Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Palestine not for Sale or Trade


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#76    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:39 AM

View PostBlack Red Devil, on 09 May 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

A lot of mays and mights.  Mate, as I said, you're just speculating.  Don't know where you've been posting all this time but if you intend to stick around the political section in UM you'll need to provide better evidence and facts. Personal beliefs gets you nowhere.  Anyway, have a good day. :st
  But you post a lot of "facts" They prove nothing without a proper historical context and a proper understanding of how and why those facts fit.

For example you claim and believe that Israle was the agrressor in the 6 day war. Th t is NOT an historical fact but a piece of arab propaganda, and is not accepted as  correct by unbiased historians.  Israel carried out a preemptive strike in the face of military movenments and publicly stated military intent by arab states to attack invade and destroy it.

In doing so it won a war it might have lost if forced to fight a defensive war from limited terriotry surrounded by numerically superior enemies Remember i lived through those wars, reading about them every day, and listening to them on the radio and watching them unfold on the television. I studied them as they happened and then studied them again as part of a very fine history and politics education at a very good university.

Here is the basic fact. The state of Israel was legitimised under international law. It fought a guerrilla war both inside its own territory and outside it jus tto survive its establiahment which it should not have had to do. It then faced down and won a war against neighbouring states, immediately it declared its establishment. it has been under threat ever since . EVERY territorial gain by Israel has come from successfully defending itslef from attack And it has returned most of the lands it gained in those defensive actions despite this putting it at a strategic disadvantage and under greater military threat.  That is history. The palestinian refugees, like many displaced people are a consequence of these wars. But whose fault  are the wars? Historically they are the fault of the aggressors trying to destroy a legitimate nation state. All the rest is spin and propaganda.

If Israel was secure, felt safe and at peace, its relationship with palestinians inside its own borders would be very different and far more positive. I dont approve of how Isrealis treat the palestinians within israel but i can see why they act as they do, and I am not sure they have any other logical choice which does not risk the integrity and survival of israel.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#77    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:47 AM

View PostBlack Red Devil, on 09 May 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I'm not throwing the rules book at anyone.  Just gave a friendly word of advice.

EDIT TO ADD.  Anyway, I'm sure Mr Walker doesn't need you as his defense attorney...

Quite right. Ive been posting here for nearly 10 years. I dont mind robust debate although I find personal comments pointless. They illustrate a reliance on emotion and paucity of factual argument. it saddens me to see so many people fall for the revisionist popaganda put out by arab states for many reasons be it guilt or that it appeals to a natural bias against israel because it is a jewish state Once the underdog, Israel is seen by many modern young people who are not old enough to know the history of the conflict as the agressor  because of images of israeli troops in conflict with young palestinians But this is not the case and historically never has been   For some young people any conflict against state authority is seen as laudable rather than what it really is, A failure by older people to solve problems peacefully, and then use the young to fight their battles by proxy..

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#78    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:48 PM

Mr Walker, Israel is - by definition of the term - the aggressor. Every war they have had with the Arabs has been down to their own policies. And in fact, almost every war they have fought with the Arabs has actually been started by Israel, with the exception of the war in '72 (and, in reality, they were only attacked in that war due to their occupation from their previous aggressive campaign in '67 that has continued until today) and the original war.

And even that War of Independence was down to Israel, because they were attacked due to the fact that 90% of the Jewish population of the land at that time were immigrants, staking a claim on land they had no right to. Well, no right unless you ascribe to the deluded notion that a group of people has a right to claim land that some of their descendants inhabited nigh on 2000 years ago. Which is, of course, completely ridiculous.

I've seen a couple of your posts now where you state that we have fallen for Arab propaganda, yet I base all of my opinions on this subject purely on facts and the historical, documented record, and, more often than not, Israel's own now declassified record. Arab "propaganda" has nothing to do with it.

Edit:

You mention context? "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Menachem Begin

Then you have Israeli and U.S., among other intelligence agencies, who have openly admitted that Nasser was not going to attack. He spewed plenty of rhetoric, as did Israeli leaders and politicians, but he did not want war.

Israel on the other hand? Well, just over 10 years prior to that they invaded and tried to occupy much of the same land in a definite war of aggression.

Not only this, but Israel knew they were in the wrong by attacking, as they attempted to lie to the UN in an attempt to justify the attack by claiming that Nasser had actually sent planes that were attacking Israel. Amassing troops within their own borders was not, in any context of international law, an act that warranted attack.


'In doing so, won a war it might have lost'. This is propaganda. U.S. and Israeli estimates on the length of time it would take for Israel to defeat the Arabs were almost exactly the same. If Israel attacked first, the war was estimated to last a week. If Israel was not attacked first, the war was estimated to last around two weeks. This came from both Israel and the U.S.' intelligence agencies, and when we look at both the '67 and '72 war, it is remarkably how accurate those estimates were. Israel was never in any danger of losing. As I said, propaganda.

And, for the record (and again, by definition), a 'pre-emptive' war is still a war of aggression.


Edited by ExpandMyMind, 09 May 2013 - 01:09 PM.


#79    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:15 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 09 May 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Mr Walker, Israel is - by definition of the term - the aggressor. Every war they have had with the Arabs has been down to their own policies. And in fact, almost every war they have fought with the Arabs has actually been started by Israel, with the exception of the war in '72 (and, in reality, they were only attacked in that war due to their occupation from their previous aggressive campaign in '67 that has continued until today) and the original war.

And even that War of Independence was down to Israel, because they were attacked due to the fact that 90% of the Jewish population of Israel at that time were immigrants, staking a claim on land they had no right to. Well, no right unless you ascribe to the deluded notion that a group of people has a right to claim land that some of their descendants inhabited nigh on 2000 years ago. Which is, of course, completely ridiculous.

I've seen a couple of your posts now where you state that we have fallen for Arab propaganda, yet I base all of my opinions on this subject purely on facts and the historical documented record, and, more often than not, Israel's own now declassified record. Arab "propaganda" has nothing to do with it.
I understand your pov and admire its integrity because it comes back to the belief that the jews had no right to settle in israel

But of course, they did.

Legal right, historical right and moral right. Few people or nations ever really doubted that right when Israel was first established. Russia folowed by America then most of the worlds major powers recognised Israels legitimacy.

That didn't ,and doesn't, give them the right to displace others who lived there, and I have serious doubts, based on history, that the palestinian refugees left because of official israeli policy or actions.  But let us say they did. The jews had the right to establish Israel and thus to defend its integrity.

I have no time, patience or desire, to debate that point of view. It is an established historical imperative. Israel is a member of the united nations and all but 32 member states recognise its legitimacy as a state. Only in more modern history has there been a move by arab states to undermine the established legitimacy of the state and government of israel. Before that they just tried to wipe it out militarily.

. Once it is established that the israeli state has legitimacy, then by every assessment, Israel has ALWAYS been fighting defensive wars and actions, against nations and groups dedicated to destroy It. Israel has never historically acted agressively beyond its border EXCEPT as an act of defence. The six day war,  the raid on entebbe, and current attacks in Syria for example are accepted as legitimate defensive actions by most strategists, analysts and experts. Some see them as doing more harm than good especially in political terms, but so far the state of israel survives, and grows stronger and more capable, because it is forced to do so.

I appreciate that the following excerpts are from wiki but they summarise the basic historical facts,

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a plan to partition Palestine with the creation of a Jewish and an Arab State. Jerusalem was to become an international city. The next day, a civil war erupted in Mandatory Palestine. With the end of the British Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948, the Jewish community issued their Declaration of Independence and established the State of Israel in the territory allocated by the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine for the Jewish state, but without specifying its borders.[1] Neighbouring Arab States and the Arab League were opposed to any partition of Palestine and declared their intention to intervene to prevent its implementation. Over the next few days, armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, and Syria entered the former Mandate territory and fought the Israelis.

http://en.wikipedia....ition_of_Israel

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan for the future government of Palestine. The Plan was described as a Plan of Partition with Economic Union which, after the termination of the British Mandate, would lead to the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]
Part I of the Plan contained provisions dealing with the Termination of the Mandate, Partition and Independence. The Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw from Palestine no later than the previously announced date of 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism (Zionism). Part II of the Plan included a detailed description of the proposed boundaries for each state.[3] The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.
The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency.[4][5] The Plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee,[4][6] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League. The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 65% non-Jewish (1,200,000), and 35% Jewish (650,000),[7] most of them European born,[8] who immigrated in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries as a result of the Zionist movement (see Zionism).
Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the Civil War broke out.[9] The partition plan was not implemented.[10]



Posted Image
Now consider what would be present day Israel if the arabs had accepted the partition and had not continued to attack Israel. ironic really. One could almost say it was karma.

Edited by Mr Walker, 09 May 2013 - 01:35 PM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#80    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:46 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 09 May 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I understand your pov and admire its integrity because it comes back to the belief that the jews had no right to settle in israel

But of course, they did.

Legal right, historical right and moral right. Few people or nations ever really doubted that right when Israel was first established. That didn't ,and doesn't, give them the right to displace others who lived there, and I have serious doubts, based on history, that the palestinian refugees left because of official israeli policy or actions.  But let us say they did. The jews had the right to establish Israel and thus to defend its integrity.

I have no time, patience or desire, to debate that point of view. It is an established historical imperative. Israel is a member of the united nations and all but 32 member states recognise its legitimacy as a state. Only in more modern history has there been a move by arab states to undermine the established legitimacy of the state and government of israel. Before that they just tried to wipe it out militarily.

. Once it is established that the israeli state has legitimacy, then by every assessment, Israel has ALWAYS been fighting defensive wars and actions, against nations and groups dedicated to destroy It. Israel has never historically acted agressively beyond its border EXCEPT as an act of defence. The six day war,  the raid on entebbe, and current attacks in Syria for example are accepted as legitimate defensive actions by most strategists, analysts and experts. Some see them as doing more harm than good especially in political terms, but so far the state of israel survives, and grows stronger and more capable, because it is forced to do so.

There is no legal right that could possibly justify the settling of millions of immigrants on land that they have no direct ties to. This is simply not true. Especially when we consider the British immigration laws that prohibited such actions (never mind international law).

There is no historical right that could possibly justify this either. There would be more of a claim to be had from Australians who suddenly decided to inhabit a part of Britain. And, of course, this is ridiculous.

Morally there may be more of a point. But the morality factor does not warrant the swiping of land from another group of people who were actually indigenous to said land. Did Europe or the World owe the Jews? In my opinion, yes. But there are many way in which that debt could have been repaid. Unfortunately for the World, there was no option as the Jews who flooded the land made the decision for us. If this had happened without the events of WW2 then there would be no way in hell that such an act would have had support. Without guilt, it would never have happened.

In no way is it possible to justify settling the Jews on another's land.

Now, you seem to have come to the conclusion from my post that I do not accept the state of Israel. This is understandable - but also incorrect. When I bring up the subject of whether or not Israel had a right to be created by immigrants, I am not trying to deligitimise today's Israel. All I am doing is shining some perspective on the justifications the Arabs saw when they attacked. These are justifications that, if we created a scenario almost identical to that today in some other part of the World, no one could ever morally deny them the right to defend their land or their brethren's land.

Too many generations have passed for Israel to have no right to exist today. Too many people - Israelis - born on the land. This is why I am a staunch supporter of the Two-State Solution which would see the Palestinians given the land that was acquired during the 6-Day War.

And dress it up any way you want, but an attack carried out as a means of defence is still an act of aggression. Paranoia (which is something that Israel is understandably built on) does not warrant attack. And it is paranoia that causes the Israelis to attack their neighbours. Using this faulty logic, Hitler's paranoia of Jewish control of Germany would have warranted him acting aggressively towards the Jews of Germany. Nonsense. If every country in the World were to attack another that they thought might attack them at some point in the future, there would be no countries left. This is why international laws and treaties were drafted after WW2 that would prohibit one nation from attacking another. And it is the single most important aspect of international law in my opinion.


Edit:

In reply to your map and comment at the bottom:

We don't know what the Arabs would have had in such a hypothetical scenario because we simply can't. Would Israel have been happy with the partition plan? Well, we know from people such as Ben-Gurion that they were not. And from other leaders from that time that they actually accepted the Partition Plan because it was a 'start'. In other words, it is entirely possible that Israel may have taken more land anyway (which, according to Israeli documents, was actually the plan of many of their leaders - they accepted the Partition Plan because it would have made it easier to fulfill their religious prophesy of inhabiting all of ancient 'Israel'). '56 showed us that they were not happy with what they had, even after the War of Independence which saw them with more land than the offered Partition Plan. So it is definitely not unreasonable to assume that we would have a situation not too dissimilar from what we have today.

But this is besides the point. If a group of immigrants came to your country, took half of what was promised to you, had the support of many countries around the World, including the UN, then would you simply accept it? I highly doubt it. People always try to deligitimise the right of the Arabs to defend what they saw as theirs, simply due to the fact that they were offered something. It's twisting all logic and reason on its head

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 09 May 2013 - 01:59 PM.


#81    acidhead

acidhead

    GOV Debt Slave

  • Member
  • 11,143 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:47 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 09 May 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

There is no legal right that could possibly justify the settling of millions of immigrants on land that they have no direct ties to. This is simply not true. Especially when we consider the British immigration laws that prohibited such actions (never mind international law).

There is no historical right that could possibly justify this either. There would be more of a claim to be had from Australians who suddenly decided to inhabit a part of Britain. And, of course, this is ridiculous.

Morally there may be more of a point. But the morality factor does not warrant the swiping of land from another group of people who were actually indigenous to said land. Did Europe or the World owe the Jews? In my opinion, yes. But there are many way in which that debt could have been repaid. Unfortunately for the World, there was no option as the Jews who flooded the land made the decision for us. If this had happened without the events of WW2 then there would be no way in hell that such an act would have had support. Without guilt, it would never have happened.

In no way is it possible to justify settling the Jews on another's land.

Now, you seem to have come to the conclusion from my post that I do not accept the state of Israel. This is understandable - but also incorrect. When I bring up the subject of whether or not Israel had a right to be created by immigrants, I am not trying to deligitimise today's Israel. All I am doing is shining some perspective on the justifications the Arabs saw when they attacked. These are justifications that, if we created a scenario almost identical to that today in some other part of the World, no one could ever morally deny them the right to defend their land or their brethren's land.

Too many generations have passed for Israel to have no right to exist today. Too many people - Israelis - born on the land. This is why I am a staunch supporter of the Two-State Solution which would see the Palestinians given the land that was acquired during the 6-Day War.

And dress it up any way you want, but an attack carried out as a means of defence is still an act of aggression. Paranoia (which is something that Israel is understandably built on) does not warrant attack. And it is paranoia that causes the Israelis to attack their neighbours. Using this faulty logic, Hitler's paranoia of Jewish control of Germany would have warranted him acting aggressively towards the Jews of Germany. Nonsense. If every country in the World were to attack another that they thought might attack them at some point in the future, there would be no countries left. This is why international laws and treaties were drafted after WW2 that would prohibit one nation from attacking another. And it is the single most important aspect of international law in my opinion.


Edit:

In reply to your map and comment at the bottom:

We don't know what the Arabs would have had in such a hypothetical scenario because we simply can't. Would Israel have been happy with the partition plan? Well, we know from people such as Ben-Gurion that they were not. And from other leaders from that time that they actually accepted the Partition Plan because it was a 'start'. In other words, it is entirely possible that Israel may have taken more land anyway (which, according to Israeli documents, was actually the plan of many of their leaders - they accepted the Partition Plan because it would have made it easier to fulfill their religious prophesy of inhabiting all of ancient 'Israel'). '56 showed us that they were not happy with what they had, even after the War of Independence which saw them with more land than the offered Partition Plan. So it is definitely not unreasonable to assume that we would have a situation not too dissimilar from what we have today.

But this is besides the point. If a group of immigrants came to your country, took half of what was promised to you, had the support of many countries around the World, including the UN, then would you simply accept it? I highly doubt it. People always try to deligitimise the right of the Arabs to defend what they saw as theirs, simply due to the fact that they were offered something. It's twisting all logic and reason on its head

Correct on all accounts.  It doesn't make any logical sense at all.  

I believe it's because it was meant to be that way.  The bible started the law and law is the bible of today.

Everything happens for reasons... engineered reasons.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#82    acidhead

acidhead

    GOV Debt Slave

  • Member
  • 11,143 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:48 AM

Extremist reasons.

All forms.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#83    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,610 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 10 May 2013 - 06:27 AM

View Postand then, on 09 May 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

And to a point you made about right of return - do you understand WHY the Israelis are so adamant on this point?
I'd be interested to hear what's your spin on it AT although I'm 99.99% sure I already know it.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#84    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 08:21 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 09 May 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

There is no legal right that could possibly justify the settling of millions of immigrants on land that they have no direct ties to. This is simply not true. Especially when we consider the British immigration laws that prohibited such actions (never mind international law).

There is no historical right that could possibly justify this either. There would be more of a claim to be had from Australians who suddenly decided to inhabit a part of Britain. And, of course, this is ridiculous.

Morally there may be more of a point. But the morality factor does not warrant the swiping of land from another group of people who were actually indigenous to said land. Did Europe or the World owe the Jews? In my opinion, yes. But there are many way in which that debt could have been repaid. Unfortunately for the World, there was no option as the Jews who flooded the land made the decision for us. If this had happened without the events of WW2 then there would be no way in hell that such an act would have had support. Without guilt, it would never have happened.

In no way is it possible to justify settling the Jews on another's land.

Now, you seem to have come to the conclusion from my post that I do not accept the state of Israel. This is understandable - but also incorrect. When I bring up the subject of whether or not Israel had a right to be created by immigrants, I am not trying to deligitimise today's Israel. All I am doing is shining some perspective on the justifications the Arabs saw when they attacked. These are justifications that, if we created a scenario almost identical to that today in some other part of the World, no one could ever morally deny them the right to defend their land or their brethren's land.

Too many generations have passed for Israel to have no right to exist today. Too many people - Israelis - born on the land. This is why I am a staunch supporter of the Two-State Solution which would see the Palestinians given the land that was acquired during the 6-Day War.

And dress it up any way you want, but an attack carried out as a means of defence is still an act of aggression. Paranoia (which is something that Israel is understandably built on) does not warrant attack. And it is paranoia that causes the Israelis to attack their neighbours. Using this faulty logic, Hitler's paranoia of Jewish control of Germany would have warranted him acting aggressively towards the Jews of Germany. Nonsense. If every country in the World were to attack another that they thought might attack them at some point in the future, there would be no countries left. This is why international laws and treaties were drafted after WW2 that would prohibit one nation from attacking another. And it is the single most important aspect of international law in my opinion.


Edit:

In reply to your map and comment at the bottom:

We don't know what the Arabs would have had in such a hypothetical scenario because we simply can't. Would Israel have been happy with the partition plan? Well, we know from people such as Ben-Gurion that they were not. And from other leaders from that time that they actually accepted the Partition Plan because it was a 'start'. In other words, it is entirely possible that Israel may have taken more land anyway (which, according to Israeli documents, was actually the plan of many of their leaders - they accepted the Partition Plan because it would have made it easier to fulfill their religious prophesy of inhabiting all of ancient 'Israel'). '56 showed us that they were not happy with what they had, even after the War of Independence which saw them with more land than the offered Partition Plan. So it is definitely not unreasonable to assume that we would have a situation not too dissimilar from what we have today.

But this is besides the point. If a group of immigrants came to your country, took half of what was promised to you, had the support of many countries around the World, including the UN, then would you simply accept it? I highly doubt it. People always try to deligitimise the right of the Arabs to defend what they saw as theirs, simply due to the fact that they were offered something. It's twisting all logic and reason on its head

Then i dont get your pov.  I agree with most of what you say; BUT. The league of nations and the united nations both gave a part of palestine to the jews.  That was either legitimate or not. If you believe it was not legitimate, then israel does NOT have a right to existsimplybecause of its defacto occupation of the land. if you believe it was legitimate, then israell does. AND from that flows all the other opinions, because a legitimate and legal state DOES have the right to defend its territory and people in international law. That includes from, terrorism, guerilla warfare, and conventional wafare..

I agree that we can't know what would have happened if the arabs had accepeted the peace plan/. partition. But that is  rather the point. They did not. It was their ongoing attempts to to destroy israel which legitimised all of israels defensive responses.

if they had accepted parton isreal would either have had to accpet the partitin as it was or have had to take their land illegitimately and been immediately in the wrong This could wel have cost them the sponsorship of their major supporter america, but because all land gained by israel has been as the reslt of defensive actions against invasion.  Israel holds the moral and legal high ground. It is sliding down that ground somewhat because of its relationships with the palestinians, but again, i find it hard ot see how Israel can accomodate them safely until its own security is guaranteed.

Ps I am a believer in the rule of law where that law is democratic and legitimate.Thus, yes i would accept the ruling of the united nations and its courts on my country. That is beter than  not recognising the rule of law, and creating terrible, destructive, ongoing conflict

. I believe we should take in many of the palestinians. They would have a far better life here than  in palestine and their chilren would do even better In the future. They would not live under an islamic state but they would live in a country where, with only a few exceptions, they could live an islamic life   I can see us having to take in many refugees displaced by rising sea levels, and again i accept the need for this..

Edited by Mr Walker, 10 May 2013 - 08:32 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#85    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:36 PM

View PostBlack Red Devil, on 10 May 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

I'd be interested to hear what's your spin on it AT although I'm 99.99% sure I already know it.
If you've read any of my posts on the issue you will.  It's simple math.  In a democracy the majority will rule.  If the Jews want a state of essentially Jewish character then allowing their population to become a minority in their own country would be suicidal.  This really isn't the issue though - not numbers.  The issue is that most in the world do not believe Jews should have a uniquely Jewish state.  They somehow consider this elitist or otherwise unfair.  Maybe it can be seen so but the answer, seems to me, is to boycott their goods or refuse to deal with them at all if it's so important.  Why become militant about it?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#86    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,610 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:19 PM

View Postand then, on 10 May 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

If you've read any of my posts on the issue you will.  It's simple math.  In a democracy the majority will rule.  If the Jews want a state of essentially Jewish character then allowing their population to become a minority in their own country would be suicidal.  This really isn't the issue though - not numbers.  The issue is that most in the world do not believe Jews should have a uniquely Jewish state.  They somehow consider this elitist or otherwise unfair.  Maybe it can be seen so but the answer, seems to me, is to boycott their goods or refuse to deal with them at all if it's so important.  Why become militant about it?

Unfortunately the land Israel wants all for themselves as a Jewish state has so much historical meaning for the other two Abrahamic religions.  Combine this with the fact that current Israel was molded together in a unique manner, established in it's current format through discrimination, oppression and bullying over people from another religion and finally proven to be negligent in seeking a resolution for these people has yes, made it almost impossible for Israel to become a uniquely Jewish State.
There is only one way they may finally achieve their goal of a Jewish State, through compromisation.  But the Zionist, Right wing power is unwilling to do so.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#87    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 10 May 2013 - 10:54 PM

View PostBlack Red Devil, on 10 May 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

Unfortunately the land Israel wants all for themselves as a Jewish state has so much historical meaning for the other two Abrahamic religions.  Combine this with the fact that current Israel was molded together in a unique manner, established in it's current format through discrimination, oppression and bullying over people from another religion and finally proven to be negligent in seeking a resolution for these people has yes, made it almost impossible for Israel to become a uniquely Jewish State.
There is only one way they may finally achieve their goal of a Jewish State, through compromisation.  But the Zionist, Right wing power is unwilling to do so.
And you believe the Palestinians have no need to compromise at all?  This isn't an attack - I'm just interested in where you see an outcome that leaves any Jewish state at all.  The main problem I have with the anti Zionist crowd is that they offer no compromise from the other side.  For them the only justice is the Jews vacating the land and paying reparations for having the audacity to build a state after the land was given to them in a mandate.  Surely you realize that there is never going to be a total retreat and disappearance of the state of Israel as a Jewish entity?  As for the Zionist,right wing power being unwilling to compromise I give you Ehud Ohlmert.  He tried everything with Arafat and Arafat just walked away and started a new intifada.  And all current Palestinian leaders would do the same thing because if they did not they KNOW they would be vilified as a traitor and then killed by their own constituents.  Can you honestly deny this?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#88    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:19 AM

There was a lot of background to the six day war. Israel was conducting attacks against syria but only because of a long and serious string of guerilla and terrorist incursions from syria, much like the modern rocket and other attacks from jordan. The UN said that israel did not have the right to retalitory or reprisal atacks but that would have made the isreali position untenable because they would have suffered increasing incursions casualities etc without any means of redress or prevention. Anyway tensions rose and a number of factors led to war, but wiki sums up one major factor quite well.

The Straits of Tiran was regarded by the Western Powers and Israel as an international waterway[34][59][60] but its legal status was the subject of international controversy.[61] The Arabs believed that they had the right to regulate passage of ships while Israel, with the support of other major world powers, countered that the Arab claims were legally not supportable.[62] In 1967 Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[63][64] On May 22, Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping.[34][65] Nasser stated he was open to referring the closure to the International Court of Justice to determine its legality, but this option was rejected by Israel.[66][67] Egyptian propaganda attacked Israel,[68] and on May 27, Nasser stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."[69]  
http://en.wikipedia....The_Six-Day_War

Note my bolded bit on the last line.
Now argue that the arabs did not intend an invasion, aimed at the destruction of Israel.

Frther evidence of arab intent is this.
Documents captured by the Israelis from various Jordanian command posts record orders from the end of May for the Hashemite Brigade to capture Ramot Burj Bir Mai'in in a night raid, codenamed "Operation Khaled". The aim was to establish a bridgehead together with positions in Latrun for an armored capture of Lod and Ramle. The "go" codeword was Sa'ek and end was Nasser. The Jordanians planned for the capture of Motza and Sha'alvim in the strategic Jerusalem Corridor. Motza was tasked to Infantry Brigade 27 camped near Ma'ale Adummim: "The reserve brigade will commence a nighttime infiltration onto Motza, will destroy it to the foundation, and won't leave a remnant or refugee from among its 800 residents".[79]

ibid

As to whether israel could have won a war without its opening attack on arab airfields, that is very debatable. It was not the opinion of anyone at the time, and most strategists today agree that the destruction of the egyptian ait\rforce was critical to the israeli success. It was an incredibly overwhelming  attack which destoyed most of egyts offensive forces and allowed israle to dominate the skies. That made all the difference to the ground conduct of the war, as it has in almost every war since that time.

Egypt had by far the largest and the most modern of all the Arab air forces, consisting of about 420 combat aircraft,[88] all of them Soviet-built and with a heavy quota of top-of-the line MiG-21 capable of attaining Mach 2 speed. Initially, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[h]
Of particular concern to the Israelis were the 30 Tu-16 "Badger" medium bombers, capable of inflicting heavy damage on Israeli military and civilian centers.[89]


  The operation was more successful than expected, catching the Egyptians by surprise and destroying virtually all of the Egyptian Air Force on the ground, with few Israeli losses. Only four unarmed Egyptian training flights were in the air when the strike began.[94] A total of 338 Egyptian aircraft were destroyed and 100 pilots were killed,[95] although the number of aircraft actually lost by the Egyptians is disputed.[96]
Among the Egyptian planes lost were all 30 Tu-16 bombers, 27 out of 40 Il-28 bombers, 12 Su-7 fighter-bombers, over 90 MiG-21s, 20 MiG-19s, 25 MiG-17 fighters, and around 32 assorted transport planes and helicopters. In addition, Egyptian radars and SAM missiles were also attacked and destroyed. The Israelis lost 19 planes, including two destroyed in air-to-air combat and 13 downed by anti-aircraft artillery.[97] One Israeli plane, which was damaged and unable to break radio silence, was shot down by Israeli Hawk missiles after it strayed over the Negev Nuclear Research Center.[98] Another was destroyed by an exploding Egyptian bomber.[99]
The attack guaranteed Israeli air superiority for the rest of the war.  


Jordanian military intervention came about as follows. Basically, while reluctant to attack Israel, King hussein was convinced by NAsser that the egyptians had the israelis on the run. He then authorised the professional jordanian army yo begin an offensive in jerusalem.


Intermittent machine-gun exchanges began taking place in Jerusalem at 9:30 am, and the fighting gradually escalated as the Jordanians introduced 3-inch mortars and 106mm recoilless rifles. Under the orders from General Narkis, the Israelis responded only with small-arms fire, firing in a flat trajectory to avoid hitting civilians, holy sites or the Old City. At 10:00 am on June 5, the Jordanian Army began shelling Israel. Two batteries of 155mm Long Tom cannons opened fire on the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Ramat David Airbase. The commanders of these batteries were instructed to lay a two-hour barrage against military and civilian settlements in central Israel. Some shells hit the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[116]
Israel assumed that the attacks were a symbolic gesture of solidarity with Egypt, and sent a message to King Hussein promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war. King Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast".[117] At 11:15 am, Jordanian howitzers began a 6,000-shell barrage at Israeli Jerusalem. The Jordanians initially targeted kibbutz Ramat Rachel in the south and Mount Scopus in the north, then ranged into the city center and outlying neighborhoods. Military installations, the Prime Minister's Residence, and the Knesset compound were also targeted. Israeli civilian casualties totalled 20 dead and about 1,000 wounded. Some 900 buildings were damaged, including Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital.[118]
At 11:50 am, sixteen Jordanian Hawker Hunters attacked Netanya, Kfar Sirkin and Kfar Saba, killing one civilian, wounding seven and destroying a transport plane. Three Iraqi Hawker Hunters strafed civilian settlements in the Jezreel Valley, and an Iraqi Tu-16 attacked Afula, and was shot down near the Megiddo airfield. The attack caused minimal material damage, hitting only a senior citizens' home and several chicken coops, but sixteen Israeli soldiers were killed, most of them when the Tupolev crashed.[118]

Syria and Iraq also initiated warfare with israeli in the false belief that nasser was winning his war.
The results of these attacks were disasterous for the arab nations, and for the palestinian people.
By June 10, Israel had completed its final offensive in the Golan Heights, and a ceasefire was signed the day after. Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was able, and willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons and would launch an attack in 1973 in an unsuccessful attempt to reclaim their lost territory.[148]

Edited by Mr Walker, 11 May 2013 - 02:46 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#89    SCFan

SCFan

    ISA 62:2; 65:15; HOS 1:10; 2:23; MATT 21:43; ACTS 11:26

  • Member
  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:34 PM

Too much wiki-link spamming in this thread. :(

Mr Walker, I am not sure if you are aware or not, but the subject of Israel is HEAVILY censored and monitored on wikipedia.

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#90    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,082 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:02 AM

View PostB Jenkins, on 17 May 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Too much wiki-link spamming in this thread. :(

Mr Walker, I am not sure if you are aware or not, but the subject of Israel is HEAVILY censored and monitored on wikipedia.

I used wiki to provide the facts, which are footnoted and detailed.

I would argue that modern "arab propaganda" on the internet,  including that of sympathisers to their cause, keeps many modern readers unaware of those historicl facts.

I find your assertion about wikipedia's censorship both sad and amusing. It, of course, fits into your conspiracy theory/ mindset of world politics and the media.

I am too old, well read, and  not paranoid enough, to fall for that type of belief.

Wikipedia has its limitations flaws and faults, but it is a good starting point on a very crowded web to find basic historcial facts.

if i were to direct you to  academic historical references (non web) on the same events you would accuse them of bias if they did not support your world view.


Wiki edia tends to do what historians do via peer review. It establishes basic facts because a majority of readers and contributors  know and accept those facts.

Fairly typically,  IMO, you attack the source in two lines, and fail to answer any of the points raised in it.

Ps my understanding is that ALL wiki sites are "monitored" and "censored" for very good and practical reasons. Otherwise you would have all sorts of people putting up all sorts of lies and opinions. That is the nature of a web based encyclopedia.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users