Palestinian P2P > Someone has to say it

reply to Rally1

Re: Someone has to say it

said by fooby:

---

The VAST majority of Palestinians ....., would Arafat have led the "Judean Liberation Organization"?

---

LOVE THE POSTER!!!!!!!!!!

Today it's the Palestinians and the Jews beating the ga-geebers out of each other. Go back about 2100 years ago and it was the Greeks and the Jews beating the
ga-geeders out of east other.

There are Palestinian Family's with legal deeds to land their family had lived on for several centuries. But
a Jew came along with a book which said he was there first,
2500 years ago and booted this family out.

The Jews would love see all the Palestinian disappear
and the Palestinians would love to have the same this happen to the Jews.

Caught in all of this are the Oriental Jews who never left
the area during the Diaspora. They have lived in peace with
the Arabs for over a thousand years. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Not trusted by either side.

Hate begets hate, killing leads to more killing, it will never end.
--
low Brass Rules!Irish Terriers do to!!!

What you just repeated is one of the most commmon myths about the Palestine Mandate.

First. Prior to Jewish immigration to the mandate of Palestine, the land was sparsely populated and heavily erored. Author Mark Twain even noted, when visiting the area:

"] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

Most arabs came as a result of the prosperity the Jews brought to the mandate. It was through the labor of the Jews that Palestine prospered, and Arabs were attracted to the growing economy.

There were only a few instances of Arabs being forced off their land. A great deal of Arabs left prior to the actual war, most hoping to return once Israel was defeated. Of course, this all could have been avoided had the Arabs simply accepted Partition, as that would have given them most of the mandate.

said by Jubcoo:

---

"] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

---

said by Jubcoo:

---

Of course, this all could have been avoided had the Arabs simply accepted Partition, as that would have given them most of the mandate.

---

so what does all of this ranting have to do with earthstation 5?

this whole pile of crap should be closed, locked and deleted

said by sorne guy:

---

so what does all of this ranting have to do with earthstation 5?

---

said by sorne guy:

---

this whole pile of crap should be closed, locked and deleted

---

reply to ravital
I never denied that there were settlements in the area prior to Jewish immigration, but the fact remains that these were few and sparse. Ottoman census reports from the time period list the Jews being a majority in Jerusalem. Likewise, they were the majority in the area given to them under the rejected partition plan. Feel free to google up the info on that.

The Jews did not stay silent on Partition, rather they accepted it, although it was unjust in the fact that 80 percent of Palestine became transjordan. The Arabs COMPETELY refused to negotiate on the matter of partition, ofting for war. My original claim stands. Had the Arabs not forfeited partition, there would have been an Arab Palestinian state.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-17 02:03:32]

said by Jubcoo:

---

Feel free to google up the info on that.

---

said by Jubcoo:

---

The Jews did not stay silent on Partition, rather they accepted it

---

said by Jubcoo:

---

My original claim stands. Had the Arabs not forfeited partition, there would have been an Arab Palestinian state.

---

Despite the fact that the U.N. is blindly anti-Israel, (ie Zionism is Racism) Resolution 242 is often misinterpreted.

Here is the original text:

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.


Now, draw your attention to clause 1. This is often the most misinterpreted clause in the resolution. It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories. It does not call for a withdrawal from ALL territories. This is done intentionally. The Soviets pushed for the inclusion of the word 'all' but this was rejected. British U.N. rep. Lord Caradon would later state on the meaning of 242 "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." Furthermore, it does not specify Israeli withdrawal to be a prerequisite to clause 2, which calls on the recognition of "every state", including Israel. This has still yet to be met on the part of the Arabs. Only Jordan and Egypt officially recognize Israel though one may argue that Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai meets the conditions of the first clause.

As for 338, it simply calls for a termination of all hostilities resulting from the Arab invasion of 73 and refers to 242, which I have described above.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-17 12:14:22]

said by Jubcoo:

---

Despite the fact that the U.N. is blindly anti-Israel, (ie Zionism is Racism) Resolution 242 is often misinterpreted.

---

reply to fooby
Here here!

Perhaps people can get the notion of a past Palestinian Soveriegn state out of their heads, there has never been one. If Arafat sticks to a peace initiative for more than 5 minutes then hopefully there will be one in the future.