Can Someone Explain How Israel Was Created?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

As for where is Israel and where are the borders? The borders should be the current walled off Gaza Strip, and the West Bank inside the secuirity barrier, those are secure borders which prevent suicide attacks on Israel.


I would agree that a wall is a good idea, but I do not agree on where the wall is.

Israel is not building a wall around itself.

Israel is building a wall around the Palestinians.



That is not an equitable solution.

And we all know the center of it is Al Aqsa.

Israel wants it, but its not for sale, and stealing it means Final Jihad.

Technically under international law the Jerusalem district is under UN administration until final settlement is reached by both parties, but currently under Israeli occupation.

Palestine was not split into two, or even three parts.

It was four, Trans-Jordan, Israel, Palestine, and the Jerusalem District.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by ArchAngel]


This is true but who is going to control and occupy the Jerusalem district? The UN? Who? I doubt the UN would put its troops into such a volatile position. Plus, West Jerusalem is now a large prosporous Israeli city of over 400,000. You cant cut off such a population center from Israel.

I would support any resolution of the conflict that gives Israel secure borders, but I just dont see how the 1967 borders will work. Furthermore, under no circumstances should Israel give Syria the Golan.

I also dont see how Gaza and the West Bank can be conected at the current time.




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

This is true but who is going to control and occupy the Jerusalem district? The UN? Who? I doubt the UN would put its troops into such a volatile position. Plus, West Jerusalem is now a large prosporous Israeli city of over 400,000. You cant cut off such a population center from Israel.


I was not supposing that Israelis not be able to live in Jerusalem.

Introduction of international forces is part of the Grand Intent.

What I really believe is that the lines in the sand the British began to draw after they conquered the Ottomans were designed to create a conflict that would require international intervention.

BTW: A not-so-distant cousin of mine was Governor General of the Jaffa District[including Jerusalem] British Occupied Palestine from 1929 to 1946, Edward Keith-Roach.

His memoirs are a very interesting read if you believe the Brits had nothing less than Grand Conspiracy in mind when the lines were drawn.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I have time to get to one more...


It was practically empty, either swamp or desert before 1890.


www.mideastweb.org...

Before modern irrigation was introduced the area could hardly support more people than were already there, and the Jews were a small minority before the British occupation.

It one of the Arm Pits of Asia with North Korea being the other.

The land has been continuously inhabited since long before Israel was first born, and it belonged to the Muslims more than 1300 years before it was taken from them against their will.

All because Rothschilds asked, or was there more to it?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Oh, I totally agree with you w/r to the British. Practically every regional conflict today is at least in part the responsibility of the Brits. Im not sure it was intended this way but the decline of colonialism, brought about a power vacuum throughout the current third world. The way the countries were divided with no regard to ethnic, religious, and cultural tradition has brought many disasters.

On the other hand what can you do? Those in power will always try to preserve it, no matter what the cost, or how small the chances. The current world map was given to us by a declining Europe, as a last gasp to create conflict and delay the growth of certain nations. This strategy worked to a certain extent, but Europe changed and continued to decline, and was in no position to take advantage of it.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathstar1000
Oh, I totally agree with you w/r to the British. Practically every regional conflict today is at least in part the responsibility of the Brits. Im not sure it was intended this way but the decline of colonialism, brought about a power vacuum throughout the current third world. The way the countries were divided with no regard to ethnic, religious, and cultural tradition has brought many disasters.

On the other hand what can you do? Those in power will always try to preserve it, no matter what the cost, or how small the chances. The current world map was given to us by a declining Europe, as a last gasp to create conflict and delay the growth of certain nations. This strategy worked to a certain extent, but Europe changed and continued to decline, and was in no position to take advantage of it.


The coastline from Hiafa to Ashdod including Tel-Aviv was empty. Except for a few small settlements at Jaffa and other small fishing towns. The area were currently resides the majority of Israel's population contained no more then a few thousand people. The pre-zionist Arab population centers were in Gaza, the current West Bank, and the galalie. In 1851 for instance as reported by Karl Marx(yes, the Karl Marx) there were 8000 jews in jerusalem, 4000 muslims, and 3500 armenians/greek orthodox christians. This article can be found by typing Karl Marx Jerusalem in google, it is on the TheMarxist.com. It was written for a New York newspaper during the Crimean War. Jews had never left the city of Jerusalem. During the first crusade there were more Jews slaughtered in the city then Muslims. The argument that Jews stole land from palestinians is silly. The turks controlled Palestine, and much of the coastal swampland was sold to Jews in the 1900's. Rothchild had very little to do with the founding of Zionism, the main driving force was an Austrian journalist, Theodore Hertzl.

A two state solution with the international city in Jerusalem was accepted by the Haganah and Ben Gurion. The mufti of Jerusalem, who had spent the last years of WWII with Hitler, and the Arab states wanted all of Palestine. At this time 33% of the population was made up of jews. More importantly Jews made up over 75% of the areas given them in the partition.

I simply dont see the argument that Israel stole land from Muslims. The coastal plane was again for the most part empty, the nagev was for the most part empty, these two areas made up 80+% of the original UN borders.

How was it Israels fault that these borders did not end up that way?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

It's not a sneak attack when you hit somebody who is getting ready to hit you.

Its a sneak attack when you attack without first saying "Hey guys, we're attacking you now."


Nonsense. A sneak attack is one that comes out of nowhere. Unprovoked, unreasonable, completely belligerent by nature.

What you call a "sneak attack" is simply a well carried out attack. It's been perhaps over a century since officers have met in the field and spoken about the battle to come before engaging. Not too many actual wars since WWII have been accompanied by a formal declaration either for that matter.


The Israeli actions leading up to the sneak attack prove their intent to deceive. On TV, and in papers they claimed that Military officers were given time off, and showed some at the beach enjoying themselves.

They bluffed the Arabs into complacancy.


Deception is a legimate tactic of warfare. Just because the enemy doesn't know where and when it's coming doesn't mean the enemy doesn't know it's coming. The Arabs knew it was coming because they were planning to start it. They weren't complacent- they were in the process of mobilization. Lucky for Israel, the Arabs know even less about war than the French, so yes, I'm sure they looked complacent, judging by the results.



Regardless of the many reasons on both sides for the war the RESULTS show that Israel was intent on taking land because that is what they did.


Nonsense. If Israel had been intent on taking land before the fact they would not have waited for the Arabs to just happen to start something. Furthermore, they took very little land compared to the size of their adversaries, and that land was limited to key strategic areas from which the enemy could pose a threat to Israel.
The Golan Heights are an extremely difficult position to assualt: the roads are not straight, the ground is not level, and the area can be very effectively defended. The Golan Heights were the tactical strong point of Syrian lines in any war with Israel. Isreal could have taken more, but they didn't. They took what they had to in order to see to it that Syria could not pose a further threat.
They took the West Bank, a position which allowed Jordanian forces to be spared the trouble of an opposed river-crossing to make war on Israel, and from which Israel could be cut in half in little more than a day by an armored force. They've gone to great lengths to give it back, but the Palestinians still want to fight.
They took the Gaza Strip, which gave Egypt a position North of the Ithsmus from which they could advance into Israel.
They did not take the Sinai, which they certainly would have liked to if this was infact a land grab. They gave the Sinai back in no time flat.




But they are there because their intentions now, back in 1967, and even before have always been aggression.
[edit on 20-10-2005 by ArchAngel]


If Israel's intentions are aggressive, why have they been so quick to accept compromises, which the Arabs invariably refuse? Why the sudden attack of conscience after Lebanon? Yet again I remind you, and if nobody remembers a word I've said, just remember this. "Our basic goal will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

Is it hard being wrong all the time buddy?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The land has been continuously inhabited since long before Israel was first born, and it belonged to the Muslims more than 1300 years before it was taken from them against their will.


And who did they take it from?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Here's another hint:

The (P)alestinians that are currently residing in the West Bank and Gaza are the children of parents who had been originally exiled from JORDAN because they were on the line of some criminal element that JORDAN did not care to be associated with any longer. JORDAN is from where (P)alestinians originally came.

Somewhat similar to Australia in that Australia was a prison colony for the British at one point in history. Difference: Australians were left to their own long enough to realize that getting along meant that going along was required.

If the (P)alestinians were secluded on their own continent or island, they wouldn't have anyone like the Jews to blame for thier decrepit lives. The reason their lives are decrepit in the ways that they are is because they choose to time and again blame the Jews, rather than assuming accountability for their own disfunction.

Much like American (D)emocrats.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The land has been continuously inhabited since long before Israel was first born, and it belonged to the Muslims more than 1300 years before it was taken from them against their will.


Actually, there is only one group of people still in existence which has governed an independent state in what is now Israel in the last 3000 years, and that's the Israelis. Foreign occupiers (Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians) have come and gone in rapid succession, leaving very little influence. The Romans tookover, then the Turks. Through it all, there were still Jews there. They were never entirely expunged, just driven down to a very slim minority. Finally the land was no longer occupied and they came back to claim their birthright, as the only people to run an independent nation approximating those borders since at least the reign of King David. Suddenly their neighbors, who had never ruled that area, but who had been citizens either under Israeli rule or under the rule of foreign occupiers, said "no this is ours". They have no historical claim to it though. They may share a chromosome or two with semetic races other than the Hebrews which had coexisted with Israel, but the cultures to which their ancestors belonged are gone. Israel is the sole heir.

To argue differently is to suggest that if America were occupied by China for several centuries, that in the aftermath the decendents of German Americans, for example, could declare this a German land and deny the descendents of other Americans the right to return home. Such a claim is patently ridiculous though. During times of independence this land has been under but two flags, excepting the flags of republics which have been annexed as states- the Mexican and the American. It was built almost entirely under the American flag. There will never be any doubt, if there should be an American Diaspora, that when we come back, this is OUR LAND. The situation in Israel is exactly the same.

The Palestinians quite simply have no claim, yet the Israelis don't want to fight. They've been quite willing to compromise, to trade land for peace, to make accomodations to people who should have only one right, which is to live under the Israeli flag as equal Israeli citizens. Israel has been far more tollerant than we Americans would be of such an affront to our dignity and our birthright. Yet each time they sue for peace, they are stabbed in the back. The Arab People Want To Fight. They want a genocide.

And what do you have to say about that? You say the Israelis are land grabbers, that the land actually belongs to Muslims, that they should give more land back. Is that your plan Chamberlain? Hope they settle for the Sudetenland?

Don't believe everything you hear chief. Just because it's popular in some circles to draw "Zionism=Racism" on the sidewalks of the college campus, to accuse the Jews of secretly running the world through some kind of ultra-treacherous and unstoppable intelligence master plan, and in general to scapegoat the Jewish people as has been all the rage in Europe for several centuries, does not mean that this is "intellectual". It's intellectually bankrupt- One side has precedent, the other does not. One side has sought peace, the other has repeatedly ganged up against a small nation and attempted genocide simply because they can't stand to be tollerant of another religion. The Arab and Palestinian people are the architects of their own plight. I consider it quite kind of Israel that they have not yet decided to butcher every man woman and child in Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, and salt the Earth before leaving, because that's EXACTLY what I'd want to do to a nation that had tried to exterminate my kind from the Earth.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond There will never be any doubt, if there should be an American Diaspora, that when we come back, this is OUR LAND. The situation in Israel is exactly the same.


Using the same logic half of the worlds population would be able to claim land "they were originally from" and disperse the populations that were illegally living there before the "rightful" inhabitants returned bearing arms. Since most land has changed hands so many times that it's hard to say any ethnic group is the true owners of that land. The whole problem with the Israel/Palistine conflict IMO is many on both sides think they are completely righteous and the other side is completely at fault. With this kind of thinking it will be unlikely that both sides will agree on any settlement regardless of how good a deal one side thinks it is giving another.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by deathstar1000

The coastline from Hiafa to Ashdod including Tel-Aviv was empty. Except for a few small settlements at Jaffa and other small fishing towns. The area were currently resides the majority of Israel's population contained no more then a few thousand people. The pre-zionist Arab population centers were in Gaza, the current West Bank, and the galalie. In 1851 for instance as reported by Karl Marx(yes, the Karl Marx) there were 8000 jews in jerusalem, 4000 muslims, and 3500 armenians/greek orthodox christians. This article can be found by typing Karl Marx Jerusalem in google, it is on the TheMarxist.com. It was written for a New York newspaper during the Crimean War. Jews had never left the city of Jerusalem. During the first crusade there were more Jews slaughtered in the city then Muslims. The argument that Jews stole land from palestinians is silly. The turks controlled Palestine, and much of the coastal swampland was sold to Jews in the 1900's. Rothchild had very little to do with the founding of Zionism, the main driving force was an Austrian journalist, Theodore Hertzl.

A two state solution with the international city in Jerusalem was accepted by the Haganah and Ben Gurion. The mufti of Jerusalem, who had spent the last years of WWII with Hitler, and the Arab states wanted all of Palestine. At this time 33% of the population was made up of jews. More importantly Jews made up over 75% of the areas given them in the partition.

I simply dont see the argument that Israel stole land from Muslims. The coastal plane was again for the most part empty, the nagev was for the most part empty, these two areas made up 80+% of the original UN borders.


I would disagree with some of your numbers on the population, except maybe for Jerusalem. The Jewish population of the proposed Jewish state, at the time of the partition, was 498,000 and the non-Jewish population of that area was 407,000. (go to last quoted text in this thread)


The 1922 British Government's report to the League of Nations had the following population of Palestine:


1922

A census was taken in the month of October. It showed a total population of 757,182, of whom 78 per cent. were Moslems, 11 per cent. Jews and 9·6 per cent. Christians. This was probably the first census ever taken in Palestine on a scientific basis.


A 1932 report has the Jews as the majority in Jerusalem but many other areas have a majority Arab population or are mixed.


1932

The capital of Palestine is Jerusalem, situated in the midst of the
of Judea, and the principal towns are Haifa, with its modern harbour, in the north at the entrance to the plain of Esdraelon; Jaffa, a second port which lies some 40 miles west-north-west of Jerusalem; Tel Aviv, which is contiguous to Jaffa; and Nablus, the ancient Sichem, in the hills of Samaria. Jerusalem has a majority of Jewish inhabitants; in Haifa the people are predominantly Arab, though there is a large Jewish element; Tel Aviv is an entirely Jewish township of 120,000 inhabitants. In Jaffa a large majority of the people are Arabs, and in Nablus, apart from a small community of Samaritans, all the people are Arabs.

Other important towns where the population consists of both Arabs and
Jews are Hebron, 20 miles to the south of Jerusalem; Tiberias, on the
western shore of the Sea of Galilee; and Safad, a remote town
mountainous country in the extreme north of Palestine.


The 1947 UNSCOP report gives a good breakdown on the most populated areas:


1947

The regional distribution of the population of Palestine is of great significance for the Palestine problem. The heaviest concentration is along the whole coastal plain from the Gaza area to Haifa. Galilee, the plain of Esdraelon and the inland area of the Jerusalem sub-district are also fairly thickly populated. The central hill country north of Jerusalem comprising the districts of Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin and Beisan is considerably less thickly peopled, while to the south of the Jerusalem district in Hebron, and especially in Beersheba, the population becomes extremely sparse. In the vast area of the Beersheba sub-district, however, there are about 90,000 Bedouin nomads.

There is no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas. Jews are more than 40 per cent of the total population in the districts of Jaffa (which includes Tel Aviv), Haifa and Jerusalem. In the northern inland areas of Tiberias and Beisan, they are between 25 and 34 per cent of the total population. In the inland northern districts of Safad and Nazareth and the coastal districts of Tulkarm and Ramie, Jews form between 10 and 25 per cent of the total population, while in the central districts and the districts south of Jerusalem they constitute not more than 5 per cent of the total.


These were the populations of the proposed Arab and Jewish states (from the above link):


The Jewish State

498,000 Jews
407,000 Arabs and others
905,000 Total


The Arab State
10,000 Jews
725,000 Arabs and others
735,000 Total


City of Jerusalem

100,000 Jews
105,000 Arabs and others
205,000 Total


[edit on 21-10-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

The (P)alestinians that are currently residing in the West Bank and Gaza are the children of parents who had been originally exiled from JORDAN because they were on the line of some criminal element that JORDAN did not care to be associated with any longer. JORDAN is from where (P)alestinians originally came.


Garbage.
You have not done any real research into this because if you had you would know that the population of Palestine was predominantly Arab up until the partition.
The people in the West Bank and Gaza are descended from the people who inhabited Palestine before the partition.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by deathstar1000

The coastline from Hiafa to Ashdod including Tel-Aviv was empty. Except for a few small settlements at Jaffa and other small fishing towns. The area were currently resides the majority of Israel's population contained no more then a few thousand people. The pre-zionist Arab population centers were in Gaza, the current West Bank, and the galalie. In 1851 for instance as reported by Karl Marx(yes, the Karl Marx) there were 8000 jews in jerusalem, 4000 muslims, and 3500 armenians/greek orthodox christians. This article can be found by typing Karl Marx Jerusalem in google, it is on the TheMarxist.com. It was written for a New York newspaper during the Crimean War. Jews had never left the city of Jerusalem. During the first crusade there were more Jews slaughtered in the city then Muslims. The argument that Jews stole land from palestinians is silly. The turks controlled Palestine, and much of the coastal swampland was sold to Jews in the 1900's. Rothchild had very little to do with the founding of Zionism, the main driving force was an Austrian journalist, Theodore Hertzl.

A two state solution with the international city in Jerusalem was accepted by the Haganah and Ben Gurion. The mufti of Jerusalem, who had spent the last years of WWII with Hitler, and the Arab states wanted all of Palestine. At this time 33% of the population was made up of jews. More importantly Jews made up over 75% of the areas given them in the partition.

I simply dont see the argument that Israel stole land from Muslims. The coastal plane was again for the most part empty, the nagev was for the most part empty, these two areas made up 80+% of the original UN borders.


I would disagree with some of your numbers on the population, except maybe for Jerusalem. The Jewish population of the proposed Jewish state, at the time of the partition, was 498,000 and the non-Jewish population of that area was 407,000. (go to last quoted text in this thread)


The 1922 British Government's report to the League of Nations had the population Palestine:


1922

A census was taken in the month of October. It showed a total population of 757,182, of whom 78 per cent. were Moslems, 11 per cent. Jews and 9·6 per cent. Christians. This was probably the first census ever taken in Palestine on a scientific basis.


A 1932 report has the Jews as the majority in Jerusalem but many other areas have a mojority Arab population or are mixed.


1932

The capital of Palestine is Jerusalem, situated in the midst of the
of Judea, and the principal towns are Haifa, with its modern harbour, in the north at the entrance to the plain of Esdraelon; Jaffa, a second port which lies some 40 miles west-north-west of Jerusalem; Tel Aviv, which is contiguous to Jaffa; and Nablus, the ancient Sichem, in the hills of Samaria. Jerusalem has a majority of Jewish inhabitants; in Haifa the people are predominantly Arab, though there is a large Jewish element; Tel Aviv is an entirely Jewish township of 120,000 inhabitants. In Jaffa a large majority of the people are Arabs, and in Nablus, apart from a small community of Samaritans, all the people are Arabs.

Other important towns where the population consists of both Arabs and
Jews are Hebron, 20 miles to the south of Jerusalem; Tiberias, on the
western shore of the Sea of Galilee; and Safad, a remote town
mountainous country in the extreme north of Palestine.


The 1947 UNSCOM report gives a good breakdown on the most populated areas:


1947

The regional distribution of the population of Palestine is of great significance for the Palestine problem. The heaviest concentration is along the whole coastal plain from the Gaza area to Haifa. Galilee, the plain of Esdraelon and the inland area of the Jerusalem sub-district are also fairly thickly populated. The central hill country north of Jerusalem comprising the districts of Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin and Beisan is considerably less thickly peopled, while to the south of the Jerusalem district in Hebron, and especially in Beersheba, the population becomes extremely sparse. In the vast area of the Beersheba sub-district, however, there are about 90,000 Bedouin nomads.

There is no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas. Jews are more than 40 per cent of the total population in the districts of Jaffa (which includes Tel Aviv), Haifa and Jerusalem. In the northern inland areas of Tiberias and Beisan, they are between 25 and 34 per cent of the total population. In the inland northern districts of Safad and Nazareth and the coastal districts of Tulkarm and Ramie, Jews form between 10 and 25 per cent of the total population, while in the central districts and the districts south of Jerusalem they constitute not more than 5 per cent of the total.


These were the populations of the proposed Arab and Jewish states (from the above link):


The Jewish State

498,000 Jews
407,000 Arabs and others
905,000 Total


The Arab State
10,000 Jews
725,000 Arabs and others
735,000 Total


City of Jerusalem

100,000 Jews
105,000 Arabs and others
205,000 Total


You may be right in the exact figures, I was going of an old book, O' Jerusalem, which may have a slight bias. However this does prove the Jews had a clear majority in their part of the partition. Furthermore, I believe the majority of the Arabs moved into the coastal regions after the turn of the century. This is hinted at by many sources.

The palestinian state never existed as such, and as for the argument that half the world would be under other leadership if you went back to long standing cliams. I would agree with you, but which group but the Jews had or have the power to back their claim with force.

None, in such situations were there is good evidence supporting both sides claim the more powerful side does and should win.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
My sources say the following:

The Palestinians were displaced and that is the original cause of the problem and how Israel was founded.

For nearly three decades the Palestinian leadership and key Arab states have registered support for the two-state settlement based on Resolution 242.

It was only in 1997 that the Labor party gave its support for a seperate Palestinian state. Up until then it had categorically ruled it out. The Likud wants a Palestinian state based on the "Bantustan model" from apartheid run South Africa. What we're seeing now is 1.5 million Gazans confined "in a huge holding pen" while the wall being erected in the West Bank will create 3 Bantustans.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by uknumpty]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Who will be brave soul to start the thread where none of this would be off-topic.

Before that there is one mis-conception here[of many] that I would like to clear up.


Rothchild had very little to do with the founding of Zionism, the main driving force was an Austrian journalist, Theodore Hertzl.


Rothschilds had EVERYTHING to do with Zionism, but he was not its founder.


Balfour Declaration

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour


I assume many have heard of this, but few actually read the document.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Who will be brave soul to start the thread where none of this would be off-topic.

Before that there is one mis-conception here[of many] that I would like to clear up.


Rothchild had very little to do with the founding of Zionism, the main driving force was an Austrian journalist, Theodore Hertzl.


Rothschilds had EVERYTHING to do with Zionism, but he was not its founder.


Balfour Declaration

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour


I assume many have heard of this, but few actually read the document.


Okay, but the Brits changed there mind real quick, as soon as they discovered the importance of Arab oil. The Rothchilds may have been key players simply because of their enormous wealth, but their role within zionism was not large. This changes nothing in terms of what I said before though.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
My sources say the following:

The Palestinians were displaced and that is the original cause of the problem and how Israel was founded.

For nearly three decades the Palestinian leadership and key Arab states have registered support for the two-state settlement based on Resolution 242.

It was only in 1997 that the Labor party gave its support for a seperate Palestinian state. Up until then it had categorically ruled it out. The Likud wants a Palestinian state based on the "Bantustan model" from apartheid run South Africa. What we're seeing now is 1.5 million Gazans confined "in a huge holding pen" while the wall being erected in the West Bank will create 3 Bantustans.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by uknumpty]


What a load of bullpoo this is. The coastal regions were not heavily populated as I said before. The cities of Tel Aviv and Ashdod did not exist. Hiafa and Jaffa were very small cities. The statistics posted above clearly show they were a majority of the population within their part of the partition and Jerusalem. They had every right historically to create a state.

Your precious UN gave them the right to create a state. This was of course before OPEC and the domination of Arab oil. If their are multiple valid claims to the same piece land, the side with the greater force usually takes it. Its just amazing that 600,000 Jews managed to defeat the combined armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Nazi mufti of Jerusalem.

The current situation is directed against palestinian terror. The labor party wanted two states long before 1997, they went for the Oslo accords, they simply werent in power for twenty years after the Yom Kippur War.

The Israelis wanted two states long before the palestinians. Who at this point still wish the destruction of Israel.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sabre262

Originally posted by The Vagabond There will never be any doubt, if there should be an American Diaspora, that when we come back, this is OUR LAND. The situation in Israel is exactly the same.


Using the same logic half of the worlds population would be able to claim land "they were originally from"


Actually there is a critical point which makes that untrue, and infact makes that assertion apply only to the Palestinian claim. Israel is the ONLY NATION which has existed there independently. I'm not simply basing this on the fact that their race lived there, because that would create major conflicts. I am simply suggesting that in situations where only one nation has any legitimate claim to independent governance of an area, they obviously should be restored when the occupiers leave. If there is more than one nationality with such a claim, then the most recent will often have the legitimate claim, unless for some reason the most recent could be argued never to have been a legitimate government.


Now, on the other hand, if the Palestinian claim is to be acknowledged, then when Britian left India, India should not have been restored- instead it should have been carved up into a dozen pieces and shared by every ethnic group which had ever had even a single member living in the area.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

If the (P)alestinians were secluded on their own continent or island, they wouldn't have anyone like the Jews to blame for thier decrepit lives. The reason their lives are decrepit in the ways that they are is because they choose to time and again blame the Jews, rather than assuming accountability for their own disfunction.

Much like American (D)emocrats.


Couldn't resist that last line could you?

Assuming responsibility & accountability seems to be a hard thing for many peoples of the MidEast to do--I suppose I really should broaden that comment to include most of the world. One would think that a group who could come up with modern mathematics and astronomy would do better. I am not anti-Muslim or anti-Arab by any stretch of the immagination, but the decline of independent scientific thought and cultural creativity seems to coincidentally? start happening about the time the Islamic religion was born. Could there possibly be a connection?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
One would think that a group who could come up with modern mathematics and astronomy would do better. I am not anti-Muslim or anti-Arab by any stretch of the immagination, but the decline of independent scientific thought and cultural creativity seems to coincidentally? start happening about the time the Islamic religion was born. Could there possibly be a connection?


Islam in its modern, often ultra-conservative form has been a major barrier to progress in nations under such regimes, no question. I believe history shows that virtually any religion which becomes a dominant influence on political and social norms becomes an instrument of stagnation. Consider the brilliant men who were supressed by Christian churches- sometimes put to death for the heresy of science. Consider Socrates, put to death for impiety, because the Athenians saw their defeat at the hands of Sparta as being Athena's judgement on them.

My point is that it is not an inherent flaw of Islam, but an inherent flaw of religious fundementalism in general which causes stagnation. The problem with religous fundementalism is that it assumes certain things to be unassailably true, and thus it is considered at least wasteful and often evil to discuss any issue whatsoever to which religious doctrine might hypothetically be applied. As religious views become more fundementalist the application of religious doctrines extends, and thus the range of topics which cannot be discusser is expanded.
The above problem has far reaching effects. Not only are revelations in contradiction to flawed interpretation of religion precluded, but the critical thinking skills of the entire society degenerate due to a general lack of inquistive excercise, causing non-heretical discoveries to be missed as well.

It also stands to be mentioned that Islam came into being in the 7th century, but Europeans didn't really get the upper hand on the Arabs until the 14th or 15th century. Ironically, it was Arab supremacy which brought about the revolution which eventually brought European nations to a sort of shared hegemony over most of the world. Had Islam not barred the way to India and China, Europe may never have began the nautical power race which brought about modern ship designs, the advent of naval artillery, and the colonization of Africa (and eventually of the "new world"). Had these things never occurred, it is possible that the Arab civilization may have expanded further, secularized a little as the result of economic endeavors, and continued to advance. The real nail in Arab civilization's coffin though was WWI. European power over the Middle East brought them poverty and thrust them into a much larger, very Euro-centric world. Such conditions breed the kind of discontent that radicalizes religions and societies.

To sum up, I don't really believe that Islam is the problem, nor do I see the Arab people as entirely being the architects of their own state. I see them as victims of inherent flaws in humanity and the circumstances which play upon those flaws. That is not to say that I see them as innocent or as being beyond the consequences of their actions- to be a victim of circumstance is little excuse at times, although considering that Europeans (and Americans) have aided those circumstances, the blame is certainly shared.

IF there is some way that the Islamic nations can be brought to a postion of dignity and prosperity without injustice to others, that would be the key to helping the Arab people, who have often enough proved themselves to be resileint and resourceful, to again realize their potential as contributors to Human progress.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join