Israel's Intercepts Ship Carrying Arms

[M.Dancer]

No, they didn't have a nation given to them and neither did the jews.

History says otherwise

That partition plan was bogus bullshit and completely unworkable and everyone knew it.

Would that be the plan that gave the Jews Israel? Worked for them didn't it?

The Jews were very very shrewd in first accepting the plan, because they knew sure as shootin' the arabs were gonna reject it, which they did. Hence, the jews declared independence the day before the plan was to go into effect.

Shrew jews..gotch

I do believe that both Egypt and Jordan OCCUPIED Gaza and the WB. The Jordanians going so far as to annex the WB (although recognized by only two countries) and the proferred citizenship rejected by most of the inhabitants. The Egyptians were basically military occupiers just like the Israelis.

Show one act of terrorism against the Egyptians in this period.

I agree that the palestinians from the get go have missed opportunity after opportunity to move forward. And even when they seem to make some progress their leadership has failed them - repeatedly failed them.

There is still the one opportunity they haven't internalized.

[jbg]

Then there's Japan....

Speaking of losing territory and moving on with life...there's this whole whack of land just below US...England moved on....

When Will Russia Give the Kurile Islands back to Japan (link)? What About the Japanese Forced Out?

Edited March 24, 2011 by jbg

[Jonsa]

History says otherwise

No, history does not say otherwise. The partition plan was unimplementable. A product of colonial arrogance. Britain was extremely anxious to get the fuck out, and moved forward with a plan that was useless.

The fact was that Israel wasn't "given" to the jews. They fought for it. your simplistic perception of the realpolitik of the time is typical.

And yes, the leadership of the jews has been consistently smarter, more manipulative, more decisive and more realistic than the arabs. They have been very shrewd in their strategies.

Is an act of terrorism the mark of an occupation? Nonsense. It was occupied and used as a token in the internal power politics of the arab league. Nasserism vs Damascus.

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

I find the suggestion that the palestinians just "give up" to be a suggestion devoid of any understanding of the human condition, but hey, that;s just me.

Pulling a ghandi would be a smoother and far more realistic move.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Jonsa

[jbg]

And yes, the leadership of the jews has been consistently smarter, more manipulative, more decisive and more realistic than the arabs. They have been very shrewd in their strategies.

As fixed, is that a bad thing?

[Jonsa]

As fixed, is that a bad thing?

Not at all.

They have repeated demonstrated their superior manipulative skills, also and that isn't bad either

I think you are just a tad too sensitive.

[jbg]

Not at all.

They have repeated demonstrated their superior manipulative skills, also and that isn't bad either

I think you are just a tad too sensitive.

The term "manipulative" is a pejorative term. Look it up.

I'm sure you meant no harm but it is a serious insult to call someone "manipulative".

[Jonsa]

The term "manipulative" is a pejorative term. Look it up.

I'm sure you meant no harm but it is a serious insult to call someone "manipulative".

manipulative:

That attempts to control or play upon others' hopes or fears to attain selfish ends while disregarding their aspirations or well being

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/manipulative.html

Serving, tending, or having the power to manipulate

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manipulative

Not a prejorative, an accurate adjective in this case.

[M.Dancer]

No, history does not say otherwise. The partition plan was unimplementable.

But it was implemented. Israel exists. You can read about it in the history books.

[Jonsa]

But it was implemented. Israel exists. You can read about it in the history books.

No it wasn't implemented.

Israel exists because it waged a "war of independence", commonly refered to by the arabs as al-nakba.

You can read all about it in the history books.

[Bonam]

But it was implemented. Israel exists. You can read about it in the history books.

You really couldn't be more wrong on this issue Dancer. The resolution was rejected by the Arabs and the UN did nothing to enforce/implement the resolution. That Israel came into existence was a result of its declaration of independence and the war that was fought in 1948, which, again, the UN did not aid in.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

You really couldn't be more wrong on this issue Dancer. The resolution was rejected by the Arabs and the UN did nothing to enforce/implement the resolution. That Israel came into existence was a result of its declaration of independence and the war that was fought in 1948, which, again, the UN did not aid in.

So it is just a coincidence that the declaration of independence was proclaimed the day the UK mandate ended?

From the declaration....

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

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), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 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 UN authority which was lent to the creation no doubt played a role in the recognition by the US and the USSR.

on top of that....

The Palestine Liberation Organization said that its 1988 Declaration of Statehood was a direct consequence of resolution 181(II) which continues to provide international legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.[9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Edited March 25, 2011 by M.Dancer

[Bonam]

So it is just a coincidence that the declaration of independence was proclaimed the day the UK mandate ended?

From the declaration....

The UN authority which was lent to the creation no doubt played a role in the recognition by the US and the USSR.

Obviously all the events of the time, including the expiration of the mandate and the debates and resolutions at the UN had some influence on what happened. But to say that the UN resolution was the primary and direct cause of the creation of Israel (as is implied by your statement that the nation of Israel was "given" to the Jews) is direly incorrect. If the UN had sent in forces to enforce the implementation of its resolution, that would have been something else, but they did not do so. They let the Jews and Arabs of the area fight it out and Israel exists only because the Jews won.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

Obviously all the events of the time, including the expiration of the mandate and the debates and resolutions at the UN had some influence on what happened. But to say that the UN resolution was the primary and direct cause of the creation of Israel (as is implied by your statement that the nation of Israel was "given" to the Jews) is direly incorrect.

I don't think I implied that, I mean to say it gave it the legal authority, which it did.

By the same token as I posted above, it alos gives the PA the legal authority. Without that legal distinction, international recognition would not have been forth coming.

If the UN had sent in forces to enforce the implementation of its resolution, that would have been something else, but they did not do so. They let the Jews and Arabs of the area fight it out and Israel exists only because the Jews won.

That is neither here nor there. Without the the UN there would have been no israel to fight, it would have continued as a mandate territory.

[Bonam]

I don't think I implied that, I mean to say it gave it the legal authority, which it did.

Authority for a nation to exist does not come from the UN, a body as powerless then as it is now.

[M.Dancer]

Authority for a nation to exist does not come from the UN, a body as powerless then as it is now.

You fail to see the connection with legitimacy and diplomatic recognition and the aid that recognition brings.

Tangential but a good read would be Tuchman's book, The First Salute about the recognition of the USA during their rebellion.

I am not arguing that the Jews did not need to fight, I am arguing that without the UN plan, there would have been no fight. The land would not have been turned over.

[Jonsa]

But it was implemented. Israel exists. You can read about it in the history books.

You fail to see the connection with legitimacy and diplomatic recognition and the aid that recognition brings.

Tangential but a good read would be Tuchman's book, The First Salute about the recognition of the USA during their rebellion.

I am not arguing that the Jews did not need to fight, I am arguing that without the UN plan, there would have been no fight. The land would not have been turned over.

Seems your argument changed in mid stream. The plan was never implemented.

I could just as easily argue that without the plan, conditions were reaching a boiling point and the there would have been a fight anyway. And the land was never "turned over", it was fought over. The fact that the British decided to leave had way way way more to do with their dire financial straights than any alturistic "balfour" nonsense. they couldn't afford their imperialism any more.

[M.Dancer]

Seems your argument changed in mid stream. The plan was never implemented.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

The plan was implemented.

[Jonsa]

The plan was implemented.

A UN general resolution is NOT the partition plan.

UN general resolutions aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

the earth is flat.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Jonsa

[William Ashley]

If they honestly wanted to kill Israeli's and be all mean they'd implant biological weapons into the arms shipment that is contaminate it so that when the "Israeli's find the arms" they'd be exposed to the biological agent.

They arn't really trying. Clearly its just a game, and they are playing by relatively friendly rules.

This is childs play in terms of "bad people"

My gosh the Americans killed indians with contaminated Humanitarian blankets laced with TB and other diseases.

http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/TheStoryOfTheBiologicalWarfare.pdf

Its totally blown out of proportion, they clearly don't have their hearts in it. Its all reactionary.

Edited March 26, 2011 by William Ashley

[Jonsa]

If they honestly wanted to kill Israeli's and be all mean they'd implant biological weapons into the arms shipment that is contaminate it so that when the "Israeli's find the arms" they'd be exposed to the biological agent.

They arn't really trying. Clearly its just a game, and they are playing by relatively friendly rules.

This is childs play in terms of "bad people"

My gosh the Americans killed indians with contaminated Humanitarian blankets laced with TB and other diseases.

http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/TheStoryOfTheBiologicalWarfare.pdf

Its totally blown out of proportion, they clearly don't have their hearts in it. Its all reactionary.

Nonsense.

A large faction of palestinians and arabs have their hearts in it, it just they do not possess the means.

Biological warfare? you must be joking. Its a sick joke, but a joke nonetheless.

[Bob]

Yes, this does make a rather strong argument in favor of inspections, doesn't it.

-k

I thought the rockets, bombs/IEDs placed along the fence and floated north to Israeli beaches, shootings and abductions at the border, and other forms of terrorism were the argument for inspections? Unfortunately, most people don't know these things and are perhaps learning for the first time that the restrictions on imports to Gaza from Israel's side aren't being implement because we're big meanies.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

No most of them just dont want to live under occupation, and have a foreign military dictating to them what they can do on their own land.

And if you think Palestinians are agro, try pulling that shit on other westerners. If the "occupied territory" was Canadian or American now one single one of your people that entered it would ever be safe.

Leave the occupied territores or enjoy violence forever and deserve it.

Gaza isn't occupied.

[Bob]

the flotilla that was attacked in international waters by israel was inspected before sailing to gaza and also inspected by israel and no weapons were found. so yeah, you kind of suck at this.

-d

The Mavi Marmara didn't peacefully allow itself to be inspected, hence the confrontation. They wanted violence, and some of them achieved their ambitions of becoming martyrs.

Also, Israel made repeated efforts to stop the Mavi Marmara from trying to break through the blockade, even prior to its departure. The Mavi Marmara had more opportunities than its deserved to end its provocation peacefully and reroute through another Israeli port. They got some of what they wanted and some of what they deserved.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Sorry but thats horseshit and you dont even know who "THEY" is. The palestinian side is pushing for a two state solution based on the 67 borders which is what the entire world recognizes as legal. They have even offered to make numerous concessions and let Israel KEEP some of the land they illegally occupy. Theres definately some Arabs that still would like Israel gone completely just like theres some Jews that think Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from the west bank, but thats by no means the aggregate arab position.

But go ahead. Keep inventing stuff.

There is no such thing as "1967-borders". They were armistice lines drawn after the War of Independence in 1949, and they're no longer relevant. Moreover, they were never acceptable for many practical (and security) reasons. We will never see those "borders" again.

Lastly, popular world opinion doesn't mean much. This is the same world that, for the most part, looked the other way when we were being executed en masse and being placed into ovens. Also, considering that the Jewish people compose perhaps 0.00001% of the world population, with about one and a half billion Muslims and plenty (~55?) Muslim majority states, it stands to reason that our needs and rights aren't well represented in world opinion. The Arabs in Judea and Samaria are occupied because they need to be.

[Bob]

Its about as Kosher as it would be if the Arabs used military force to establish "civilian" settlements near Telaviv. Would that be Kosher?

What the hell are you talking about? Arabs live all across Israel. Yafo (just south of Tel-Aviv is probably almost 50% Arab. Why in the world would they need to militarily enforce anything when they already live here with full political and human rights in their own "settlements"? Arabs live here.

As DogOnPorch has implied, the Arabs tried several times to destroy us, so your comment looks especially stupid. They tried to do much more than use "military force to establish civilian settlements", all across Israel.