Palestinians say Israel proposed 'impossible' borders

Palestinians say Israel proposed ‘impossible’ borders

Middle East • January 2012 • Views: 1,516

news.yahoo.com

Israel laid out a vision for an “impossible” border during exploratory talks with the Palestinians in Amman this month, a Palestinian official told AFP on Sunday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Israeli officials presented principles for their policy on future borders during the final round of the discussions organised by Jordan and the peacemaking Quartet.

They presented a vision that would closely follow the line of Israel’s controversial security barrier and leave all of Jerusalem inside Israel, he said.

“They said to us, Jerusalem is out of the question. Large numbers of settlers will stay in the West Bank. They were talking about impossible borders,” the official said.

“They didn’t specifically mention the wall, but the details can be interpreted as them using the wall for the border,” he added.

The Palestinians have long complained that Israel built the barrier with the intention of eventually turning it into an international border.

Israel says the barrier is designed to prevent attacks and cites a decrease in the number of deadly bombings since construction began in 2002.

It’s “impossible” for the Palestinians to accept Israel within any borders.

Palestinian map of “Palestine”

Recent Pages by Alouette (Vicious Babushka):
Zaka: The Volunteers Giving Dignity to Israel's Dead Holocaust Survivor Celebrates 90th Birthday in Auschwitz With 100 Descendants Under Linda Yaccarino, X Is Placing Ads for Major Brands on a Verified Pro-Hitler Account House Republicans May Have Committed Some Light Treason - the Bulwark Burn the Witch! Burn Her! GOP PAC Sets AOC on Fire

Jump to bottom

66 comments

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 10:42:33am

At the same time though, we are dealing with the fact that the currently proposed "State" Israel (according to the PA, so I will take a grain of salt here) wants would be non-contiguous, city-states isolated from one another. There is no way that such a state can be viable.

Not only that, but there is still the issue of 50% of the Israeli Public wanting to put up the Temple and demolish the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa. That poll was last year from Israel National News in 2010.

Personally, I don't want either side to have Jerusalem.

Having talked to Palestinians here at OU, I can say that they see the Peace Process (as it exists) as just a way for Israel to take land from them and force them off it. That's what I hear them saying.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Mon, Jan 30, 2012 10:49:35am

PLL - have you heard any mentions of alternatives to the peace process?

Genshed Mon, Jan 30, 2012 10:50:23am

Let's see - Palestine's western border is a seacoast, and Israel's eastern border is the Kingdom of Jordan.

Those DO sound like impossible borders. Who's running this bording house?

sagehen Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:05:48am

re: #1 ProLifeLiberal

Not only that, but there is still the issue of 50% of the Israeli Public wanting to put up the Temple and demolish the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa. That poll was last year from Israel National News in 2010.

I *strongly* question the accuracy of that poll.

Half of Israelis aren't very religious; and even among religious Jews, the idea of rebuilding the Temple lost majority support about 1800 years ago. Even between the First and Second Temple (after return from the Babylonian exile) there was strong disagreement about whether it was a good idea -- one of the prophets had vehement arguments with the king over whether it was an insult to a universal god to try to tie him to a geographic location. That argument took place when there wasn't anything else that would need to be torn down, when there wasn't an international community to consider, when there weren't archaeological and architectural reasons to leave it alone.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:06:10am

re: #2 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

No. I have my own ideas for what should happen, but I'm just a little person in the grand scheme of things. The Arab Peace Plan is dead in the water. I personally think a restart is needed. I'm neutral on the I-P conflict, and don't like any of the three parties.

My personal solution to this would be West Bank to under Palestinian Control, but with protection from the Jordanian Military, which would be given aid to expand and better train. East Jerusalem would not be included in the West Bank, and Israel would cede its portion as well. Instead, you would have a City-State of Jerusalem, with the Government being a mix of Andorra and Singapore. A City Parliament would control most issues, but like Andorra, the Heads of State (who would have control of Holy Sites) would be from outside, and represent the big three. The President of Israel would act on behalf of the Jewish Community, the King of Jordan would act as the same for the Muslims, and the Archbishop of Canterbury would be Christian representative. The last one would be especially important because of the critical state of disrepair many Christian Holy Site are in because of squabbling between the various groups. This group would also serve as a sort of board for Holy Sites throughout the area.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:07:41am

re: #4 sagehen

From Wikipedia, and the source:

July 2010
A public opinion poll in Israel showed that 50% of Israelis believe that the Temple should be rebuilt. The poll was conducted by channel 99, the government owned Knesset channel, in advance of the 9th day of the Hebrew month of Av on which Jews commemorate the destruction of both the first and second Temples that both stood at this site.[93]

Israel National News

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:12:03am

re: #6 ProLifeLiberal

For some reason the link didn't stick. Here it is:

Israel National News

lawhawk Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:16:13am

West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since it was founded in 1948. East Jerusalem was part of Jordan (then Transjordan) until 1967 when it was captured by Israel in the 6 Day War.

Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. Part of the problem for Palestinians is their refusal to accept historical ties to the land by Jews - and their persistent revisionist history in denying Jewish ties to historical sites in the territories - including Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

As for the poll, while a majority or near majority want to see a Temple rebuilt (it's aspirational in tone - considering that the location is the most sacred spot on the planet to the Jewish faith), the poll was far more cautious in whether they would ever see it happen:

The public is about evenly split on whether they believe it will happen, with a slight edge – 42% to 39% – to those who believe the Third Holy Temple will be rebuilt.

Should the State of Israel take active steps towards the reconstruction? Forty-eight percent said no, while 27% said yes.

Not that the aspirations wont be seen as a direct threat to what Muslims consider their third holiest spot (a problem that happens all over the world as one religious group captures a site holy to another).

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:18:38am

re: #8 lawhawk

Considering what happened to Babri in India 20 years ago, I don't want to take any chances.

A vocal minority can still do great damage. That was a lesson from the Babri Mosque Incident.

Again, I don't like any sides of this conflict.

dallasdoc Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:25:20am

There is a big difference between "wanting" in response to a polling question and being prepared to actually do anything about it. I want the temple rebuilt. NOW. I pray for its rebuilding 3 times a day. BUT the rabbis teach us that we must wait for the messiah to come to lead the rebuilding. The vast majority of the religious jews follow this ruling and yes we want the temple rebuilt we are not about to do anything at all. And the secular Israelis also may 'want' the temple rebuilt but probably never actually gave it any thought until actually asked.

And to my liberal friend... it is so nice that you are neutral on the I-P conflict. But please note that at least from the Israeli side, this is an existential issue, a matter of physical and literal survival. Your neutrality disqualifies you from having an opinion on the issue that is worth anything. you can have any opinion you want, it is just not worth anything. My survival is not subject to negotiation and debate. my children's survival is not subject to negotiation and debate. Only if you accept Israel right to exist is there anything to talk about. only when the Palestinians except Israel's right to exist will there be anything to talk about.

When President Sadat declared the conflict over between Israel and Egypt, it was relatively easy to draw borders and return land. Until the Palestinians declare the conflict over, there is not much to offer them.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:29:18am

re: #10 dallasdoc

I accept Israel's right to exist, but I also want the Palestinians to have the same, with a contiguous state, and absolute assurance that the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa will not be touched.

When I say neutral, I mean that I am critical of all parties and many of their actions. For example, the Deir Yassin Massacre is probably a large part of why the debate is so vicious from the Arab side, and the purging of the residents of Ramla and Lydda was unacceptable.

Meanwhile, Hamas is just generally ignorant and only able to think in violence, while the PA is horrifically corrupt.

From talking to Palestinians I know here, they want borders decided before a Permanent Settlement is done. They don't trust Israel at all, with the Settlements and all that.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 30, 2012 11:54:01am

re: #11 ProLifeLiberal

I accept Israel's right to exist, but I also want the Palestinians to have the same, with a contiguous state, and absolute assurance that the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa will not be touched.

When I say neutral, I mean that I am critical of all parties and many of their actions. For example, the Deir Yassin Massacre is probably a large part of why the debate is so vicious from the Arab side, and the purging of the residents of Ramla and Lydda was unacceptable.

Meanwhile, Hamas is just generally ignorant and only able to think in violence, while the PA is horrifically corrupt.

From talking to Palestinians I know here, they want borders decided before a Permanent Settlement is done. They don't trust Israel at all, with the Settlements and all that.

So, you want a Palestinian state WITH NO JEWS IN IT am I correct? Also by insisting on a "contiguous" state you also want Israel to be non-contiguous. At the same time you admit that the PA is hopelessly corrupt and Hamas is violent.

And Israel should give in to this because....?

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:10:28pm

re: #12 Alouette

Because, at this point, continuing this would be idiotic. The Palestinians are desperate to hold on to any land they can. If a deal could be reached where the Israelis would make it that the settlers would stay, but would have to accept Palestinian. However Israel has never seriously entertained such a move.

Eventually, things will cool down and people be able to mingle more. But this will take time, and will only start when both sides come to a compromise. This

Again, let me point out that the Israeli did many actions during 1947 where Arabs were forced out of their homes. Much of the whole reason many Arabs left to begin with is the fact they were of the impression that the Fledgling Israel would treat them the way those people were treated at Deir Yassin. Hell, Irgun wanted to force Arabs out completely. And Likud comes directly from Irgun. This is why I have no trust of Likud.

Also, the Settlement issue is beginning to hurt Israel. A great portion of the reason the PA even attempted the UN route last year is because the US continues to support those settlements.

What did Israel do in response? Announce more settlements. So, right now, the Palestinians feel they are being forced out. They have lived there for hundreds of years, which many seem to forget.

I would appreciate being able to email you on this. I have an odd history in regards to the Israel-Palestine Issue.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:11:39pm

re: #13 ProLifeLiberal

And this doesn't even cover the issues Arabs right now have within Israel in regards to education and public services.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:14:28pm

Also, apparently the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, one Moshe Ya'alon, likes Pamela Geller.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:16:19pm

re: #13 ProLifeLiberal

I think you are very misinformed on historical facts. It is pretty sad that you believe things happened in a certain way, when they did not. I could recommend a bunch of sources, but you would dismiss them all as "Zionist propaganda."

You realize that the U.N. partitioned the British Mandate in 1947 into Jewish and Arab states. The Israelis accepted the partition, the Arabs did not, and declared war on the Jewish partition. So your claim that in 1947 the Israelis were expelling Arabs is somewhat misinformed.

Here is one objective source: O Jerusalem by Larry Collins and Dominque LaPierre (about the 1948 war). Your university library should have it. Read it and then we can talk some more.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:35:08pm

re: #16 Alouette

There is no justification for what happened at Deir Yassin, or Ramla and Lydda. Neither side acting particularly well, in my opinion. The war was mostly an exchange of massacres between both sides.

And, no I don't dismiss anything as "Zionist Propaganda". However, it is a fact that Arabs have lived in the area for a long time.

I believe both have a right to exist. However, considering some comments you have made, and your support of LVQ, who has called for demolishing both the Dome of the Rock AND Al-Aqsa, as well as calling for the expulsion of all Arabs, I doubt you accept the Palestinians right to exist.

If you do accept the Palestinians's right to exist, denounce LVQ. Now.

And, I would appreciate being able to email chat with you now.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:39:53pm

re: #17 ProLifeLiberal

If you do accept the Palestinians's right to exist, denounce LVQ. Now.

PLL, nobody here is in position to make such demands.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:42:04pm

re: #18 Sergey Romanov

Fair Point.

However, she has supported LVQ in the past. That ticks me off. Because LVQ is a bigot who called for ethnic cleansing.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 12:53:25pm

re: #8 lawhawk

I think it is really important to point out the date that East Jerusalem started to be part of Jordan (then Transjordan).

It was only in 1949. So East Jerusalem (which btw is really just Jerusalem) was in the control of Jordan from 49 to 67. Less than 20 years. It was captured and annexed by Jordan illegally.

That land was given by the Allied powers to the Jews after WW1 in 1920.
The title was transferred legally from the Ottoman Empire to the Jewish People. Again, in 1949, Jordan captured and annexed the land illegally.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:04:28pm

PLL, I think it is really important that using the term "East Jerusalem" and supporting it being given to Arabs who have promised that it will be ethnically cleansed would seem to be supporting ethnic cleansing. Also the land we are talking about already has seen ethnic cleansing in 1947-48 when the Arab Legion's cleared the entire Jewish community from the city of Jerusalem. A community whose ancestors founded the city over three thousand years ago, built its walls, roads, and Temples. A community that represented the majority religio-ethnic group in the city from at least the 1840s in the modern era. And a community that was forcefully pushed out, homes gutted, synagogues destroyed, and cemeteries desecrated.

All perpetrated by the Arabs to whom some would like to grant ownership of the city.

Wouldn't the use of the term "Arab East Jerusalem" be endorsing ethnic cleansing of the Jewish community between 1948 and 1967 and granting permission for those same Arabs to do it again when granted this ownership?

The eastern part of Jerusalem was only exclusively Arab for a period of 19 years of a history, versus the thousands of years that Jews have made that city their home.

-------------------
Do not see this as an endorsement of LVQ. I hate that guy with a white hot passion.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:16:55pm

re: #17 ProLifeLiberal

There is no justification for what happened at Deir Yassin, or Ramla and Lydda. Neither side acting particularly well, in my opinion. The war was mostly an exchange of massacres between both sides.

And, no I don't dismiss anything as "Zionist Propaganda". However, it is a fact that Arabs have lived in the area for a long time.

I believe both have a right to exist. However, considering some comments you have made, and your support of LVQ, who has called for demolishing both the Dome of the Rock AND Al-Aqsa, as well as calling for the expulsion of all Arabs, I doubt you accept the Palestinians right to exist.

What statements, specifically, have I made? Links please.

If you do accept the Palestinians's right to exist, denounce LVQ. Now.

Fuck off. Now.

You want to mix it up with Ludwig, go for it. As I recall, I and other lizards did not agree with Ludwig when he made those statements. I have supported Ludwig in other things that he has said, but not that.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:25:48pm

re: #22 Alouette

I may not have been here when he made those comments. My apologies.

However, I stand by what I said in regards to Deir Yassin, Ramla, and Lydda. Again, I state I would like to be able to talk.

re: #21 Buck

Thing is Arabs have also made that city their home. Making the city exclusively one or the other will just keep the violence going and going. A compromise for the presence of both will be needed, and Palestinians need to be assured that the presence of settlers will not be to their exclusion.

And though I agree with LVQ on Global Warming, I also despise him. He can tend to go evil quickly when talking about the other side. Though I admit I do the same.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:34:14pm

re: #17 ProLifeLiberal

I would like to correct one more point:

However, it is a fact that Arabs have lived in the area for a long time.

Actually that is NOT a fact.

In the late 1880s, there were fewer than 350,000 Arabs living in the entire region called Palestine, which then included the area now called Jordan.

So that number included all of the Arabs in Jordan. Look for a map of the British Mandate. It was given (70% ) to the Arabs who in the 1880's were only 350,000 people. The population of Arabs on the small slice that was later given to the Jews by Britain was very small.

In the 1920's when the entire area (including what is now Jordan) was given legally to the Jews, arabs immigrated en masse to the desolate region to take advantage of the economic development created by the Zionists.

Arabs constituted 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel.

It is the big lie that has you believing that the descendants of Arabs who immigrated in pursuit of jobs and economic opportunity are somehow “indigenous,” while the descendants of Jewish immigrants who fled discrimination, violence, and genocide were “colonizers.” The FACT is the arabs were there less time than the Jews were.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:41:31pm

re: #23 ProLifeLiberal

Palestinians need to be assured that the presence of settlers will not be to their exclusion.

The Arabs already have that assurance. It is a FACT that arabs have been treated very well in Israel. The ones who were not interested in killing jews were given citizenship. It is a FACT that Arabs in Israel have more rights, and better conditions that arabs in any arab or Muslim country.

Arabs in Israel have the same rights as non-arabs. There is no "exclusion".

The the Arab population is recognized as an official ethnic and religious minority. Today -- unique to Israel and in contrast to the most advanced democracies -- the Jewish state gives the languages and religions of its various minorities official status. Thus, Arabic is an official language alongside Hebrew, and Muslim and Christian holidays are considered official holidays.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:42:26pm

re: #23 ProLifeLiberal

I may not have been here when he made those comments. My apologies.

However, I stand by what I said in regards to Deir Yassin, Ramla, and Lydda. Again, I state I would like to be able to talk.

Do you really believe that Deir Yassin, Ramla and Lydda were part of a policy of genocide and not random acts that can occur on both sides during wartime? What do you think of the Hadassah hospital convoy and Gush Etzion?

What about the 1929 attack on Hebron and the 1936 pogroms in Jerusalem? (no excuse even of a war going on at that time)

Atrocities were not all on one side.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:44:15pm

NB: I really do not consider Wikipedia an authoritative or reliable source for Middle East history.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:49:50pm

re: #26 Alouette

Do you really believe that Deir Yassin, Ramla and Lydda were part of a policy of genocide and not random acts that can occur on both sides during wartime?

You are exactly right. The world has the 64 years (since 1948) to see that Israel does not massacre, does not ethnic cleanse, and has a record of democracy that rivals any country in the world.

Flavia Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:52:32pm

re: #11 ProLifeLiberal

When I say neutral, I mean that I am critical of all parties and many of their actions. For example, the Deir Yassin Massacre is probably a large part of why the debate is so vicious from the Arab side

Except, of course, that it's propaganda.

[Link: www.palestinefacts.org...]

Like most people I know who call themselves Liberals, your opinion on Israel has been formed by lies

Flavia Mon, Jan 30, 2012 1:55:51pm

re: #12 Alouette

So, you want a Palestinian state WITH NO JEWS IN IT am I correct? Also by insisting on a "contiguous" state you also want Israel to be non-contiguous. At the same time you admit that the PA is hopelessly corrupt and Hamas is violent.

And Israel should give in to this because...?

I love the way people go on about "the settlements". You'd think that they don't know that we know they're less than 3% of all the land that's even under open contention. Or, maybe, that they don't even know this themselves.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:04:21pm

re: #26 Alouette

Yes, it was violence on both sides.

However, in the case of Deir Yassin, it created greater problems than any incident before or after.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:06:13pm

Certainly if the Arab side fears any massacre today, they would fear it coming from an Arab or Muslim leader, not from Israel.

Examples of policies of "exclusion" or ethnic cleansing can be seen today only by Arab and Muslim tyrants and dictators.

In what is now being called the West Bank, the term "settlements" is being applied to a single apartment building, or house where Jews live. The Racism of that would be ironic if it were not so tragic.

The words West bank is a new creation, and is simply a way to describe which bank of the river Jordan is being referenced. The area has been referred to as Judea and Samaria for thousands of years. The term 'Jew' comes from the word Judea. The holiday of Channuka commemorates the restoration of Jewish worship at the temple in Jerusalem in 165 BCE, after Judah Maccabee removed the pagan statuary.. Get it? Judea? Not West Bank Maccabee... Judea. More than two thousand years ago.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:07:17pm

However, since I seem to be getting so much anger about thinking Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel or Palestine, I simply won't talk about this issue at all on LGF.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:08:20pm

re: #31 ProLifeLiberal

Yes, it was violence on both sides.

However, in the case of Deir Yassin, it created greater problems than any incident before or after.

I disagree. The "incident" of the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem in 1947-49 created greater problems than any incident before or after.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:12:11pm

re: #33 ProLifeLiberal

However, since I seem to be getting so much anger about thinking Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel or Palestine, I simply won't talk about this issue at all on LGF.

Maybe you just don't know that Arabs DO live in Israel. They have been allowed. That they be allowed has never been in question. More than a million strong, they live, vote, pray and do everything that non arabs do. there is an Arab Supreme Court Judge. There are Arab Ministers of Parliament. Arab Generals in the Israeli army.

It is only wrong to think that Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel, if you give the impression that they are not now living in Israel as equal citizens.

We all think Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel.

ProGunLiberal Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:18:39pm

re: #35 Buck

The Knesset has tried to ban Arab Parties in 2010.

Not only that, but we have this:

A 2010 poll of Israeli high school students found that 49.5% did not think Israeli Arabs were entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel, and 56% thought Arabs should not be elected to the Knesset.

Achilles Tang Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:19:05pm

All this political analysis seems to ignore the fact, as I see it, that the most fundamental obstacle of all is the ingrained DNA hatred of Jews by Muslims, and the ingrained fantasy of a great many Jews that they have a written property deed in the desk drawer for all of the region, signed by a god.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:23:34pm

re: #36 ProLifeLiberal

The Knesset has tried to ban Arab Parties in 2010.

That is also NOT TRUE. They tried to ban any party that called for the destruction of Israel.

Not only that, BUT Israel is a land of laws. It is not run by polls.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:27:27pm

re: #37 Naso Tang

they have a written property deed in the desk drawer

They (the Jews) actually do have a deed for the entire area, and it is signed.

At the same time, and by the same people Syria was given a deed for their land, and Lebanon was given the deed to their land. No one questions those deeds or the authority of the people who signed them.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:37:08pm

In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel ... is different.... Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights.... Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.

Bibi Netanyahu (20 Iyar 5771; 24 May 2011)

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:41:24pm

ProLifeLiberal,

I really want to be nice about this. You have a lot of misinformation about Israel in you. I seriously hope you will read what I have written.

Achilles Tang Mon, Jan 30, 2012 2:53:55pm

re: #39 Buck

They (the Jews) actually do have a deed for the entire area, and it is signed.

At the same time, and by the same people Syria was given a deed for their land, and Lebanon was given the deed to their land. No one questions those deeds or the authority of the people who signed them.

Well, one may question the intelligence of those who signed it, but as to Israel, if we are talking of the same thing, the borders were not "the entire area".

Would you care to clarify your meaning?

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 3:03:45pm

re: #42 Naso Tang

Well, one may question the intelligence of those who signed it, but as to Israel, if we are talking of the same thing, the borders were not "the entire area".

Would you care to clarify your meaning?

Go do a google search for an image of the British Mandate. That is the area taken from the Ottoman Empire and given to the Jews. It was not given to Britain. It was transferred to the Jews. Only held by Britain in order to complete the transfer.

"Entire Area" of what is now Israel, including Judea, Samaria, Gaza strip, and even Jordan. Entire area of Jerusalem including the area taken illegally by Jordan in 1947.

Can you please clarify why you would question the intelligence of those who signed it?

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 30, 2012 3:17:46pm

re: #33 ProLifeLiberal

However, since I seem to be getting so much anger about thinking Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel or Palestine, I simply won't talk about this issue at all on LGF.

Nobody disagrees that Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel or Palestine. You are getting hammered for ignoring documented historical fact and spewing propaganda.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 4:14:28pm

re: #13 ProLifeLiberal

I know it seems like you are being ganged up on, and I know how that feels. However it is a good idea to correct you when you have distinctly wrong information.

A great portion of the reason the PA even attempted the UN route last year is because the US continues to support those settlements.

The PA attempted the UN route mostly because the year before, President Obama, in his UN speech, said that he believed he would come back the next year proposing a Palestinian State.

"When we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that can lead to a new member of the United Nations, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine living in peace with Israel," Obama said in his 2010 speech.

Anyone can, if they choose pretend that these words did not have the meaning that Abbas thinks they did. However you have to admit that words do have meaning. Obama said that "next year", and Fatah tried to make it true. Abbas has described the statement as the "Obama promise."

"If he said it, he must have meant it," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says during a 36-second radio spot. He is referring to Obama, and his 2010 remarks.

"We are reminding (Obama) of what he said in the United Nations in 2010," said Ahmad Zaki ElAreedi, director of Voice of Palestine radio, one of the Palestinian Authority-run institutions broadcasting the campaign.

Settlements were NOT the issue. In Gaza Israel dismantled settlements. In the Sinai Israel dismantled settlements.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 30, 2012 4:19:03pm

re: #36 ProLifeLiberal

The Knesset has tried to ban Arab Parties in 2010.

Not only that, but we have this:

A 2010 poll of Israeli high school students found that 49.5% did not think Israeli Arabs were entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel, and 56% thought Arabs should not be elected to the Knesset.

Arab parties are not banned, although a party that supported Hamas and Hezbollah would probably be banned. The only party that has been banned is a Jewish extremist party.

Now if a similar poll of Palestinian students were asked if Jews should be allowed to live in Palestine at all (never mind having the same rights, or being in the parliament) what do you think the results would be? Hmm?

Achilles Tang Mon, Jan 30, 2012 4:41:45pm

re: #43 Buck

Go do a google search for an image of the British Mandate. That is the area taken from the Ottoman Empire and given to the Jews. It was not given to Britain. It was transferred to the Jews. Only held by Britain in order to complete the transfer.

"Entire Area" of what is now Israel, including Judea, Samaria, Gaza strip, and even Jordan. Entire area of Jerusalem including the area taken illegally by Jordan in 1947.

Can you please clarify why you would question the intelligence of those who signed it?

I was talking of the UN partition or, if you will, the 1967 borders. What the British did before is irrelevant as far as legalities are concerned, and the Jews who claim all of the region don't reference the British as their deed giver any more than the (now called) Palestinians refer to the Ottomans; they refer to Allah.

As to the intelligence part, the British and other colonialists who drew many of the world's borders did it for their convenience, not intelligent consideration of the peoples living there. Had they done the latter there would probably be 500 nations in Africa, and more elsewhere, which is not to say the world would be better off.

Perhaps it is presentism that makes me say they were not intelligent in what they did, but so it seems in hindsight regardless.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 4:49:22pm

re: #47 Naso Tang

You are so wrong. It was NOT the British, but the Allied powers after WW1 and the League of Nations.

This had nothing to do with Colonists. You have your history all screwed up.

For you to say what they did is irrelevant as far as legalities are concerned would be wrong on every level.

See the following. You can't possibly be serious to pretend history starts in 1967.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Achilles Tang Mon, Jan 30, 2012 4:57:35pm

Much of the world's border were drawn by colonists. Did you not know that?

My point is simply that what is legal when it comes to territory is defined by realities on the ground.

I said many Jews think they have a deed from their god, and many Muslims think they have one from their god. You said there are legal signed documents, from people; which, aside from changing the subject, is irrelevant.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 5:16:39pm

re: #49 Naso Tang

We are not talking about much of the world. We are talking about Israel.

If your neighbour thinks that he was given his house by God, and he has a deed, it doesn't matter.

The Jews have a claim on the land because they have lived, continuously, on the land for more than 3000 years. The world powers in the 1920's took the land previously owned by the Ottomans, and divided it up to the residents of the land.

It does not matter that some people think that it was gods will. It does not invalidate the claim because some people think that God gave it to them. It is nothing more than anti religious nonsense to even bring it up.

The Jews have a claim, based on international law. What the League of Nations did the UN cannot undo. The Arabs have NO claim to the land of Israel. The Arabs were given 95% of the land, leaving a tiny sliver for the Jews. Now people want to take that little bit away too.

Achilles Tang Mon, Jan 30, 2012 5:31:59pm

I don't argue against the "tiny sliver", nor that it can be modified, up or down.

By your logic the American Indians have total rights to all the Americas, and to say that only Jews have lived in "Palestine" for 3000 years is ridiculous.

As to anti religious nonsense, the Arabs hate Jews for religious reasons, and while I don't think most Jews hate Arabs for the same reason, many of them do indeed say and act on the basis of commandments from god. I find that ridiculous, and I suppose if I find a religious belief ridiculous you can call it anti religious, in that sense.

Buck Mon, Jan 30, 2012 8:09:25pm

re: #51 Naso Tang

The American Indians have nothing to do with this. There is nothing in common with their history and the Jews in Israel.

Again, just because some people "act on the basis of commandments from god" is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the creation of the State of Israel.

Bob Levin Mon, Jan 30, 2012 9:18:10pm

This is very close to being off topic, but there is a show entitled 'How the States Got Their Shapes'. Interesting show. However there is the episode where the Mason-Dixon line is mentioned, and the focus on the Mason-Dixon line focuses on surveying, that the distance between surveying levelers is 33 feet. One surveyor said that you need to understand that the US was put together 33 feet at a time.

Surveying is necessary for the creation of property deeds. Israelis, honestly, have property deeds--unless they are living on land without sovereignty, without deeds. Now, if you were to Google "Palestinian Land Surveryors", you'd get a lot of results referring to Palestine Texas.

And so I ask myself--if there is a fledgling nation with a central government, international recognition, a seat at the UN, their own army/police force, their own judicial system, their own legislature, their own tax collecting system--why no surveyors? Why no creation of deeds?

The surveying was essential to the creation of the US. It was essential to the creation of Israel. It's essential to any nation. But nearly 70 years of conflict, and no Palestinian surveying? Maybe the conflict isn't about land after all?

Flavia Mon, Jan 30, 2012 9:51:41pm

re: #33 ProLifeLiberal

However, since I seem to be getting so much anger about thinking Arabs should be allowed to live in Israel or Palestine, I simply won't talk about this issue at all on LGF.

No one that I can see is angry about any of these sentiments being expressed. Even if that's what you think you are expressing - or want us to think that you are expressing.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Tue, Jan 31, 2012 4:55:33am

Great. Now we have Deir Yassin deniers.

*spit*

Unbridled nationalism does things to people.

Achilles Tang Tue, Jan 31, 2012 6:09:36am

re: #52 Buck

The American Indians have nothing to do with this. There is nothing in common with their history and the Jews in Israel.

Again, just because some people "act on the basis of commandments from god" is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the creation of the State of Israel.

I see; you have tunnel vision argumentation. No situation has anything in common with another and your argument is sacrosanct, logic be damned.

What's your position on AGW, BTW?

Achilles Tang Tue, Jan 31, 2012 6:10:52am

re: #53 Bob Levin

Bingo.

Buck Tue, Jan 31, 2012 7:48:27am

re: #56 Naso Tang

I see; you have tunnel vision argumentation. No situation has anything in common with another and your argument is sacrosanct, logic be damned.

What's your position on AGW, BTW?

I don't have tunnel vision argumentation... what ever that is.

You simply are ignorant of the history of the region and seem to like to make stuff up in order to sound knowledgeable.

Worse than that you are simply unwilling to learn the facts.

What do I think of AGW? Are you serious? You see some connection between the history of the middle east and AGW? I suppose you think you are some kind of expert on AGW and think that changing to a subject you are more comfortable with will allow you to better me.

Are you 12?

Buck Tue, Jan 31, 2012 7:53:08am

re: #53 Bob Levin

And so I ask myself--if there is a fledgling nation with a central government, international recognition, a seat at the UN, their own army/police force, their own judicial system, their own legislature, their own tax collecting system--why no surveyors? Why no creation of deeds?

I can't tell if you are kidding. Are you really saying that because you can't find it on Google you think that there are no land surveyors or creation of deeds in Israel?

Buck Tue, Jan 31, 2012 8:12:45am

re: #59 Buck

I can't tell if you are kidding. Are you really saying that because you can't find it on Google you think that there are no land surveyors or creation of deeds in Israel?

OK, I read it wrong. When you said Palestinian I wasn't sure you meant Palestinian. You were being a bit sarcastic.

If there was a delete button I would delete my #59.

Achilles Tang Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:32:46am

re: #58 Buck

I don't think we are connecting here. I have trouble being as literalist as it appears I need to be.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Jan 31, 2012 11:03:43am

re: #7 ProLifeLiberal

For some reason the link didn't stick. Here it is:

Israel National News

I don't know the origin of the poll, could try to check later, but Arutz Sheva lies about shit, and they have a stupid-right agenda.

Let's just say that this is the same paper that insists that dozens, maybe hundreds, of European girls who come to volunteer in the West Bank have been kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam, and married off to West Bank residents.

Bob Levin Tue, Jan 31, 2012 11:28:01am

re: #60 Buck

I Googled where I expect to find the information. For instance, if I Google, 'land surveying in Judea and Samaria', I'd probably find something about ~~pioneers~~ the settlers. And let me test that theory.....yep. I am correct.

It appears that in Fatah and Hamas, there is no administration in charge of surveying. And this is why talks are stalled. Israel keeps asking, is it land you want, our is it our lives you want to take? All indications point to the latter.

Flavia Tue, Jan 31, 2012 10:40:36pm

re: #55 Sergey Romanov

Great. Now we have Deir Yassin deniers.

*spit*

Unbridled nationalism does things to people.

Sergey Romanov

No, now we have historians who actually research things.
& I spit on your other insults as well.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:21:03am

Yeah, the 100+ death toll in a village that was attacked not because of any provocations by the villagers, but because the invading groups wanted "to demonstrate that they too were capable of occupying an Arab village" (and were advised against this by a lot of people) and, when met with the absolutely legitimate resistance, began throwing grenades inside homes, not caring whether there were any women and children inside, shooting people who tried to escape, including women, and then executed at least 25 young villagers who were taken prisoners, absolutely qualifies as a massacre to any human with a conscience.

Not to deniers, of course.

Flavia Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19:56pm

re: #65 Sergey Romanov

Funny, but your source denies there was a massacre as well - and goes out of its way to specifically say that the incident is still being debated. The events you list are not even verified, but remarked on as exaggerations by Arabs. Your statement that "the invading groups wanted "to demonstrate that they too were capable of occupying an Arab village"" is preceded by statements that there were attacks coming from the village (sounds like "provocations by villagers" to me) - and, even then, Arabs from the village who were wounded were still being treated in Jewish hospitals. Also it mentions the attempt to warn villagers to leave. Hardly the acts of anyone determined on a massacre. NOWHERE in the report does it say that attacks were made "not caring whether there were any women and children inside" - in fact, it states that "Contrary to some testimonies, houses were not blown up on the residents." Early reports did speak of women & children being killed - but later reports corrected that: Jews were bringing the women & children to the Musara quarter of Jerusalem. Again, hardly the actions of anyone bent on a massacre. The article you quote clearly states that "most civilian casualties were were killed inadvertently". Yes, 25 men seem to have been executed (I say "seem to have been" because there is absolutely no eyewitness testimony concerning it) - because they were combatants & the group that had captured them was afraid to let them go back to the fighting, and there was no cohesive army policy (or even a cohesive army!). Immediately after Deir Yassin, rules were established against this. IOW,
you either neglected to read the entire article, or you deliberately cherry-picked it to support your bias. Shame on you!!

I once saw "Jim Thorpe, All-American". In it, Dick Wesson (as Ed Guyac, a friend of Jim Thorpe's), remarks on the American history they are all being taught at the "Indian School." "Why is it that every time the white man wins a battle, it's a great victory - but when we win, it's called a massacre?" Seems the same with Israel, every damned time.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!