Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

HAMAS visit Russia!

Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's OrganistPosts: 13,327
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4769112.stm

God you people are slow at this stuff. Fine, I'll post it :p

Thoughts? I think it's a good idea - refusing to meet or deal with them, like US, UN, and Israel is, (All the same anyway, those three) will only make matters worse and furthur alienate the people of Palestine. Those lots told them for ages to have a fair election, they do - so those hipocrites turn around and say "No, you voted for someone we don't like! Boo hoo, we won't play anymore!". I hope Russia can suceed in helping resolve this issue, unlike the twats we are relying on in the West.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, they already have a big fuck off wall, why not go the whole hog?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    klintock wrote:
    Well, they already have a big fuck off wall, why not go the whole hog?

    The Israeli's seem to have trouble with the boundries of their "country"... they don't know where it is, and they went and built the wall through Palestine mostly! Do'h!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    The Israeli's seem to have trouble with the boundries of their "country"... they don't know where it is, and they went and built the wall through Palestine mostly! Do'h!
    I'm sure that was completely unintentional and that any partition of Palestinian towns in two and appropriation of yet more Palestinian was accidental ;)

    Back to Hamas, yes of course the solution is to negotiate. I've lost the count of the number of times Hamas has now said it'd be prepared to reach a permaenent peace agreement with Israel if the Israelis are prepared to do the right thing and return to 1967 borders.

    No surprise the Israelies don't want to negotiate... :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That picture in the newslink looks like a George Clooney in Syriana! lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Roadmap to Peace plan required Israeli withdrawals from the Disputed Territories and the Palestinians in turn to disarm terrorist groups. Israel has started the process of withdrawal, moving out of Gaza and clearly stating its intent to make further concessions in the West Bank. The Palestinians meanwhile have made absolutely no moves towards disarming their armed terrorist groups – indeed instead of disarming one of the most violent terrorist groups the Palestinian people have elected it into power.

    What happens next depends upon the elections, Kadima will presumably win but it'll largely depend on the shape of their coalition.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Roadmap to Peace plan required Israeli withdrawals from the Disputed Territories
    Occupied Territories..
    and the Palestinians in turn to disarm terrorist groups. Israel has started the process of withdrawal, moving out of Gaza and clearly stating its intent to make further concessions in the West Bank.
    CORRECTION: Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and a couple of microscopic, insignificant outposts in the West Bank, and that's it. On the other hand they have approved the building of hundreds of new houses in several extensions of the illegal settlements that are dotted across Palestinian land like an ever-growing malignant tumour.

    So in fact they have stolen far more land than they have returned!

    Some commitment to peace!
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Aladdin wrote:
    Occupied Territories..

    CORRECTION: Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and a couple of microscopic, insignificant outposts in the West Bank, and that's it. On the other hand they have approved the building of hundreds of new houses in several extensions of the illegal settlements that are dotted across Palestinian land like an ever-growing malignant tumour.

    So in fact they have stolen far more land than they have returned!

    Some commitment to peace!

    Thankyou, I think I might save a link to this to link to those who keep on claiming Israel is making moves towards peace.

    Of course negotiation is the answer... but, it makes me think... the west must REALLY want the Middle East to be unstable. Our hipocracy has been shown, our true intentions outed... and look! The Media IGNORES it... showing they are but control. We refuse to negotiate and make progress, in every way, proving the terrorists right on this subject matter.

    Damn, its shocking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nice to know the Israelis are nothing better then a Disease...and how do you deal with diseases, specifically a Tumor? You cut them out and kill them off. Nice colution for a lot of people no doubt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who has said the Israelis are a disease? Please do not twist my words eh?

    I've said that illegal settlements are like a tumour: an unwelcome, foreign development growing everywhere and poisoning the region.. And they are. And more to the point, many Israelis themselves agree.

    Only the most twisted and nasty fanatic could possibly defend the existence of such outposts. The settlements are the single biggest obstacle to peace in the region; a cynical plan to steal yet more land from the Palestinians by annexing large chunks of Palestinian land to Israel forever.

    Of course, that they are mainly populated by the most unpleasant kind of ultra-zionists and fundamentalists (the kind who actually believe the totality of Palestine belongs to the Jewish race as per God's command) doesn't help either. In a way I'm not surprised some Israelis are not interested in dismantling them. Few would want their inhabitants as their neighbours.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wow wow wow! calm down, take a breath. i wasn't twisting your words, it just sounded like you meant all of Israel not the settlements, but now you have cleared that up.

    Back to the topic of Hamas visiting Russia, i think it is great, i think everyone should be negotiating with them and indeed ALL terrorists. Especially those commanding suicide bombers sending them off believing they are going to go to paradise heaven, i say we need to make some counter offers to them...

    "What's Allah offering you? A hundred Virgins? We'll give you fifty Slags! Or two women from Dundee!" (BBC2 Mock of the Week)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Of course, that they are mainly populated by the most unpleasant kind of ultra-zionists and fundamentalists (the kind who actually believe the totality of Palestine belongs to the Jewish race as per God's command) doesn't help either. In a way I'm not surprised some Israelis are not interested in dismantling them. Few would want their inhabitants as their neighbours.

    You’ll actually find that many Jewish settlers in the Disputed Territories are new immigrants and live there because it’s cheap.

    There are over 1.2m Arabs in Israel, they enjoy the same rights legally as Israelis and for most Israelis it’s not a problem. Meanwhile just over 200,000 Jews live in the West Bank and it's a massive problem for Israel’s critics. Israeli settlements only even make up just under 2% of the West Bank. I accept, in future peace negotiations there will have to be some compromise on settlements but their importance is frankly exaggerated.

    Tbh the more I think about it the more sure I am that Israel should not make any concessions on the West Bank until the Palestinians make real moves towards peace. With Gaza in anarchy following the Israeli withdrawal, increasing rocket attacks, Hamas getting elected and no Palestinian moves towards the disarming of terrorist groups now isn’t the time to talk about withdrawing from the West Bank. Indeed I hope Netanyahu performs well in the coming elections.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    You’ll actually find that many Jewish settlers in the Disputed Territories are new immigrants and live there because it’s cheap.

    There are over 1.2m Arabs in Israel, they enjoy the same rights legally as Israelis and for most Israelis it’s not a problem. Meanwhile just over 200,000 Jews live in the West Bank and it's a massive problem for Israel’s critics. Israeli settlements only even make up just under 2% of the West Bank. I accept, in future peace negotiations there will have to be some compromise on settlements but their importance is frankly exaggerated.

    So if Spain invaded and settled 2% of Britain, you'd have little issue, because lots of Brits live in Spain with no problems? There is no exageration, its is ILLEGALY occupied and settled Territory, just like Northern Cyprus.

    The world choses to ignore both, it seems. Action should be taken in both cases, and should have been taken LONG ago.
    Tbh the more I think about it the more sure I am that Israel should not make any concessions on the West Bank until the Palestinians make real moves towards peace. With Gaza in anarchy following the Israeli withdrawal, increasing rocket attacks, Hamas getting elected and no Palestinian moves towards the disarming of terrorist groups now isn’t the time to talk about withdrawing from the West Bank. Indeed I hope Netanyahu performs well in the coming elections.

    There have been PLENTY of opportunities for peace. Most of them broken, by the Israelis. This is a fact. End. This has been pointed out many times.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Notwithstanding the fact that Arabs DO NOT enjoy the same legal status as their Ashkenazi Jewish immigrant counterparts and never will so long as the Zionist ideology holds sway.

    Dis's own blind and unyielding adherence to that ideology continues to demonstrate itself in his disregard for easily verifiable two-class citizenship as well as the proclamations of intent by successive Israeli icons from well before the founding of the state to the present.

    "Disputed territories" being but one example of the intractible double standard he holds when it comes to condemning Israel for the very same anti-democratic (outright fascist) practices - which are central to its militant ideology and history of terrorism and human rights abuses - he claims to abhor when practiced anywhere or by anyone else. Always the ready excuse of self defence for Israel, but never for the much more brutalised Palestinians.
    Hamas getting elected

    The new rally cry for the anti-democratic pro-Israeli shills. They didn't vote in people we could corrupt and manipulate to maintain the decades long status quo - people who would not dare fight back against the ongoing and well planned incremental conscription of increasingly more viable land (and water rights) ever at the heart of Israeli policy - therefore we wont recognise nor respect their sovereign will, even though they are demanded to recognise Israel's right to elect hardline butchers and terrorists as heads of state themselves.

    Yitzhak Rabin (Haganah)
    Manechem Begin (Irgun)
    Yitzhak Shamir (Irgun)
    Shimon Peres (Haganah)
    Ariel Sharon (Haganah)

    All with direct involvement in terrorist organisations responsible for acts of violence against unarmed civilians, but Dis hasn't the intellectual honesty to apply consistency of principle and the requisite condemnation for the extremist ideology in which these organisations (only to evolve into the Labor and Likhud Parties we know today) were and remain rooted.

    Its always the victims' fault in his warped worldview. No surprise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    Wow wow wow! calm down, take a breath. i wasn't twisting your words, it just sounded like you meant all of Israel not the settlements, but now you have cleared that up.

    Back to the topic of Hamas visiting Russia, i think it is great, i think everyone should be negotiating with them and indeed ALL terrorists. Especially those commanding suicide bombers sending them off believing they are going to go to paradise heaven, i say we need to make some counter offers to them...

    "What's Allah offering you? A hundred Virgins? We'll give you fifty Slags! Or two women from Dundee!" (BBC2 Mock of the Week)

    Hamas is not just a terror group, it has political, religious, social care and communications divisions, to mention but some. Thats like saying Irish Republicans are all terrorists. Some people join Hamas because of the work they do feeding the poor and homeless in the territories. Some join it to blow up Israelis. Some do it because they want to see a unified Palestine and feel a strong religious (rather than nationalistic) commitment.

    The more Hamas are pulled into political issues, the more untenable the militia arm will become. They will be forced to give them up sooner or later, because political pressure will translate into lost votes, which wont please the political wing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cain...i simply cannot believe you missed the whole point of my post which was merely to make a comical remark. It is right there on the screen, there is no need to be sserious.

    But as you mentioned it, Hamas did start out as a Terrorist organisation based on the use of violence they have just evolved since then into a political group. It is not even remotely the same as calling all Irish Republicans terrorists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    There have been PLENTY of opportunities for peace. Most of them broken, by the Israelis. This is a fact. End.

    Uhuh, well how about backing up that statement with some facts? Yes, there have been plenty of opportunities for peace. In 1937, the Royal Peel Commission offered a two state solution; a larger Arab state and a smaller Jewish state. The Yishuv gratefully accepted, the Arabs refused. In 1947 again, the UN Partition Plan endorsed a two state solution; the Yishuv again accepted – the Palestinians with the surrounding Arab states decided to wage war rather than tolerate two states. There’s been many other opportunities for peace since, in some cases succeeding as the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan display but I’m not going to go into detail and rehash a history of Israeli-Arab/Palestinian relations to compensate for your ignorance, you should be capable of doing some research yourself.

    Tbh it’s pointless discussing this with you at the moment. It’s clear from everything you’ve ever said on this subject that you’ve read little (if anything) and all you really ever do is make big blanket statements and never support them with evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It’s rather amusing that people who usually position themselves on the left of the political spectrum supposedly supporting equal rights for gays, women and minority religions can then play down the truly disturbing elements of Hamas. Hamas is an Islamofascist organisation.

    Hamas’ attitudes towards women aren’t dissimilar to the Taliban. Hamas advocates executing homosexuals. Hamas has incited violence against Palestinian Christians. Funny but I thought the left supported minority rights...I wonder why Socialist-affiliated Palestinian ‘solidarity’ organisations are defending Hamas then.

    The covenant of Hamas clearly rejects any two state solution advocating the complete and total destruction of the Jewish state. While comparisons between Hamas and the IRA are interesting lets make one pretty easy distinction between IRA terrorists and Hamas terrorists – the latter follow a completely fanatical religious ideology that is completely alien to any rational person. Hamas suicide bombers think they’re getting 72 virgins... :rolleyes: Now sure the IRA was/is full of some pretty crazy people but the religious fundies in Hamas are in a different league.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't worry too much about Dis's warped and selective idea of historical fact Gerb. Any facts repeatedly presented, even the documented acknowledgements of Balfour himself as to the known betrayal of the nationalist aspirations of those to the whom (i.e. the indigenous Palestinian Arabs) the western powers had pledged support for nationhood in exchange for their aid against the Ottamn's in WWI are subsequently ignored by him. That which might cause him to re examine the militant, human rights abusing foundations of his precious extremist ideology are facts he hasn't the intellectual honesty to confront.

    Regardless of what you provide he will in further threads merely return to the same arguments and soundbites discredited previously. It's basically the mantra of a zealot, and as you see above, there can be no discussion when facts get in the way of his delusionally seamless creed. Every bit, in fact, the very mindset he condemns Hamas (or any other extremist ideological group) for having.

    He certainly wouldn't dare acknowledge the Stern Gang's offers to ally with Nazi Germany against the British Mandate authorities in exchange for Nazi promises to help them secure Palestine. How embarrassing for the mythical history of perpetual victimhood that such a group was involved in the founding of the state. Interesting that some its units managed to incorporate into the IDF (rather than the political evolutions of the Haganah and Irgun).

    Certainly does explain the gleeful barbarism of the IDF against Palestinian women and children that has been standard practice, however underreported, for generations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are over 1.2m Arabs in Israel, they enjoy the same rights legally as Israelis and for most Israelis it’s not a problem. Meanwhile just over 200,000 Jews live in the West Bank and it's a massive problem for Israel’s critics.
    That could be because settlers are living there illegally after having stolen the land.

    Just a thought.
    Israeli settlements only even make up just under 2% of the West Bank. I accept, in future peace negotiations there will have to be some compromise on settlements but their importance is frankly exaggerated.
    First off, the area the settlements sit on, added to surrounding "security" perimeters and roads linking them to Israel amount to rather more than 2%. Moreover, they fragment Palestine even more into a series of isolated ghettoes that can never form a meaningful State.

    And if the settlements are not of much importance, why don't the Israelies piss off to Israel then? Nothing significant to leave behind, is there?
    Tbh the more I think about it the more sure I am that Israel should not make any concessions on the West Bank until the Palestinians make real moves towards peace. With Gaza in anarchy following the Israeli withdrawal, increasing rocket attacks, Hamas getting elected and no Palestinian moves towards the disarming of terrorist groups now isn’t the time to talk about withdrawing from the West Bank. Indeed I hope Netanyahu performs well in the coming elections.
    Yes, you would because deep down you seem to wish to keep as much stolen land as you can get away with. That you aren't even capable of admitting the land is stolen (by your comical insistence in calling Palestine the 'Disputed' Territories when even the most pro-Israeli zionist cheerleaders call them by their real name) goes to show that.

    And for all your wishes for peace in the region, clearly you would rather things stayed as they, or even got worse as they will if the ultra-right wing scumbag Netayahu gets in, if it means the stolen land remains in Israeli hands.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Don't worry too much about Dis's warped and selective idea of historical fact Gerb.

    I am not, myself and the rest of the board have had discussions with people like him before, and present facts and dates and incidents (I think Dis has already been linked to these) which have been ignored. If he choses to ignore the facts, it is his fault.

    I am against Terrorism. Which is why, whilst the Palestinians are FAR from innocent, the Israeli's are far worse, which is why they piss me off. They have never wanted peace - if they did, perhaps they wouldn't keep breaking peace agreements and maybe give back stolen land!

    HAMAS, thanks Cain, is more than "Terrorists" - they have done more for the Palestinian poor and the refugees than anyone. No-one can deny the good they do, which far outwieghs the militant section. And I am glad for palestine - perhaps having a government with balls will do them some good!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was with Diss, right up to the points when he was saying HAMAS are Islamic-Fascists, that kind of lost me.

    Even though i am to the Right, rather then the Left of the political Spectrum, i do have to find myself comletely in the middle of this argument and not to either side of it.

    Diss, has his arguments and shows great knowledge of history and facts, But then again, so does Clandestine on this issue as does Aladdin too.
    I guess, the thing that botheres me is the complete lack of anyone (Except Aladdin who has totally shown a willingness to do so) to actually argue their position forward. Mostly it is Diss stating his beliefs then Cland and Gerbil just saying he is wrong and ignorant, but not showing why, or showing a counter argument. You are all (again with the exception of Aladdin) as bad as each other for ignorance and failing to back up your arguments. Stop claiming the arguments are old and been done already then refuse to make an argument on that ground. This is a new thread, so its all new an fair game.

    Try debating.

    Me, im in the middle on this until someone actually argues...except Aladdin who has done so successfully! Yep, im leaning Aladdin's way for now...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    I was with Diss, right up to the points when he was saying HAMAS are Islamic-Fascists, that kind of lost me.

    Even though i am to the Right, rather then the Left of the political Spectrum, i do have to find myself comletely in the middle of this argument and not to either side of it.

    Diss, has his arguments and shows great knowledge of history and facts, But then again, so does Clandestine on this issue as does Aladdin too.
    I guess, the thing that botheres me is the complete lack of anyone (Except Aladdin who has totally shown a willingness to do so) to actually argue their position forward. Mostly it is Diss stating his beliefs then Cland and Gerbil just saying he is wrong and ignorant, but not showing why, or showing a counter argument. You are all (again with the exception of Aladdin) as bad as each other for ignorance and failing to back up your arguments. Stop claiming the arguments are old and been done already then refuse to make an argument on that ground. This is a new thread, so its all new an fair game.

    Try debating.

    Me, im in the middle on this until someone actually argues...except Aladdin who has done so successfully! Yep, im leaning Aladdin's way for now...
    :eek: :blush:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You have perhaps then missed my repeated efforts to posit the only viable and socially just way forward for this whole neverending conflict, subject.

    A two state solution leaving Israel firmly in the hands of unceasingly grasping Zionist ideologues - whose very ideology is rooted in the same notions of group exceptionalistic superiority that gave rise to other monstrous state systems within living memory - will never be viable. It will never be viable for the following reasons:

    1. Neither the prevailing insitutionalised Zionist mentality in Israel nor in Washington would allow for a contiguous state with its own necessary sovereign claim to scarce water resources in the region.

    2. Neither Israel nor Washington would dare permit a parallel sovereign state to construct and maintain its own institutionalised defence capabilities. The disposition of such status quo state capability would prevent Israeli PR-gurus from further characterising any and all reprisals for the near daily, unreported, brutalities by the IDF, as "terrorism" to justify the actual expansionistic "greater israel" vision, so central to the Zionist agenda.

    3. A state of peace with its neighbours would ultimately undermine all justifications for the generations long extortion of billions of US taxpayer dollars annually, to prop up an otherwise stagnant Israeli economy. The perpetual victimhood ethos allows US policymakers the ready excuse for such obscene outlays - regularly made without any requisite demands upon Israel to account for its actions - when questioned by those who do make the effort to remain vigilant on these matters.

    No, I submit to you that the rhetoric employed by Washington and Israel is heavily laden with alterior meanings, ie. double speak, and actually seeks acceptance from Palestinians and their leaders for an institutionalised subjugation not self-determination. Another reason why, despite verifiable wails of corruption against Fatah for years, we now see that Fatah was illegally funded by Washington to the tune of nearly 2 billion dollars in the last election to try to buy them back into power.

    Only a complete rejection of the governing Zionist ideology by Israelis, an acknowledgement of the generations of intentioned ethnocidal brutality, dispossession and dehumanisation by the Israeli state and its successive leaders (former leaders of terrorist organisations themselves), an embrace of TRUE pluralistic democratic principles and equal rights for all peoples Jew and non-Jew alike will allow for lasting conciliation between the oppressors and the oppressed and herald a creative shared future for all involved.

    I said as much repeatedly, though unsurprisingly to the chorus of expected reactionistic attacks by our resident ideologues who simultaneously claim to believe in principles of democracy. Apparently they are ready to abandon all consistency of principle where this oddly exceptionalistic state entity is concerned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That is all you had to say Clandestine, now on this specific thread your position is established, i like it.

    The problem though is that there is an inherent built in flaw to the concept of a two-state, equal sovereignty nation. The basis of of the creation of a Jewish state that is Israel comes from the Zionist doctrine of 1897 where the idea was first formed and put into print. It is the definition of the Jewish people been unable co-habit with Gentiles.

    Therefore, based on its own principles of its creation it can never accept a sub-state with in its boarders.

    Israelis have dislike of the Arabs who did nothing with a nation but left it a desert.
    Palestinians have dislike of the Jews who came to the land and built cities and Irrigation and life.

    It is a 100 year old conflict, pre-dating the existence of the State itself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is the definition of the Jewish people been unable co-habit with Gentiles.

    No this is the is the ideologically extremist notion posited and reinforced at great expense and effort for generations by the Zionist movement. It is as much a betrayal of the religion upon which it plies its manipulative fairytales as it is of all noramtive principles of pluralistic democratic principle.
    who did nothing with a nation but left it a desert

    This is a revisionist myth perpetuated by the Zionist PR machinery and inculcated into tthe generally accepted status quo text book understanding of Pre-state conditions.

    In reality, a substantial indigenous population had worked the land for centuries and had supported themselves quite well.

    As for cities, this is a modern after the fact argument which sidesteps the nature and origins of the conflict itself. If the WWI powers had honoured their vows of support for the indigenous nationalist aspirations of the Arab populations, they too would have modern cities and infrasturcture today. That they have had nothing but consistent disenfranchisement, dispossession and brutality as their lot at the hands of both Israel and its Washington counterparts, is precisely why they continue to live in bantustan conditions today.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought the British Government in 1917 announced the Leader of the Jewish people...or possibly the head of the Zionist movement, i forget which, that the British Government supported the formation of a Jewish State on the land where Israel now stands? Were they promising support to both sides?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I repost the citation I provided previously in another thread for your benefit...
    Excerpted from the concise topical compilation published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East (a good primer for fledgling historical researchers - sectional links at bottom of first page)...

    The British Mandate Period
    1920-1948


    The Balfour Declaration promises a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

    "The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], 'The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,'" Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

    Wasn't Palestine a wasteland before the Jews started immigrating there?

    "Britain's high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said 'all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators'...The Colonial Office rejected the recommendation." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

    Were the early Zionists planning on living side by side with Arabs?

    In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, "The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...

    "If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine - nearly nine-tenths of the whole - are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered." Quoted in "The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.

    Side by side - continued

    "Zionist land policy was incorporated in the Constitution of the Jewish Agency for Palestine...'land is to be acquired as Jewish property and..the title to the lands acquired is to be taken in the name of the Jewish National Fund, to the end that the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.' The provision goes to stipulate that 'the Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labor'...The effect of this Zionist colonization policy on the Arabs was that land acquired by Jews became extra-territorialized. It ceased to be land from which the Arabs could ever hope to gain any advantage...

    "The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, 'there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.' He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

    Given Arab opposition to them, did the Zionists support steps towards majority rule in Palestine?

    "Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country... [Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine... [Churchill declared,] 'The present form of government will continue for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self-government, but our children's children will have passed away before that is accomplished.'" David Hirst, "The Gun and the Olive Branch."

    Denial of the Arabs' right to self-determination

    "Even if nobody lost their land, the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights... Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise." Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

    Arab resistance to Pre-Israeli Zionism

    "In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that 'in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,' but he urged, 'let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.' The truth was that 'politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside'... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

    Gandhi on the Palestine conflict - 1938

    "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.

    Didn't the Zionists legally buy much of the land before Israel was established?

    "In 1948, at the moment that Israel declared itself a state, it legally owned a little more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine...After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

    Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced 'absentee landlords' in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances)." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

    http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

    I will gladly supply further detailed analyses if you wish, but better if you follow up and research the topical citations contained in the above for yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good one G! :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good one G! :thumb:

    see, i knew there was a conspiracy around somewhere
Sign In or Register to comment.