Pawns of the Powers that Be

[kvetch]

The naqba was self-inflicted.

The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

A. No peace with Israel
B. No recognition of Israel
C. No negotiations with Israel

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

And even afterwards, Ehud Olmert made his subsequent generous offer that went far beyond even that of Barak. The would-have-been "Palestinians" rejected it.

They had many chances.

They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list. It still is.

Oh well. That’s their choice.

its very true that, as abba eban said

"the palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity"

but not always

in 1953 it was israel...ben gurion...that vetoed a genuine peace plan drawn up by Moshe Sharett, Israeli PM and Nasser and the Syrians, with help from USA...see wiki if you have never heard of this

Barak and Olmert were both about to be kicked out....the pals did accept a draft agreement in Sharm el Sheik after camp david

Then we have the totally genuine pan arab pleace plan drawn up years ago by saudi, etc which israel has refused to engage with

so your one sided account is inaccurate and hasbara propaganda, no attempt at truth at all

all bigstandard klepto-zionistil half truths, sir

you should be arrainged in a civilised court for NAQBA DENIAL

 

[YKohen]

Wrong. For instance,the following are excerpts from an interview with former American Middle East mediator Dennis Ross: The topic was the Clinton peace plan that Arafat rejected:
...HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

...HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

Dennis Ross on Fox News Sunday | Fox News

 

[YKohen]

And the Saudi "peace" plan? LOL! It called for flooding Israel with millions of Arabs.

Nope. That's not peace.

 

[georgephillip]

Rosie:

Are you trying to apologize for ethnic cleansing when its committed by the "chosen people?"

In 1948 over 700,000 Arabs and others were uprooted from their homes, businesses and bank accounts when one third of the population of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms.

If 700,000 Jews had been displaced, you would have no problem blaming their tormentors, would you?

They were.

How does the violence committed against Jews throughout history justify al-Nakba?

 

[irosie91]

how does the fact of THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF BLACK SLAVERY ---justify the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION?
<<<< which destroyed the lives of scarlett and mr o'hara?


Jews have lived in the middle east for thousands of years----and with muslims since the inception of islam and the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUESTS that took the lives of SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ----including christians, jews, zoroastrians, hindus---etc etc


with the exception of the zoroastrians who were genocided virtually out of existence-----there have been lots of battles for SURVIVAL by ------christians and hindus against muslims-----why should jews surrender to enslavement to the filth of islamic oppression? Did you cheer when over a million Biafran babies died in a starvation siege because the Biafrans could not defend themselves against islamic oppression in 1971?

 

[YKohen]

How does the violence committed against Jews throughout history justify al-Nakba?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...e-powers-that-be-post6281203.html#post6281203

 

[kvetch]

And the Saudi "peace" plan? LOL! It called for flooding Israel with millions of Arabs.

Nope. That's not peace.

i don't think so

you dont want peace....it seems....conquest seems to be your bag

p.s. how will you vote in the next israeli election

neten yahoo, liebermann, shas, kadima, labour?

it would be helpful to know if we are going to discuss here

i vote labour in UK

have voted liberal and green

never conservative

 

[kvetch]

Wrong. For instance,the following are excerpts from an interview with former American Middle East mediator Dennis Ross: The topic was the Clinton peace plan that Arafat rejected:
...HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

...HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

Dennis Ross on Fox News Sunday | Fox News

you are selective as usual

right after the failure at camp david, at sharm el sheik, the pals DID agree a framework with Barak

then Barak lost the election and that was that

similar with Olmert

what about Sharett and the early Nasser's attempt, vetoed by Ben Gurion in the 1950s??

that would have been far easier and better

Answer that one, please???

 

[georgephillip]

How does the violence committed against Jews throughout history justify al-Nakba?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...e-powers-that-be-post6281203.html#post6281203

1948 Mandate Palestine.
650,000 Jews.
1.2 million Arabs and others.
How does one third of all Palestinians inflict a Jewish State upon the majority without inflicting transfer policies?

 

[georgephillip]

how does the fact of THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF BLACK SLAVERY ---justify the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION?
<<<< which destroyed the lives of scarlett and mr o'hara?


Jews have lived in the middle east for thousands of years----and with muslims since the inception of islam and the GLORIOUS ISLAMIC CONQUESTS that took the lives of SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ----including christians, jews, zoroastrians, hindus---etc etc


with the exception of the zoroastrians who were genocided virtually out of existence-----there have been lots of battles for SURVIVAL by ------christians and hindus against muslims-----why should jews surrender to enslavement to the filth of islamic oppression? Did you cheer when over a million Biafran babies died in a starvation siege because the Biafrans could not defend themselves against islamic oppression in 1971?

Arabs have lived in the middle east a lot longer than some Polish Jews:

"Palestinians have continuously resided in Palestine since four thousand years before Christ, Abo-Sak pointed out. Their ancestors built the cities of Jerusalem, Nablus, Jericho, Beisan, Acca and Jaffa. The Hebrews arrived in the land between 1400-1200 B.C., and only maintained control over it during the lifetimes of King David and his son King Solomon &#8211; a period of about 80 years.

"The land then came under Greek and Roman rule, and was then conquered by Islam in the year 637 A.D. under the second Caliph, Omar. By that time, the Jews had already left Jerusalem, and Christianity was the dominant religion. The Caliph granted full security to all Christians, including personal safety, and protection of property, religion and churches.

"The Muslims declared Jerusalem the capital of Palestine, and the city remained under Islamic rule until the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, except for a brief time of Christian rule under the Crusaders."

US Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Solution or Complication? by Lt. Col. Mohammed F. Abo-Sak

 

[SAYIT]

And the Saudi "peace" plan? LOL! It called for flooding Israel with millions of Arabs.

Nope. That's not peace.

i don't think so

you dont want peace....it seems....conquest seems to be your bag

p.s. how will you vote in the next israeli election

neten yahoo, liebermann, shas, kadima, labour?

it would be helpful to know if we are going to discuss here

i vote labour in UK

have voted liberal and green

never conservative

Ah. Anyone who doesn't share your POV doesn't just want peace. So lame yet so typical.

 

[georgephillip]

While those sharing your views are just plain ignorant of the history:

"Since the issue of Palestinian national rights in a Palestinian state reached the agenda of diplomacy in the mid-1970s, 'the prime obstacle to its realization', unambiguously, has been the US government, with the NYT staking a claim to be second on the list.

"That has been clear ever since January 1976, when Syria introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council calling for a two-state settlement. The resolution incorporated the crucial wording of UN 242 -- the basic document, all agree.

"It accorded to Israel the rights of any state in the international system, alongside of a Palestinian state in the territories Israel had conquered in 1967.

"The resolution was vetoed by the US.

"It was supported by the leading Arab states.

"Arafat's PLO condemned 'the tyranny of the veto'..."

Reshaping History, by Noam Chomsky

 

[irosie91]

"It accorded to Israel the rights of any state in the international system, alongside of a Palestinian state in the territories Israel had conquered in 1967.


the statement above, itself ---is problematical --- Strictly speaking Israel did not CONQUOR east jerusalem and various parts of the west bank----so saying implies that the TRUCE LINES OF 1948 were BORDERS In fact that truce line of 1948 was never ratified as a "BORDER" by any of Israel's neighbors or----but Israel As tinnie often demands SHOW ME THE BORDERS now go find a map in some arab textbook that defines the BORDERS between Israel and Jordan and between Israel and Gaza so that we can determine just what "LANDS CONQUORED BY ISRAEL IN 1967" means (with a nod to tinnie)

 

[georgephillip]

"It accorded to Israel the rights of any state in the international system, alongside of a Palestinian state in the territories Israel had conquered in 1967.


the statement above, itself ---is problematical --- Strictly speaking Israel did not CONQUOR east jerusalem and various parts of the west bank----so saying implies that the TRUCE LINES OF 1948 were BORDERS In fact that truce line of 1948 was never ratified as a "BORDER" by any of Israel's neighbors or----but Israel As tinnie often demands SHOW ME THE BORDERS now go find a map in some arab textbook that defines the BORDERS between Israel and Jordan and between Israel and Gaza so that we can determine just what "LANDS CONQUORED BY ISRAEL IN 1967" means (with a nod to tinnie)

"Borders" isn't the operative word here.
"Territory" is.
As in: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[docmauser1]

"Since the issue of Palestinian national rights in a Palestinian state reached the agenda of diplomacy in the mid-1970s, 'the prime obstacle to its realization[/B]', unambiguously, has been the US government, with the NYT staking a claim to be second on the list. Reshaping History, by Noam Chomsky

The clown's good at "reshaping" things, of course.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"It accorded to Israel the rights of any state in the international system, alongside of a Palestinian state in the territories Israel had conquered in 1967.


the statement above, itself ---is problematical --- Strictly speaking Israel did not CONQUOR east jerusalem and various parts of the west bank----so saying implies that the TRUCE LINES OF 1948 were BORDERS In fact that truce line of 1948 was never ratified as a "BORDER" by any of Israel's neighbors or----but Israel As tinnie often demands SHOW ME THE BORDERS now go find a map in some arab textbook that defines the BORDERS between Israel and Jordan and between Israel and Gaza so that we can determine just what "LANDS CONQUORED BY ISRAEL IN 1967" means (with a nod to tinnie)

"Borders" isn't the operative word here.
"Territory" is.
As in: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Borders are a natural product of territory. Any piece of land naturally has borders to define its location. It is impossible to have land and not have borders. If Israel had any land it would have to have borders.

 

[irosie91]

save your absurd sophistry for the mosque tinnie your sophistry ---ALSO denies the existence of gaza and jordan and syria and lebanon----since none of them actually recognize a BORDER between Israel and themselves From a PHYSICAL POV-----your statement is also absurd the OCEAN does not have fixed "borders" either------in fact in the USA-----its BODERS changed drastically in a place called LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK-----and also in a place called ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY------so according to your absurd theory-----THE ATLANIC OCEAN DOES NOT EXIST

 

[georgephillip]

"Since the issue of Palestinian national rights in a Palestinian state reached the agenda of diplomacy in the mid-1970s, 'the prime obstacle to its realization[/B]', unambiguously, has been the US government, with the NYT staking a claim to be second on the list. Reshaping History, by Noam Chomsky

The clown's good at "reshaping" things, of course.

You're not so good at refuting his content, Clown.
Try again:

"Since the issue of Palestinian national rights in a Palestinian state reached the agenda of diplomacy in the mid-1970s, 'the prime obstacle to its realization', unambiguously, has been the US government, with the NYT staking a claim to be second on the list.

"That has been clear ever since January 1976, when Syria introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council calling for a two-state settlement. The resolution incorporated the crucial wording of UN 242 -- the basic document, all agree.

"It accorded to Israel the rights of any state in the international system, alongside of a Palestinian state in the territories Israel had conquered in 1967. The resolution was vetoed by the US. It was supported by the leading Arab states.

"Arafat's PLO condemned 'the tyranny of the veto'. There were some abstentions on technicalities."

Reshaping History, by Noam Chomsky

 

[P F Tinmore]

save your absurd sophistry for the mosque tinnie your sophistry ---ALSO denies the existence of gaza and jordan and syria and lebanon----since none of them actually recognize a BORDER between Israel and themselves From a PHYSICAL POV-----your statement is also absurd the OCEAN does not have fixed "borders" either------in fact in the USA-----its BODERS changed drastically in a place called LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK-----and also in a place called ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY------so according to your absurd theory-----THE ATLANIC OCEAN DOES NOT EXIST

You are being ridiculous.

There is an international border between Egypt and Gaza. There is an international border between Lebanon and Palestine. There is an international border between Syria and Palestine. Etc.

They all have international borders.

 

[irosie91]

oh gee TINNIE is still insisting that there exists a COUNTRY NAMED PALESTINE -----in 2012 he probably will insist next that there is a country named SHANGRILA My ancestors who came to the USA from an EMPIRE known as THE AUSTRIAN HAPSBURG EMPIRE-------did come from an empire with BORDERS neither those "borders" exist----nor does the AUSTRIAN HAPSBURG EMPIRE exist-------as a result----I have no idea from which "COUNTRY" my great grandfather emerged------or for which country he fought while in the army of EMPEROR FRANZ JOSEF Thus according to TINNIE----I do not exist