More History Before 1967

[P F Tinmore]

You keep asserting that the "Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country;" as if there was some established Palestinian Sovereignty.

What a racist, colonialist attitude. To think that foreigners have the right to Palestine and the native Palestinians do not.

All you have is the foreigners did this, and the foreigners said that, and the foreigners agreed to...blah, blah, blah...

And to think that external interference was illegal.

 

[Hyrcanus]

The San Remo Mandate stands and always will....

False.

Wrong.

Untrue.

The goals and agenda of the Palestine Mandate are over. They are finished. Its expired.

However, if the Mandate is still in affect, then Israel has seriously VIOLATED this mandate by persecuting and restricting the lives of the Gentile population in the West Bank.

Remember, Jewish settlement in Palestine is contingent upon the Gentile population being treated with respect and equality.

 

[georgephillip]

All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.

I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.

Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.

 

[toastman]

All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.

I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.

Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.

Liar, I already disproved that several times. Stop living in the past Georgie boy.
It is 2013 and Israel is here , weather you like it or not.
The question is, when will you stop bitching about this ?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.

I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.

Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.

No problem:

1. The source of the above claim is you.
2. You have no credibility.

That was easy.

 

[Hyrcanus]

The number of Arab villages destroyed by Israel during and after the 1948 war is astounding.

Even after the war concluded, Israel forced out tens of thousands of more Palestinians.

The Nakba must never be forgotten, just as the Shoah.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The number of Arab villages destroyed by Israel during and after the 1948 war is astounding.

Even after the war concluded, Israel forced out tens of thousands of more Palestinians.

The Nakba must never be forgotten, just as the Shoah.

I remember a simple time from my youth when Nakba Day was pure.

Why, we'd be sitting in front of the fireplace... when we'd hear the sound of Nakba day carollers singing their melodies of hate and lies. There was "Terrorists are Coming to Town," "Jihad Bells," and everyone's favorite, "I saw Mommy killing Santa Claus."

Then we'd have our Nakba Day feast before we'd hurry off to sleep, all snug in our beds, with visions of suicide bombers dancing in our heads.

Now, of course, Nakba Day has become too commercial. But I remember...

 

[Hyrcanus]

The Jews have their Shoah. The Palestinians have their Nakba.

Both events were tragic and the pain remains today.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The Jews have their Shoah.

6 million Jews murdered.

The Palestinians have their Nakba.

Arabs try to prevent the formation of the Jewish State and get their asses kicked.

Both events were tragic and the pain remains today.

Yeah... the're exactly the same thing.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.

stole their bank accounts?

got any evidence for this?

 

[toastman]

The number of Arab villages destroyed by Israel during and after the 1948 war is astounding.

Even after the war concluded, Israel forced out tens of thousands of more Palestinians.

The Nakba must never be forgotten, just as the Shoah.

What you are referring to is called military advancement. Again, the Arab states are the ones who invaded tiny little Israel with the goal of 'driving the Jews to the Sea', not the other way around. This is an important documented fact that you never point out.
Had the Jews remained in the land that they claimed as The Land as Israel without advancing and gaining more territory, I have no doubt that another Holocaust would have taken place.

 

[Auteur]

Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 (and then only tentatively). On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.

The people we called today Palestinian, were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and not of the own sovereignty. Under the Treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was relinquished to the Allied Powers; which placed it in Trust under the Mandate for the purposes agreed upon in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), and The San Remo Agreement (1920).

The purpose of the land changed under new management.

The 1948-1949 War was based on the false premise that the Palestinian has some sovereign right over the control of the territory. [This should not to be confused with property rights (of the Arab) which were protected.] The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition lost their bid for control of the newly declared State of Israel after they openly attacked in concert.

Like you, the HoAP and AL believed that they had some superior right over and above the conditions set by the International Community and the Allied Powers in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947). The HoAP and AL chose to invade.

Yes, the Israelis were on the defense and the HoAP/AL were the offensive aggressors challenging the decisions made under Treaty and Law.

It is plain and simple. The HoAP/AL, not getting what they wanted, like little children, went to war. And, decades later, after several schoolyard fights, unable to achieve their desired goals thought armed conflict, only now want to invoke some international law.

Go back to the original intent.


Most Respectfully,
R

Lack of sovereignty at a particular point in time is not evidence of no desire to have such. In 1948, this was a fact in large parts of the world, including most of Africa, large parts of Asia, the various Soviet "republics", and elsewhere. The essential point was that a community existed in Palestine, had for generations, and the inhabitants considered it home. The fact that they were out-gunned by the Ottomans, and later the British, and later still the Jews, does not mean they don't count. Under this logic, Americans should have never been awarded independence, because they were not a sovereign entity, merely British people acting out a political frustration.

The Balfour Declaration was simply a rather desperate attempt of the British, then at a crisis point in WW1, to enlist the support of anyone and everyone that might be of the slightest value to them. They made similar promises to the Arabs.

As for who were being defensive, and who were being children, the truth is a little more mixed. Violence reached a high point in 1948, as Jewish settlers realized they were going to need more land to make a viable state. The UN plan would have made for almost indefensible borders, and so in the turmoil, an opportuntiy presented itself: chuck out as many Arabs as possible, and have some "facts on the ground" at independence. And they did, a fact no longer in dispute by even leading Israeli academics.

The Arab intervention was a reaction to the violence and murder going on, as much as it was to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no surprise here; it would have been the same in any part of the world. The US and Nato did essentially the same thing in the Balkans a few years back. Neither side there were saints, but the human toll was just too much. What the Arab states wanted was order, and end to the conflict, and a fair settlement between Palestinian and Jew. Not that childish when you think about it.

 

[Hyrcanus]

What you are referring to is called military advancement....

Hitler and Milosevic said the same thing.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, of course.

You keep asserting that the "Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country;" as if there was some established Palestinian Sovereignty.

What a racist, colonialist attitude. To think that foreigners have the right to Palestine and the native Palestinians do not.

All you have is the foreigners did this, and the foreigners said that, and the foreigners agreed to...blah, blah, blah...

And to think that external interference was illegal.

(COMMENT)

What "external interference?" The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman (non-foreigner) to the Allied Powers.

Remember, had the not been an Arab Uprising, "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," were protected by both the agreement with the HRH King Faisal (specifically with the Jews) and the San Remo Convention (among the International Community members with the concurrence of the Allied Powers).

Also remember, the protection against the unnecessary "external interference" was a concept written by the same body you call the "foreigners" and "external interference." Oddly enough, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition turned-out to be the "external interference" that opened the 1948 War, the '67 War and the sneak attack of 1973.

The Arab wanted what they could not have. If one looks at the Map, you'll see the Arab got from mandates, protectorates, and trusteeships: Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. What they didn't get was Israel, the little sliver on the Mediterranean.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 (and then only tentatively). On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.

The people we called today Palestinian, were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and not of the own sovereignty. Under the Treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was relinquished to the Allied Powers; which placed it in Trust under the Mandate for the purposes agreed upon in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), and The San Remo Agreement (1920).

The purpose of the land changed under new management.

The 1948-1949 War was based on the false premise that the Palestinian has some sovereign right over the control of the territory. [This should not to be confused with property rights (of the Arab) which were protected.] The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition lost their bid for control of the newly declared State of Israel after they openly attacked in concert.

Like you, the HoAP and AL believed that they had some superior right over and above the conditions set by the International Community and the Allied Powers in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947). The HoAP and AL chose to invade.

Yes, the Israelis were on the defense and the HoAP/AL were the offensive aggressors challenging the decisions made under Treaty and Law.

It is plain and simple. The HoAP/AL, not getting what they wanted, like little children, went to war. And, decades later, after several schoolyard fights, unable to achieve their desired goals thought armed conflict, only now want to invoke some international law.

Go back to the original intent.


Most Respectfully,
R

Lack of sovereignty at a particular point in time is not evidence of no desire to have such. In 1948, this was a fact in large parts of the world, including most of Africa, large parts of Asia, the various Soviet "republics", and elsewhere. The essential point was that a community existed in Palestine, had for generations, and the inhabitants considered it home. The fact that they were out-gunned by the Ottomans, and later the British, and later still the Jews, does not mean they don't count. Under this logic, Americans should have never been awarded independence, because they were not a sovereign entity, merely British people acting out a political frustration.

The Balfour Declaration was simply a rather desperate attempt of the British, then at a crisis point in WW1, to enlist the support of anyone and everyone that might be of the slightest value to them. They made similar promises to the Arabs.

As for who were being defensive, and who were being children, the truth is a little more mixed. Violence reached a high point in 1948, as Jewish settlers realized they were going to need more land to make a viable state. The UN plan would have made for almost indefensible borders, and so in the turmoil, an opportuntiy presented itself: chuck out as many Arabs as possible, and have some "facts on the ground" at independence. And they did, a fact no longer in dispute by even leading Israeli academics.

The Arab intervention was a reaction to the violence and murder going on, as much as it was to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no surprise here; it would have been the same in any part of the world. The US and Nato did essentially the same thing in the Balkans a few years back. Neither side there were saints, but the human toll was just too much. What the Arab states wanted was order, and end to the conflict, and a fair settlement between Palestinian and Jew. Not that childish when you think about it.

The bold sentence is false. Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel with the threat of annihilation (a highly documented fact). What the Jews realized was that they needed to gain more territory to defend themselves. This is referred to as military advancement

 

[Hyrcanus]

The bold sentence is false. Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel with the threat of annihilation (a highly documented fact). What the Jews realized was that they needed to gain more territory to defend themselves. This is referred to as military advancement

you also stated that ethnic cleansing is part of "military advancement".

 

[toastman]

Which you like me to bring up the Arab atrocities as well ?
Ethic cleansing is just part of the Arab propaganda campaign.
It was the ARABS who threatened to cleanse the Jews, but what they didn't realize was that the Jews weren't just going to stand still and take it.

 

[toastman]

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Read all those quotes , which are documented.

Here's my personal favorite:
"“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”"

So tell me, who attempted to do the 'cleansing' ?

 

[Hyrcanus]

Which you like me to bring up the Arab atrocities as well...

you're more than welcome to.

next we can talk about all the Arab villages destroyed in Israel after 1948.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Arab logic:

We're going to try to destroy you all and take all of your land.

And if you fail?

Then we'll demand everything that everything we lost in the process be returned to us.