Israel, in case you missed it

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Well in a big picture view, look at Europe.

here is Europe before WW1:

Notice how many of the countries you know are there today were simply not there 100 years ago.

Here is Europe after ww1:


Here is an animated illustration of the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire which is now the republic of Turkey:


Palestine, was name given to the area by the Romans. It roughly means "Philistine".
Until 1923, the region that is now Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Jordan, Syria etc etc was all under Ottoman rule.
the Ottoman Turks controlled all of it and it was at their empires demise that many countries started pouring into the area that used to be controlled by them, most notably the British and the French. French took most of North Africa and the British took most of the middle east and divided it to sheiks and chiefs et al via the likes of Lawrence of Arabia et al.

Those people were subjects of the Ottoman empire, and then occupied by the British under their mandate and finally Israel declared independence in the early years following WW2 and the area was British Palestine, but under the occupational control of Jordan and it's king.

We are now were we have been for about the last 50 years now with little change overall. In the 60's it started to heat up again in the area and has been having hiccups ever since. This is due to the constant abrasion upon Israel by it's Arab neighbours who keep funding terrorists or outright attacking Israel and denying her right to existence.

All those countries were GIVEN to the Arabs following the early part of the 20th century. Communications and rail systems and infrastructure were set up. the people that were there were Given control. Israel worked hard to get hers.

I personally cannot sympathize with those who do not recognize Israel for what it is and it's right to exist. Those factions are the trouble and they are to the last Arabic and Islamic in origin. It is the Arabs who must make the compromises and who must make the amends and let go of their hatred towards Israel.

Israel fully has a right to exist and it has a right to the lands it holds right now in my opinion. If Jordan wants to step up and negotiate for West Bank, so be it. Maybe they could purchase it back and be the occupiers of Palestine again as they once were. Perhaps the arabs will be happier with Arab oppression instead of perceived Jewish oppression?

[yusuf]

All those countries were GIVEN to the Arabs following the early part of the 20th century. Communications and rail systems and infrastructure were set up. the people that were there were Given control. Israel worked hard to get hers.

How kind it was of the colonial powers to give the land back to the people who had always lived there, and how proud it is that European & American Zionsts worked so diligently to take it away again.


In case you are wondering the central myth of Israel's foundation, and how it was sold to the world, is

"

A land with no people is for a people
with no land".

The is not the truth. In 1905 Israel Zangwill said

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem
is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two
souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared
either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our
forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly
Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims,
p. 140 & Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 7-10)


And the plan, which is the theme of Israel's defenders, as written by Jabotinsky in 1926:

" ... the tragedy lies in the fact the there is a collision here
between two truths .... but our justice is greater. The Arab is culturally
backward, but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own;
it cannot be bought, it can only be curbed ... force majeure."
(Righteous
Victims, p. 108)

So in essence Darth and others are saying that it is acceptable for a country we support to hold on to land which they cleansed of it's inhabitants, and to continue to ethnically & religiously cleanse people by force (by using the armed settlers).

So much for civilisation, or the Geneva conventions, or the norms of human decency we all are so proud of when it is someone else comitting the violation.

[Steve James]

All those countries were GIVEN to the Arabs following the early part of the 20th century. Communications and rail systems and infrastructure were set up. the people that were there were Given control. Israel worked hard to get hers.

Wow, such a lot of history missing. The Ottomans (Turks) occupied lands that were inhabited. When their empire (Sultanate) collapsed, the lands they occupied were taken over by the British (empire). After WW2, Britain could not afford to keep its empire intact (much like the Ottomans); consequently, there were liberation movements all over their former colonies. They tried to keep most of them, but Mountbatten saw the handwriting on the wall. The Israelis fought the British for the area, just as others did, using tactics we'd consider terrorism. Anyway, imo, might never makes right, and neither does money. But, both make wrongs easier.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

How kind it was of the colonial powers to give the land back to the people who had always lived there, and how proud it is that European & American Zionsts worked so diligently to take it away again.


In case you are wondering the central myth of Israel's foundation, and how it was sold to the world, is

dude...lol, don't be foolish that's not what happened at all and you should actually know that. It was Ottoman Turk controlled, then the British Mandate, then Jordanian occupied and then without governance except for... The British were NOT colonizing teh middle east. Don't be absurd, they in fact assisted the tribal people in drawing up the borders for the people who lived in those lands.

I am stymied why you would even suggest such total bullshit as "kind colonial" what garbage Yusuf.

"

A land with no people is for a people
with no land".

The is not the truth. In 1905 Israel Zangwill said

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem
is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two
souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared
either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our
forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly
Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims,
p. 140 & Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 7-10)


And the plan, which is the theme of Israel's defenders, as written by Jabotinsky in 1926:

" ... the tragedy lies in the fact the there is a collision here
between two truths .... but our justice is greater. The Arab is culturally
backward, but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own;
it cannot be bought, it can only be curbed ... force majeure."
(Righteous
Victims, p. 108)

Israel didn't exist in 1926, so people can and will say what they will won't they? I mean like how Iranians comapre Jews to rats and Israleis to nazis and use the thoroughly and no often debunked "protocols of Zion" as some book to use against jews. Dude, that's as stupisd as using a superman comic to refute the mining of emeralds because it might be like kryptonite. The stupid goes deep.

So in essence Darth and others are saying that it is acceptable for a country we support to hold on to land which they cleansed of it's inhabitants, and to continue to ethnically & religiously cleanse people by force (by using the armed settlers).

So much for civilisation, or the Geneva conventions, or the norms of human decency we all are so proud of when it is someone else comitting the violation.

No, in essence that's not what I'm saying at all and it is pretty low of you to suggest it. But I am going to say you are ignorant and angry and so you can be excused for your foolish rant.

Your point of view is wrong on pretty much all levels. Factually and truthfully. What greasy things to say as well based on your own emotional hate or whatever. Dude, try to be rational.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

No Steve, you are wrong. It had NOTHING to do with Empire British or otherwise.

The British Mandate for Palestine came out of the League of Nations which was the primordial form of today's United Nations.

Dammit, before everyone goes on a jew hating binge over a couple of events they remember or saw on the news with a healthy amount of spin laid into it, read a fucking history book or two first. Not some arab imam propaganda and not some bbc fluff piece on the plight of so and so. Just get the facts. they are available to anyone and everyone and the further you go from historical source and the more you go into emotional conjecture and accusation the more the argument will remain unresolved.

fucks sake, it's ridiculous these fucking Israel / Palestine arguments. Especially when there is not one person here of arabic extraction who isn't living in the comforts and freedoms of a western liberal democracy.

fucking hypocritical bullshit with a foundation of pure and often willful ignorance is what I read every time one of these puppies get started. lol. ridiculous.

[Steve James]

No Steve, you are wrong. It had NOTHING to do with Empire British or otherwise.

The British Mandate for Palestine came out of the League of Nations which was the primordial form of today's United Nations.

You're mixing up two different time periods. The League of Nations was started after WW1. The Ottoman Empire sided with the German axis; so, after that war, their land went to the British. It wasn't a good will gesture, it was a typical colonial land grab --the same as happened in Africa. Anyway, after WW2, Britain could no longer hold onto its mandates or colonies, and they lost most of them (India and Pakistan, almost immediately, and most of Africa and the ME soon after). They, the British, could not stop the independence movement in Palestine, organized and funded by people with a desire for a Jewish homeland. Palestine wasn't even the only possible location, though in hindsight it is the most logical. But, yeah, the Israelis fought the British first.

Anyway, nothing I say has anything to do with a hatred for Judaism or Jewish people. I'd go so far as to say that support for Israel has nothing to do with loving Judaism or Jewish people, either. In fact, in this entire discussion, I don't recall even hearing a bad word about Judaism or Jews. Can't say the same for Islam or Palestinians. I understand the Israeli and Palestinian issues regardless of the religions. For one thing, the last thing I expect to happen is a mass conversion. However, land disputes, I think they can handle. Otoh, I think "they" are the only ones who have a chance of rationally solving their problems.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Nay. The Ottoman empire was still going following ww1. It did not in fact fall until 1923 and started to fall in and around 1920 which was when the process started, by 1923 teh league of nations produced and enacted the British Mandate. Essentially, this is where the Lawrence of Arabia part kicks in.

That's the part where the British try a little nation building with the Arabic peoples that inhabited the regions so that they could become independent nations. The territories were split between syria and palestine. syria was run by saudi hashemites and palestine eventually became Israel, Lebanon etc.

blaming internal problems on the outside world does seem to be status quo in the region though, I will say that.

remember?

[Steve James]

Okay, forget that less than 5 years after WW2 (1920 according to your moving gif), the Ottoman Empire no longer controlled that part of the world (including today's Israel) for ... like 500+ years prior, and that it was given (er, mandated) to the British. Yeah, it doesn't mean that the two are connected. But, what you say below is very nice.

the British try a little nation building with the Arabic peoples that inhabited the regions so that they could become independent nations

IOW, the British were doing their bit to help the Arabic peoples become independent and throw off the oppressive yoke of the who again? Lawrence wasn't supposed to help the Arabs to help the Arabs. (Didn't you see the movie?) The British wanted control of the peninsula and its seaways. It wasn't altruism. Besides, the point was that there were people there before the Turks, before the British; and that control of the land was passed around regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants.

[yusuf]

Darth,

So you are now asserting the Briish presecence in the middle east wasn;t about colonialism, and they were there to help. There was no Zionism in 1926 which also contained that colonial seed. And to top it off I am angry / irrational and ranting because I point out that you are being an apologist for land acquisition by force and ethnic cleanisng.


I suspect that any attempt at a discourse is sort of beyond my ability as well, given the grounds for discussion seem to be so different in the facts we thnk are true. So i'll leave at that

yusuf

[Doc Stier]

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_overview.php

http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm

[Steve James]

Re: Ottoman Empire & WW1

The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) was the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at the end of World War I. The Treaty of Versailles was signed with Germany before this treaty to annul the German concessions including the economic rights and enterprises. Also, France, Great Britain and Italy signed a secret "Tripartite Agreement" at the same date.[1] The Tripartite Agreement confirmed Britain's oil and commercial concessions and turned the former German enterprises in the Ottoman Empire over to a Tripartite corporation. The open negotiations covered a period of more than fifteen months, beginning at the Paris Peace Conference. The negotiations continued at the Conference of London, and took definite shape only after the premiers' meeting at the San Remo conference in April 1920. France, Italy, and Great Britain, however, had secretly begun the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire as early as 1915. The delay occurred because the powers could not come to an agreement which, in turn, hinged on the outcome of the Turkish national movement. The Treaty of Sèvres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of Independence and the parties signed and ratified the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

...

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland on July 24, 1923, that settled the Anatolian and East Thracian parts of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.[1] The treaty of Lausanne was ratified by the Greek government on February 11, 1924, by the Turkish government on March 31, 1924, and by the governments of Great Britain, Italy and Japan on August 6, 1924. It was registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series on September 5, 1924.[2] The Treaty of Lausanne superseded the Treaty of Sèvres which was signed by representatives of the Ottoman Empire.
The treaty was the consequence of the Turkish War of Independence between the Allies of World War I and the Ankara-based Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Turkish national movement) led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The treaty also led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the defunct Ottoman Empire.

[Sprint]

Norman Finkelstein has written a book on this very subject. The fact that he was banned from entering Israel gives you an idea of how his book was received. Anyway the book is called "IMAGE AND REALITY OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT" and you can read the first 10 pages of the Introduction here: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/pdf/im ... uction.pdf.

Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors. He quite overtly compares Zionists to Nazis in the the similarity of thinking and action:

"The right-wing Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, taking heart from Nazi demographic experiments in conquered territories(about 1.5 million Poles and Jews were expelled and hundreds of thousands of Germans resettled in their place), exclaimed: ‘The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler – as odious as he is to us – has given this idea a good name in the world".

This was in reference to the Zionist idea to expel Muslims and Christians from Palestine: "Tom Segev reports. ‘“Disappearing” the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence. … With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer – or its morality.’ The key was to get the timing right. Ben-Gurion, reflecting on the expulsion option in the late 1930s, wrote: ‘What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out – a whole world is lost.’"

"Come 1948, the Zionist movement exploited the ‘revolutionary times’ of the first Arab–Israeli war – much like the Serbs did in Kosovo during
the NATO attack – to expel more than 80 per cent of the indigenous population (750,000 Palestinians), and thereby achieve its goal of an overwhelmingly
Jewish state, if not yet in the whole of Palestine."

And so he continues to the present day and the ghetto of Gaza.