Seeds of destruction

[Alice Franken]

The small bombs that exploded during the past few days in the face of the European community, first in Bologna at President Mario Prodi, then at Trichet, president of the Central European Bank, and lastly at the Europol of AJA, fortunately did not hurt anyone, yet they could not have been more symbolic.

*****

In other words, unlike its older counterpart, today's anti-Semitism has a strictly political origin. In 1967, Charles De Gaulle left Israel defenseless at a time when no one predicted it would emerge from the Six Day War successful. In 1973, American aircraft bringing aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War were refused permission to fly over European skies. Such behavior heralded an era of pure cynicism, in which Israel came to be viewed as culpable for every political hardship it endured, from Yasser Arafat's rejection of then prime minister Ehud Barak's peace offering at Camp David and Taba to the war of terror the Palestinians waged in its aftermath.

*****

All Europeans, particularly the French and the Germans, would have laughed three years ago - before the outbreak of what the Palestinians call the "Al-Aksa Intifada" - at anyone predicting the burning of synagogues and Jewish schools, the beating up of Jews in the streets, or the advice of rabbis to their congregants to stop wearing kippot or any other recognizable sign of their Judaism in public.

*****

The Christians in Europe have also been unconvinced that the path taken by the church allowing the Palestinian propagandists to present Jesus as one of theirs, as this endangers the relationship that makes Judeo-Christian culture the basis for human rights.

*****

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072930908176&p=1006953079845

[xchrom]

1. rather broad strokes

being used here.
but i see there is little concern here for what's happened to the palestinians since 1948.
which might have just a little something to do with present day definitions.
or is that asking too much?

[Alice Franken]

2. Not at all.

Read some history rather than using this forum and the various articles posted.

You will find why the palestinians have reaped what they are sowing...and it begins with their rejection of the 2-state solution accepted by Israel in 1948...7 Arab states telling them to run along while they drive Israel into the sea...but, the kicker is, get this: Israel won! The Arabs didn't help each other and it went on from there.

You could always take a class, too.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Alice Franken]

4. There was no palestine

There were no Palestinians until after the Arabs lost the 1967 war.

What apartheid state? Israel? Ridiculous!

What do you mean by "european jews killed a loat of innocent people to get their apartheid state"? You mean the ones in Auschwitz?

What do you mean that 'remembering is a special human trait reserved only for one group of people'? Spit it out. Then, please back it up.

[Saudade]

6. Really?

"There were no Palestinians until after the Arabs lost the 1967 war."

That's odd.


The British Mandate acquired jurisdiction de jure over Palestine in September 1923, following the conclusion with Turkey of the Treaty of Lausanne. On the request of the British Government, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution on 16 September 1922 reaffirming that Palestine was a distinct territory.



Palestine had been part of the defeated Ottoman Turkish Empire. The "Mandate for Palestine Articles," elucidated by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, refers to "The Government Of Palestine" explicitly in Article 28 and throughout the said document. The Macdonald White Paper from May 1939 envisaged a termination of the Palestine mandate by 1949, with independence for the country in which Palestinians and Jews would share in government.

The unrest in Palestine culminated in the UN Partition Plan Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, where a Jewish state and Arab state would be linked by economic union. A day later, future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin rejected partition and stated unequivocally that "all of Palestine, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River will be restored to Israel." This excluded Jordan, which had already attained and secured independence from Britain on 22 March 1946.

Somebody forget to tell Jabotinsky that there were no Palestinians before 1967:

"Has any People ever been seen to give up their territory of their own free will? In the same way, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence." Quoted by Maxime Rodinson in Peuple Juif ou Problem Juif. (Jewish People or Jewish Problem).

Of course, I understand why you say that, Alice.

It is much easier for a conquerer to sleep at night if the conquerer can pretend that the victims of the conquest don't really exist.

[MikeGalos]

7. Gee Suadade

I'd have thought you knew that.

There was a British Mandate of Palestine that included what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Are you saying that's "Palestine"? If so, it's a colonial construct and has no historical or cultural significance. So, I guess you don't mean that.

Perhaps you mean the historical Palestine prior to the 1917 British Colonial period? Oops, there wasn't one. The land in the area was parts of several Ottoman districts with none of them and no combination of them matching the borders that the PA claims are "Palestine".

Perhaps you mean the ancient "Phillistine" that was used as the base for the mandate's name? No. That has no historical connection to the current Arab population but it DOES actually correspond pretty closely to the Gaza Strip.

The PLO/PA's definition is as slippery as oil. It corresponds to whatever land is held by Israel. In 1967, they had to rewrite their only 3 year old charter because they'd said that the West Bank was NOT Palestinian but was Jordanian and the Gaza Strip wasn't Palestinian but was Egyptian and when these became controlled by non-Arabs history had to be rewritten to make them "Palestinian" lands.

So, please, let us know what you mean. Feel free to tell us the basis for your claim as well.

Here's a hint. You won't be able to find a "Palestinian" source prior to 1964, by the way, because prior to then, the party line was that there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" and the Arab Refugees were, in fact, ethnic Syrians and trying to make them into anything else was an insult to them.

[Cassandra]

8. Not really

Before 1948, Palestinians were Jews. Palestinian Arabs were Arabs. Some of the Arabs had lived on the land for generations (not all with ownership rights); some had lived in the cities for generations; many had arrived during their lifetimes to take advantage of the increased opportunities for jobs in the Jewish areas. Some Jews have lived there for many generations; many were born there. I think that more than half the Jewish population has been born there. So who's land did you say it was?

[Gimel]

9. The origin of the "Palestinians"

I remember that Arafat ascribed the name Palestinian to the Arab refugee in the year 1980. Now they claim it retroactively. That is media propaganda. Cassandra is absolutely correct. Previous to that, the aim of the PLO was to "liberate" Palestine for the Arabs.

The conflict over the land, is a conflict between peoples. The religious hegemony is a major aspect of the conflict. No, it is not just about religion, but religion offers a point of reference historically.

[MikeGalos]

10. More than that

It's a cultural isolationism on the part of Arafat and his followers. They call for an Arab-only state. Arabs may be Christian or Moslem but non-Arab Christians or Moslems are not welcome.

[MikeGalos]

11. A quick note

to back up your memory. Note that the PLO is the Palestine Liberation Organization and NOT the Palestinian Liberation Organization. When it was formed in 1964, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian People", they were "Arab Refugees". Since then the "refugee" issue has been played down in the PR campaign and the "Palestinian Nationalist Movement" has been created.

To be refugees for 40 years shows just how badly they were treated by their fellow Arabs who refused to allow them into their own countries. To be a National Liberation Movement gets knee-jerk support from the Left who think of them as a valid and deserving oppressed ancient people.

[Aidoneus]

12. <shrug>

1911 Feb.: Palestinian newspaper "Filastin" begins addressing its readers as "Palestinians" and it warns them about consequences of Zionist colonisation.
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/chronology/14001962.htm

As for your claims, the numbers just don't agree.

[Gimel]

13. The usage

The use of the term may have popped up a time or two before then. It would seem only natural. However, what about all the Jews who bought trees for Palestine? Doesn't that make them Palestinian trees and Palestinians as well?

The time line has failed to mention certain historical events, such as the Hebron Massacre in 1929. It mentions three Arab women Martyrs on Aug 27, but not the 67 Jews murdered in Hebron on August 24, 1929.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html

That omission is a strong indication of the one-sided myopic history it is representing.

[MikeGalos]

14. Sure but that wasn't the question, was it?

Of course, anybody living in the Mandate of Palestine was a Palestinian but the question was about a "Palestinian People". You know, that distinct identifiable ethnic group that didn't exist until a few decades ago but now attempts to claim their "national rights" rather than look like just another group of refugees.

And, for that matter, a fairly pathetic one who's leaders and countrymen were unable to get them relocated in 40 years when everybody else on the planet in a comparable situation was settled into new homes in a year or two...

[MikeGalos]

5. And seeing that

it would be totally off the topic, there shouldn't be.

Or are you really bothered that any topic dare discuss anyone else.