was no ordinary village at all.
There was a massive battle with house to house fighting, casualties were heavy on both sides. What was very noticeable was that hundreds of the civilian population had fled using the open road to Ein Karem as had been advised by the loudspeaker message. The few who didn’t surrendered and were taken prisoner ad then much to their surprise were not massacred as they had been told that they would be but instead simply put on trucks and dumped in East Jerusalem in the arab quarter.
Deir Yassin was no massacre.
First – the background and WHY Deir Yassin was attacked.
There had been a series of attacks particularly in Jerusalem against Jewish people as well as widespread attacks on both communications links and other Jewish targets in the area. Especially the road up to Jerusalem. Dier Yassim was a key village in these attacks and was absolutely known to be a major terrorist base.
Early April (’48) things became e Deir Yassin ven worse. Shots were repeatedly being fired from firing points in Dier Yassim at Jewish people and sites at both Bet Hakerem and Yefe Nof and Deir Yassin was being further reinforced as a base for the terrorists. Defensive earthworks had been built and a substantial armed guard was in place at what was now a serious and well established terrorist facility. In short Dier Yassim was no longer a simple arab village, it was a big military site being used for attacks against Jewish people and Jewish sites and facilities, especially during the battle for Kastel as well as forming the main site that was behind the attacks on the road to Jerusalem.
A group of Irgun fighters led by Mordechai Rannan rightly decided enough was enough. Mordechai well understood that the conduct of the attack was as important as the outcome and cautioned his men that the attack was one of conquest and NOT of pure reprisal and went on to make it clear that civilians and any arab fighters who surrendered were to be taken prisoner.
To do otherwise would be bound to be fuel for the propagandists from all quarters who were ever ready to demonize us ‘Jeeews’. This was further emphasised by a letter from Dovid Shaltiel, the Jerusalem based Haganah leader who also was very sensitive to the politics as well as the needs of the events that were taking place.
In what many people then and now find amazing this was to even go so far as to send an armed car with a loudspeaker on it to warn the civilians that they were surrounded and they had the option to leave to go to Ein Karem in safety and with guaranteed safe passage for all who wanted to.
Remember, the objective on this occasion was NOT reprisals, it was neutralization of a terrorist base camp, something that was both understood and more to the point accepted by our people all of whom understood the politics involved. Mordechai himself had brought this point home at the briefing when he said that there would be (his actual words but translated) “little point in destroying the enemy if we were to destroy our reputation in the process when our intent was to destroy our enemies capability and still win the war of credibility as a civilised people.â€
At the morning of the attack the Israeli forces positioned themselves ready and the armored car (with the loudspeaker ready) started forward. It was about then that things went wrong. Guards had been posted further out than had been the case in the past. One of these guards must have heard something (hardly surprising) and called out in arabic the name ‘Mahmaoudâ€. One of our people THOUGHT this was the first part of the agreed password (Ahdut) and replied with the agreed response (Lohemet). All hell broke loose as the guard fired towards the sound and his comrades joined in.
In site of this in a continued attempt to minimise civilian casualties the loudspeaker car continued but was faced with a freshly dug trench. In spite of all that was taking place the loudspeaker was used only to be met with heavy firepower from a house across the street from where it was stuck.
The attack then got under way in earnest against massive firepower from the village where every house contained fighters and substantial weaponry of all types. This was no ordinary village at all.
There was a massive battle with house to house fighting, casualties were heavy on both sides. What was very noticeable was that hundreds of the civilian population had fled using the open road to Ein Karem as had been advised by the loudspeaker message. The few who didn’t surrendered and were taken prisoner ad then much to their surprise were not massacred as they had been told that they would be but instead simply put on trucks and dumped in East Jerusalem in the arab quarter.
Deir Yassin was no massacre.
What's Going On?
golem wrote: Deir Yassin was certainly not the deliberate bloody massacre of innocents that is is repeatedly presented as being. Less than 100 arabs were killed and all these in the course of ir the collateral damage associated with the fighting.
An interesting account - thank you.
An interesting account - thank you.