More History Before 1967

[P F Tinmore]

What are the internationally recognized borders of Palestine?

From what I can tell they are the same as they have been since 1922.

What are TODAY'S internationally recognized border of Palestine ?

The same as they have been since 1922.

 

[toastman]

Ughhh...

 

[Hyrcanus]

The same as they have been since 1922.

wrong.

The Palestine Mandate and its borders no longer exist.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.

From what I can tell they are the same as they have been since 1922.

What are TODAY'S internationally recognized border of Palestine ?

The same as they have been since 1922.

(OBSERVATION)

Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.

“The international community cannot allow the current regional and international efforts to fail,” he declared. There was an urgent need to salvage the prospects for peace. Good intentions alone would not suffice under the current circumstances, and the international community must be firm in demanding Israel’s compliance with all its legal obligations while making clear that continued violations “will be met with measures of accountability”.

Stressing that continuing on the current path was unsustainable, he said: “Either we change course, where the law and rights are primary, or we must face the closure of the window of opportunity that remains to realize the historic compromise of two States and the onset of a new era and a search for alternative solutions to achieve peace and freedom, rights, justice and dignity” that the Palestinian people had too long been denied, and for which they would never give up striving.

Ma Zhaoxu, Assistant Foreign Minister of China, said the Palestinian question “is the core of the Middle East issue”. To realize peace between Palestine and Israel, in accordance with the two-State solution, was the expectation of people across the region and the international community. The Government and people of China firmly supported the just cause of the Palestinian people as well as the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, he said. They also supported the establishment of an independent State of Palestine enjoying full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as the peaceful coexistence of Palestine and Israel through peace talks and enhanced peace and stability in the Middle East.

He recalled that last month, having hosted the Palestinian President and Israeli Prime Minister on separate visits, President Xi Jinping had raised a four-point proposal for settlement of the Palestinian question. They included a redoubling of efforts to promote peace talks; upholding principles and consensus; accomplishing easier tasks before moving on to more difficult ones; and seeking a comprehensive solution while advancing, simultaneously, the dual tracks of political negotiations and improving livelihoods. Ending the violence and embracing peace was the shared aspiration, he said, expressing hope that the Meeting would help pool the wisdom of all parties, boost confidence in peace and advance the talks.

The representative of the League of Arab States urged an end to the violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the removal of checkpoints and the cessation of construction of the separation wall. It was also imperative that the Judaization of Jerusalem stop. The future of the Palestinians and of the West Bank and Gaza should be discussed with the States of the region, such as Egypt and Jordan, he said. All indications pointed to Israeli unwillingness to reach peace with the Palestinians, yet the only way to resolve the conflict was through settlement of final status issues. - See more at: UN International Meeting in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace (Beijing, 18-19 June) - Opening session - Press release (18 June 2013)

Primary SOURCE: UN International Meeting in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace (Beijing, 18-19 June)

(COMMENT)

I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

SOURCE: Understanding Obama’s shift on Israel and the ‘1967 lines’

Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.

Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.

Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.

Let's get with the program.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.

What are TODAY'S internationally recognized border of Palestine ?

The same as they have been since 1922.

(OBSERVATION)

Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.

“The international community cannot allow the current regional and international efforts to fail,” he declared. There was an urgent need to salvage the prospects for peace. Good intentions alone would not suffice under the current circumstances, and the international community must be firm in demanding Israel’s compliance with all its legal obligations while making clear that continued violations “will be met with measures of accountability”.

Stressing that continuing on the current path was unsustainable, he said: “Either we change course, where the law and rights are primary, or we must face the closure of the window of opportunity that remains to realize the historic compromise of two States and the onset of a new era and a search for alternative solutions to achieve peace and freedom, rights, justice and dignity” that the Palestinian people had too long been denied, and for which they would never give up striving.

Ma Zhaoxu, Assistant Foreign Minister of China, said the Palestinian question “is the core of the Middle East issue”. To realize peace between Palestine and Israel, in accordance with the two-State solution, was the expectation of people across the region and the international community. The Government and people of China firmly supported the just cause of the Palestinian people as well as the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, he said. They also supported the establishment of an independent State of Palestine enjoying full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as the peaceful coexistence of Palestine and Israel through peace talks and enhanced peace and stability in the Middle East.

He recalled that last month, having hosted the Palestinian President and Israeli Prime Minister on separate visits, President Xi Jinping had raised a four-point proposal for settlement of the Palestinian question. They included a redoubling of efforts to promote peace talks; upholding principles and consensus; accomplishing easier tasks before moving on to more difficult ones; and seeking a comprehensive solution while advancing, simultaneously, the dual tracks of political negotiations and improving livelihoods. Ending the violence and embracing peace was the shared aspiration, he said, expressing hope that the Meeting would help pool the wisdom of all parties, boost confidence in peace and advance the talks.



Primary SOURCE: UN International Meeting in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace (Beijing, 18-19 June)

(COMMENT)

I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

SOURCE: Understanding Obama’s shift on Israel and the ‘1967 lines’

Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.

Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.

Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.

Let's get with the program.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.

The same as they have been since 1922.

(OBSERVATION)

Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.


(COMMENT)

I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

SOURCE: Understanding Obama’s shift on Israel and the ‘1967 lines’

Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.

Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.

Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.

Let's get with the program.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.

Tinmore, he's right. You are stuck in the past. I'm not saying that the past is completely irrelevant when discussing current issues about Israel/Palestine, but we are now in the 21st century.
If you really are interested in discussing potential peace solution and border issues about I/P, then you have to stop with your jibberish claims about how Israel has no land/borders or civilians and that Israel is inside Palestine. Even the other pro - Palestinians on this forum think those claims are whacky. If you chose to continue with that mindset, then that's fine with me and I'll respect that, but don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously (except maybe Sherri )
Hope you understand

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.


(OBSERVATION)

Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.


(COMMENT)

I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.



Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.

Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.

Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.

Let's get with the program.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.

Tinmore, he's right. You are stuck in the past. I'm not saying that the past is completely irrelevant when discussing current issues about Israel/Palestine, but we are now in the 21st century.
If you really are interested in discussing potential peace solution and border issues about I/P, then you have to stop with your jibberish claims about how Israel has no land/borders or civilians and that Israel is inside Palestine. Even the other pro - Palestinians on this forum think those claims are whacky. If you chose to continue with that mindset, then that's fine with me and I'll respect that, but don't expect me or anyone else here to take you seriously (except maybe Sherri )
Hope you understand

So, you want me to kick the truth to the curb like all the propagandists have done?

 

[toastman]

Well those claims are not true and we've already discussed that to the point of exhaustion.
But no, I am not saying that. You are free to post what you want Tinmore.
Hopefully you don't see what I'm trying to tell you in a disrespectful way, I have a feeling you do

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.

The same as they have been since 1922.

(OBSERVATION)

Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.


(COMMENT)

I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

SOURCE: Understanding Obama’s shift on Israel and the ‘1967 lines’

Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.

Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.

Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.

Let's get with the program.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.

Reason? I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the thriving, flourishing State of Israel will be dismantled. The occupation of the West Bank will just be extended indefinitely, if these extreme, obsolete views will not be altered. It's not easy for Israelis (or most of them anyway) to leave behind their heritage and history on the West Bank either.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not everyone is stuck in time, back to 1922. A lot has happened since then.


(OBSERVATION)

Noting that China does not always agree with the US, especially on matters relative to sovereignty issues (given China has its own problem with Taiwan and their right to self-determination), I thought it would be interesting to inject their thoughts.


(COMMENT)

I looked back at all the UN debates on the Palestine Issue for the last 12 months, and no one (no where - no how) is talking in 1922 terms. I checked every single debate: EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League. Even, Israel and the Palestinian Authority don't speak in those terms in that time frame.



Further more, nearly everyone is talking about how to implement a two-state solution; not based on some imaginary state during the Palestine/Trans-Jordanian Mandate period, but on 1967 borders.

Paul, they are so far ahead of you, they don't even discuss matters like the Mandate, the Partition Plan, and the border issues. The talk in terms of the future in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and (occasionally) Golan Heights. They talk about the real issues of the day.

Don't fall behind. Let's catch-up to the issues that obstruct the peace process and the debate over the Green Line — the pre-1967 boundaries. If you're still worrying about old declarations, treaties, conventions and conferences --- and resolutions on a Mandate that has long since faded into history, then --- you are part of the problem. The State of Palestine has two pieces of real-estate for which it can negotiate. Maybe, some arrangement over Jerusalem can be reached --- but that is it. Thinking about any more than that simply put you in a position for which you are going to be boxed-out. No one in the UN (not the EU Nations, non-Aligned, Third-World, G-8, African, NATO, the Quartet, and even the Arab League) considers the dismantlement of Israel as a viable option; such rhetoric only retards the peace process and extends the occupation.

Let's get with the program.

Most Respectfully,
R

The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.

Reason? I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the thriving, flourishing State of Israel will be dismantled. The occupation of the West Bank will just be extended indefinitely, if these extreme, obsolete views will not be altered. It's not easy for Israelis (or most of them anyway) to leave behind their heritage and history on the West Bank either.

The two state solution has been on the table for over75 years.

If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

In history, the farther back we look, the more self-evident and clear some facts become. Who knows, a millennium from now ---> maybe you will become the preeminent scholar in history that explored and exposed the misinterpretations and skullduggery of the 19th and 20th Century (or maybe not!).

The two state solution is just a regurgitation of the partition plan that has been rejected since 1937. Of course that is the plan that most people have heard their entire life so it has taken on a life of its own pushing out all reason.

(COMMENT)

Actually, the variation on the theme - the two-state solution - is much older than that. As HRH, the Emir Faisal (Faisal ibn Hussein), said in 1919: "mindful of the racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine;" the idea had roots going back to the early 20th Century (nearly a hundred years ago).

It was a very different tone than we have today; where the Fatah demand that:

• Israel must give up all of Jerusalem before it would begin negotiations on a two-state solution.

This is not the tone when the "consummation of their national aspirations" (a State for each) was the mantra. By the same token, when Chaim Weizmann (President of the Zionist Organization, and later first President of the State of Israel) first agreed with HRH on the "surest means of working out" a cooperative effort, one of the tenants that they agree to was that the region would be secular in nature, no religious tests would ever be used.

So, you want me to kick the truth to the curb like all the propagandists have done?

(COMMENT)

The truth of - whatever happened in the first half of the 20th Century, whatever that truth in history turns out interpreted to be, does not negate the ensuing half century of events that followed, nor the reality faced today. We cannot change yesterday, but we can change tomorrow.

Well those claims are not true and we've already discussed that to the point of exhaustion.
But no, I am not saying that. You are free to post what you want Tinmore.
Hopefully you don't see what I'm trying to tell you in a disrespectful way, I have a feeling you do

(COMMENT)

Our friend "toastman" is correct. There is no intention to be disrespectful in any way. But the facts are that the State of Israel was establish and has expanded, but whatever instrumentality you choose to dispute, by whatever events you choose to oppose; it happened. Lines were drawn; by whatever name you want to call them, and by whatever legitimacy you want to assign them; they are there. The State of Israel exists and (apparently) the State of Palestine (as of December 2012) exists.

Now we go back to the very beginning. The intention was, as agreed by HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann (over 9 decades ago), "The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony in all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.

"David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]

"Ben-Gurion's strategy for the creation of the Israeli State included very specific offensive military steps.

"They are described in Plans A, B, C, and D.[15] 'The purpose of such actions would be to deter the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic. Plan C [also named Gimel Plan] spelled out clearly what punitive actions would entail, such as

"Killing the Palestinian leadership.
Killing Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
Killing senior Palestinian officers and officials.
Damaging Palestinian transportation."

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killing and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations seems to play the same role in the formation of every settler-colonialist state, from Alabama, to Australia, to Area C.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Just from what you have written here, you don't make the case for "Ethnic Cleansing."

David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.

"David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]

"Ben-Gurion's strategy for the creation of the Israeli State included very specific offensive military steps.

"They are described in Plans A, B, C, and D.[15] 'The purpose of such actions would be to deter the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic. Plan C [also named Gimel Plan] spelled out clearly what punitive actions would entail, such as

"Killing the Palestinian leadership.
Killing Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
Killing senior Palestinian officers and officials.
Damaging Palestinian transportation."

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killing and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations seems to play the same role in the formation of every settler-colonialist state, from Alabama, to Australia, to Area C.

(COMMENT)

The purpose for the strategy (deterrence and retaliation) is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" (violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion). What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.

Do you have evidence, or can you make a prima facie case, that David Ben-Gurion intended a wider scope? Incidentally, this is nearly the exact same strategy Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brought to Palestine.

In 1930 al-Qassam's preaching was instrument in laying the foundations for the formation of the Black Hand (al kaff al-aswad)), an anti-Zionist and anti-British militant organisation, which he used to proclaim jihad and attack Jewish settlers.[14] The idea for such a group appeared to crystallize after the 1929 riots, though one source says a decision was taken after the Day of Atonement incitement at the Wailing Wall in September 1928. From the outset a split occurred in the movement, with one militant group led by Abu Ibrahim arguing for immediate terror attacks, while the other headed by al-Qassam thought an armed revolt premature, and risked exposing the group's preparations. According to Subhi Yasin, the terror attacks in the north were executed by this dissident group in defiance of Qassam, though in 1969 Abu Ibrahim denied these allegations. The ensuing terror campaign began with the ambush and murder of three members of Kibbutz Yagur, 11 April 1931, a failed bombing attack on outlying Jewish homes in Haifa in early 1932, and several operations that killed or wounded some four members of northern Jewish settlements. It climaxed with the deaths of a Jewish father and son in Nahalal, from a bomb thrown into their home, on 22 December 1932.[15]
By 1935 he had recruited several hundred men,-the figures differ, from 200 to 800,- organised in cells of 5 men, and arranged military training for peasants.[14][16] The cells were equipped with bombs and firearms, which they used to raid Jewish settlements and sabotage British-constructed rail lines.[7] Though striking a responsive chord among the rural poor and urban underclass, his movement deeply perturbed the Muslim urban elite as it threatened their political and patronage connections with the British Mandatory authorities.[17]

SOURCE: Izz ad-Din al-Qassam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.

"David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]

"Ben-Gurion's strategy for the creation of the Israeli State included very specific offensive military steps.

"They are described in Plans A, B, C, and D.[15] 'The purpose of such actions would be to deter the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic. Plan C [also named Gimel Plan] spelled out clearly what punitive actions would entail, such as

"Killing the Palestinian leadership.
Killing Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
Killing senior Palestinian officers and officials.
Damaging Palestinian transportation."

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killing and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations seems to play the same role in the formation of every settler-colonialist state, from Alabama, to Australia, to Area C.

I call your Ben - Gurion quote and I raise you a quote from Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem:

Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, a good question.

The two state solution has been on the table for over75 years.

If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?

(COMMENT)

I don't think anyone has an answer.

But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers. The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan. Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.

The Palestinian Arab blames Faisal, blames the LoN/UN, the Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire. The claim the right of self-determination and deny that right to the Jewish. They claim ancient rights over the land, and deny the Jewish claim. They charge foul play under international law, and accuse the authors of the international law of not following the law. They engage in war and terrorism, claim foul when the same is applied to them. They first refuse the offer of territory, then claim it is valid after their attempt to use force fails; now the claim it is invalid. The pledge the destruction of Israel yet claim they are no threat to regional peace.

They challenge every LoN/UN decision made (Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution) relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not. They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.​

I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side. But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.

One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The purpose for the strategy (deterrence and retaliation) is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" (violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion). What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.

Could you elaborate? I am not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, a good question.

The two state solution has been on the table for over75 years.

If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?

(COMMENT)

I don't think anyone has an answer.

But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers. The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan. Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.

The Palestinian Arab blames Faisal, blames the LoN/UN, the Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire. The claim the right of self-determination and deny that right to the Jewish. They claim ancient rights over the land, and deny the Jewish claim. They charge foul play under international law, and accuse the authors of the international law of not following the law. They engage in war and terrorism, claim foul when the same is applied to them. They first refuse the offer of territory, then claim it is valid after their attempt to use force fails; now the claim it is invalid. The pledge the destruction of Israel yet claim they are no threat to regional peace.

They challenge every LoN/UN decision made (Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution) relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not. They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.​

I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side. But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.

One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, I don't think so. Who said that the Jews had no right to live in Palestine?

 

[Hossfly]

David Ben Gurion's intention seems somewhat more realistic.

"David Ben-Gurion stated, 'The Arabs will have to go.'[14]

"Ben-Gurion's strategy for the creation of the Israeli State included very specific offensive military steps.

"They are described in Plans A, B, C, and D.[15] 'The purpose of such actions would be to deter the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements, and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic. Plan C [also named Gimel Plan] spelled out clearly what punitive actions would entail, such as

"Killing the Palestinian leadership.
Killing Palestinian inciters and their financial supporters.
Killing Palestinians who acted against Jews.
Killing senior Palestinian officers and officials.
Damaging Palestinian transportation."

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killing and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations seems to play the same role in the formation of every settler-colonialist state, from Alabama, to Australia, to Area C.

Since Georgie Boy is always using Wikipedia, I know he wouldn't mind me using something from the Jewish Virtual Library written by an historian. As Georgie Boy can see, the Arab propulation increased because of the Jews who moved there. Now if Georgie Boy has his eyes open and doesn't just sit around reading his usual sites, he will see in his own city of Los Angeles how Hispanics in huge numbers crossed our southern border for jobs which their own countries couldn't supply for them. Of course, along with the Hispanics, again if Georgie Boy has his eyes open, he will see how multicultural his city has become what with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. with different ethnicities from all over the world. Can Georgie Boy honestly say that the population is the same mix as it was when he finished high school? Can he also say that all of Europe is the same when it comes to their populations? People move to where the jobs are. If their own countries can't help them, they will try someplace else, and this is why the Arabs moved to the area now known as Israel.
The Arabs in Palestine

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, a good question.

The two state solution has been on the table for over75 years.

If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?

(COMMENT)

I don't think anyone has an answer.

But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers. The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan. Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.

The Palestinian Arab blames Faisal, blames the LoN/UN, the Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire. The claim the right of self-determination and deny that right to the Jewish. They claim ancient rights over the land, and deny the Jewish claim. They charge foul play under international law, and accuse the authors of the international law of not following the law. They engage in war and terrorism, claim foul when the same is applied to them. They first refuse the offer of territory, then claim it is valid after their attempt to use force fails; now the claim it is invalid. The pledge the destruction of Israel yet claim they are no threat to regional peace.

They challenge every LoN/UN decision made (Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution) relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not. They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.​

I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side. But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.

One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe I am wrong, Rocco, but it seems to me that the Muslims have a hard time living peacefully with others. I am saying this because of what is going on in southern Thailand, in the Philippines in China, in Nigeria and many other locations.. It appears that the Muslims can't even live with other Muslims of different sects. Would it really be that hard, let's say, for the Sunni Muslims to live peacefully with the Shiites and Ahmadis in Pakistan instead of always car or suicide bombing them?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, a good question.

The two state solution has been on the table for over75 years.

If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?

(COMMENT)

I don't think anyone has an answer.

But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers. The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan. Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.

The Palestinian Arab blames Faisal, blames the LoN/UN, the Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire. The claim the right of self-determination and deny that right to the Jewish. They claim ancient rights over the land, and deny the Jewish claim. They charge foul play under international law, and accuse the authors of the international law of not following the law. They engage in war and terrorism, claim foul when the same is applied to them. They first refuse the offer of territory, then claim it is valid after their attempt to use force fails; now the claim it is invalid. The pledge the destruction of Israel yet claim they are no threat to regional peace.

They challenge every LoN/UN decision made (Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution) relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not. They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.​

I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side. But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.

One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe I am wrong, Rocco, but it seems to me that the Muslims have a hard time living peacefully with others. I am saying this because of what is going on in southern Thailand, in the Philippines in China, in Nigeria and many other locations.. It appears that the Muslims can't even live with other Muslims of different sects. Would it really be that hard, let's say, for the Sunni Muslims to live peacefully with the Shiites and Ahmadis in Pakistan instead of always car or suicide bombing them?

You are not wrong