The Peace Process

ForeverYoung436

Gold Member
Aug 10, 2009
6,050
1,226
245
Let's talk about what's happened since the Oslo Peace Process started in 1993. Prime Minister Rabin and Arch-terrorist Arafart signed an agreement. The Israelis recognized the so-called "Palestinians" and started withdrawing from parts of the country. My leftist, and rather stupid, relatives in Israel were euphoric--and they really believed peace was at hand. But a very strange thing happened. The more land Israel gave up, the more suicide bombers blew themselves up in pizza parlors, cafes and bus stations. A woman and her father on her wedding day. A man losing his wife and 4 girls (and an unborn baby boy in the womb). A family decimated sitting down to a Passover Seder. Minister Peres called them "sacrifices for peace", but there was no peace--and Israel was giving up its heartland for nothing. The tiny country of Israel was experiencing a miniature 9/11 on an almost daily basis. So the "peace process" is stalled. My relatives became disillusioned and turned rightist. What is Israel supposed to do, Tinmore? You tell me.
 
Enough of the fake peace process already.

They have been working on the two state solution for over 70 years and they are farther from a solution now than they were back then.

Before Israel there was peace. Since Israel there has been nothing but death and destruction.

There is a simple solution.
 
Enough of the fake peace process already.

They have been working on the two state solution for over 70 years and they are farther from a solution now than they were back then.

Before Israel there was peace. Since Israel there has been nothing but death and destruction.

There is a simple solution.

Which is what?
 
Enough of the fake peace process already.

They have been working on the two state solution for over 70 years and they are farther from a solution now than they were back then.

Before Israel there was peace. Since Israel there has been nothing but death and destruction.

There is a simple solution.

Which is what?
One state with Equal rights for all
 
Zionism is a textbook example of ethnocentric fascism, almost identical to Nazism, merely having a different tribal identity. A salient characteristic of such ideologies, as Jumblatt pointed out, is that they have no brakes — if they stop picking fights with their neighbors, if they stop trying to expand further and further, they lose their cohesion, their raison d’etre, and die.

This is particularly true in the case of Israel for a number of reasons. One of the main ones is that the Jewish population of Israel is a hodgepodge of different peoples, a true melting pot of cultures that have little in common with one another except for the notion that they are “Jewish.” But, as Sand has convincingly demonstrated, there is no such thing as “the Jewish people,” any more than there was such a thing as the “Aryan race.” It’s just a story, the kind one would tell to children, which was then massaged into powerful propaganda. Without the glue of an external enemy and serial wars, Israel would implode. Its people, by and large, distrust and even detest one another. As long as their fear and hatred can be directed at the “other,” the external enemy, then the house of cards can maintain itself.
The One State Solution Sounds Like a Good Idea, but … | Dissident Voice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

A very good article
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about what's happened since the Oslo Peace Process started in 1993. Prime Minister Rabin and Arch-terrorist Arafart signed an agreement. The Israelis recognized the so-called "Palestinians" and started withdrawing from parts of the country. My leftist, and rather stupid, relatives in Israel were euphoric--and they really believed peace was at hand. But a very strange thing happened. The more land Israel gave up, the more suicide bombers blew themselves up in pizza parlors, cafes and bus stations. A woman and her father on her wedding day. A man losing his wife and 4 girls (and an unborn baby boy in the womb). A family decimated sitting down to a Passover Seder. Minister Peres called them "sacrifices for peace", but there was no peace--and Israel was giving up its heartland for nothing. The tiny country of Israel was experiencing a miniature 9/11 on an almost daily basis. So the "peace process" is stalled. My relatives became disillusioned and turned rightist. What is Israel supposed to do, Tinmore? You tell me.

Israel didn’t “give up” any land as a result of Oslo. It did the opposite - it took more and more.

At Oslo in 1993, Palestinians were required to make their offer up front - recognize Israel, change the PLO charter calling for the removal of Israel from historic Palestine, renounce terror, and make the most enormous concession of all: recognize Israeli sovereignty not just in the territory allocated to the Jewish state by the U.N. partition, but over all the land Israel had illegally seized in 1947-1948 from the area allocated for the Arab State.

Arafat agreed to it all - he officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic Palestine, and agreed that the Palestinian state would be established on only 22% - the 1967 borders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

However, Israel was not required to offer anything except agree to recognize the Palestinian Authority as the representative of the Palestinian people.

Israel did not offer a single tangible concession on any key issue. In return for merely “agreeing to negotiate,” Israel insisted that the borders, the settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the resolution of the refugee problem, water rights, etc. would be set aside, to be discussed in “final status” negotiations at an undetermined future time.

The Palestinians had been led to believe that at least a moratorium on settlements would take place. But instead, Israel actually increased the pace of its settlement building.

Since Oslo, Israel has been building furiously - appropriating more and more Palestinian land, and more than quadrupling the number of its illegal settlers in the West Bank.

As Ariel Sharon stated in 1996, “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can…Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” (The "Gaza disengagement" was Sharon's plan to consolidate Israeli control of the West Bank, especially around East Jerusalem. He was in fact "trading" a densely populated Palestinian area that he could not easily control - Gaza - for choicer areas in the West Bank.)

Israel‘s consistent strategy has been to delay actual negotiations and diplomacy for as long as possible while it continues to create “facts on the ground,” seizing as many strategic areas in the West Bank as possible - prime agricultural land, huge chunks along the Green Line and around East Jerusalem, a massive swath along the entire border with Jordan, as well as the water resources.

Israel confiscates this Palestinian land claiming military or security purposes, then builds “Jewish only“ settlements on it and transfers its own civilian population into them. It seizes even more territory to build “Jewish-only” roads to connect the illegal settlements to each other and to Israel “proper.”

This is an ongoing strategy intended to bisect the potential Palestinian state into separate “cantons” and make a viable, continguous, independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza completely impossible.

As Sharon bragged way back in 1973, “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”

2u4uclk.jpg


Palestinian suicide bombings were a direct response to the failed peace process, the failure to stop Israel's encroachment on Palestinian land, the escalation of Israel's violent military occupation, and the continuation of its illegal settlement enterprise.

BTW the very first successful Palestinian suicide bombing was a retaliation for Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein's massacre of 29 Palestinians during Ramadan prayers inside the Ibrahim Mosque in Hebron, in February 1994.
 
Last edited:
Say what you will about Ariel Sharon, he paid close attention to parental advice.

"Although he was raised...to believe that Arabs and Jews could live side by side, his parents believed and taught him that 'without question' only Jews had rights over the land.

"'When the land belongs to you physically that is when you have power, not just physical power but spiritual power.'"

"Before there was terrorism there was the occupation."

An illegal occupation based on the assumption that "...Palestinian history and destiny are secondary to Jewish history and destiny."

Before There Was Terrorism
 
Let's talk about what's happened since the Oslo Peace Process started in 1993. Prime Minister Rabin and Arch-terrorist Arafart signed an agreement. The Israelis recognized the so-called "Palestinians" and started withdrawing from parts of the country. My leftist, and rather stupid, relatives in Israel were euphoric--and they really believed peace was at hand. But a very strange thing happened. The more land Israel gave up, the more suicide bombers blew themselves up in pizza parlors, cafes and bus stations. A woman and her father on her wedding day. A man losing his wife and 4 girls (and an unborn baby boy in the womb). A family decimated sitting down to a Passover Seder. Minister Peres called them "sacrifices for peace", but there was no peace--and Israel was giving up its heartland for nothing. The tiny country of Israel was experiencing a miniature 9/11 on an almost daily basis. So the "peace process" is stalled. My relatives became disillusioned and turned rightist. What is Israel supposed to do, Tinmore? You tell me.

Israel didn’t “give up” any land as a result of Oslo. It did the opposite - it took more and more.

At Oslo in 1993, Palestinians were required to make their offer up front - recognize Israel, change the PLO charter calling for the removal of Israel from historic Palestine, renounce terror, and make the most enormous concession of all: recognize Israeli sovereignty not just in the territory allocated to the Jewish state by the U.N. partition, but over all the land Israel had illegally seized in 1947-1948 from the area allocated for the Arab State.

Arafat agreed to it all - he officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic Palestine, and agreed that the Palestinian state would be established on only 22% - the 1967 borders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

However, Israel was not required to offer anything except agree to recognize the Palestinian Authority as the representative of the Palestinian people.

Israel did not offer a single tangible concession on any key issue. In return for merely “agreeing to negotiate,” Israel insisted that the borders, the settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the resolution of the refugee problem, water rights, etc. would be set aside, to be discussed in “final status” negotiations at an undetermined future time.

The Palestinians had been led to believe that at least a moratorium on settlements would take place. But instead, Israel actually increased the pace of its settlement building.

Since Oslo, Israel has been building furiously - appropriating more and more Palestinian land, and more than quadrupling the number of its illegal settlers in the West Bank.

As Ariel Sharon stated in 1996, “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can…Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” (The "Gaza disengagement" was Sharon's plan to consolidate Israeli control of the West Bank, especially around East Jerusalem. He was in fact "trading" a densely populated Palestinian area that he could not easily control - Gaza - for choicer areas in the West Bank.)

Israel‘s consistent strategy has been to delay actual negotiations and diplomacy for as long as possible while it continues to create “facts on the ground,” seizing as many strategic areas in the West Bank as possible - prime agricultural land, huge chunks along the Green Line and around East Jerusalem, a massive swath along the entire border with Jordan, as well as the water resources.

Israel confiscates this Palestinian land claiming military or security purposes, then builds “Jewish only“ settlements on it and transfers its own civilian population into them. It seizes even more territory to build “Jewish-only” roads to connect the illegal settlements to each other and to Israel “proper.”

This is an ongoing strategy intended to bisect the potential Palestinian state into separate “cantons” and make a viable, continguous, independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza completely impossible.

As Sharon bragged way back in 1973, “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.”

2u4uclk.jpg


Palestinian suicide bombings were a direct response to the failed peace process, the failure to stop Israel's encroachment on Palestinian land, the escalation of Israel's violent military occupation, and the continuation of its illegal settlement enterprise.

BTW the very first successful Palestinian suicide bombing was a retaliation for Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein's massacre of 29 Palestinians during Ramadan prayers inside the Ibrahim Mosque in Hebron, in February 1994.

Israel did give some land to Palestinian authorities after 1993. And just like Goldstein's massacre was wrong, and some of the settlers' actions in Hebron are wrong, a lot of the bloodlusty suicide bombings and atrocities were just plain wrong. Don't try to whitewash everything the Palestinians do.
 
Israel did give some land to Palestinian authorities after 1993. And just like Goldstein's massacre was wrong, and some of the settlers' actions in Hebron are wrong, a lot of the bloodlusty suicide bombings and atrocities were just plain wrong. Don't try to whitewash everything the Palestinians do.

What "whitewash"? I am just stating the facts. Palestinian suicide bombings did not occur in some kind of vacuum; they were a direct response to the deteriorating situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Real hope of a state was dangled in front of the Palestinians at Oslo, if only they would recognize Israel and accept that more than half the land which had been designated for the Palestinian state in 1948 would instead be part of Israel.

They did so, formally, agreeing that a Palestinian state would consist of only 22% of historic Palestine. But in return for their enormous concession, they got nothing - more and more of what remained of their land was being taken piece by piece.

Sure, Israel redeployed some of its troops from inside some of the Palestinian towns to their outskirts (notably Jericho and Gaza City.) But the occupation continued in force - Israeli troops remained in total control of Palestinian areas, controlling all borders and all traffic in or out, continuing to launch periodic incursions, assassinations and arrest roundups, continuing to impose closures and curfews at will.

And Israel did not remove its settlements (other than a few tiny “outposts“ which were usually rebuilt in the exact same location within days of removal) - it continued to build and expand them.

Later, in the 2005 “Gaza disengagement,“ Israel simply redeployed the 8000 or so settlers it had in Gaza to other illegal settlements in the West Bank, then moved its troops to the borders around Gaza, and sealed it up.

allwft.jpg


Disappointment, disillusionment and rage at the continued failure to negotiate a real political solution, the continued killing of their people, and the continued confiscation of their land - these are the very real factors behind the phenomenon of suicide bombings.

It is documented that in almost every case, individual suicide bombers had experienced some personal traumatic loss as a result of the occupation - usually a family member killed by Israeli soldiers or police.

And in almost every case, suicide bombings were launched as specific retaliations for specific Israeli actions - usually Israel's assassinations of high-level Palestinian political or militant commanders, or for the slaughter of civilians. The communiques from groups who planned the bombings usually contained references to the incident(s) for which they were retaliating.

This type of revenge attack did not come as a surprise to Israeli leaders who planned and implemented assassinations of Palestinians - they knew exactly what would happen.

Considering that many assassinations took place during a cease-fire with Fatah or Hamas or whatever group (or during negotiations to establish a cease-fire,) some observers say it’s no coincidence - they say that Israel intentionally uses assassinations and other violence to deliberately provoke a violent retaliation, which then is used as yet another excuse to avoid peace negotiations. As long as peace negotiations are stalled, Israel feels free to continue to appropriate Palestinian land and resources, which it fully intends to formally annex into Israel in any final agreement.

Again - Israel did not “give” any land to the Palestinians. The West Bank and Gaza don’t belong to Israel; they are illegally occupied.
 
Israel did give some land to Palestinian authorities after 1993. And just like Goldstein's massacre was wrong, and some of the settlers' actions in Hebron are wrong, a lot of the bloodlusty suicide bombings and atrocities were just plain wrong. Don't try to whitewash everything the Palestinians do.

What "whitewash"? I am just stating the facts. Palestinian suicide bombings did not occur in some kind of vacuum; they were a direct response to the deteriorating situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Real hope of a state was dangled in front of the Palestinians at Oslo, if only they would recognize Israel and accept that more than half the land which had been designated for the Palestinian state in 1948 would instead be part of Israel.

They did so, formally, agreeing that a Palestinian state would consist of only 22% of historic Palestine. But in return for their enormous concession, they got nothing - more and more of what remained of their land was being taken piece by piece.

Sure, Israel redeployed some of its troops from inside some of the Palestinian towns to their outskirts (notably Jericho and Gaza City.) But the occupation continued in force - Israeli troops remained in total control of Palestinian areas, controlling all borders and all traffic in or out, continuing to launch periodic incursions, assassinations and arrest roundups, continuing to impose closures and curfews at will.

And Israel did not remove its settlements (other than a few tiny “outposts“ which were usually rebuilt in the exact same location within days of removal) - it continued to build and expand them.

Later, in the 2005 “Gaza disengagement,“ Israel simply redeployed the 8000 or so settlers it had in Gaza to other illegal settlements in the West Bank, then moved its troops to the borders around Gaza, and sealed it up.

allwft.jpg


Disappointment, disillusionment and rage at the continued failure to negotiate a real political solution, the continued killing of their people, and the continued confiscation of their land - these are the very real factors behind the phenomenon of suicide bombings.

It is documented that in almost every case, individual suicide bombers had experienced some personal traumatic loss as a result of the occupation - usually a family member killed by Israeli soldiers or police.

And in almost every case, suicide bombings were launched as specific retaliations for specific Israeli actions - usually Israel's assassinations of high-level Palestinian political or militant commanders, or for the slaughter of civilians. The communiques from groups who planned the bombings usually contained references to the incident(s) for which they were retaliating.

This type of revenge attack did not come as a surprise to Israeli leaders who planned and implemented assassinations of Palestinians - they knew exactly what would happen.

Considering that many assassinations took place during a cease-fire with Fatah or Hamas or whatever group (or during negotiations to establish a cease-fire,) some observers say it’s no coincidence - they say that Israel intentionally uses assassinations and other violence to deliberately provoke a violent retaliation, which then is used as yet another excuse to avoid peace negotiations. As long as peace negotiations are stalled, Israel feels free to continue to appropriate Palestinian land and resources, which it fully intends to formally annex into Israel in any final agreement.

Again - Israel did not “give” any land to the Palestinians. The West Bank and Gaza don’t belong to Israel; they are illegally occupied.

Retreated, gave--it's all semantics. Must you nitpick over every word? You know as well as I do that if Israel RETREATED from every inch of the West Bank and Gaza, it would still not be enough for them.
 
Israel did give some land to Palestinian authorities after 1993. And just like Goldstein's massacre was wrong, and some of the settlers' actions in Hebron are wrong, a lot of the bloodlusty suicide bombings and atrocities were just plain wrong. Don't try to whitewash everything the Palestinians do.

What "whitewash"? I am just stating the facts. Palestinian suicide bombings did not occur in some kind of vacuum; they were a direct response to the deteriorating situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Real hope of a state was dangled in front of the Palestinians at Oslo, if only they would recognize Israel and accept that more than half the land which had been designated for the Palestinian state in 1948 would instead be part of Israel.

They did so, formally, agreeing that a Palestinian state would consist of only 22% of historic Palestine. But in return for their enormous concession, they got nothing - more and more of what remained of their land was being taken piece by piece.

Sure, Israel redeployed some of its troops from inside some of the Palestinian towns to their outskirts (notably Jericho and Gaza City.) But the occupation continued in force - Israeli troops remained in total control of Palestinian areas, controlling all borders and all traffic in or out, continuing to launch periodic incursions, assassinations and arrest roundups, continuing to impose closures and curfews at will.

And Israel did not remove its settlements (other than a few tiny “outposts“ which were usually rebuilt in the exact same location within days of removal) - it continued to build and expand them.

Later, in the 2005 “Gaza disengagement,“ Israel simply redeployed the 8000 or so settlers it had in Gaza to other illegal settlements in the West Bank, then moved its troops to the borders around Gaza, and sealed it up.

allwft.jpg


Disappointment, disillusionment and rage at the continued failure to negotiate a real political solution, the continued killing of their people, and the continued confiscation of their land - these are the very real factors behind the phenomenon of suicide bombings.

It is documented that in almost every case, individual suicide bombers had experienced some personal traumatic loss as a result of the occupation - usually a family member killed by Israeli soldiers or police.

And in almost every case, suicide bombings were launched as specific retaliations for specific Israeli actions - usually Israel's assassinations of high-level Palestinian political or militant commanders, or for the slaughter of civilians. The communiques from groups who planned the bombings usually contained references to the incident(s) for which they were retaliating.

This type of revenge attack did not come as a surprise to Israeli leaders who planned and implemented assassinations of Palestinians - they knew exactly what would happen.

Considering that many assassinations took place during a cease-fire with Fatah or Hamas or whatever group (or during negotiations to establish a cease-fire,) some observers say it’s no coincidence - they say that Israel intentionally uses assassinations and other violence to deliberately provoke a violent retaliation, which then is used as yet another excuse to avoid peace negotiations. As long as peace negotiations are stalled, Israel feels free to continue to appropriate Palestinian land and resources, which it fully intends to formally annex into Israel in any final agreement.

Again - Israel did not “give” any land to the Palestinians. The West Bank and Gaza don’t belong to Israel; they are illegally occupied.

Retreated, gave--it's all semantics. Must you nitpick over every word? You know as well as I do that if Israel RETREATED from every inch of the West Bank and Gaza, it would still not be enough for them.

That is true. The occupied village of Najd, for example, would also have to be addressed.
 
Retreated, gave--it's all semantics. Must you nitpick over every word? You know as well as I do that if Israel RETREATED from every inch of the West Bank and Gaza, it would still not be enough for them.

I am not nitpicking, and it’s not a minor issue of semantics. “Giving land” is an entirely different thing than ending an illegal occupation of someone else’s property.

The first term gives the false impression that the removal of occupation forces would be a generous sacrifice that would relinquish Israel's own territory. But this is not the case. In fact, removing Israel’s soldiers and settlers from illegally occupied land is simply abiding by internationally recognized law, which has called on Israel to do so for the last 43 years.

As for “not being enough for them” - actually this would be an apt description of Israel’s behavior over the last 6 decades, as it is Israel that has repeatedly seized land from the Palestinians, not vice versa.

Trying to justify Israel’s continued illegal behavior through “projection” is not logical - the Palestinians have never occupied or colonized any Israeli land at all.

In fact, the Palestinians have been exceedingly generous to agree to settle for just 22% of historic Palestine, and not the 48% set aside for them by the U.N. Partition Plan.

2nqdyc8.gif


The occupied village of Najd, for example, would also have to be addressed.

Israel’s seizure of territory outside what was designated by the U.N. for the Jewish State has never really been addressed by international courts or bodies. To this day, Israel’s claim to the additional areas it annexed after the 1948 war could be legally challenged under the U.N.’s own Charter and Laws.

This is why many observers are astounded at Israel’s failure to grab the stunning opportunity offered by the Palestinians in their repeated offers to recognize the 1967 borders - it would for the first time fully legitimatize Israeli possession of more than half the area designated for the Arab State.

The U.N. has been endorsing this solution since 1967, the PA agreed to it in 1993, the Arab League has agreed to it, even Hamas has agreed to recognize the 1967 borders.

But Israeli leaders seem to be fixated on the idea that Israel can continue to avoid such an agreement, and will instead be able to take all of historic Palestine instead of merely 78% of it.

If the current situation is permitted to continue, Israel will indeed end up with all of the land. However, driving out millions of Palestinians is no longer a viable option, so Israel would also end up with at least 4.5 million Palestinians (at today‘s count.)

This would mean the end of the Jewish democratic state. Israel would be forced to make a choice between one or the other - either a Jewish state (representing only half of its people - soon to be less than half with current demographic trends - which most people would consider an "Apartheid" state) or a democratic state (representing all of its people, half or more who are not Jewish.) But it would not be able to have both.
 
Retreated, gave--it's all semantics. Must you nitpick over every word? You know as well as I do that if Israel RETREATED from every inch of the West Bank and Gaza, it would still not be enough for them.

I am not nitpicking, and it’s not a minor issue of semantics. “Giving land” is an entirely different thing than ending an illegal occupation of someone else’s property.

The first term gives the false impression that the removal of occupation forces would be a generous sacrifice that would relinquish Israel's own territory. But this is not the case. In fact, removing Israel’s soldiers and settlers from illegally occupied land is simply abiding by internationally recognized law, which has called on Israel to do so for the last 43 years.

As for “not being enough for them” - actually this would be an apt description of Israel’s behavior over the last 6 decades, as it is Israel that has repeatedly seized land from the Palestinians, not vice versa.

Trying to justify Israel’s continued illegal behavior through “projection” is not logical - the Palestinians have never occupied or colonized any Israeli land at all.

In fact, the Palestinians have been exceedingly generous to agree to settle for just 22% of historic Palestine, and not the 48% set aside for them by the U.N. Partition Plan.

2nqdyc8.gif


The occupied village of Najd, for example, would also have to be addressed.

Israel’s seizure of territory outside what was designated by the U.N. for the Jewish State has never really been addressed by international courts or bodies. To this day, Israel’s claim to the additional areas it annexed after the 1948 war could be legally challenged under the U.N.’s own Charter and Laws.

This is why many observers are astounded at Israel’s failure to grab the stunning opportunity offered by the Palestinians in their repeated offers to recognize the 1967 borders - it would for the first time fully legitimatize Israeli possession of more than half the area designated for the Arab State.

The U.N. has been endorsing this solution since 1967, the PA agreed to it in 1993, the Arab League has agreed to it, even Hamas has agreed to recognize the 1967 borders.

But Israeli leaders seem to be fixated on the idea that Israel can continue to avoid such an agreement, and will instead be able to take all of historic Palestine instead of merely 78% of it.

If the current situation is permitted to continue, Israel will indeed end up with all of the land. However, driving out millions of Palestinians is no longer a viable option, so Israel would also end up with at least 4.5 million Palestinians (at today‘s count.)

This would mean the end of the Jewish democratic state. Israel would be forced to make a choice between one or the other - either a Jewish state (representing only half of its people - soon to be less than half with current demographic trends - which most people would consider an "Apartheid" state) or a democratic state (representing all of its people, half or more who are not Jewish.) But it would not be able to have both.

Habib, you have the IQ of a camel.

Palestine was Turkish, not Arab, land for most of the last 500 years. Arabs were merely tenant farmers leasing land from the Ottoman Sultanate.

After collapse of the Ottoman Empire during WW I, sovereignty was transferred to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres.

Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the San Remo Resolution.

By unanimous ratification of the League of Nations, all of Palestine was lawfully established as the Jewish homeland.

Palestine is Jewish land historically and legally.

Now, you know.
 
As for “not being enough for them” - actually this would be an apt description of Israel’s behavior over the last 6 decades, as it is Israel that has repeatedly seized land from the Palestinians, not vice versa.

Habib, you should herd camels, instead of fabricate history.

Palestinians have never in history owned land in Palestine. Palestine for most of the last 500 years was Turkish-owned under Ottoman sovereignty. Pallies leased land as sharecroppers.

In fact, for most of history, Palestine was viewed by Arabs as southern Syria, which is why France lobbied for Palestine to be part of their Syrian Mandate.

Were it not for Jews pressing for Palestine after breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine would have been part of the Syrian Mandate and, today, Pallies would be Syrian. And, Assad would not be putting up with any Pallies wanting statehood. He'd do to them what he had the Syrian army do to those 20,000 Syrians slaughtered in Hama.
 
Palestine was Turkish, not Arab, land for most of the last 500 years. Arabs were merely tenant farmers leasing land from the Ottoman Sultanate.

After collapse of the Ottoman Empire during WW I, sovereignty was transferred to the WW I Allies in signing the Treaty of Sevres.

Sovereignty over Palestine was subsequently transferred to the Jews with issuance of the San Remo Resolution.

By unanimous ratification of the League of Nations, all of Palestine was lawfully established as the Jewish homeland.

Palestine is Jewish land historically and legally.

Now, you know.

de68on.jpg

334u8lc.jpg


Plenty of Palestinians still have deeds to their homes and property. And many more are still filed in the Ottoman land registry archives in Ankara.

Under internationally recognized laws, people's rights to their property and their homeland are not terminated by war (or a regime change at City Hall.)
 
In fact, for most of history, Palestine was viewed by Arabs as southern Syria, which is why France lobbied for Palestine to be part of their Syrian Mandate.

Were it not for Jews pressing for Palestine after breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine would have been part of the Syrian Mandate and, today, Pallies would be Syrian. And, Assad would not be putting up with any Pallies wanting statehood. He'd do to them what he had the Syrian army do to those 20,000 Syrians slaughtered in Hama.

Turks and Syrians never tried to push Palestinians out of their homes and off their land.
 
In fact, for most of history, Palestine was viewed by Arabs as southern Syria, which is why France lobbied for Palestine to be part of their Syrian Mandate.

Were it not for Jews pressing for Palestine after breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine would have been part of the Syrian Mandate and, today, Pallies would be Syrian. And, Assad would not be putting up with any Pallies wanting statehood. He'd do to them what he had the Syrian army do to those 20,000 Syrians slaughtered in Hama.

Turks and Syrians never tried to push Palestinians out of their homes and off their land.

Dumbass, the Turks instituted land reform that caused the Pallies to lose what little land they owned, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

LOL. And, Jews didn't push Arabs out of their homes. The fuckers sold their land to the Jews and the fuckers were offered a state in 1937 and they rejected it.

Open a book, you dumb Arab. A history book, not a comic book
 
Turks and Syrians never tried to push Palestinians out of their homes and off their land.

Dumbass, the Turks instituted land reform that caused the Pallies to lose what little land they owned, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

LOL. And, Jews didn't push Arabs out of their homes. The fuckers sold their land to the Jews and the fuckers were offered a state in 1937 and they rejected it.

Open a book, you dumb Arab. A history book, not a comic book

Your Zio fairy tales don't hold up to a 20-watt bulb, much less the light of day.

Land ownership in Palestine in 1945:

35m2pv5.jpg


Israeli historians have themselves confirmed that about 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their lands in 1947-1948, so your denials are laughed at even in Tel Aviv.

By 1948, Israel was in control of 78% of the land of Mandate Palestine. And one of the very first things Israel did after proclaiming its statehood was to pass a slew of so-called “Property laws” designed to strip internal and external Palestinian refugees of their rights to their own homes and land, and provide a formal framework for the expropriation of Palestinian private property to the Jewish State.

Why would the State of Israel need all this legal flimflam if Jews already owned this land?

And the swindlers keep it up:

In this case, a 2004 document shows a Palestinian farmer named Abdel Latif Sumarin sold a plot long tended by his family near the village of Burqa, east of the city of Ramallah, to a company with an Arabic name. The paper contains Sumarin’s signature in clear English script and that of a California notary.

But an Associated Press investigation that made use of court papers, public recoreds and interviews in the West Bank, Israel and the U.S., shows that the document is a poorly executed forgery.

There’s no evidence Sumarin ever visited America, his family says he couldn’t write English, and public records show he died in 1961. The notary in California says he did not sign the paper either.

The land now houses part of Migron, one of the some 100 unauthorized outposts established by settlers in the West Bank over the past decade.

Linkie:
Palestine Monitor - West Bank land deal leads(...)
 
Land ownership in Palestine in 1945

Camel driver, the vast majority of Arabs in Palestine were tenant farmers who leased their land from the Ottoman Sultanate during Turkish rule. The few Arab landholders sold their land to Jews.

Arab land sales to Jews is well-documented. Learn to read, ignorant Arab.

Israeli historians have themselves confirmed that about 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their lands in 1947-1948, so your denials are laughed at even in Tel Aviv.

Dumbass, Arabs were displaced by the war THEY STARTED against the Jews. Population displacement is an inevitable consequence of every war.

Historian Benny Morris, author of the definitive book on the 1948 War, "1948," edifies...
The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible in some bizarre way for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

...on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders).

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a racist crime but a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.
1948 - Morris, Benny - Yale University Press

Camel herder, don't lie because I'll just rip you and your camel new assholes.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top