ASSEMBLY VOTES PALESTINE PARTITION; MARGIN IS 33 TO 13; ARABS WALK OUT; AR

[rini]

he United Nations General Assembly approved yesterday a proposal to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish, that are to become fully independent by Oct.1. The vote was 33 to 13 with two abstentions and one delegation, the Siamese, absent

The vote on partition was taken at 5:35 P. M. Representatives of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen, four of the six Arab member states, announced that they would not be bound by the Assembly's decision and walked determinedly out of the Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow. The Egyptian and Lebanese delegates were silent but walked out, too.

The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly's decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, and the partition plan does not provide outside military force to keep order.

The Syrian representatives led this attack. Faris el-Khoury, in a statement before the vote, charged that the proportion of Jews to the rest of the population in the United States was 1 to 30. Jews were trying to "intimidate the United Nations ... and hiss the speakers here," which, he said was "proof that they are dominating here." This assertion drew hisses from the gallery, and Dr. Aranha pounded his gavel for order.


<today this statement would draw appaluse>


http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20031129.html

[Classical_Liberal]

1. Yes, we wouldn't approve of Partition today

either in Israel of India because we are now concerned about the rights of indigineous people. We probably wouldn't approve of the founding of the US either. We wouldn't approve of slavery and laws baring non christians from owning land and the like. Such is progress.

[Jim Sagle]

2. If you want to call it that.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. If we had respect for the rights of the indigenous in 79ad

the diaspora wouldn't have happend. If you don't have respect for indigenous people that is your problem. Rational people distinguish between the atrocities of the past that can't be undone, and what is being done in the present.

[rini]

4. If, as you claim

the Arab Palestinians are indeed the indiginous people of the area, where are the historical records, artifacts, ruins, pottery, writings, etc dating before the 19th century?

BTW, the article is a great piece of prologue. It is as pertinant as today's headlines. I know it can be inturpreted many ways, so can anything.

[Classical_Liberal]

5. The article certainly doesn' t qualify as a recent op/ed or article

The dome of the rock and the al aksa mosque were built in the 7th century. Who were the crusaders fighting with if not Arabs? There is alot of Islamic History in that area, so I don't know what your getting at?

[GabysPoppy]

6. I have to ask this question again

Were the two Mosques mentioned above built upon the Temple Mount or was the Temple Mount constructed beneath the two Mosques?

[Classical_Liberal]

7. They were built on the Temple mount

What is your point? The jews had been gone for a long time by the time the muslims arrived in 638AD. The romans kicked them out in 70 ad. Note 500 yrs had passed. The mosques were philosemitic. The fact that Mohamed ascended into heaven on the temple mount is a recognition of the god of Abraham.

http://www.palestinehistory.com/palst.htm#04

70 AD : Titus of Rome laid siege to Jerusalem. The fiercely defended Temple eventually fell, and with it the whole city. Seeking a complete and enduring victory, Titus ordered the total destruction of the Herodian Temple. A new city named Aelia was built by the Romans on the ruins of Jerusalem, and a temple dedicated to Jupitor raised up.

313 AD : Palestine received special attention when the Roman emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity. His mother, Helena, visited Jerusalem, and Palestine, as the Holy Land, became a focus of Christian pilgrimage. A golden age of prosperity, security, and culture followed. Most of the population became Hellenized and Christianized .

324 AD : Constantine of Byzantium marched on Aelia. He rebuilt the city walls and commissioned the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and opened the city for Christian pilgrimage.

29-614 AD : Byzantine (Roman) rule was interrupted , however , by a brief Persian occupation and ended altogether when Muslim Arab armies invaded Palestine and captured Jerusalem in AD 638 .

638 AD : The Arab conquest began 1300 years of Muslim presence in what then became known as Filastin. Eager to be rid of their Byzantine overlords and aware of their shared heritage with the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, as well as the Muslims reputation for mercy and compassion in victory, the people of Jerusalem handed over the city after a brief siege. They made only one condition, That the terms of their surrender be negotiated directly with the Khalif 'Umar in person. 'Umar entered Jerusalem on foot. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres. Those who wanted to leave were allowed to, with all their goods. Those who wanted to stay were guarantee protection for their lives, their property and places of worship.

Palestine was holy to Muslims because the Prophet Muhammad had designated Jerusalem as the first qibla (the direction Muslims face when praying) and because he was believed to have ascended on a night journey to heaven from the the old city of Jerusalem (al-Aqsa Mosque today) , where the Dome of the Rock was later built. Jerusalem became the third holiest city of Islam. The Muslim rulers did not force their religion on the Palestinians, and more than a century passed before the majority converted to Islam. The remaining Christians and Jews were considered People of the Book. They were allowed autonomous control in their communities and guaranteed security and freedom of worship. Such tolerance was rare in the history of religion . Most Palestinians also adopted Arabic and Islamic culture. Palestine benefited from the empires trade and from its religious significance during the first Muslim dynasty, the Umayyads of Damascus.

750 AD : The power shifted to Baghdad with the Abbasids, Palestine became neglected. It suffered unrest and successive domination by Seljuks, Fatimids, and European Crusaders. It shared, however, in the glory of Muslim civilization, when the Muslim world enjoyed a golden age of science, art, philosophy, and literature. Muslims preserved Greek learning and broke new ground in several fields, all of which later contributed to the Renaissance in Europe. Like the rest of the empire, however, Palestine under the Mamelukes gradually stagnated and declined.






1000-1899 AD

1517 AD : The Ottoman Turks of Asia Minor defeated the Mamelukes, with few interruptions, ruled Palestine until the winter of 1917-18. The country was divided into several districts (sanjaks), such as that of Jerusalem. The administration of the districts was placed largely in the hands of Arab Palestinians, who were descendants of the Canaanites. The Christian and Jewish communities, however, were allowed a large measure of autonomy. Palestine shared in the glory of the Ottoman Empire during the 16th century, but declined again when the empire began to decline in the 17th century.

1831-1840 AD : Muhammad Ali, the modernizing viceroy of Egypt, expanded his rule to Palestine . His policies modified the feudal order, increased agriculture, and improved education.

1840 The Ottoman Empire reasserted its authority, instituting its own reforms .

1845 Jewish in Palestine were 12,000 increased to 85,000 by 1914. All people in Palestine were Arabic Muslims and Christians.

1897 the first Zionist Congress held Basle, Switzerland, issued the Basle programme on the colonization of Palestine.

[GabysPoppy]

8. My point?

Not withstanding your long cut and paste may put to rest some iformation regarding the often posed question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

[Classical_Liberal]

9. I still don't get it!

The romans were the people who did this. Not the Palestinians. The Palestinians were probably jews at some point, who gave up judaism to stay in the Roman province, and susequently adopted christianity then Islam.

Are you in favor of destroying these mosques?

[GabysPoppy]

11. I'm not surprised

As to your question

"Are you in favor of destroying these mosques?"

No I am not. Why you ask that question should be my question.

However let me ask my own.

Were you in favor of the desecration of Jewish Synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem prior to 1967?

[Classical_Liberal]

12. No

. This started because Rini asked of evidence that Arabs lived in Israel prior to the 19th century. You seemed to be headed in some other direction, not related to the subject. I have no idea where?

[rini]

73. I asked about Palestinians

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Correction...

You asked about Arab Palestinians....

Violet...

[rini]

89. you're right, I should have been more specific

I used the term so as not to confuse with Jewish Palestinians as they were called before '48. Thank you for helping me clear this up.

[Lithos]

106. The issue is perhaps more complicated than this

The land has always been in a state of flux between various groups of people who have called it home, and still do. In addition, the Jews have had fairly large periods of time where they were persecuted in Israel by both Muslims and Christians.

Some notes to add to your history.

Following AD 70, there was another Jewish revolt in 132. At this time the Romans opted to decimate or "ethnically cleanse" in today's terminology most of the Jews living in the Judean hills. Most of the survivors moved to the area around the northern Galilee. It was here that the Mishnah was written in the early third century. This was the start of the Diaspora.

While the Jews were allowed some very limited autonomy under the remaining days of the Roman empire, the Byzantines starting under Theodosius II enacted laws which renewed the persecution of Jews. This included a prohibition for Jews to live in Jerusalem. The Jews for their part helped the Persians conquer the city in the early 600's, but it was reconquered by the Byzantines again. Again, many Jews opted to move to avoid the persecution. This was the rise of

The Arabs conquered the area in the Seventh Century, but in turn lost control to the Turks in the early 11th Century. Many Jews did opt to join the Arab armies which is how they ended up in Spain. It was the Turk's persecution of Christian pilgrims which was the factor leading to the start of the first Crusade culminating in the capture of Jerusalem in in 1099. During this time the rapaciousness of both Christian and Muslim culminated in many massacres and dislocations including the slaughter or conversion of many of the remaining Jews, Christians and Muslims. (The Jewish population declined rapidly during this time period.)

In return, the Mamluks who reconquered the area from the Crusaders in the early 13th Century not only persecuted the Christians but also Jews. They held the area until they were conquered by the Ottomans in 1516.

It was during this time that many Jews emigrated to Spain or Europe Following the eviction of the Jews from Spain in 1492 and the conquest of the Palestine/Israel by the Ottomans over the Mamluks many Jews opted to return the Middle East and helped re-establish Jewish presence in Jerusalem. The Ottoman emperor also granted Jewish autonomy in the town of Tiberias. It was also in the N. Galilee town of Safed where a revival of Jewish culture helped to launch a renaissance in Jewish mysticism. It was this renaissance which was a direct influence on the Chassidic movement in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

There was for a long period of time collections taken to be given to those who were living in Israel as a sort of proxy means of being their yourself.

So for the most part, the Jews have always looked to the area as a homeland and this view has never been broken even despite several rounds of ethnic cleansing and hundreds of years of persecution in the region. However, this does not delegitimize the fact that many Palestinians also have historical ties to the area for it was their lot to be a mixture of all of the parties, both Jews, Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs, Turks and all of the others who have conquered teh area.

L-

[MikeGalos]

14. Well

If you look at what some "archaeologists" (and I put that in quotes very pointedly) have been claiming lately, you'd find that there's an active movement with questionable funding to arrange evidence that the Jews never were in Israel and that Temple Mount really wasn't the site of the Temple.

How they reconcile this with Mohammed's travel to the "Western Temple" in a vision that is the basis for the construction of all the buildings on Temple Mount remains to be seen.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. Sound like cranks

or archeologist taking cash from political partisans.

[MikeGalos]

18. Both

but they get a LOT of funding, a lot of press and a lot of support from the Waqf.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. I have never seen anything by them in at archaeologica.org

It smacks of creationism.

[MikeGalos]

24. Yep.

It's getting less visibility than a couple of years ago but they're still around and getting lots of money for some really nutty theories. Unfortunately, they've also been known to destroy artifacts that don't fit their theories. There was a Waqf supported dig under Temple Mount a few years ago where everything that didn't support the fringe theory was dumped as trash. Luckily, some Israeli archaeologists picked through the rubble pile and recovered them but, of course, with very limited context.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Apparently accusations of destruction of artifacts are quite

common among various parties their. pro- Israel archaeologist have also been found wanting. And archaologists of both the pro-israel and pro-palestinian variety are often at odds with settlement developers.

[TimeLord]

10. Rini...

You must be kidding? Are you saying there was a land without a people?

[bemildred]

13. Just goes to show,

you cannot trust the UN.

[MikeGalos]

15. As Abba Eban said about Israel's opponents

they "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".

What a different world we'd have if the arab states had accepted the 1947 agreement.

Of course, there'd be nothing to distract their own people from noticing that their governments were corrupt and didn't offer the same benifits that Israel offered but it'd be cynical to think that there was anything insincere about the Iraqi, Saudi, Syrian, Yemeni, Egyptian and Lebanese government's motives...

[Classical_Liberal]

17. It would be bizzarro world if anyone ever willingly gave their

home to another. Their reaction was predictable. The need to deny the arabs the right to react like normal humans without being demonized is little bit disconcerting.

[MikeGalos]

19. Then you'd expect

equal violence and hatred with the founding of Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. (or for that matter the establishment of the post-war borders of Czechoslovakia or Hungary or Poland)

All the named Arab states were created as part of the same period's political restructuring after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

Personally, I find it more than disconcerting that an unparalleled politically based mistreatment of refugees, unparallelled disregard of international law and unparalleled multinational response of preemptive invasion is treated by some with the type of colonial condescension that implies that Arabs should not be held to the same standards as Western states.

I didn't seen war break out when the WWII refugees were resettled. I didn't seen invasions when the borders were reset in Europe after 1945. Why do you think that Arabs shouldn't be treated as adults?

[Classical_Liberal]

21. The creation of those borders didn't involve

kicking anyone out of their homes. The refugees you speak of didn't take over the country where they were settled and displace the natives. Preemptive action in the case of Iraq WAS colonial. Iraqies had no WMD.

[MikeGalos]

22. Nonsense

You obviously didn't study that part of history. People were kicked out of their homes. People had new governments imposed on them. People were resettled across new borders. People had their lands siezed and given to others.


What this has to do with Bush's insane invasion is beyond me.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. There was a heck of lot of terrorism at that time

done by anarchist in Europe if you are talking about the period before and after WWI. If you are talking about displacement in the middle east I would like a citation for the establishment of borders displacing someone.

[MikeGalos]

25. No

After World War II (in the case of the European examples)

The period between the wars (really the break between the two parts of a 50 year war) was marked with all kinds of strange stuff, not just anarchists. Hungary, for example, went from being a semi-autonomous kingdom in an empire to a democracy, to a communist central government to a fascist central government all in a 20 year period. (But this is WAY off topic)

[Classical_Liberal]

27. Well eastern Europe was being suppressed by commies

so I don't think they are good example either. The partition of India created a bloodbath that makes I/P look like nothing. Atleast a million died in the bloodshed rioting and famine that was created. All in all partition has not been a good thing in either place.

[MikeGalos]

30. There are always reasons

Every situation is complex. But only in the Middle East has this been treated with such acceptance as "just the way these people are".

If I were an Arab I'd be deeply, deeply insulted.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. I have no idea what you are talking about

The partition of India is still causing problems. Remember the bloody riots last year?

[MikeGalos]

35. Actually

I was talking about why the European example was valid.

There was a great bit in the British sit-com Yes, Prime Minister explaining British Foreign Policy. They were proposing partitioning a colony like they did with India, Palestine and Ireland. When it was pointed out that these all led to long, bloody wars, the Foreign Ministry pointed out that this kept them from bothering with England...

[Classical_Liberal]

43. The European example required Communism

communist countries suppress bad news, so we don't know what kind of violence occurred.

[drdon326]

26. Must have been....

"Jews in substantial numbers resided in Arab countries over 1,000 years before the advent of Islam. At the end of World War II, there were more than 870,000 Jews living in the Middle East and North Africa. By 1958, 97 percent of all Jews in Arab countries had emigrated due to hostile political, social and economic climates. In virtually all cases, as Jews left, individual and communal properties were confiscated without compensation provided to the owners.

Some 600,000 Jews immigrated to Israel as refugees between 1948 and 1967, mostly from North Africa. Several hundred thousand Jewish refugees from Arab countries also settled in France, the United States, Canada, Mexico and South American Countries."

http://www.jewishlouisville.org/news/claimsinarabland061303.shtml

[Classical_Liberal]

28. That is post Israel

.

[MikeGalos]

29. Actually

It was both pre and post.

Interestingly, the number of Jewish refugees from Arab states is virtually the same as the number of Arab refugees from the Jewish state.

The difference was that Israel took in the Jewish refugees. The Arab states kept their brothers in camps for political points with only Jordan offering them citizenship. (And they got a coup attempt for their thanks)

Oh, and the Arab states didn't pay any reparations while Israel was the top fundings source for UNRWA for most of its existance.

[drdon326]

32. Sadly....

the arab states using their brothers as political pawns and
to this date still hasnt changed.

Maybe they didnt want to be "Jordan-The Sequel".

[Classical_Liberal]

36. As I recall you gloated when Chalabi kicked out the Palestinians

so it seems the prolikud faction encourages such behavior.

[drdon326]

41. Didnt "gloat"...

just reported the facts.

I'm sure Yassir must have been pretty depressed seeing his
benefactor and the "horse-he-bet-on" go down.

bummer.

[Classical_Liberal]

42. Seems you are gloating now as well

.

[drdon326]

54. You know....

it really is pretty funny.

that guy is a losing bet personified. lol

[Classical_Liberal]

57. Why is it funny that Chalabi is punishing Palestinians

?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. Israelis don't need to engage in terrorism

They have had several wars with several Arab states.

[drdon326]

38. Non-sequitor of the Year.....

but i'll play.....they have had several defensive wars
that began in 1948.

Interesting how israel was able to make peace with both
Jordan and Egypt....that still holds today.

The palestinians were so greatful to the Jordians, that they
started a civil war.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. They created peace with Egypt by giving up the Sinai

I hope they make peace with the Palestinians too. I don't consider the 48 war defensive, since it involved removal of the native population.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. The only people that were removed in 48 were Arabs

from the beginning the Arabs advocated binationalism, so I doubt the jews would have been removed.

[MikeGalos]

48. Nope

Roughly as many Jews were made refugees from Arab states.

Please, feel free to give us a basis for how the Jewish minority would have been treated fairly. Be sure to include explanations for the multiple massacres, lack of citizenship rights and other persecutions. Also, please explain how the Jordan's constitutional ban on citizenship for Jews fits in to your explanation.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. The Palestinians have always advocated binationalism

so what other arab states did doesn't really matter. The other arab states were primarily responding to Israel, so if Israel had been defeated none of the middle eastern jews would have been refugees.

[MikeGalos]

53. Not even close

Their own documents calls for an Arab Palestine with citizenship only granted to Arab Palestinians. Jews born after the "Zionist invasion" are banned. This is your view of binationalism? I call it a ghetto.

As for your other ludicrous charge, please explain the various ghettos and massacres of Jews in North Africa for a century prior to Israel. Please explain the massacres of Jews in Palestine. Oh, and please explain the concept of Dhimma.

(For those of you not familiar with the term, a Dhimma is a writ of protection bought by a non-Moslem in a Moslem country who after paying this annual fee is allowed to live in the country without the usual choice of convert or die. Of course that is live in the country with no citizenship rights, no rights that can't be revoked at will, requirements to wear distinctive clothing, prohibition to testify in court even in cases involving them and similar cultural benefits as were available to Blacks in Mississippi in the 1920s including being required to step off the sidewalk into the street if one of his Moslem betters walked by. Oh, and in case you think this is part of the dark past, here's a quote from the British Vice-Consul in Mosul from 1909 about the Dhimma laws in force then. "The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed". )

I've focused on a narrow timeframe. Any earlier than the late 19th Century and I'm sure some would say it is ancient history. Any later than very early 20th century and the same people would say it's a reaction to "Zionist aggression". But you'd be hard pressed to find any time that this wouldn't apply.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. The zionist had plans for a jewish state for quite a while before

it was created. That it would have required jews who arrived after the state was created is neither here nor their. That has to do with the acceptance of immigrants. None of those rules involve ethnic cleansing and they were applied to all non muslim minorities.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. I don't consider it high on my list of greivences since

Israel gives the same deal to Palestinians on the West Bank. You only care about Jewish rights. You don't give a damn about anyone elses. Israel didn't provide an opposite example. It didn't create a constitution or advocate binationalism. I doesn't give all immigrants the equal right to immigrate. None of what the Palestinians were guilty of are being counter-acted by Israel. They weren't being ethnically cleansed. I know full well muslims don't advocate human rights in the western sense.

[drdon326]

50. OH... Interesting history ...

so the only reason the surrounding arab countries invaded
simultaneously was because the arabs "advocated binationalism"
and had nothing to do with wiping the newly formed state of israel
into the mediterrian.

I know ....you read that in one of those famous YASSIR ARAFAT COMPLETE
HISTORY OF ME.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. Yes it had to do with wiping Israel, a state that was

turning the Palestinians into refugees, off the map. Doing so wouldn't have required ethnic cleansing of jews. Since Palestinians advocated binationalism, why would they? If my ethnic group declared the right to a state in Nebraska, that would remove most present nebraskans, I would expect to defend myself as well, I guess.

[drdon326]

52. One small problem......

there were no palestinians back then...

there were no pa charter back then "advocating binationalism"..

and the initial pa charter didnt even want the west bank and
gaza...

pop quiz....what did the original pa charter want??

hint:israel

[Classical_Liberal]

60. There were no Israelis before the creation of Israel either

The natives of the time were advocating it though. They lived with Jews before.

[MikeGalos]

64. Actually the answer is very simple

and applies to both the 1964 and 1967 versions.

The PA Charter wanted and still wants (and considers the traditional Palestinian Homeland) precisely the land controlled by Jews. No more. No less. And it amazingly changed as the area controlled by Jews changed in 1967.

And the interesting part is that it still is true today! Even with all the vague talks of two states, the Charter still calls for an Arab Only Palestine comprising all of the British Mandate not already taken by Jordan.

But, we're supposed to ignore their legal documents and instead trust in vague, undocumented promises...

Funny how so many self-declared liberals back a movement calling for a legally mandated ethnically-pure state and at the same time oppose a pluralistic democracy with liberal social programs and equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference...

[Classical_Liberal]

65. It doesn't call for an ethnically pure state and never

did. They didn't always recognize Israel. They do now. Israel is not a pluralistic democracy, with equal rights for all citizens. It discriminates against Arabs in terms of granting citizenship at all, and it discriminates against the few who are granted citizenship.

[drdon326]

69. Really ??

they recognize israel?...oh...you mean those letters
exchanged between rabin and yassir....very persuasive :eyes:

the palestinians there are citizens....and have representitives
in the kinesset.

and the jews in arab lands??...I guess we cant compare since they
had been basically "ethnically cleansed" after WWII.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. I don't know if you could call it ethnic cleansing

since many wanted to immigrate to Israel and were zionists. The letters presuaded me. Most Palestinians are not granted citizenship. 90% aren't. Blacks had seats in the apartied parlament as well. Just not proportional to their population. Those that are don't have equal rights. Public lands are only for jewish israelis. The school system is segregated, and the Palestinian schools aren't funded as well. Palestinians are often discriminated against in housing and employment.

[drdon326]

74. I call it....

"ethnic cleansing" when 97+ % are told they are
'persona non grata' and basically told to get the
hell out.

AS for those letters , funny how yassir forgot to update
the PA charter. I'm sure he'll get to it any day now.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. It is not in the PA charter

It is in the PLO Charter. The PA officially recognizes israel. It's existence is based on that recongnition. I don't know that any government told them to get out. They might have left because of unrest. This area of history is not well documented. I do know that most of the cites seem to be after Israel was created.

[MikeGalos]

80. The Palestinian Covenant

(the real name for the charter) is the official declaration of principles of the PA government. Yes, it was created under the PLO but it was also accepted by the PA. Even Arafat doesn't disagree with that.

Perhaps you could find a real actual citation before making other claims. The history of the region is, after all, extremely well documented. Perhaps your problem in finding a Palestinian Document talking about Israel prior to the founding of Israel comes from there not being such a thing as an ethnic "Palestinian" prior to 1960 (before then the leadership insisted they were NOT Palestinian but were Syrian) and it would be hard to find any PLO documents prior to the founding of Israel in 1948 since the PLO was founded in the early 1960s as well so "most of the cites seem to be after Israel was created" should be a pretty major understatement.

[Classical_Liberal]

81. Palestine was an ottoman province

The people we call Palestinians were living there in 1948. The PA is the governing authority of the West Bank state, did so officially in 1948 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/said01_.html so it naturally recognizes Israel. Heard Arafat say this just a couple of weeks ago on the news.

[MikeGalos]

101. Actually it was parts of several provinces

And the PA didn't exist in 1948. And what one of Said's editorials from a decade ago has to do with that is really up for grabs.

[Classical_Liberal]

108. It showed that Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist in 93

.

[MikeGalos]

77. Nope

But, feel free to document what you're claiming. Just be sure that you aren't comparing Palestinians in Arafat's PA lands with Israeli Arabs. Arafat's treatment of his people often gets lumped in with Israeli Arabs in the same stats and Arafat's theft really drives those numbers down.

(Oh, and I guess the beatings and murders of Jews in North Africa wasn't really a factor in immigration to Israel, they just were really dedicated Zionists who coincidently had their rights stripped away along with their protection from anti-Semitic mobs)

[Classical_Liberal]

82. May have been a factor

did it occure regularly before 1948? Documentation. It wasn't the government that did it in this case, and Israel has exploited the fears of Jews in those countries.

[MikeGalos]

102. Gee, ya think?

Perhaps losing citizenship, public riots, government theft of property might have had some effect in getting the oppressed minority to leave their homes? How kind of you to admit that. (oh, and only the government can remove government protection...)

But, as to the assertion that really they were just really active Zionists really does show an amazing lack of understanding of the history of the area.

[Classical_Liberal]

107. Did it occure before 48?

? My bet is that if it did happen is was a responce to what was happening to Palestinians.

[MikeGalos]

76. Flat out wrong on all counts

Citizenship in Palestine is defined by the Covenant as only available to Arab Palestinians who either lived in the area prior to 1948, would have lived there but left or their descendants. Jews are only granted citizenship if they were living there prior to the "Zionist invasion" starting in the 1890s. Note that does NOT include decendants of Jews living there prior to 1890.

If declaring that only Arab Palestinians can become citizens isn't an ethnically pure state, please share your definition with the rest us. Oh, and it also defines Palestine as an Arab State. But, feel free to read the documents. I've already posted them a few times this week so it shouldn't be too hard.

Israel, on the other hand, IS (despite your claim) an pluralistic democracy with full equal rights to citizens. There are members of the Knesset from Arab parties including several who have a platform of the elimination of the Jewish state. UNLIKE EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE REGION rights are not assigned based on religion or ethnicity and Israel has a more diverse religious base than the United States (or any of the Arab states).

[Classical_Liberal]

83. Israel only grants citizenship to Palestinians it failed to banish

to the west bank. It banished 90% of them, so they aren't one wit better than the state the Palestinians would have created. Arabs are legally discriminated against in Isreal. They can't use public lands, and are discriminated against in emloyment and education. Israel is not unlike other states in the region if you are talking of rights assigned to you because of ethnicity.

http://www.arabhra.org/article26/general.htm

[MikeGalos]

103. Who are you talking about

Palestinians living in Israel or in residents of the PA who want to escape Arafat? Or don't you or the article really know?

[Classical_Liberal]

109. Can't you read?

?

[MikeGalos]

104. Who are you talking about

Palestinians living in Israel or in residents of the PA who want to escape Arafat? Or don't you or the article really know?

[Aidoneus]

105. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory..

Put another way and fleshed out a bit with my own additions:--

A few decades ago, the leaders and military of what would become Israel sent several hundred thousand Palestinians fleeing, and decided to shack up in or destroy the villages they left behind. A couple decades after that, they sent several hundred thousand more running a bit further.

Now, also around that time (though not at first), the Israeli gov't discovered that those Palestinians still living in lands within the first wave of occupation did not appreciate the racist military-police regime lorded over the remaining inhabitants, and that these people would be more effectively placated if they were included within the system originally created to remove their existance. Strange how it worked out, but it pacified some things a bit. On occasion, both fists, some clubs, and both barrels have been seen as necessary by the later incarnations of that state from time to time, though (most recently that court decision Barak was pegged with, for instance).

[MikeGalos]

56. Back in the real world...

Actually in real history that wasn't rewritten to fit the excuse, the state of Israel was declared and multiple Arab countries invaded to prevent its internationally, legally mandated existance. There were NO refugees prior to that.

Israel at the time quite often stated it's desire to live in peace in its own territory. The Arab leadership at the time also quite often stated their desire that there be NO Jewish state anywhere in the Arab world.

If you are going to insist on claiming that the invasion referred to as "A massacre to rival that of the Mongol hordes" was really just a little annoyance at not having a jointly run state rather than two separate states, please back that up. That'll be hard to do since the documents of the time and the current documents all call for an Arab Palestinian state with no Jews.

But, please, feel free to show us a document calling for a jointly run Jewish/Arab state with equal rights for all. Really. We'll keep talking while you search for your own mythical grail.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. Bush claims to be a compassionate conservative

Their actions have not created peace. Particularly the actions that removed Palestinians from their homes.

Look I am not going to dismantle America because I believe they stole from native Americans. Only conservative reactionaries feel a need to justify what happened to native Americans and I will fight with those who do. Why do you feel a need to demonize Arabs for resisting their removal?

[MikeGalos]

66. By using your analogy

You'd have us blaming Native Americans for making the Europeans invade them. Remember who invaded whom. Here are some hints.

It wasn't the few Israelis who bombed their neighbor's cities and civilian targets as soon as Israel was declared, it was the surrounding Arab states opposed to a peaceful solution.

It wasn't the Israelis who attacked their neighbors, it was those same Arab states.

It wasn't the Israelis who held refugees in camps for 50 years in order to keep the focus on hatred, it was those same Arab states. Israel settled their refugees.

It wasn't the Israelis who opposed any peaceful solution - they've signed peace treaties with everybody who was willing including two of those same Arab states.

Yes, Bush calls himself a Compassionate Conservative and Arafat says he's working for peace. Politician interested in their own power and greed often lie. Facts show the way to the truth.

[Classical_Liberal]

67. The Palestinians are the native Americans

The Israelis are Europeans. You are the one that is blaming the victims. If I created a state in Nebraska and moved out native Nebraskans, then Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado invaded to defend the native Nebraskans, it wouldn't justify my displacing the native Nebraskans. I would be the agressor,not the native nebraskans or their neighbors.

[MikeGalos]

78. Your analogy doesn't hold

The Native Americans didn't organize massacres of the Europeans. (But the Palestinians did organize massacres of the Jews)

The Native Americans didn't refuse peaceful coexistance (But the Palestinians did)

The Native Americans DID have their land invaded by an overwhelming military of multiple nations - gee, so did the Israelis

So, if you really DO want to use that lame analogy, perhaps you should look at who were the aggressors, who were attacked, who offered peace, who insisted on ethnic purity. It should doesn't fit your model.

[Classical_Liberal]

86. There was a massacre at Spirit Lake Iowa of settlers

many others occurred as well. There was a massacre in Mankato Minnestota. There was a massacre against the Mormans. There was one at Jamestown. A missionary to the Nez Peirce was also massacred. Many native Americans made war on the government, and settlers. There was a massacre against settlers at Wyoming valley. The European Zionist were the ones invading the land of others. Are you denying their were Arabs in Palestine?

[rini]

92. What in the world do you have against Europeans?

"The European Zionist were the ones invading the land of others."

[Classical_Liberal]

93. Nothing

just stating a fact.

[rini]

110. In that case please enlighten me

you have nothing against Euopeans, thus it must be Jews? I am confused? Please clarify this sentence? What about Arab Jews?

[Darranar]

112. Uh...

he was referring to the European Zionists who immigrated there at first.

The Arab Jews didn't come until later, so it would be unfair to blame them.

[MikeGalos]

116. Um...

Two things:

1) There have been Jews living there constantly for several thousand years not just "The Arab Jews didn't come until later"

2) The phrase "Arab Jews" is never going to play with the Arab community. They steadfastly consider Jews a separate ethnic group from Arabs no matter what their religion. It isn't a religious distinction to them, it is an ethnic one. Note, for example, the Palestinian Covenant which grants specific rights to Arabs of all religions and lesser rights to Jews. How they'd classify an Arab who converted to Judaism must be as hard a question as the one the Germans had to face in classifying a "good Aryan" who converted to Judaism. Was he still an Aryan who could undo his error or should he be killed, too?

[Darranar]

117. Let me rephrase...

The Arab Jews either were there in the first place (in which case they took nothing) or they came later (in which case they took nothing.) Regardless, my point about the distinction stands.

Subsitute the term Oriental Jew if you have problems with Arab Jew...

[Aidoneus]

99. well, just going by the line you quote..

the fact that the European Zionists were the ones invading the land of others? That's what I hold against them, anyway..

[bluesoul]

68. And Sharon

is "man of peace", right mr Galos?

[drdon326]

71. BLUESOUL....Youre back !!

you alright, dude??

[bluesoul]

72. Never been

better ;) Why ask?

[MikeGalos]

79. Sharon

is a conservative politician. I hold him in about the same regard I have for, say, Reagan. (The Bush family are really in a class of their own)

Unfortunately, I don't get to vote him out of office since I'm not an Israeli citizen. Still, he'll be voted out.

Can you say the same for Arafat? For the Hussein monarchy in Jordan? For the "state of emergency" government in Egypt? For the hereditary presidency in Syria? For whatever power structure holds power in various parts of Lebanon this week?

[Darranar]

87. The fact that Israel is a democracy does not change the fact...

that its policy in the West Bank and Gaza is severely flawed.

You say that you don't like Sharon. Which of his policies do you not approve of?

[Classical_Liberal]

88. Arafat can be voted out of office as well.

. The other contries aren't relevant, and if they are they aren't that good an example. Israel benefits from the authoritarian government of Egypt and Jordan. The governments that would take over if they were democratic would make war on Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

91. "Arafat can be voted out of office as well."

You are kidding, right?

Toss me a bone if you will and name some of the potential candidates.

I enjoy sarcasm as much as the next guy and if you meant to be sarcastic, I salute your effort.

[Classical_Liberal]

94. The fact that no candidate can defeat him

doesn't prove he can't theoretically be unelected. It only proves he would win an election, like he did the last time.

[GabysPoppy]

96. Their are NO other candidates

By your logic Fidel Castro could lose an election in Cuba or Saddam would have had a serious chance of losing in Iraq before * blew the shit out of that country.


:crazy:

[Classical_Liberal]

97. Who is Abdel Sattar Qassem

Arafat
Last Updated Fri, 17 May 2002 22:09:39

RAMALLAH - Palestinian officials say they will hold elections within six months, provided that Israeli troops withdraw to positions they held 20 months ago, before the recent outbreak of violence.

INDEPTH: Middle East - Israel and the Palestinians


Yasser Arafat

Yasser Arafat is facing at least one election challenge so far. Abdel Sattar Qassem, a Palestinian political scientist and dissident, said Friday he would run on an anti-corruption platform.

But Qassem, 54, would not be good news for Israel. He is Western-educated and secular, but he supports suicide attacks against Israeli civilians and does not recognize the Jewish state. Qassem also opposes the interim peace agreements Arafat has made with Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/05/17/palestinian_elect020517

Remember I am on the internet and can look up stuff.

[Aidoneus]

98. Yassin or Barghouti could possibly beat him out

I doubt they'd change horses mid-stream (FDR-ish type PR blitz, etc..), but I think those two at least would have the standing and respect to match Arafat if necessity dictated such, or if the conditions of Israel's besiegement and occupation of Palestine was radically altered. Absolutely no replacement should be held because the Zionists demand it, so the question, as it stands, is moot.

[Lurking Dem]

113. Then why did he cancel the last election?

[Darranar]

85. Actually...

Actually in real history that wasn't rewritten to fit the excuse, the state of Israel was declared and multiple Arab countries invaded to prevent its internationally, legally mandated existance. There were NO refugees prior to that.

That is not true. In fact, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians began during the period of violence and unnofficial war before the end of the British mandate. It was this violence which caused the refugee problem.

And the General Assembly only has the power to advise. Many binding decisions made by the Security Council have been ignored by Israel anyway.

[rini]

90. I must say

you never cease to amaze me.

[Aidoneus]

100. since when are UNGA resolutions binding?

Jeebus H. Flynt, Israel has been thumbing its nose at GA resolutions for decades, but the one you like is carved in stone?

Point of fact, there were Palestinian refugees created before that May. The Arab states were right to get involved to prevent, unsuccessfully as it turned out to be, the massive campaign of expulsion of the Arabs and flooding all of Palestine with colonies of the invaders. For months prior to the direct involvement of the other Arab states, "Israeli" military operations (in quotes strictly because, technically speaking, there was no such thing as an "Israel" until the leaders declared it so later in May'48, the reference is to the Jewish paramilitaries operating at the time and previous to that) had been attacking the Palestinian Arabs and began expelling them from their homes. Just going by the mainstream and fringe opinions of the Israeli leaders to use the land allotted to what would become Israel as a springboard for conquering and occupying all of Palestine and some other lands nearby (up to the Litani, for example), it did not take much extrapolation or guesswork for the other Arab leaders to see the writing on the wall.

On the other hand, the British-controlled Generals that the Arab leaders sent out on the task were extremely ineffective, uncoordinated and self-interested. The failure of this old guard led to the "Colonels' Revolutions" that would appear in Egypt/Syria/Iraq later. The King of the effectively British colony of Transjordan, for one example, was more interested in making backroom deals with the Zionists to enrich the kingdom's lands rather than prevent the destruction and occupation of Palestine. In Iraq for another example, Nuri al-Said (Britain's other puppet dictator) used the war in Palestine as a way of rolling back local revolutionary activities at the time, which were becoming far more successful than he or his British masters would have liked.

[drdon326]

46. Seems....

that Israel is quite capable of giving up land it won in defensive
wars AND quite capable of making peace with its enemies....when its
enemies truely wanted peace.

You would think the palestinians might of taken notice of that and
and taken a similar path. Unfortunately , after reading their charter,
it would appear they have other desires.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Arafat recognised Israel's right exist publically in just the past

couple of weeks. The Sinai wasn't part of most peoples "greater israel" concepts, so it is a little different.

[Gimel]

37. Israel Lives

There is no "post Israel".

[Classical_Liberal]

39. Post the creation of Israel

.

[rini]

55. modern one was just posted

want the original?

[Aidoneus]

95. So? They showed the vote the respect it deserved.

That was not the UN's best idea.

[rini]

111. Thank you

I now understand, only resolutions, votes, etc that are approved by the anti-Israel group are to be followed and those who don't follow them are held in contempt. Those in the pro-progressive camp are not granted the same priveledges.

BTW, if it "was not the UN's best idea," what to do to change this error?

[GabysPoppy]

114. Your understating the response, Rini

"was not the UN's best idea,"

Says a lot more than than what even is implied.

[Aidoneus]

115. if by "understating" you mean "making things up and assuming wrongly"

Yes, rini indeed did that, and a fine job at this.

It is true that not much at all is expanded on in any detail in the above post, and this leaves myself open to any number of assumptions on interpretation (and, by all means, feel free to just assume the worst and gasp in horror); when I get a few minutes free I'll write up a more fleshed out version in response to rini, but it'll be in a bit.