Well it's official.

[webfusion]

OK, go right ahead, Orwell, remind me again. Jerk.
IIRC, the last time you attempted that, quoting my comments out of context, you forced me to spend valuable time correcting you. In fact, many posters on JREF have spent valuable time correcting you on all sorts of errors you have made, and yet you persist. That is why I say your advice is virtually worthless.

Those futile efforts of trying to rectify mis-statements of Orwell are reviewed HERE as I refute Orwell where he tries to tell me what I said in August 2005 on the thread- "with a cease fire like this, who needs war" -- (long thread).

===============================

TF, besides Benny Morris, who is claiming that the Israelis perpetrated "mass murder" in the War of Independence? Let's view some alternate sources...

===============================

.13. -- it is vital to realize the British Mandate of 1922/23 included ALL of Palestine as then defined by the San Remo Conference, and that is the history The Fool is now trying to revise.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/sanremo.html

[a_unique_person]

Is it British Mandate time again? It seems like only last month this was mentioned.

Who's mandate? An imperial power's, with no actual consideration for those who lived there.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

.13. -- it is vital to realize the British Mandate of 1922/23 included ALL of Palestine as then defined by the San Remo Conference, and that is the history The Fool is now trying to revise.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/sanremo.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/sanremo_palestine_1.gif

I hope you are not trying to be deliberately deceptive web...In what way am I trying to revise the fact that your map shows the entire original british mandate? What its borders were are not in dispute. What I was talking about was the borders of the area the british allocated for Israel...which were patently absurd as an area for a Nation...you know that. If there had never been any military conflict who would try to claim that Israel would now still be withing those borders? not you I hope....

Can I assume your preferred position would have been that they gave the entire thing to Israel...trans-jordan...everything?


"TF, besides Benny Morris, who is claiming that the Israelis perpetrated "mass murder" in the War of Independence? Let's view some alternate sources..."

come on web...stuff the names of the places in google...benny's name is not on all the results is it?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by The Fool

The borders mandated by the british were a joke. Israel was never going to be able to exist as a viable nation within them. Israel was always going to take more land, to claim it was in response to Arab agression...(as if Israel would be sitting quietly withing those silly borders today if not for arab attacks)....is just plain laughable.

Well, if the Israeli's HAD made the first attack (and subsequently been responsible for wars of attempted extermination in 67 and 73) then no doubt the Palestinians/Arab nations would have had the moral highground.

Just as if France in the early 20th century had invaded Germany to seize Alsace-Lorraine, people might criticize it. However as France was invaded, Germany defeated and France took a region that was historically significant for them (and makes their defence easier) then people tended to give it a pass.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

An excellent thing to do, rather than just make the assumption that some do here that anyone who doesn't follow their party line is a rabid anti-semite.

You were never called an anti-Semite merely because you disagreed with anyone.

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by webfusion

OK, go right ahead, Orwell, remind me again. Jerk.
IIRC, the last time you attempted that, quoting my comments out of context, you forced me to spend valuable time correcting you. In fact, many posters on JREF have spent valuable time correcting you on all sorts of errors you have made, and yet you persist. That is why I say your advice is virtually worthless.

Those futile efforts of trying to rectify mis-statements of Orwell are reviewed HERE as I refute Orwell where he tries to tell me what I said in August 2005 on the thread- "with a cease fire like this, who needs war" -- (long thread).

Aw, you still hurt. What, afraid to take responsibility for your words?

Remember this post?

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Giz

Well, if the Israeli's HAD made the first attack (and subsequently been responsible for wars of attempted extermination in 67 and 73) then no doubt the Palestinians/Arab nations would have had the moral highground.

Just as if France in the early 20th century had invaded Germany to seize Alsace-Lorraine, people might criticize it. However as France was invaded, Germany defeated and France took a region that was historically significant for them (and makes their defence easier) then people tended to give it a pass.

I'm not particularly interested in moral high ground issues Giz, more interested in reality issues. who attacked first in 48? The Israeli histoy books date the 48 war from 15may but there had been a lot going on before that...If you are looking for a goodie and a badie in clear terms thats very often not a sound way to understand how things happen...just like the 48 war didn't suddenly start when the sun came up on the 15th.

[webfusion]

Orkwell, it's official, you really have no clue.

======================================

TF, I am not trying to indicate anything deceptively.
YOU said "the original British allocation", not me. If you wish to go back now and change that to mean something else than what the League of Nations and the San Remo Conference determined was to be the "Jewish National Home" (based on the Balfour Declaration) -- go right ahead, nobody is restricting you in defining what YOU actually intended.

Quote:

Can I assume your preferred position would have been that they gave the entire thing to Israel...trans-jordan...everything?

The British were awarded the mandate to do so. That is accurate historically.
I am not 'preferring' anything, I am merely stating the facts.

Are you now saying that you think the Woodhead proposals are the extent of the "British Mandate"? If so, which one of those divisions do you choose? (there were several)... IIRC, the ARABS rejected them all... and decided to eliminate the jews in Palestine. They have several times almost succeeded. They wish to continue to try until they do succeed.

Quote:

I'm not particularly interested in moral high ground issues Giz

Maybe you should be.

=====================================

[.13.]

Originally Posted by The Fool

well, posting on a skeptics board you often have to research what actually happened at various points in history when you are challenging people who line up to support an official history...Specifically reading on the events of the 48 war has caused me to reach certain conclusions....as I have outlined. These are by no means unusual or controversial conclusions but as they don't match the official Israeli version they attract flack from the People who accept Israeli official history as truth....which is about as silly as accepting Syrian official history as truth.

Quote:

There is a lot around...google benny morris and 1948.

I'd appreciate if you would post what events in '48 especially lead you to reach those conclusions. As you said there are a lot of links on Benny Morris and I'm not inclined to browse through all of them to find the relevant information. Since you have done the research allready it would be easiest if you'd post links to relevant websites.

Quote:

are you aware of the silly borders that a "no expansion" Israel would have had? With Jerusalem as an open international city? Jerusalem is non negotiable to all the Zionists I have ever met...Jerusalem (undivided) is going to be and always was going to be the capital of Israel. Including enough territory surrounding it for its residents to feel secure.

First of all I have to note that "all the Zionists [you] have ever met" may not be a representative group of jewish population or government. Especially of the timeline in question.

I checked the UN partition plan of '47 from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Is that accurate information?

I admit that the map looks almost ridicilous. But according to the text:

Quote:

The Jewish state was to receive 55% of Mandatory Palestine. This included the fruitful shore plain and the Negev desert. The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish state was also given sole access to the Red Sea and the Sea of Galilee (the largest source of fresh water in Palestine).

Given the amount of fresh water allocated and "the fruitful shore plain" wouldn't that been enough to sustain a sizeable population? Also I assume that apart from the Negev desert many other parts were suitable for agriculture at that time.

One of our premises for this discussion is that there were no Arab violence against jews then there would have been no need to secure land around Jerusalem or anywhere else for security reasons.

When were the jewish claims for undivided Jerusalem first made? Was it before the Arab violence or after? Before or after '48 war?

Also who made those claims? Some minority group with barely any political power or the people in charge?

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Orkwell, it's official, you really have no clue.

Lets just say that your opinion doesn't carry much weight with me, eh?

[Skeptic]

This argument by "The Fool" is morally disgusting. Well, he usually is, but this one is especially so.

For "The Fool", a small israel is a crime against the Arabs because it is small (and therefore "forces" the jews to commit crimes againt the Arabs to get sustainable territory), and a large israel is a crime against the Arabs because it is large (and is "an occupier of Arab land"). In other words, it's israel itself--in any borders, even ridiculously unsnstainable ones--that is a crime and a threat to the Arabs.

Now, what does that tell you about "The Fool"'s view of what "just peace" would means? That's right: the elimination of israel, since israel in any borders whatever is a crime against the Arabs.

Second, surely, if the jewish state was tiny and unsustainable, then even if this somehow had "forced" the jews to fight wars--total nonsense of course, since the war was forced on the jews by the invading Arab armies--the solution would not be to give the Arabs even more land, or to destroy israel completely so it won't be an "agressive threat" any more, but to give the jews more land for a sustainable state so they would be able to survive?

Of course, THAT is a total no-no for "The Fool": for him, the ONE consideration, the ONE factor, that carries absolutely, positively, no weight at all in his "moral" calculation of what is the "right thing" in the Middle East, it is the jews' right to survive. THAT is negotiable, or more precisely, non-existant. Only Arabs have rights that must be respected; if Arab rights to land (such as they are--no need to prove them, it's enough for the Arabs to merely claim them) collide with jewish right to live... well, sayonara jews, so sorry about that.

It is for this reason that the continuing Arab attempts at genociding the jews mean absolutely nothing to "The Fool".

[Deus Ex Machina]

Originally Posted by The Fool

I'm not particularly interested in moral high ground issues Giz, more interested in reality issues. who attacked first in 48? The Israeli histoy books date the 48 war from 15may but there had been a lot going on before that...If you are looking for a goodie and a badie in clear terms thats very often not a sound way to understand how things happen...just like the 48 war didn't suddenly start when the sun came up on the 15th.

Maybe there is a good reason for dating the war that way - have you checked what date the arab nations declared war on the new Israeli state?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by The Fool

I'm not particularly interested in moral high ground issues Giz, more interested in reality issues. who attacked first in 48?

The war really began in the '20s.

Hostilities officially began:

• April 4 1920, Arab mobs went on to ransack the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, beating anyone they could find and looting shops and homes. The riots lasted for four days. link
• May 1, 1921, Arabs attack Jewish shops and homes, joined by armed Arab policemen. The pogroms continued for seven days and spread as far as Petah Tikva, Kfar Saba, Rehovot and other Jewish communities. link
• August 23 1929, Arabs started attacking Jews in the Old City. The violence quickly spread to other parts of the Palestine with Arab policemen often joining the mobs. By August 24, 17 Jews were killed in the Jerusalem and 67 Jews killed in Hebron. others.link
• July 21, 1937, Al-Husayni repeated his former support for Germany and "wanted to know to what extent the Third Reich was prepared to support the Arab movement against the Jews." Husayni aided the Axis cause in the Middle East. link

So that is what was going on in "Palestine". Riots by Arabs against jews throughout the 20s culminating in the full-blown Palestinian support for Hitler and Nazi Germany.

The jews who had emigrated to Palestine had done so because they desired to escape rampant antisemitism in Europe and Russia during the 19th Century. Many supported a homeland for the Jewish People in "the Land of Israel", AKA "Palestine", where the Jewish nation had originated. They didn't paratroop in, conquer the Arabs and impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic edicts on the "poor suffering Arabs". Nor where they an extension of a nation's sovereignty over Palestine. They simply bought land and moved in next door to the Arabs, with the desire one day to perhaps create a country there where they could be safe from rampant antisemitism.

And they were met by riots in the 20's and the President of the Supreme Muslim Council and Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, siding with Hitler and the Third Reich begining in 1933.

Full stop.

Now obviously you will call me a "zionist-loving partisan hack" because I failed to mention the multiple acts of violence by the Irgun, well the Irgun was formed in 1933 and cannot be used to rationalize events prior to 1933. Likewise the Lehi/Stern Gang was formed in 1940 and cannot be used to rationalize events prior to 1940. So that leaves only the Haganah.

What does wiki say about the Haganah?

Quote:

After the Arab riots of 1920 and 1921, the Jewish leadership believed that the British had no desire to confront the Arabs over the attacks on Jews in Palestine, and created the Haganah to protect their farmers and settlements. The role of the Haganah was to guard the Jewish Kibbutzim and farms, to warn the residents of Arab attacks, and to repel the attackers. In the period between 1920-1929 the Haganah lacked a strong central authority or coordination, Haganah "units" were very localized and poorly armed, they consisted mainly of Jewish farmers who took turns guarding their farms or their Kibbutzim. Following the Arab Riots in Palestine of 1929 that left 133 Jews dead and led to the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the city of Hebron, the Haganah's role changed dramatically.

(emphasis mine)


Those are the "reality issues". Electing Hamas in 2006 is just another in a long line of bad choices by the Arabs in Palestine. Since the 1920s the Palestinians opted for war and payed a bitter price. The end result of each Palestinian rejection was that history moved on, and the map of potential Palestine that remained to be negotiated invariably shrank until we are where we are today.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

For "The Fool", a small israel is a crime against the Arabs because it is small (and therefore "forces" the jews to commit crimes againt the Arabs to get sustainable territory), and a large israel is a crime against the Arabs because it is large (and is "an occupier of Arab land"). In other words, it's israel itself--in any borders, even ridiculously unsnstainable ones--that is a crime and a threat to the Arabs.

I understood it a bit differently:

Because the borders of the UN proposal were so absurd, the Jews were forced to go to war in order to expand them, and make them defensible. Because expansion meant that ethnic cleansing was necessary in order to maintain a Jewish majority, this proves that ethnic cleansing was the goal all along.

This ignores several things:

1) The borders of the UN proposal were absurd because they were indefensible, but defense is only an issue in a hostile environment. Had neighboring Arab states not been hostile to a Jewish state, it wouldn’t matter how defensible Israel’s borders were.

2) It was the Arab Israeli war and the Arab expulsion of their Jewish citizens that made size an issue. A much smaller Israel would have been fine if they hadn’t had to absorb some 650,000 Jewish refugees.

3) It holds Israel morally responsible for motives (ethnic cleansing) that can only be guessed at, but ignores the very real and openly expressed genocidal desires of the invading Arab armies.

And no matter what, the Fool never acknowledges that seeking to preserve their own survival is ever a sympathetic goal of Jews. They’re always condemned for not making that secondary to whatever the desires of the Arabs are.

[webfusion]

To answer one of your many questions (I'll leave The Fool to reply to those which were directed at him) ---

• When were the jewish claims for undivided Jerusalem first made? Was it before the Arab violence or after? Before or after '48 war?

From the end of WWII until June 1967 the city was divided. No jews were permitted access to the Western Wall, the holiest site in judaism. No jews survived in the old city, after centuries of continuous habitation there. The ages-old cemeteries of the jews on the Mount of Olives were used for latrines by the arabs. The Hadassah Hospital on Mt Scopus was deserted. Barbed-wire and trenches kept the jews out of East Jerusalem. Beyond that, the jewish city of Hebron was off-limits, as were many other traditionally jewish sites throughout the West Bank (such as Joseph's tomb).

To this day, the arabs are claiming that it is all their land, that the jews are the usurpers, that the jews are the invaders.

We live in a Topsy-turvey world, to say the least.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Deus Ex Machina

Maybe there is a good reason for dating the war that way - have you checked what date the arab nations declared war on the new Israeli state?

Have you checked the date when the fighting started?

[webfusion]

The arabs and the jews were engaged in fighting each other throughout the period of WWII, in fact. The arabs made no secret of their allegiances to the Axis all over North Africa and the MidEast, and while the jewish units and irregulars made every effort to defeat the Nazis everywhere, the arabs were busy providing aid and succor to the Germans & Italians from Algiers to Baghdad. http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/holocaust.html



Yes, the jews wanted the British to leave palestine, especially since they were helping arabs gain advantages in positions, weapons and demographics (while the jews had strict quotas imposed, the arabs were pouring into the land willy-nilly just as they had been allowed to do since the 1920's under the lax British system of control).

On May 14, 1948, the British mandate was legally terminated and at midnight the Jewish state of Israel declared its independence.

All that followed could have been much different, had the arabs reconciled themselves to the jewish presence in palestine -- a presence that had been continuous there for millenia: Israel is the homeland of the jews, enshrined in modern documents, in religious tracts, in the bible, in the hearts of jews the world over.

Yet today, we have to deal with HAMAS and their brand of islamic denial of the rights of the jews. See: the OP of this thread.
So be it.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by .13.

I'd appreciate if you would post what events in '48 especially lead you to reach those conclusions. As you said there are a lot of links on Benny Morris and I'm not inclined to browse through all of them to find the relevant information.

In that case I can't help you....If I was to write up the 48 war it would take as much time for you to read as doing your own research. If you have any particular point to discuss, fair enough...but you are asking something akin to asking me to explain a war in detail....a rather huge task.

Quote:

Since you have done the research allready it would be easiest if you'd post links to relevant websites.



First of all I have to note that "all the Zionists [you] have ever met" may not be a representative group of jewish population or government. Especially of the timeline in question.

If you doubt Israelis special attachment to Jerusalem maybe you should ask a few.

Quote:

I checked the UN partition plan of '47 from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Is that accurate information?

I admit that the map looks almost ridicilous. But according to the text:

Given the amount of fresh water allocated and "the fruitful shore plain" wouldn't that been enough to sustain a sizeable population? Also I assume that apart from the Negev desert many other parts were suitable for agriculture at that time.

One of our premises for this discussion is that there were no Arab violence against jews then there would have been no need to secure land around Jerusalem or anywhere else for security reasons.

When were the jewish claims for undivided Jerusalem first made? Was it before the Arab violence or after? Before or after '48 war?

Also who made those claims? Some minority group with barely any political power or the people in charge?

That Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not for negotiation....This is not a controversial claim so I'm not going to spend a lot of time supporting it....ask web what he would swap Jerusalem for....

Once again, sorry about the mouth foaming camp followers...best to ignore them I've found...

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Deus Ex Machina

Maybe there is a good reason for dating the war that way - have you checked what date the arab nations declared war on the new Israeli state?

When the Jewish State was declared, by which time the zionists had expelled over 300,000 Palestinians from their homes and were engaged in a furious onslaught on Jerusalem, which was only saved from such ethnic cleansing by the Jordanian intervention.

King Abdullah of Jordan had been under great pressure to intervene as expellees flooded into his kingdom but he thought the agreement he'd made with the Israelis meant something, which of course it didn't to the Israelis. To Israel, agreements made with natives are as meaningless as US treaties were with theirs.

[webfusion]

Quote:

That Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not for negotiation...

The municipal boundries are already in flux. The Israeli Master Development Plan TAMA 35 designates bringing outlying areas with a large jewish population INTO the city proper, while at the same time EXCLUDING areas around the city center which are predominantly inhabited by arabs. There is no question that Israel is redrawing the map, and expects the palestinian-arabs to have their own capital, AL-QUDS, centered in Abu Dis (where the Palestinian Parliament building sits, uncompleted) and the section known as Harem-al-Sharif as a sovereign WAQF-administered zone.

But to listen to 'The Fool', none of this is important. No, he sees Jerusalem as an integral solid thing, instead of the fragmented and convoluted entity that exists in reality.

Even the Garden Tomb, (which quite honestly may be the actual site of the crucifixion, archaeologically speaking), is in a section of the city that most likely will be ceded to the Palestinians, and become part of Al-Quds in 'New Palestine' and not remain a section of Israel's Jerusalem.

Here ya go --

http://www.gardentomb.com/information.php

and view Golgotha:
(Gordon's Calvary)
http://www.levitt.com/slideshow/s03p07.jpg

[webfusion]

Quote:

Once again, sorry about the mouth foaming camp followers...best to ignore them I've found...

Yet, you don't ignore these threads, you foam along yourself with zeal. And cause many skeptical posters to set the record straight after you've warped it.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/702416.html

• Israel tank fire is attributed to the killing of a Palestinian and the wounding of eight others, including a mother and her 6-month-old baby, Palestinian officials said.

Who is responsible for that, officially?

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Yet, you don't ignore these threads, you foam along yourself with zeal. And cause many skeptical posters to set the record straight after you've warped it.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/702416.html

• Israel tank fire is attributed to the killing of a Palestinian and the wounding of eight others, including a mother and her 6-month-old baby, Palestinian officials said.

Who is responsible for that, officially?

No I don't ignore the threads but I've found its best to try my best to ignore those that simply want to rant that I am an anti-semite yearning for the decimation of Israel whenever I try to discuss issues.

you answer all discussions with the official Israeli history version of events...fair enough, thats your right. Is that what you regard as "set the record straight"?

I have no Idea of the point you are trying to make with that haaretz article...

[webfusion]

TF tells me: you answer all discussions with the official Israeli history version of events...fair enough, thats your right. Is that what you regard as "set the record straight"?

I normally reply with the official historical record. Not a 'version' --

Case in point, when you said "What happened at qibya?" -- Well, I am here to tell anyone who is reading: It was not "mass murder".
60 people were killed during an IDF combat operation on October 14th, in hot pursuit of Palestinian terrorists who had just perpetrated yet another atrocity against Israeli civilians -- in this particular case, on October 12, 1953, an unarmed Jewish mother and her two children were killed in a raid by Palestinian 'infiltrators' inside the Israeli town of Yahud.

This was not an isolated event. No, the Fool. You see, the reality (not the Israeli 'version', but the actual body count) was as follows:
In 1951, 137 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by such infiltrators. The following year, the death toll was 162. In 1953, 160 Israelis were killed.

This all happened before there was even such a concept as "the 1967 occupation" !!!!!!!

By the way, the wikipedia 'version' clearly states:
"Israeli soldiers (of Unit 101) laid explosives around many of the houses and blew them up after calling for residents to evacuate." -- from the article you cited.

Those 60 unfortunate people failed to heed the warnings, and were crushed under the rubble as the detonations brought their homes crashing down upon them. But they had the chance to flee, and chose not to do so.

More chance than 500 Israelis had as they were murdered by Palestinian terrorists in their homes, in their streets, in their shops, in their schools --- year in and year out, 1951, 1952, 1953...

And here we are, TF, it is not 1953. It is 2006.

And the IDF is shelling and retaliating for ongoing murderous palestinian terror and some innocent palestinians are caught in the crossfire.

The responsibility for that is upon the terrorists, as the responsibility for the raid on Qibya is upon the terrorists.

How do you not see this?

[zenith-nadir]

The world according to Capel...with critical omissions added.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

When the Jewish State was declared,

Date omitted: May 14, 1948.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

....by which time the zionists had expelled over 300,000 Palestinians from their homes and were engaged in a furious onslaught on Jerusalem

Events omitted: The anti-jewish riots and massacres of April 4th 1920, May 1st 1921, August 23rd 1929, July 21st 1937, and the collaboration against the jews with Nazi Germany during the Second World War by the President of the Supreme Muslim Council, Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni....silly things like that.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

....which was only saved from such ethnic cleansing by the Jordanian intervention.

Facts omitted: Since this was a war between Jews and Arabs, either jews fled or Arabs fled, in the case of Arabs fleeing or being attacked - during the war - use the term "ethnic cleansing"...it just sounds so much more dramatic.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

King Abdullah of Jordan had been under great pressure to intervene as expellees flooded into his kingdom

Driving distance from Jerusalem to Amman Jordan, 50 miles. Ironically the British created the semi-autonomous Arab Emirate of Transjordan in Palestinian territory east of the Jordan river. So the Palestinian expellees fled 50 miles into what-was-previously Palestinian territory. How dare they!

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

but he thought the agreement he'd made with the Israelis meant something,

Fact omitted: Transjordan opposed the creation of Israel in May 1948, and took part in the warfare between the Arab states and Israel.

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

To Israel, agreements made with natives are as meaningless as US treaties were with theirs.

Fact omitted: This is a ad hom based on a strawman.



The attacks thru the 20s & 30s on the Jews by the Arabs had three effects: A) they led to the formation and development of Jewish underground militias, primarily the Haganah ("The Defense"), B) it became clear that the two communities could not be reconciled, and C) the idea of partition was born.

[.13.]

Originally Posted by The Fool

If you doubt Israelis special attachment to Jerusalem maybe you should ask a few.

Oh I'm not doubting that the Jerusalem is an important issue today. I'm merely pointing out that one shouldn't make such statistical extrapolations from the people one has met.

Quote:

That Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not for negotiation....This is not a controversial claim so I'm not going to spend a lot of time supporting it....ask web what he would swap Jerusalem for....

Originally Posted by webfusion

From the end of WWII until June 1967 the city was divided. No jews were permitted access to the Western Wall, the holiest site in judaism. No jews survived in the old city, after centuries of continuous habitation there. The ages-old cemeteries of the jews on the Mount of Olives were used for latrines by the arabs. The Hadassah Hospital on Mt Scopus was deserted. Barbed-wire and trenches kept the jews out of East Jerusalem. Beyond that, the jewish city of Hebron was off-limits, as were many other traditionally jewish sites throughout the West Bank (such as Joseph's tomb).

What I'm interested in is wether the issue of Jerusalem might have been open for somekind of negotiation in circa 1922. Ofcourse for the religiously extreme the division of a religiously significant city could be out of the question no matter what the circumstances.

For more moderate people there is room for negotiation. But that depends whether there was a similar situation as Webfusion describes prior to 1922 as there was between the end of WWII and 1967. That kind of thing would probably make some moderate people to root for undivided city also. Also the violence after 1922 likely would have had an effect to those claims.

I understand that assignin blame is not very productive. But I would like to have some historical perspective on the current situation.

[webfusion]

.13. wants to review the historical perspective, but I sincerely urge him/her to put that effort aside and not get bogged-down in the nuances of past events. This is 2006 and Israel & HAMASTAN both need to forge new directions and new perspectives.

Israel has an interest in giving the Palestinians reasons to stop their low-level war of attrition.

HAMASTAN has an interest in giving the Israelis reasons to stop their military campaign.

Neither side comes to the table with clean hands. So, let's not waste too much energy re-hashing the details of how they got dirty. What Haniyeh and Olmert need to do is sit down and get things moving towards resolving issues.

HAMAS is a terror group. OK. Understood. They hate Israel. OK. Understood. They wish for Israel to disappear. OK. Understood.

ISRAEL fights terror. OK. Understood. They hate HAMAS. OK. Understood. They wish for HAMAS to disappear. OK. Understood.

Israel has a new government, and it has an opportunity under the leadership of Ehud Olmert to change things drastically for the better, and not wait for HAMAS to try and influence the outcome with a fresh wave of terror.

Or not.

[.13.]

Originally Posted by webfusion

.13. wants to review the historical perspective, but I sincerely urge him/her to put that effort aside and not get bogged-down in the nuances of past events. This is 2006 and Israel & HAMASTAN both need to forge new directions and new perspectives.

I agree with you that it's tricky stuff. I don't intend to get bogged-down in the nuances though this thread starts to steer towards pretty fine details. But the past events in question are historically pretty significant and I'd like to have atleast a general picture of that history.

In any case I appreciate the advice.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

[i]TF tells me:

I normally reply with the official historical record. Not a 'version' --

who's "official historical record" web?

quibya was denounced by the United states who demanded those responsible be bought to account. The US suspended economic aid to Israel.

from my previous link

Major General Vagn Bennike, chief of staff of the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (which investigated the scene the next day) said: "one story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them."

but you are more comfortable sticking ith the IDFs version...you can't stick with the very first version from the Israeli government because that was a lie they had to drop in face of way too many eyewitnesses (they tried to claim that the killings were done by civilians) The US government and that UN dude must have just been temporarily overcome with a burst of anti israeli bias?

[webfusion]

TF, on October 12 1953 Palestinians murdered yet more jewish innocents, the running tally being in the hundreds up to that point, over the course of several years (51,52,53).

There was no 'IDF occupation' of the West Bank or Gaza at all. Yet, ongoing terror-killings of jews was de-rigeur in Western Palestine, a scant 3 years after the Rhodes Cease-Fire Agreements.

Can you refer to the appropriate UN Resolutions which make mention of these brutal atrocities, TF? Can you refer to the worlds' condemnation of the killings in 1951, 137 Israelis? The following year, the death toll was 162. In 1953, 160 Israelis were murdered. Did the United States government call upon the Palestinians to stop murdering jews? Show us, TF, the record of anyone (anyone) showing an ounce of concern for the hundreds and hundreds of deaths of Israelis in cold blood, from that period.

And you think the qibya raid is such a big deal? OK <<< Hold onto your hat, TF, and you'll soon enough have plenty of 'versions' of what happens in Gaza if those qassems continue unabated to be launched into Israel, and roadside bombs continue to go off, and terrorists act like it's a festival of murder during Passover. Israel is not going to accept another Park Hotel atrocity to occur, and if it requires draconian measures, then those measures will be taken.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/702801.html


BTW >>> TF challenges me: "come on web...stuff the names of the places in google...benny's name is not on all the results is it?"

Well, in the linked article on qibya from wiki you offered, guess who is offered there as a source of information? Right. Mr Morris. Ugh.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by zenith-nadir

The world according to Capel...with critical omissions added.

Date omitted: May 14, 1948.

Dates are only important as they pertain to the order of events. The relevant event was the declaration of statehood, which was delayed until Jaffa had been cleansed.

Quote:

Events omitted: The anti-jewish riots and massacres of April 4th 1920, May 1st 1921, August 23rd 1929, July 21st 1937, and the collaboration against the jews with Nazi Germany during the Second World War by the President of the Supreme Muslim Council, Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni....silly things like that.

Not relevant to the question I answered.

Quote:

Facts omitted: Since this was a war between Jews and Arabs, either jews fled or Arabs fled, in the case of Arabs fleeing or being attacked - during the war - use the term "ethnic cleansing"...it just sounds so much more dramatic.

Arabs were evicted from their land as a matter of policy. Wars do not normally involve ethnic cleansing, but colonial wars - which the establishment of Israel was and is - do usually involve that. The expulsions were well under way before there was any outside intervention. The order of events is important.

Quote:

Driving distance from Jerusalem to Amman Jordan, 50 miles. Ironically the British created the semi-autonomous Arab Emirate of Transjordan in Palestinian territory east of the Jordan river. So the Palestinian expellees fled 50 miles into what-was-previously Palestinian territory. How dare they!

They were driven from their homes.

Quote:

Fact omitted: Transjordan opposed the creation of Israel in May 1948, and took part in the warfare between the Arab states and Israel.

Fact contributed : Transjordan had agreed partition with the Yishuv, the Arab part of Palestine to be amalgamated with Transjordan (thereafter to be known as Jordan, what with the "trans" no longer being operative). This "agreement" was a ploy to prevent the Arab Legion intervening when Israel launched its ethnic cleansing (which hadn't been part of the understanding). The IDF ignored the partition and pushed forward everywhere it could, the intention was to take it all. Still Abdullah held back until the agreed event that would signal Jordanian occupation of the Arab allocation. By that time Jerusalem - not part of the Israeli allocation - was under furious assault and Abdullah had no choice but to concentrate on protecting such a holy site.

Quote:

Fact omitted: This is a ad hom based on a strawman.

Do what now?

Israel has never negotiated in good faith.

Quote:

The attacks thru the 20s & 30s on the Jews by the Arabs had three effects: A) they led to the formation and development of Jewish underground militias, primarily the Haganah ("The Defense"), B) it became clear that the two communities could not be reconciled, and C) the idea of partition was born.

The zionists made it very clear from 1917 that a Jewish State was not compatible with a large - or even any - non-Jewish presence. The IDF/Hagganah was created as the offensive force that would create the Jewish State when the time came. In 1920 Jabotinsky, a founder of the Jewish Legion which the IDF grew from, pointed out that colonies are never welcomed by the natives. The Palestinian understanding was that a Jewish State would mean their disposession - and they were right.

Partition was only ever a step on the road for the zionists. Ben Gurion said it explicitly. It took longer than expected - West Bank in '67, Southern Lebanon in '82 - and now there's a retreat in progress.

[webfusion]

.13. mentions: But the past events in question are historically pretty significant

Why do you think they are significant?

[webfusion]

Quote:

The relevant event was the declaration of statehood, which was delayed until Jaffa had been cleansed.

The broadcast from Tel Aviv announced:

• WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948) ...the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".

The creation of the State of Israel had been delayed 10 years too late, IMO.
The Mandate ended officially, so on the same day, Israel was born again, out of the ashes of WWII, and I may add: It is not an exaggeration to say that arabs to this day cannot accept this reality.

It had nothing to do with Jaffa.

Quote:

The Palestinian understanding was that a Jewish State would mean their disposession - and they were right.

So you claim.
Yet, over a million Palestinians are not dispossesed.
And millions more live in Jordan, what is their understanding of a Hashemite Kingdom being in control today of 'their' 75% share of Mandate Palestine?

CapelDodger, you are a strange man. Very, very strange. I must say so.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

And you think the qibya raid is such a big deal? OK <<< Hold onto your hat, TF, and you'll soon enough have plenty of 'versions' of what happens in Gaza if those qassems continue unabated to be launched into Israel, and roadside bombs continue to go off, and terrorists act like it's a festival of murder during Passover. Israel is not going to accept another Park Hotel atrocity to occur, and if it requires draconian measures, then those measures will be taken.

web..I don't particularly think its such a big deal. I provided it as an example to refute your claim that Israel had not committed atrocities between 1948 and 1956...thats how most of these things come up. People claim they didn't happen and I feel duty bound to point out that they did. You seem to think this indicates I have some sort of fixation on Israeli atrocities....well web, if there was a Palestinian posting on this board that no palestinians committed atrocities between those dates I would be throwing examples in thier faces too...

[The Fool]

dupe

[.13.]

Originally Posted by webfusion

.13. mentions: But the past events in question are historically pretty significant

Why do you think they are significant?

Well in my opinion creating a state for widely persecuted ethnic group and the violence involved are pretty significant events in history.

[webfusion]

Hold on there, bucko.

You are mixed-up. Again.

Let's roll the videotape and see where you went wrong, TF -----

Suddenly, we saw Orwell jumped-in here to continue making the (incorrect) equation --
"Palestinian terrorism doesn't justify Israeli human rights abuses."

Actually, this position is a false dichotomy. He has been called on it many times in the past, but won't accept that Israel does not need to absorb terrorism and can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stop it. Yes, ANYTHING, with no qualifiers.

In this thread, (my post #31), right after Orwell indicated that he was about to commence posting (spamming) "Israeli human rights abuses" to counter my previous offer of a link to 1300 Israelis being killed by terrorists, during the years 1951-1956:
Here is what I said:
What 'abuses' were the Israelis perpetrating in those years 1949-1956. Do tell.

This refers to the years after the Rhodes Cease Fire. It does not refer to the years of the war or before. If there is an Armistice, it needs to be observed. If 1300 Israelis die, then it is not a 'cease fire' --- I think there is a thread around JREF Forums somewhere which covers this basic concept fairly in-depth.


Now, for a while here, you went off into a tangent with Skeptic,

Quote:

I'm guessing you are quite capable of simply denying all other Israeli actions...Quibia 1953? Can I add that to the list of things that didn't happen?
Lots of dirty stuff happening all over.... Palestinians murdering Israelis, IDF killings....but, of course, In your eyes its the perfect shining light of the IDF ....never guilty of anything eh?

OK, TF, I'll leave aside your creation of this massive strawman, and concentrate instead on your underlying lie ---

...He (Skeptic) makes mass murders of palestinians in '48 vanish by simply denying them.

There it is -- your introduction of the term "mass murders" to define IDF actions, and your bringing together two different periods (during a full-fledged war 1947-48 and also the events after that war ended 1949-1956).

What abuses were the Israelis perpetrating after the war? That is what I asked about, right? That was my question, right? I said nothing, not a word, about the war of independence 1947-48. Benny Morris notwithstanding.

Yes, so you brought up quibia, 1953. You are saying that it is an example of IDF 'human rights abuse" at the least, and "mass murder" at the other extreme.

In TF's post #87, we are returned to the track --
"Anyway...back to 1949 - 56
What about quibia?"

Now, the link to wiki appears (again, Benny Morris used as source material, and I asked several times if you have other sources besides his unique accounts?),
and inter-alia, you proceeded to tell me:

Quote:

"That image you spin is the deliberate belittlement of the murder of innocent people."

No, sir, that is not the image I'm presenting.
Regretfully, 60 people died at quibia, during an IDF mission in hot pursuit of terrorists (I'll assume that was the initial purpose of the operation, in light of today's knowledge of how the IDF operates against terrorists), but according to you, they fall into the category of "IDF mass-murder" or less drastically, as a perfect example of "Israeli Human Rights Abuses" against the Palestinians, as if the Israelis perpetrated an endless stream of ongoing actions such as this all during 1949-1956.

Anyway, to illustrate that you are being highly selective, and you're only presenting quibia outside the true context, I quoted the events as they happened, in October 1953 -- see my post #143.

TF, did you at any point happen to mention here the 'version' where an Israeli mother and her kids were murdered in cold blood by Palestinian terrorists on the night of October 13th ? I missed that part of your official narrative, actually.

And when 1300 Israelis are murdered during a 'cease fire' from 1949-1956 (the Rhodes Armistice, it was called) then I have to say -- SCREW THAT.

Now, besides quiba, which I think has been covered in great detail, can you, or Orwell, point to the massive human rights abuses (or mass-murders, if you want) against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank during the years 1949 (after the Armistice Lines were drawn and settled) through 1956 (when gaza was first occupied)?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Hold on there, bucko.

You are mixed-up. Again.

No I'm not web....I have sat and watched various people claim that various things did not happen....no mass murders in 48, no Human rights abuses 49-56...

This is a skeptics board...make claims like that and people will provide examples that refute the claim. Make silly generalisations and people will make you look silly.

here is an example of the silly statements (one of yours)
"He has been called on it many times in the past, but won't accept that Israel does not need to absorb terrorism and can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stop it. Yes, ANYTHING, with no qualifiers."

I doubt if you believe Israel would be justified in posting Sarin laced envelopes to every address in gaza would you? It would stop terrorism from that location and would match your criteria of being acceptable (Yes, ANYTHING, with no qualifiers)..so please give us your best essay on how Israel would be justified to use sarin against gaza..

you tie yourself in these knots web, no good complaining to others about it.

you finish with..

Now, besides quiba, which I think has been covered in great detail, can you, or Orwell, point to the massive human rights abuses (or mass-murders, if you want) against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank during the years 1949 (after the Armistice Lines were drawn and settled) through 1956 (when gaza was first occupied)?

Inquiring minds want to know

sigh....do you think I have any interest in now working on your beliefs that there were no human rights abuses one incident at a time?....so you can "now, besides quibia" the next one too? I'd rather pull my own teeth out...

sorry web, absolutes fall apart after exceptions are identified. This thread is starting to remind me of the "what did the romans ever do for us" scene from life of brian.....

[webfusion]

I dunno, TF, there are people out there with clearly voiced opinions that Gaza should be emptied of human habitation, for the next few millenia.

Maybe the Palestinians will do it to themselves, with an outbreak of the bird flu that spreads epidemic wildfire?

Oh wait, that's not a good thing, Israel will be blamed...


As far as incidents of human rights abuses, I thought that you could come up with a few more, just for sport. I sure know Orwell would love the challenge!

Too bad, I gave you a chance, you blew it.

FYI , quibia is NOT an example of Israeli 'mass murder' -- but you knew that, right?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Hold on there, bucko.

You are mixed-up. Again.

Let's roll the videotape and see where you went wrong, TF -----

Suddenly, we saw Orwell jumped-in here to continue making the (incorrect) equation --
"Palestinian terrorism doesn't justify Israeli human rights abuses."

Actually, this position is a false dichotomy. He has been called on it many times in the past, but won't accept that Israel does not need to absorb terrorism and can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stop it. Yes, ANYTHING, with no qualifiers.

That's the sort of attitude I see coming from Palestinians sometimes about the occupation.

[webfusion]

a-u-p,, you mean like they were doing in 1951, '52 and '53 ?

Which led to the Israelis having to do SOMETHING in order to get them to back off from their ongoing murderous ways?

Occupation, my a&&.