P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,354
- 4,873
- 1,815
The same as they have been since 1922.
More History Before 1967
- Thread starter georgephillip
- Start date
The same as they have been since 1922.
- Banned
- #243
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.
Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.
I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.
Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.
Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.
Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.
Let's get with the program.
Most Respectfully,
R
Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.
(OBSERVATION)
Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.
(COMMENT)ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT ‘NO LESS URGENT’ said:
I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.
POTUS on The Fact Checker said:
Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.
Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.
Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.
Let's get with the program.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,354
- 4,873
- 1,815
The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.
Tinmore, he's right. You are stuck in the past. I'm not saying that the past is completely irrelevant when discussing current issues about Israel/Palestine, but we are now in the 21st century.
If you really are interested in discussing potential peace solution and border issues about I/P, then you have to stop with your jibberish claims about how Israel has no land/borders or civilians and that Israel is inside Palestine. Even the other pro - Palestinians on this forum think those claims are whacky. If you chose to continue with that mindset, then that's fine with me and I'll respect that, but don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously (except maybe Sherri
)Hope you understand
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,354
- 4,873
- 1,815
Tinmore, he's right. You are stuck in the past. I'm not saying that the past is completely irrelevant when discussing current issues about Israel/Palestine, but we are now in the 21st century.
If you really are interested in discussing potential peace solution and border issues about I/P, then you have to stop with your jibberish claims about how Israel has no land/borders or civilians and that Israel is inside Palestine. Even the other pro - Palestinians on this forum think those claims are whacky. If you chose to continue with that mindset, then that's fine with me and I'll respect that, but don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously (except maybe Sherri
Hope you understand
So, you want me to kick the truth to the curb like all the propagandists have done?
Well those claims are not true and we've already discussed that to the point of exhaustion.
But no, I am not saying that. You are free to post what you want Tinmore.
Hopefully you don't see what I'm trying to tell you in a disrespectful way, I have a feeling you do
But no, I am not saying that. You are free to post what you want Tinmore.
Hopefully you don't see what I'm trying to tell you in a disrespectful way, I have a feeling you do
ForeverYoung436
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 6,050
- 1,228
- 245
Reason? I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the thriving, flourishing State of Israel will be dismantled. The occupation of the West Bank will just be extended indefinitely, if these extreme, obsolete views will not be altered. It's not easy for Israelis (or most of them anyway) to leave behind their heritage and history on the West Bank either.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,354
- 4,873
- 1,815
The two state solution has been on the table for over75 years.
If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
In history, the farther back we look, the more self-evident and clear some facts become. Who knows, a millennium from now ---> maybe you will become the preeminent scholar in history that explored and exposed the misinterpretations and skullduggery of the 19th and 20th Century (or maybe not!).
Actually, the variation on the theme - the two-state solution - is much older than that. As HRH, the Emir Faisal (Faisal ibn Hussein), said in 1919: "mindful of the racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine;" the idea had roots going back to the early 20th Century (nearly a hundred years ago).
It was a very different tone than we have today; where the Fatah demand that:
This is not the tone when the "consummation of their national aspirations" (a State for each) was the mantra. By the same token, when Chaim Weizmann (President of the Zionist Organization, and later first President of the State of Israel) first agreed with HRH on the "surest means of working out" a cooperative effort, one of the tenants that they agree to was that the region would be secular in nature, no religious tests would ever be used.
The truth of - whatever happened in the first half of the 20th Century, whatever that truth in history turns out interpreted to be, does not negate the ensuing half century of events that followed, nor the reality faced today. We cannot change yesterday, but we can change tomorrow.
Our friend "toastman" is correct. There is no intention to be disrespectful in any way. But the facts are that the State of Israel was establish and has expanded, but whatever instrumentality you choose to dispute, by whatever events you choose to oppose; it happened. Lines were drawn; by whatever name you want to call them, and by whatever legitimacy you want to assign them; they are there. The State of Israel exists and (apparently) the State of Palestine (as of December 2012) exists.
Now we go back to the very beginning. The intention was, as agreed by HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann (over 9 decades ago), "The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony in all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress."
Most Respectfully,
R
In history, the farther back we look, the more self-evident and clear some facts become. Who knows, a millennium from now ---> maybe you will become the preeminent scholar in history that explored and exposed the misinterpretations and skullduggery of the 19th and 20th Century (or maybe not!).
(COMMENT)
Actually, the variation on the theme - the two-state solution - is much older than that. As HRH, the Emir Faisal (Faisal ibn Hussein), said in 1919: "mindful of the racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine;" the idea had roots going back to the early 20th Century (nearly a hundred years ago).
It was a very different tone than we have today; where the Fatah demand that:
- Israel must give up all of Jerusalem before it would begin negotiations on a two-state solution.
This is not the tone when the "consummation of their national aspirations" (a State for each) was the mantra. By the same token, when Chaim Weizmann (President of the Zionist Organization, and later first President of the State of Israel) first agreed with HRH on the "surest means of working out" a cooperative effort, one of the tenants that they agree to was that the region would be secular in nature, no religious tests would ever be used.
(COMMENT)
The truth of - whatever happened in the first half of the 20th Century, whatever that truth in history turns out interpreted to be, does not negate the ensuing half century of events that followed, nor the reality faced today. We cannot change yesterday, but we can change tomorrow.
(COMMENT)
Our friend "toastman" is correct. There is no intention to be disrespectful in any way. But the facts are that the State of Israel was establish and has expanded, but whatever instrumentality you choose to dispute, by whatever events you choose to oppose; it happened. Lines were drawn; by whatever name you want to call them, and by whatever legitimacy you want to assign them; they are there. The State of Israel exists and (apparently) the State of Palestine (as of December 2012) exists.
Now we go back to the very beginning. The intention was, as agreed by HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann (over 9 decades ago), "The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony in all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress."
Most Respectfully,
R
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #252
David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.
"David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]
"Ben-Gurion's strategy for the creation of the Israeli State included very specific offensive military steps.
"They are described in Plans A, B, C, and D.[15] 'The purpose of such actions would be to deter the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic. Plan C [also named Gimel Plan] spelled out clearly what punitive actions would entail, such as
"Killing the Palestinian leadership.
Killing Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
Killing senior Palestinian officers and officials.
Damaging Palestinian transportation."
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mass killing and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations seems to play the same role in the formation of every settler-colonialist state, from Alabama, to Australia, to Area C.
"David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]
"Ben-Gurion's strategy for the creation of the Israeli State included very specific offensive military steps.
"They are described in Plans A, B, C, and D.[15] 'The purpose of such actions would be to deter the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic. Plan C [also named Gimel Plan] spelled out clearly what punitive actions would entail, such as
"Killing the Palestinian leadership.
Killing Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
Killing senior Palestinian officers and officials.
Damaging Palestinian transportation."
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mass killing and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations seems to play the same role in the formation of every settler-colonialist state, from Alabama, to Australia, to Area C.
RoccoR
Gold Member
georgephillip, et al,
Just from what you have written here, you don't make the case for "Ethnic Cleansing."
The purpose for the strategy (deterrence and retaliation) is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" (violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion). What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.
Do you have evidence, or can you make a prima facie case, that David Ben-Gurion intended a wider scope? Incidentally, this is nearly the exact same strategy Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brought to Palestine.
Most Respectfully,
R
Just from what you have written here, you don't make the case for "Ethnic Cleansing."
(COMMENT)
The purpose for the strategy (deterrence and retaliation) is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" (violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion). What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.
Do you have evidence, or can you make a prima facie case, that David Ben-Gurion intended a wider scope? Incidentally, this is nearly the exact same strategy Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brought to Palestine.
Arab Black Hand said:
Most Respectfully,
R
I call your Ben - Gurion quote and I raise you a quote from Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem:
Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
RoccoR
Gold Member
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, a good question.
I don't think anyone has an answer.
But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers. The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan. Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.
I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side. But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.
One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, a good question.
(COMMENT)
I don't think anyone has an answer.
But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers. The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan. Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.
The Palestinian Arab blames Faisal, blames the LoN/UN, the Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire. The claim the right of self-determination and deny that right to the Jewish. They claim ancient rights over the land, and deny the Jewish claim. They charge foul play under international law, and accuse the authors of the international law of not following the law. They engage in war and terrorism, claim foul when the same is applied to them. They first refuse the offer of territory, then claim it is valid after their attempt to use force fails; now the claim it is invalid. The pledge the destruction of Israel yet claim they are no threat to regional peace.
They challenge every LoN/UN decision made (Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution) relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not. They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.
They challenge every LoN/UN decision made (Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution) relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not. They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.
I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side. But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.
One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,354
- 4,873
- 1,815
RoccoR said:
Could you elaborate? I am not sure I understand what you mean.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,354
- 4,873
- 1,815
No, I don't think so. Who said that the Jews had no right to live in Palestine?
Last edited:
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Since Georgie Boy is always using Wikipedia, I know he wouldn't mind me using something from the Jewish Virtual Library written by an historian. As Georgie Boy can see, the Arab propulation increased because of the Jews who moved there. Now if Georgie Boy has his eyes open and doesn't just sit around reading his usual sites, he will see in his own city of Los Angeles how Hispanics in huge numbers crossed our southern border for jobs which their own countries couldn't supply for them. Of course, along with the Hispanics, again if Georgie Boy has his eyes open, he will see how multicultural his city has become what with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. with different ethnicities from all over the world. Can Georgie Boy honestly say that the population is the same mix as it was when he finished high school? Can he also say that all of Europe is the same when it comes to their populations? People move to where the jobs are. If their own countries can't help them, they will try someplace else, and this is why the Arabs moved to the area now known as Israel.
The Arabs in Palestine
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Maybe I am wrong, Rocco, but it seems to me that the Muslims have a hard time living peacefully with others. I am saying this because of what is going on in southern Thailand, in the Philippines in China, in Nigeria and many other locations.. It appears that the Muslims can't even live with other Muslims of different sects. Would it really be that hard, let's say, for the Sunni Muslims to live peacefully with the Shiites and Ahmadis in Pakistan instead of always car or suicide bombing them?
You are not wrong
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
NPR Reporter Flabbergasted Over ‘Absolutely Surreal’ Results In Venezuela Following Maduro Raid- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 0
-
Which President had to issue BLANKET PARDONS for his family? Oh yeah, he last Democrat President.- Started by Nostra
- Replies: 4
-
Trump Cannot End Protections For 350,000 Haitians, U.S. Appeals Court Rules- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 4
-
