I thought the point was that Palestinians want an autonomous Palestine.
They do want an autonomous Palestine, but that doesn't mean they don't want an Israel. That's my point. They'll coexist.
As for the time period, there has to be a start. We can't go back 3,000 years. We have to work within the framework of modern history. The U.N. is in charge and as long as they are they should enforce their own decisions. So, what they come up with, the '48 or the '67 borders, are what the U.N. as mediator should be enforcing.
Israel has no interest in either border and that's the root of the problem in my mind. Give Palestine its borders back and that would certainly ease tensions.
They do want an autonomous Palestine, but that doesn't mean they don't want an Israel. That's my point. They'll coexist.
As for the time period, there has to be a start. We can't go back 3,000 years. We have to work within the framework of modern history. The U.N. is in charge and as long as they are they should enforce their own decisions. So, what they come up with, the '48 or the '67 borders, are what the U.N. as mediator should be enforcing.
Israel has no interest in either border and that's the root of the problem in my mind. Give Palestine its borders back and that would certainly ease tensions.
Do you really think the Palestinian Authority has a genuine interested in keeping those borders? Do you think many of the other Arab govts are interested in keeping Israel around? You're thinking from a Western perspective, you're thinking on how to do things logically, things are way too heated over there now for those people to think logically. They are too emotionally invested.
Do you really think the Palestinian Authority has a genuine interested in keeping those borders? Do you think many of the other Arab govts are interested in keeping Israel around? You're thinking from a Western perspective, you're thinking on how to do things logically, things are way too heated over there now for those people to think logically. They are too emotionally invested.
Two things. One, many neighboring countries have offered normalized relations if Israel will back out of the occupied territories. I believe Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Two, if there are defined legal borders then there are ways to defend them legitimately in the eyes of the world.
Here's my question, Why the Hell aren't the Palestinians and the Arab world railing against Jordan? From my readings Jordan makes up a greater portion of what was historically Palestine than Israel does. Anyone care to explain?
When we are talking about palestinians today, they are the muslim and christian arabs whom lived within the area covered by the UN partition plan in 47. This includes the refugees who've fleed since that time.
It is important to know that all of the northern arab states are modern "constructions" with only partial historic background. This goes for iraq, syria and lebanon as well. The only borders we can really speak of are those of the ottoman administrative regions. The Ottomans had three administrative region in what is today palestine. While Franch (according to the Syke/Picot agreement) got the regions to the north, the british joined these three regions under the old term "palestine". A term used widely, but pretty loose before that time.
Jordan (transjordan) was separated as a self governed teritory by the british in 1923, to much anger from the zionist movement. It given as a state to Abullah, one of the sons of King Hussain of the nomadic arab Hashemite tribe.This as a thanks for the millitary support against the Ottomans during WWI (the great arab revolt). The Jordanian population consisted of the Bedouin (the arab nomads), local villagers, immigrated palestinans, syrians, chechenians (yes!) and others.
After 1947 a new wave of palestinians flowed into Jordan.
Iraq was given to the more famouse brother of Abdullah, Feisal, and was also a hashemite kingdom until the revolution in 1958. The brits had a hang for monarkies.
The Hashemites are originally from the arab Hejaz region, further south on the arab peninsula. Where they were the rivals of the Saud family. Who now rule Saudi Arabia.
Only the southern states of the arab peninsula can claim to have real historical backgrounds for their national states. These are Yemen, Oman, the emirates and the gulf-kingdoms (Bahrain, Quatar and maybe Kuwait). Yemen for instance has had a consistent administrative rule since 907 AD.
I think it was unethical and illegal. I agree with you on that. I just figure that that was a rather large "movement" that started all this by pissing off the Arabs. It is also a rather significant event in relative modern history that had a great impact on that region and the rest of the world. Hence, a good place to start.
You keep saying I can't admit something...something I haven't denied.
What you want to deny is that Israel took steps on the roadmap, one of which was the dismantling of some settlements. You counter continually with "well other settlements were going up." If give the choice of stopping new settlements or dismantling existing settlements which would you choose? Israel chose to first remove setlements as a first step. You ignore this and prefer instead to focus on the negatives, but only if they involve Israel. How about mentioning the complete lack of action on the road map by the Palestinians? I forgot, you only wantto blame Israel.
What you want to deny is that Israel took steps on the roadmap, one of which was the dismantling of some settlements.
Yeah, and the Palestinians instituted a cease-fire. But if they were simultaneously blowing up busses then it's not really a cease-fire.
Likewise, if Israel dismantles a house, but adds sixty more, they're not actually adhering to the roadmap. They're actually doing the opposite of what they're supposed to do to stay on the roadmap.
Quote:
Settlements
GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
See, it's very clear. Feel free to go look it up for yourself. The roadmap also said they had to stop any violence against all Palestinians. All. You know, like everyone. Including the religious leaders. They didn't. That was their first priority in the Roadmap and they failed.
It looks to me that the Palestinian claim for a historic Palestine is a quagmire. If all these historical documents support them, then it looks to me that the Palestinians should also be making claims against Lebanon and Jordan. If the statehood of historical Palestine is baseless, then what?
Either way I do not see Israel as the sole culprit here. And bunge, do you really believe the Arab world would "normalize" relations with Israel after a final settlement with the Palestinians? I don't think so. Just rhetoric and bullshit IMO. The Israelis have done some harsh shit, but they have been stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place for a long time now.
And bunge, do you really believe the Arab world would "normalize" relations with Israel after a final settlement with the Palestinians? I don't think so. Just rhetoric and bullshit IMO. The Israelis have done some harsh shit, but they have been stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place for a long time now.
Egypt and Jordan had started the trend and others could follow. They have said they would, and that's all we can assume. If not, then we have to assume they'll never be happy and kill everyone on both sides. Not a realistic option.
It looks to me that the Palestinian claim for a historic Palestine is a quagmire. If all these historical documents support them, then it looks to me that the Palestinians should also be making claims against Lebanon and Jordan. If the statehood of historical Palestine is baseless, then what?
There is no claim to "historic" palestine. There never was Independent statehood in this area. Nationalism is a modern invention. Sorry. Many European states are less than a hundred years old.
If you look at the maps you will see that there have been administrational entities there, and that todays borders follow these borders more closely than any other middle-eastern nation. You could argue that they should join with Lebanon and Syria. Sure, blame the french. But the palestinians only claim the land they live or lived on.
Looking at Jordan, the old border goes along the River Jordan. There is really not much to claim in Jordan anyway. It is mostly desert. When Jordan controlled the West Bank it accounted for 65% of its agricultural production.
There is a very valid historic Arab claim to the land. Palestinian arabs have lived there for centuries. And many have papers going back to Ottoman rule to prove it, even though paper claims where not the standard at the time.
The Ottomans were technically also an occupying force, and much Israeli law is built on ottoman foundation, adopted from the english. Believe it or not.
So we are basically talking about the right of the people who live or lived in the area up to recently, to their traditional land and own self-determination. period.
If you look at it historically arab claim to the land is much more real than any jewish claim to the land. Being based on nothing more than religious writing. Keeping in mind that based on religion only, both christians and muslims could argue the same claim.
Even if we took the religious writings as facts, Israel existed less than two hundred years as a kingdom, back in the days of the old testament.
Arabs have lived in the area far longer. including arab jews (can you say that? ok, oriental jews then) and various other ethnic groups, like druz and armenians.
Yeah, and the Palestinians instituted a cease-fire. But if they were simultaneously blowing up busses then it's not really a cease-fire.
Likewise, if Israel dismantles a house, but adds sixty more, they're not actually adhering to the roadmap. They're actually doing the opposite of what they're supposed to do to stay on the roadmap.
Settlements
GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
See, it's very clear. Feel free to go look it up for yourself. The roadmap also said they had to stop any violence against all Palestinians. All. You know, like everyone. Including the religious leaders. They didn't. That was their first priority in the Roadmap and they failed.
First, a ceasefire by the palestinians was never a part of the road map...so, you are still grasping to show how they followed the roadmap.
Second, as your little quote shows and maybe you can comprehend, the dismantling and freezing of settlements are 2 steps. So, one certainly can be accomplished without the other. Atleast one was taken..but again, since it was Israel, you will deny it...I guess Israel would have to implement all steps prior to a single palestinian implementation to make you happy. Of course that would lead to untold number of Jewish deaths, but that's hardly important.
As fo stopping all violence. The roadmap was supposed to be a series of negotiated, recipriocating steps..you go, now I'll go, now you go. Only Israel implemented anything from the road map.
If you look at it historically arab claim to the land is much more real than any jewish claim to the land. Being based on nothing more than religious writing. Keeping in mind that based on religion only, both christians and muslims could argue the same claim.
Even if we took the religious writings as facts, Israel existed less than two hundred years as a kingdom, back in the days of the old testament.
Let it go.
That's BS. You knwo damn well, you don't have to got back that far. The romans recoqnised it as a jewish area, populated by jews and they allowed a Jewish governor.
How far back are we allowed to go? Just far back enough invalidate the jewish claim?
First, a ceasefire by the palestinians was never a part of the road map...so, you are still grasping to show how they followed the roadmap.
Your obviously has very little grasp of this yourself.
From the roadmap: "Phase I: Ending Terror And Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions -- Present to May 2003"
(...)
"Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel?s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel."
Do you see the word ceasefire?
As of right now the PA has taken steps to implement all of the phase I demands, with (I grant you) only partial success, but Israel has fail to implement even one.
Israel has not:
- Officially committed two a two state solution.
- Withdrawn to the 2000 occupation lines.
- Halted attacks against civilians.
- Reopened palestinian institutions in Jerusalem.
- Halted settlement activity and dismanteled settlements built since 2001.
That's BS. You knwo damn well, you don't have to got back that far. The romans recoqnised it as a jewish area, populated by jews and they allowed a Jewish governor.
How far back are we allowed to go? Just far back enough invalidate the jewish claim?
Sure, but only under foreign administration as part of the roman empire, and with many other ethnic groups present. This claim is comparable in principle to current arab claims.
But then the romans burned the temple and we all know what happened. It was unfair. But its ancient history. Not very different from how the cannanites where driven away by the hebrews.
Current arab claims are recent. They are based on events in modern, recorded history. The people affected are still alive. The events are affected by international laws. We now have the UN, the geneva convention etc.
The Kingdom of David isn't really unique in the history of the region. Just a shorter period of time in ancient history. The only reason we give it such weight is because of the way religion evolved from it. we can't give everything back to everybody. America back to the indians, Northern Scandinavia back to the Sami people. Sorry.
But we can start taking care of the injustices of the world today. And the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is happening right now.
Like Bunge said: "Israel is increasing in size." Time to stop now. At least.
Comments
Originally posted by LiquidR
I thought the point was that Palestinians want an autonomous Palestine.
They do want an autonomous Palestine, but that doesn't mean they don't want an Israel. That's my point. They'll coexist.
As for the time period, there has to be a start. We can't go back 3,000 years. We have to work within the framework of modern history. The U.N. is in charge and as long as they are they should enforce their own decisions. So, what they come up with, the '48 or the '67 borders, are what the U.N. as mediator should be enforcing.
Israel has no interest in either border and that's the root of the problem in my mind. Give Palestine its borders back and that would certainly ease tensions.
originally posted by bunge
They do want an autonomous Palestine, but that doesn't mean they don't want an Israel. That's my point. They'll coexist.
As for the time period, there has to be a start. We can't go back 3,000 years. We have to work within the framework of modern history. The U.N. is in charge and as long as they are they should enforce their own decisions. So, what they come up with, the '48 or the '67 borders, are what the U.N. as mediator should be enforcing.
Israel has no interest in either border and that's the root of the problem in my mind. Give Palestine its borders back and that would certainly ease tensions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really think the Palestinian Authority has a genuine interested in keeping those borders? Do you think many of the other Arab govts are interested in keeping Israel around? You're thinking from a Western perspective, you're thinking on how to do things logically, things are way too heated over there now for those people to think logically. They are too emotionally invested.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Do you really think the Palestinian Authority has a genuine interested in keeping those borders? Do you think many of the other Arab govts are interested in keeping Israel around? You're thinking from a Western perspective, you're thinking on how to do things logically, things are way too heated over there now for those people to think logically. They are too emotionally invested.
Two things. One, many neighboring countries have offered normalized relations if Israel will back out of the occupied territories. I believe Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Two, if there are defined legal borders then there are ways to defend them legitimately in the eyes of the world.
Originally posted by bunge
As for the time period, there has to be a start.
What about starting from the beginning of the "World Zionist Movement"?
Originally posted by bunge
Your argument is embarrassing.
Only because you want to view Israel as the main threat/antagonist in the world, regardless of what reality says. Wonder why that is...
Originally posted by LiquidR
Here's my question, Why the Hell aren't the Palestinians and the Arab world railing against Jordan? From my readings Jordan makes up a greater portion of what was historically Palestine than Israel does. Anyone care to explain?
When we are talking about palestinians today, they are the muslim and christian arabs whom lived within the area covered by the UN partition plan in 47. This includes the refugees who've fleed since that time.
It is important to know that all of the northern arab states are modern "constructions" with only partial historic background. This goes for iraq, syria and lebanon as well. The only borders we can really speak of are those of the ottoman administrative regions. The Ottomans had three administrative region in what is today palestine. While Franch (according to the Syke/Picot agreement) got the regions to the north, the british joined these three regions under the old term "palestine". A term used widely, but pretty loose before that time.
Jordan (transjordan) was separated as a self governed teritory by the british in 1923, to much anger from the zionist movement. It given as a state to Abullah, one of the sons of King Hussain of the nomadic arab Hashemite tribe.This as a thanks for the millitary support against the Ottomans during WWI (the great arab revolt). The Jordanian population consisted of the Bedouin (the arab nomads), local villagers, immigrated palestinans, syrians, chechenians (yes!) and others.
After 1947 a new wave of palestinians flowed into Jordan.
Iraq was given to the more famouse brother of Abdullah, Feisal, and was also a hashemite kingdom until the revolution in 1958. The brits had a hang for monarkies.
The Hashemites are originally from the arab Hejaz region, further south on the arab peninsula. Where they were the rivals of the Saud family. Who now rule Saudi Arabia.
Only the southern states of the arab peninsula can claim to have real historical backgrounds for their national states. These are Yemen, Oman, the emirates and the gulf-kingdoms (Bahrain, Quatar and maybe Kuwait). Yemen for instance has had a consistent administrative rule since 907 AD.
Originally posted by X X
What about starting from the beginning of the "World Zionist Movement"?
What, and consider it unethical and illegal?
Originally posted by Tulkas
Only because you want to view Israel as the main threat/antagonist in the world, regardless of what reality says. Wonder why that is...
Oh, ouch. What a snappy comment.
Israel is increasing in size. You can't admit it.
Originally posted by bunge
What, and consider it unethical and illegal?
I think it was unethical and illegal. I agree with you on that. I just figure that that was a rather large "movement" that started all this by pissing off the Arabs. It is also a rather significant event in relative modern history that had a great impact on that region and the rest of the world. Hence, a good place to start.
Originally posted by bunge
Oh, ouch. What a snappy comment.
Israel is increasing in size. You can't admit it.
You keep saying I can't admit something...something I haven't denied.
What you want to deny is that Israel took steps on the roadmap, one of which was the dismantling of some settlements. You counter continually with "well other settlements were going up." If give the choice of stopping new settlements or dismantling existing settlements which would you choose? Israel chose to first remove setlements as a first step. You ignore this and prefer instead to focus on the negatives, but only if they involve Israel. How about mentioning the complete lack of action on the road map by the Palestinians? I forgot, you only wantto blame Israel.
Originally posted by Tulkas
What you want to deny is that Israel took steps on the roadmap, one of which was the dismantling of some settlements.
Yeah, and the Palestinians instituted a cease-fire. But if they were simultaneously blowing up busses then it's not really a cease-fire.
Likewise, if Israel dismantles a house, but adds sixty more, they're not actually adhering to the roadmap. They're actually doing the opposite of what they're supposed to do to stay on the roadmap.
Settlements
GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
See, it's very clear. Feel free to go look it up for yourself. The roadmap also said they had to stop any violence against all Palestinians. All. You know, like everyone. Including the religious leaders. They didn't. That was their first priority in the Roadmap and they failed.
Either way I do not see Israel as the sole culprit here. And bunge, do you really believe the Arab world would "normalize" relations with Israel after a final settlement with the Palestinians? I don't think so. Just rhetoric and bullshit IMO. The Israelis have done some harsh shit, but they have been stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place for a long time now.
Originally posted by LiquidR
And bunge, do you really believe the Arab world would "normalize" relations with Israel after a final settlement with the Palestinians? I don't think so. Just rhetoric and bullshit IMO. The Israelis have done some harsh shit, but they have been stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place for a long time now.
Egypt and Jordan had started the trend and others could follow. They have said they would, and that's all we can assume. If not, then we have to assume they'll never be happy and kill everyone on both sides. Not a realistic option.
Originally posted by LiquidR
It looks to me that the Palestinian claim for a historic Palestine is a quagmire. If all these historical documents support them, then it looks to me that the Palestinians should also be making claims against Lebanon and Jordan. If the statehood of historical Palestine is baseless, then what?
There is no claim to "historic" palestine. There never was Independent statehood in this area. Nationalism is a modern invention. Sorry. Many European states are less than a hundred years old.
If you look at the maps you will see that there have been administrational entities there, and that todays borders follow these borders more closely than any other middle-eastern nation. You could argue that they should join with Lebanon and Syria. Sure, blame the french. But the palestinians only claim the land they live or lived on.
Looking at Jordan, the old border goes along the River Jordan. There is really not much to claim in Jordan anyway. It is mostly desert. When Jordan controlled the West Bank it accounted for 65% of its agricultural production.
There is a very valid historic Arab claim to the land. Palestinian arabs have lived there for centuries. And many have papers going back to Ottoman rule to prove it, even though paper claims where not the standard at the time.
The Ottomans were technically also an occupying force, and much Israeli law is built on ottoman foundation, adopted from the english. Believe it or not.
So we are basically talking about the right of the people who live or lived in the area up to recently, to their traditional land and own self-determination. period.
If you look at it historically arab claim to the land is much more real than any jewish claim to the land. Being based on nothing more than religious writing. Keeping in mind that based on religion only, both christians and muslims could argue the same claim.
Even if we took the religious writings as facts, Israel existed less than two hundred years as a kingdom, back in the days of the old testament.
Arabs have lived in the area far longer. including arab jews (can you say that? ok, oriental jews then) and various other ethnic groups, like druz and armenians.
Let it go.
Originally posted by LiquidR
The Israelis have done some harsh shit, but they have been stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place for a long time now.
In reality, they kinda brought the Rock and Hard Place with them, and, on occasion, the U.S. helping them carry it when they needed a rest.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, and the Palestinians instituted a cease-fire. But if they were simultaneously blowing up busses then it's not really a cease-fire.
Likewise, if Israel dismantles a house, but adds sixty more, they're not actually adhering to the roadmap. They're actually doing the opposite of what they're supposed to do to stay on the roadmap.
Settlements
GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
See, it's very clear. Feel free to go look it up for yourself. The roadmap also said they had to stop any violence against all Palestinians. All. You know, like everyone. Including the religious leaders. They didn't. That was their first priority in the Roadmap and they failed.
First, a ceasefire by the palestinians was never a part of the road map...so, you are still grasping to show how they followed the roadmap.
Second, as your little quote shows and maybe you can comprehend, the dismantling and freezing of settlements are 2 steps. So, one certainly can be accomplished without the other. Atleast one was taken..but again, since it was Israel, you will deny it...I guess Israel would have to implement all steps prior to a single palestinian implementation to make you happy. Of course that would lead to untold number of Jewish deaths, but that's hardly important.
As fo stopping all violence. The roadmap was supposed to be a series of negotiated, recipriocating steps..you go, now I'll go, now you go. Only Israel implemented anything from the road map.
Originally posted by New
If you look at it historically arab claim to the land is much more real than any jewish claim to the land. Being based on nothing more than religious writing. Keeping in mind that based on religion only, both christians and muslims could argue the same claim.
Even if we took the religious writings as facts, Israel existed less than two hundred years as a kingdom, back in the days of the old testament.
Let it go.
That's BS. You knwo damn well, you don't have to got back that far. The romans recoqnised it as a jewish area, populated by jews and they allowed a Jewish governor.
How far back are we allowed to go? Just far back enough invalidate the jewish claim?
Originally posted by Tulkas
First, a ceasefire by the palestinians was never a part of the road map...so, you are still grasping to show how they followed the roadmap.
Your obviously has very little grasp of this yourself.
From the roadmap: "Phase I: Ending Terror And Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions -- Present to May 2003"
(...)
"Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel?s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel."
Do you see the word ceasefire?
As of right now the PA has taken steps to implement all of the phase I demands, with (I grant you) only partial success, but Israel has fail to implement even one.
Israel has not:
- Officially committed two a two state solution.
- Withdrawn to the 2000 occupation lines.
- Halted attacks against civilians.
- Reopened palestinian institutions in Jerusalem.
- Halted settlement activity and dismanteled settlements built since 2001.
Originally posted by Tulkas
That's BS. You knwo damn well, you don't have to got back that far. The romans recoqnised it as a jewish area, populated by jews and they allowed a Jewish governor.
How far back are we allowed to go? Just far back enough invalidate the jewish claim?
Sure, but only under foreign administration as part of the roman empire, and with many other ethnic groups present. This claim is comparable in principle to current arab claims.
But then the romans burned the temple and we all know what happened. It was unfair. But its ancient history. Not very different from how the cannanites where driven away by the hebrews.
Current arab claims are recent. They are based on events in modern, recorded history. The people affected are still alive. The events are affected by international laws. We now have the UN, the geneva convention etc.
The Kingdom of David isn't really unique in the history of the region. Just a shorter period of time in ancient history. The only reason we give it such weight is because of the way religion evolved from it. we can't give everything back to everybody. America back to the indians, Northern Scandinavia back to the Sami people. Sorry.
But we can start taking care of the injustices of the world today. And the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is happening right now.
Like Bunge said: "Israel is increasing in size." Time to stop now. At least.
Time for some graphics:
Red line = Wall already in place.
Thin blue line = Planned wall expansion. WOW!