A thought about Israel.

[Figleaf]

I have one question? Why do we always stop at the date ISRAEL was officially created and question history from that date forward?

On the same basis isn't it equally as absurd to question the creation of any country?

Perhaps we should go back through the history of mankind and question the legitimate creation of ANY country EVER created.

But no - let's stick to the 1948 formula. It's easier for the terrosit-sympathizing nitwits.

What is relevant in this issue is the rules of modern international law currently prevailing. The political conditions of pre-modern ethnic clusters, city-states, empires, or petty potentates are of no concern. In terms of modern international law, the period of policital relevance begins with the League of Nations Mandate held by the British. At this point the British held international authority for the region, but were not successors of any prior state. Any and all prior sovereignties in the region were extinguished.

Inaresting......so what about all dem arabs and their ottoman era land deeds?

Seemingly they were carried over into the British Mandate, then made 'legally' defunct by the creation of Israel, unless Israel too acknowledged them, which arguably they did.

[Rue]

The arab states refuse to sign a peaxce deal because a state of war is in their best interests.....

In fact modern historians have come to the conclusions that is was the Israelis who were the difficult ones and that the Arabs - the Jordanians, the Egyptians and the Syrians - did make honest efforts at peace following the 1948 war. This nonsense about the Arabs refusing to agree to peace terms is just Israeli mythinformation.

As for the palestinians....The syrians could give a flying fluck about them....give you an idea....only one nation in the middle east will allow Palestinians to immgrate and become citiznes......and it ain't Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon Iraq........

More mythinformation. The Syrians offered to take 300,000 Palestinian refugees in exhcnage for water rights on the Sea of Galilee. Israel refused. In fact Israeli intransigence blocked peace settlements at every turn. Jordan has absorbed many Palestinian refugees. The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian.

Once again we have one of Israel's apologists (that's you Dancer) demanding that other states take responsibility for a problem that Israel created.

"Modern Historians" is that a club we can join? They all agree do they?

Iz that a fact? So syria was willing to trade palestinians for water? How ...umm....generous. Why won't they allow any now?

Queen Noor is a palestinian? When did Washington DC get annexed by palestine?

Who are these modern historians you refer to? Me thinks "modern historian" refers to someone you like who has revised history to suit a preconceived notion or bias of yours as opposed to someone reporting facts as they really happened.

To state the Arab League was reasonable after 1949, and after they lost the war is laughable. Now prove it. Show us the documentation that leads you to make such a comment and repudiate what I stated or stop with the hilarity and revisionism. Put up some documentation to indicate which Arab League members or politicians engaged in peaceful diaologue and tried to be "reasonable" and where and when so we can see if you are actually basing your comments on something or are just blowing anti-kosher air.

[Rue]

The difference between us Higgly is I dop not attempt to portray Palestinians as bad and unfair or Israeli Jews as bad or unfair. I see them both as equals, both equally cursed by historic evens beyond their control.

But they are decidedly not 'both equally cursed'. One side today lives under the boot-heel of the other.

Spit it out Higgly. Why so angry and sick and tired. what have Israelis ever done to you? Is there someone kosher in your life you are angry at?

FOUL!

Sorry it is a fair question. I am not the one who has injected being sick and tired and a need to combat Israeli apologists into this debate. It is a fair question. Why is it someone who defends the right to Israel to exist makes someone like Higgly so sick and tired?

As for your comment that One side today lives under the boot-heel of the other-this is precisely the kind of one sided, simplistic comment that proves you are bias.

Just as it can be argued Palestinians feel under the boot of Israelis, Israelis can make the same arguement of Palestinians.

The point is both sides feel under threat and oppresed and if you want to continue to depict this as only one good guy and ne bad guy go watch WWE wrestling.

[Rue]

Alright I am going to be factual. This so called reference to "new historians" is probably reference to Benny Morris a Jewish writer who is NOT an historian and who has written anti-Israel essays. If that is who we are referring to I would urge you to read someone else.

Now for me, where I gather my information is to in fact read the speeches and notes of the Arab League delegates during the period of 1945-1949 and up to 1952 if we are to talk about whether the Arab League made meaningful attempts to try achieve peace with Israel post 1949.

If you want to buy into the preconceived notion of Israel bad Palestine good, then you can find pro-Arab League and pro-Palestinian essays suggesting just that.

My contention would be neither for or against either the Palestinian or Israeli positions.

My contention would be as follows. The poster above in his depiction of displaced Palestinians ignores completely that Jews were also displaced.

A survey of all the literature available on displaced Jews and Palestinians at the end of 1949 would estimate 530,000 displaced Palestinians although essays vary from 430,000 to as high as 957,000. Jews displaced from Arab countries would be anywhere from 600 to 850,000.

The fact is BOTH Palestines and Jews were displaced. This is not a matter of simply Arabs in Palestine displaced. It is also a matter of hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, and so on.

Now revisionists who are pro Palestinian would argue the Arab League was reasonable because it argued after Israel signed treaties with Egypt, Trans Jordan, Syria and Iraq in 1949, that all Palestinians should be allowed to return to Israel and that the reasonable solution would be to have a Palestinian state that was not Jewish but would be made up of a majority of Muslims and a minority of Jews.

That is what the Arab league felt was reasonable.

The British proposal, was to have a piece of land for Israel and two pieces of land for Muslims each being autonomous. The Arab League concept was one Muslim jaority nation.

The problem is the enclave proposed for Jews and the two proposed for Muslims completely ignored Trans Jordan or 70% of Palestine which was created by the British as one of its colonies. It also ignored sections of Lebanon and Syria carved out for French colonies.

So if you want to revise history and believe Palestine is only where ISrael from 1949 to 1967 was, go ahead but the point is Palestine was roughly Israel, Transjordan, (today Jordan) the Gaza and a bit of Syria and Lebanon and the borders changed from Rome to Greece to the Turks to the British to the French.

As well this idea that Palestine had no Jews is revisionist b.s. just as it is revisionist b.s. to ignore all the Jews expelled from the Middle East Arab nations between the 1920's to date but particularily in the days of 1948-49 when the Arab world had embraced anti-semitism and Nazi philosophy and did not distinguish its debate against Zionism with anti-semitism.

Benny Morris and many leftists who believe Israel is a neo-colonial state created by the West have no validity because they see the situation as one good guy and one bad guy and they select historic facts based on the perspective that Jews were not native to or had a right to land in Israel.

They also completely ignore the reality opf dhimmitude in the Middle East and its impact on Jewish property rights which can not be ignored if we are to be fair and discuss Muslim rights to property.

I again contend that in the Middle East both Palestinians and Israeli Jews, can make eq2ually as valid arguements to having been displaced and being unfairly treated.

I as well completely attack the notion that the Arab League offer to create a Palestinian state with a majority of Muslims and a minority of Jews was a reasonable solution.

It may be reasonable if you were a Muslim who did not seperate religion from state and felt that Jews should remain a minority and pay taxes on land pursuant to dhimmitude, but if you were a Jew this meant a continuation of a two tier property system that discriminated against them.

So yes Palestinians were displaced and that is unfair, but yes again Jews were treated unfairly and displaced.

As a result of them both being displaced, there was a need for them both to have countries.

All we are doing is whining about the fact that Palestine is not a Muslim state to this day. Nothing is to stop Palestinians from forming a nation in the Gaza and West Bank.

Nothing but themselves and their desire to have all of Israel. So revise all you want and quote Benny Morris but it doesn't change the facts or the speeches from the Arab League that make it clear since 1949 the only thing it has ever suggested is that Israel be turned into a Muslim state.

[myata]

Rue,

you made a number of interesting statements but without some kind of proof they only remain your saying that. I'm willing to change the related point in my round up of the situation to the extent that expulsion of ethnic population happened not only in the newly created state of Israel, but also in the neighbouring states. There's however a big difference between the two: one was deliberately conducted (as a policy) to ensure control by certain ethinic group. In todays language it's called ethnic cleansing and, as far as I understand, is considered a crime against humanity. Regarding the other, I'm not aware of anything other than acts of retaliation and revenge, especially anything pointing to state sponsored policy of expulsion. I you know otherwise, please share your sources of information.

In any case, these events were triggered by unilateral and not entirely legitimate way the new state was created. I believe that acknowledging it now, along with offering reasonable compensation to those directly affected, would go some way toward bringing some belated sense of justice to the region. Without it (i.e., position of justice) achieving long lasting stability in the region will be a pipe dream for the long years to come.

[KrustyKidd]

I believe that acknowledging it now, along with offering reasonable compensation to those directly affected, would go some way toward bringing some belated sense of justice to the region.

I highly doubt that the Palestinian government would be able to make those million dollar payouts to the families of slain Israelis so wonder where the balance is in expecting Israelis to pay them.

[Argus]

I believe that acknowledging it now, along with offering reasonable compensation to those directly affected, would go some way toward bringing some belated sense of justice to the region.

I highly doubt that the Palestinian government would be able to make those million dollar payouts to the families of slain Israelis so wonder where the balance is in expecting Israelis to pay them.

Well, given most of the Palestinian Authority's budget came from the Americans (NOT, interestingly, all those rich Arab states which have been crying cocodile tears for the Palestinians all these years), I suppose people will expect it's the Yanks' responsibility.

Which again raises the question no one likes to deal with: How would an independant Palestine be anything less than a festering, poverty-stricken backwater? They have no money, no industry and no resources. The West doesn't give the kind of money it does now to independant nations except in special circumstances. And I think it highly unlikely Arab states would offer much more than a "graduation gift" to the new state, followed by a big zip.

[M.Dancer]

Just as it can be argued Palestinians feel under the boot of Israelis, Israelis can make the same arguement of Palestinians.

I will be forthright and say the palestinians often find themselves living under the boot of Palestinians.....

Woe to the palestininian who is caught doing business with an israeli jew....woe to the palestinians who contemplates selling land to a jew....woe to the palestinian who objects to the militants using his garden or children as shields.....

[myata]

Neverthelss, none of this negates the root cause of the problem - the way state of Israel was created. No long term settlement will be possible until the problems of the past are recognized and dealt with.

[M.Dancer]

Neverthelss, none of this negates the root cause of the problem - the way state of Israel was created. No long term settlement will be possible until the problems of the past are recognized and dealt with.

This root cause? Does it explain the anti jewish riots decades before the birth of Israel? Does it explain the state sponsored persecution of jews before the Birth? If it doesn't, it ain't the root cause.......you want to know what the root cause is....have a drunken chat with Mel Gibson

[Figleaf]

As for your comment that One side today lives under the boot-heel of the other-this is precisely the kind of one sided, simplistic comment that proves you are bias.

Rue, Rue, Rue. Simply saying that does not make it so. It is a fact, the Palestinian people are under military occupation by Israel an no denial on your part of this plain fact can serve to prove you are anywhere near impartial on this topic.

In fact, it is apparent over many posts that your views on this subject are not merely factually unfounded, and ethically inexplicable, they are also intransigent.

Just as it can be argued Palestinians feel under the boot of Israelis, Israelis can make the same arguement of Palestinians.

What utter crap!

The point is both sides feel under threat and oppresed and if you want to continue to depict this as only one good guy and ne bad guy go watch WWE wrestling.

Both sides may FEEL under threat, but only one side is militarily occupying the other.

My contention would be as follows. The poster above in his depiction of displaced Palestinians ignores completely that Jews were also displaced.

It is NOT ignored. It is simply logically irrelevant to the point being made. YES, some Jews fled Arab persecution. They should be compensated. NEXT!

Neverthelss, none of this negates the root cause of the problem - the way state of Israel was created. No long term settlement will be possible until the problems of the past are recognized and dealt with.

This root cause? Does it explain the anti jewish riots decades before the birth of Israel? Does it explain the state sponsored persecution of jews before the Birth? If it doesn't, it ain't the root cause.......you want to know what the root cause is....have a drunken chat with Mel Gibson

I don't think quibbling with myata's term 'root cause' detracts from the main point: the way the state of Israel was created and circumstances arising from that are at the core of any resolution of the middle-east conflict.

[myata]

This root cause? Does it explain the anti jewish riots decades before the birth of Israel? Does it explain the state sponsored persecution of jews before the Birth?

Sorry, "tolerated and possibly encouraged massive foreign immigration resulting in significant change in the ethnic balance of the region AND" as per my earlier post. The rest of your rant doesn't deserve any answer.

[M.Dancer]

This root cause? Does it explain the anti jewish riots decades before the birth of Israel? Does it explain the state sponsored persecution of jews before the Birth?

Sorry, "tolerated and possibly encouraged massive foreign immigration resulting in significant change in the ethnic balance of the region AND" as per my earlier post. The rest of your rant doesn't deserve any answer.

Read again, if it's too difficult I will type slowly.....

How does your root cause explain that nothing has changed in the relationships between arab and jews......

[Figleaf]

How does your root cause explain that nothing has changed in the relationships between arab and jews......

Can you say 'begs the question', kiddies?

[M.Dancer]

Put it to you this way....the cration of israel is a zero sum calculation. Jews would still be the target of their hate......the only difference is that with the creation of Israel, Jews can defend themselves....and that's what really pisses some people off.

[Figleaf]

Put it to you this way....the cration of israel is a zero sum calculation. Jews would still be the target of their hate......the only difference is that with the creation of Israel, Jews can defend themselves....and that's what really pisses some people off.

(1) I don't think the evidence available establishes that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews.

(2) The need for Jewish people to have a state where they could protect themselves from persecution does not in itself create a right to take or keep that state from someone else. It would have been much simpler if the Jewish people had been offered territory that did not involve the forcible assertion of the state over the existing inhabitant's objections.

But history took a different turn, and Israel is where it is. That fact does not absolve of the need to act ethically toward the injured parties to the extent possible. It does not justify continued occupation and machinations toward further annexation.

[M.Dancer]

Put it to you this way....the cration of israel is a zero sum calculation. Jews would still be the target of their hate......the only difference is that with the creation of Israel, Jews can defend themselves....and that's what really pisses some people off.

(1) I don't think the evidence available establishes that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews.

Say again?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ands_(gen).html

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

(2) The need for Jewish people to have a state where they could protect themselves from persecution does not in itself create a right to take or keep that state from someone else. It would have been much simpler if the Jewish people had been offered territory that did not involve the forcible assertion of the state over the existing inhabitant's objections.

They didn't take a state from someone else. Unles of course you know something that the world doesn't. That being said.....why don't the palestinians move somewhere else...I mean....if you think spomewhere else woudl be good for the jews.....

But history took a different turn, and Israel is where it is. That fact does not absolve of the need to act ethically toward the injured parties to the extent possible. It does not justify continued occupation and machinations toward further annexation.

Further annexation? You been sleeping these past 10 years? A Israel jeopordizes it's security by turning over the Gaza and help form the PA, the PA'swn gov't won't recognise Israel's right to life......yeah I'm afraid that does justify continued occupation......

[myata]

Put it to you this way....the cration of israel is a zero sum calculation. Jews would still be the target of their hate......the only difference is that with the creation of Israel, Jews can defend themselves....and that's what really pisses some people off.

Remarkable to observe over and againg someone's short of better argument redirecting their energy into insults. We're still waiting on the evidence of systematic and mass scale prosecution of the Jewish population by arabs in the period in question (to be precise, 1917-1948). Just to remind, invitation to provide such evidence has been given in one of the earlier posts. It wasn't missed because of reading inability, I'm sure? apologies otherwise.

[M.Dancer]

Remarkable to observe over and againg someone's short of better argument redirecting their energy into insults. We're still waiting on the evidence of systematic and mass scale prosecution of the Jewish population by arabs in the period in question (to be precise, 1917-1948). Just to remind, invitation to provide such evidence has been given in one of the earlier posts. It wasn't missed because of reading inability, I'm sure? apologies otherwise.

What's remarkable is the effort people go to to avoid the uncomfortable.....try reading ONE POST UP.....

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ands_(gen).html

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

Not interested in apologies, I have enough worthless crap on my computer.......

Here are a few other sources, all of which are easy to find for anyone with any desire....

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/jews.htm

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/persecution.html

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/263/essay263.html (this one is illustrative)

A century later, in June 1941, following an abortive pro-Nazi coup in Iraq, the Jews of Baghdad were subjected to a horrendous massacre in which hundreds perished. And so forth.

[myata]

Almost by definition of the word, "rioting" does not qualify as a state policy, unless proven to be directly instigated and guided by the state. Keep trying on that one. BTW, in case you haven't noticed (reading difficulty, I wonder?) no one here denies suffering of Jewish people at the time, in many places of the world. The point already made many times by other posters is that such suffering in itself does not justify actions causing suffering to other people. Which only spreads the waves of violence around, and for a long time. Just as we see now, 50+ years on. And, as this discussion shows, the way to resolution will be long and painful as the sins of the past will have to be admitted, and addressed by all sides.

[Figleaf]

It really would be good for you to preview your posts.

(1) I don't think the evidence available establishes that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews.

Say again?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ands_(gen).html

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

Yes, yes. I don't think anti-Jewish rioting in the 1940s demonstates convincingly that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews today in the absense of their conflict with Israel.

They didn't take a state from someone else.

That's a semantic quibble based on highly subjective criteria.

But history took a different turn, and Israel is where it is. That fact does not absolve of the need to act ethically toward the injured parties to the extent possible. It does not justify continued occupation and machinations toward further annexation.

Further annexation? You been sleeping these past 10 years? A Israel jeopordizes it's security by turning over the Gaza and help form the PA, the PA'swn gov't won't recognise Israel's right to life......yeah I'm afraid that does justify continued occupation......

Your interpretation of events is, IMHO, faulty. Israel has created it's security problems by failing to come to a just peace with the Palestinians who's territory they hold against international law. Israel's claims that it holds this territory for security purposes:

1) are suspect given the vast difference in military capabilities between them; and

2) has provided cover for illegal settlement of the occupied territory.

[M.Dancer]

BTW, in case you haven't noticed (reading difficulty, I wonder?) no one here denies suffering of Jewish people at the time, in many places of the world.

(1) I don't think the evidence available establishes that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews.

Dissemble much?

[myata]

BTW, in case you haven't noticed (reading difficulty, I wonder?) no one here denies suffering of Jewish people at the time, in many places of the world.

(1) I don't think the evidence available establishes that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews.

Dissemble much?

Allright, I see you really aren't reading. Never mind.

[Figleaf]

BTW, in case you haven't noticed (reading difficulty, I wonder?) no one here denies suffering of Jewish people at the time, in many places of the world.

(1) I don't think the evidence available establishes that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews.

Dissemble much?

Excuse me. You appear to be imputing that I have denied Jewish people suffered persecution.

That imputation is completely baseless and false.

My comment relates to the prospect of behaviour from Arab governments, not the content of the historical record.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, yes. I don't think anti-Jewish rioting in the 1940s demonstates convincingly that Arab governments would be actively persecuting Jews today in the absense of their conflict with Israel.

Why? You thhink without Israel they would have become liberal democracies? If before the creation of Israel, Jews were forced to live in ghettoes, wear identifying clothes etc....you think that would have changed?

Why prey tell, would they want to identify jews?

Maybe one should ask the Mufti of Jerusalem, the defacto leader and therefore gov't of the arabs of the area, why he told his followers to kill jews?

BTW...saying that arab riots in egypt didn't have gov't approval is like saying crystal night was a spontaneous event......