General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

Now, are you still claiming that the Arab states were promised democracy?

claim? its a proven fact. See the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_Declaration

Mesopotamia & Syria were supposed to be democratic states and the rest of the former Ottoman Empire were to be states run by, of, and for the people.

why do you think the Arabs joined the British against the Turks? To have their lands liberated and given to the people to rule. You honestly think the Arab-masses revolted in order to set up British & French colonial Mandates and Allied-friendly Kingdoms and a Jewish state after WW2???

please....the Arab people were clearly betrayed. There is no doubt about it.

 

[mortimer]

claim? its a proven fact. See the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_Declaration

Mesopotamia & Syria were supposed to be democratic states and the rest of the former Ottoman Empire were to be states run by, of, and for the people.

why do you think the Arabs joined the British against the Turks? To have their lands liberated and given to the people to rule. You honestly think the Arab-masses revolted in order to set up British & French colonial Mandates and Allied-friendly Kingdoms and a Jewish state after WW2???

please....the Arab people were clearly betrayed. There is no doubt about it.

"The agreement made it explicit that the form of the new governments was to be determined by local populations rather than imposed by the signatory powers."

Again, fail.

 

[Thunder]

"The agreement made it explicit that the form of the new governments was to be determined by local populations rather than imposed by the signatory powers."

Did the local populations decide on first having French and British Mandates, and then rule by newly declared tribal Kings? No, no they did not.

The British and French promised that in exchange for Arab support against the Ottomans, they would give the Arab people freedom to choose their own form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence#Following_World_War_I

And then after the Arab revolt was successful, the Brits & French renigged on their promise.

Another fail.

 

[mortimer]

Did the local populations decide on first having French and British Mandates, and then rule by newly declared tribal Kings? No, no they did not.

The British and French promised that in exchange for Arab support against the Ottomans, they would give the Arab people freedom to choose their own form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence#Following_World_War_I

And then after the Arab revolt was successful, the Brits & French renigged on their promise.

Another fail.

This is called shifting the goalposts. Your original claim was that they were promised "democracy", when in fact they were promised they could determine their own form of government, be that democracy or something else.

 

[Thunder]

This is called shifting the goalposts. Your original claim was that they were promised "democracy",

The Anglo-French Declaration was signed between France and Great Britain on November 7, 1918 agreeing to implement a "complete and final liberation" of countries that had been part of the Ottoman Empire including the establishment of democratic governments in Syria and Mesopotamia.


massive fail. if you still choose to deny the facts of the matter, your beef is now with Wikipedia, not with me.

 

[mortimer]

The Anglo-French Declaration was signed between France and Great Britain on November 7, 1918 agreeing to implement a "complete and final liberation" of countries that had been part of the Ottoman Empire including the establishment of democratic governments in Syria and Mesopotamia.


massive fail. if you still choose to deny the facts of the matter, your beef is now with Wikipedia, not with me.

Classic. It's true because Wikipedia says so? Even though the actual text of the declaration is right there for all to see, and states very clearly that the local populations would choose the form of government?

 

[Thunder]

Classic. It's true because Wikipedia says so? Even though the actual text of the declaration is right there for all to see, and states very clearly that the local populations would choose the form of government?

what kind of governments are free, independent, and respect the will of the people?

democratic ones.


"complete and final liberation of the peoples"

"setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations"

"establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations"

"to ensure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the populations themselves"



yep, looks like democracy to me.

and honestly, continued denial of this is no different than any other wacky conspiracy theory.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Do you really think the world is going to let Israel continue with its tyrannical dictatorship over the Palestinians forever?

Do you really think making childish rhetoric is going to pass as an argument?

Come September at least 150 nations are going to recognize Palestine opening the way for diplomatic, legal and financial sanctions by them against Israel. In another post I list more possible actions. Given Israel's attitude towards the US lately it appears to want to go it alone without US support.

The US understands Israel needs to defend itself and will support that. If the case were that Israel was attacking Palestinians and not the other way around, they might not support Israel. But until then, no one can deny that Israel has a right to defend itself and people making rhetoric arguments like that does not change the actual facts of the issue. You can call them anything you want, but the facts are the facts. You can call Santa Claus a tyrannical dictator if you want as well. It has no meaning to the actual facts at hand.

There is also a better than even chance the US will not veto its admission to the UN. That will immediately make the situation the same as between Iraq and Kuwait in 1991.

The US will always veto the unfair rulings of the UN. The UN is as corrupt as it gets and when member nations call for unfair sanctions, the US will not support them and will continue to point out the double standards being used by many of the member nations. Nations who use standards like yours. Essentially if they are jewish or Israeli, they are wrong. If they are arab, they are right. Like you, they will use weak arguments that appeal to nothing more than name calling.

There is nothing to negotiate. Netanyahu took every issue off the table with his rejectionist speech.

********. Israel is the only one willing to make concessions. The entire issue would be a non-issue if Palestinians would simply stop attacking Israel. Most of the border decisions are to protect from attacks. If the attacks weren't happening, then the borders would hardly be an issue. You'd be down to a silly religious dispute over Jerusalem.

Funny though how you have no problem with all the rejections from Palestine which have gone since the beginning. But when the Jews dare not budge on their issues, it's then their fault. Talk about being a hypocrite.

While I agree Israel is no better than Jordan you do not appear to understand the subject you are attempting to discuss. The government is recognized not the land.

No, Israel is better than Jordan. And better than Israel. How funny it is how people like you use bogus claims about tyrannical dictatorships but don't seem to have any complaints about the countries who took that land to begin with and actually DO slaughter civilians.

What will be gained in September is all but a couple dozens countries recognizing the present Palestinian government as the only lawful government of the land beyond the 1948 borders of Israel. That is an automatic recognition of Israel as an unlawful occupying power which must leave ASAP.

And again, why the 1948 borders? Why not the 1917 borders? Maybe, just maybe, those people should have thought about that before they participated in the "drive the Jews into the sea" campaign? And as mentioned, no one is stopping them from starting their own state. They could have done that at any time but have chosen not to. They didn't do it before 1948 either did they? Yet somehow it's the fault of the Jews...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I have asked the question at least a dozen times and no one has the least idea. More of the same is not acceptable to the world. It is not acceptable even to the US.

Israel has proposed nothing. He said no to everything and imposed demands on the subject population of Palestine.

As none of you have any ideas as to what Israel should do next, why bother with further discussion.

=====

Perhaps some clarification is needed for non-Americans here. Congress may have loved him. By the US Constitution Congress has no say in US foreign policy. That is purely the responsibility of the President. Congress can make life hell for him in other ways but it has no control over foreign policy.

So, yes, Congress loves Netanyahu. So what?

Once again nonsense. They have been negotiating since the beginning of the century. And you make an ignorant statement saying they do nothing and claim that the sole responsibility lies on them? No one is stopping the Palestinians from making a state but themselves. Israel has made proposal after proposal. Many others have made proposals and many that Israel has accepted. The Palestinian governments have always rejected everything. To be expected when one of the governments calls for the extermination of the jews.

There is no point in bothering to have a discussion with you because you're not rational. The question you ask is not a valid question and that's why no one is answering. it's not because they don't have an answer, it's because we know that the question itself demonstrated your lack of logic and reasoning. If one asks what the Palestinians are going to do, you claim that people are calling them inferior. It's just childish. Could you please try to keep the conversation on an adult level instead of making post after post of rhetoric and insults?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Where do we go from here?

I keep reading the you said/he said bickering and I keep asking the only question of interest. I am listening to the crickets.

It keeps coming to mind the seventh season of Buffy episode, Once More With Feeling, which ends with the song, Where Do We Go From Here?

And as Spike said to them, I say to you. Go back in there and get your Kumby-yayas out, you'll never figure out what you really want.

You guys are getting your Kumby-yayas out with your bickering and your dwelling on who loves who the most and holocaust, holocaust, holocaust! (Take your holocaust and shove it. It does not excuse beating a Palestinian child within an inch of his life just for the fun of it. It happened this week. Reported on haaretz.com)

Where do you go from here?

Come on you izziehugging geniuses (sorry for the stereotype) where do you go from here?

Come on you stereotypical geniuses, tell me what you are going to do to break the impasse. You can't be relying upon the inferior non-Jews to do something. You are the geniuses. You are the creative leaders of everything that has improved the world. What are you going to do in Palestine?

How do you plan to end your to keep depriving you subject Palestinians of the human right of self determination in light of the entire world telling you to EF off?

How do you plan to deny Palestinians the human rights you demand for yourselves?

Come on folks. I want an answer. An honest answer. Why the silence?

=====

BTW: Buffy rules!

 

[a_unique_person]

And again, why the 1948 borders? Why not the 1917 borders? Maybe, just maybe, those people should have thought about that before they participated in the "drive the Jews into the sea" campaign? And as mentioned, no one is stopping them from starting their own state. They could have done that at any time but have chosen not to. They didn't do it before 1948 either did they? Yet somehow it's the fault of the Jews...

Because they wanted their own state on their own terms, that is, self determination, which is nothing less than what Israel seems to be saying it has a right to.

 

[Virus]

Because they wanted their own state on their own terms, that is, self determination, which is nothing less than what Israel seems to be saying it has a right to.

Their terms are that they drive the Jews into the sea and take the whole land for themselves.

 

[Thunder]

Their terms are that they drive the Jews into the sea and take the whole land for themselves.


strawman.

 

[Virus]

Their terms are that they drive the Jews into the sea and take the whole land for themselves.


strawman.

You don't pay any attention to what is said in the Palestinian media, what the Palestinian leadership say amongst themselves, or what has been taught in schools and preached from the mosques for decades. The only thing you listen to are the carefully scrubbed statements in English intended for the useful idiots.

Here's an example of the things you don't listen to:

"I think that we are entering the phase of the liberation of Palestine. When we talk about the liberation of Palestine, we are talking about the notion of Return: the return of the refugees to their homeland, and the return of the Israelis to the countries from which they came."

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5325.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

Their terms are that they drive the Jews into the sea and take the whole land for themselves.

The Zionist terms appear to have been we will make a Jewish State here. Where does that leave Palestinians who live there. We can see the proposal a non-state for them, no self determination, with a new definition of the word 'free'.

The Zionists were gearing up for war well before the declaration of independence. This was not something unexpected, Ben Gurion said that he understood exactly why they would fight. All people in that situation would.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Because they wanted their own state on their own terms, that is, self determination, which is nothing less than what Israel seems to be saying it has a right to.

Israel didn't get a state on its own terms either. They compromised more than anyone. They made one anyways. Palestinians don't need anyone else's terms, they can just make a state. Just like Israel did. Their terms require impeding on someone else's terms. Doesn't mean they can't dispute and change the borders after being a state just like Israel is willing to do now. Just like Israel did when it formed a state.

Did Israel refuse to form a state until they got everything west of the Jordan river as they were initially promised? No, they compromised.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The Zionist terms appear to have been we will make a Jewish State here. Where does that leave Palestinians who live there. We can see the proposal a non-state for them, no self determination, with a new definition of the word 'free'.

The Zionists were gearing up for war well before the declaration of independence. This was not something unexpected, Ben Gurion said that he understood exactly why they would fight. All people in that situation would.

It's sad that people seem to have this ignorant understanding of the situation. They sit here thinking that there was a land occupied by Palestinians and then one day the Jews came along, kicked them all out and moved in. When nothing could be further from the truth. The Palestinians have the choice to be as free as they want. Israel is not impeding this, they are. When you elect a government who's charter is to exterminate your neighbors, don't blame the neighbors for having to defend themselves as you attack them.

You want free travel in and out? Then stop using your entrance and exits to launch attacks on those neighbors because you want to drive them into the sea. You want unrestricted waterways? Then stop using boats to ship missiles to attack your neighbors. You want better education? Then stop using your schools to teach your kids to hate your neighbors. You want free passage back into Israel? Then stop sending in suicide bombers. You want less innocent people to be killed? Then stop using civilians as human shields.

If people would stop trying to blame others for their own problems, they wouldn't have so many problems. Again I ask you, that if Israel is responsible for them not having their state, why didn't they create a state when Syria and Jordan had taken that land? Was that Israel's fault too? See how they treat protesters there. Oh right, they slaughter protesters there. But if they aren't Jewish, no complaints are there?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Their terms are that they drive the Jews into the sea and take the whole land for themselves.


strawman.

You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

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

 

[a_unique_person]

If people would stop trying to blame others for their own problems, they wouldn't have so many problems. Again I ask you, that if Israel is responsible for them not having their state, why didn't they create a state when Syria and Jordan had taken that land? Was that Israel's fault too? See how they treat protesters there. Oh right, they slaughter protesters there. But if they aren't Jewish, no complaints are there?

Since when is ignorance of what you know about what someone's opinion is evidence?

 

[Virus]

Unique, the UN proposed a partition. The Jews accepted, the Arabs didn't. The Arabs chose war, assuming a little Jewish state would be a pushover if they all ganged up. Why compromise when you could just push them all into the sea and take the whole lot?