Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

War over hostage taking?

143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk

Balfour's 'white papers' never proposed the founding of an "Israel", nor the setting up of a "Jewish State" of any 'name'. And the 'organised body' the British "unloaded the Middle East" to was the UN. Prior to that, the issue was mainly dealt with by the UN's predecessor - the League of Nations. So your claim there was "no organised body" for the British to hand the issue off to is unfounded.

If it was "TO" the UN, there would have been peacekeeping forces moving in as law enforcement. That didn't happen. "State" lands went to Israel because it was the only organized body. That is why Isreal declared when she did. Israel was ready for statehood. The Palestinians were not and neither had they attempted to prepare for it. The end of the Mandate wasn't a secret.

Many people of various ethnicities have a 'homeland' which is shared with others and do not have an 'ethnic state' as such.

That's their problem.

This was what the British originally envisaged would happen in Palestine - the setting up of a binational, autonomous state (Palestine) which would be the homeland of the Jews and the Palestinians.

I really doubt it. I think the British knew that anything would devolve into violence. A shared homeland is a violation of Islamic principles. The point of a Jewish homeland/state was to be able to provide their own security. Never again will Jews rely on others for their security.

Thus, the Jewish homeland would not be a "Jewish State".

If I were part of an ethnic group and somebody sets up a homeland for me, I would think "state". If I was not able to self-organize and self-defend myself (functions of a state), then what is the purpose of a homeland? In fact without the state, a homeland is in name only and not really a homeland.

However, the more extreme Zionist elements at the time had other ideas. And in modern times, those 'extreme elements' have assumed the condition of 'being moderates'.

The more rational Jews, like anyone else would be, had realistic ideas. "In modern times"?? Zionism hasn't changed. It is still all about a self-supportive and self-defensible homeland/state. If people want to consider it extreme, then you must consider the hostile environment it finds itself in. In order to survive, it must be as extreme as it's neighbors/enemies. At least it doesn't export that globally as her neighbors do.

The US govt recognised the founding of the Jewish State the day after Ben Gurion announced it. You are confusing economic and military support with political recognition, perhaps?

The US only recognized it de facto. The Soviet Union was the first to recognize it de Jure. Military and economic support didn't occur in earnest until after Yom Kippur. The US was unsure of supporting Israel at first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yamato

Israel just dropped like 50 bombs on Palestinian men, women and children. If "eye for an eye" means anything more than just some rhetorical bs, I have to think that Hamas (o/w known as Gaza to the thinking world) needs to reply with about 17 bombs (50/3) on Israeli men, women and children. That's how stupid I would be if I was as stupid as an Izbot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redhen

"War over hostage taking?" When I saw this title a few days ago I shrugged, no way that will happen. Sure, there will be some limited retaliation and possible escalation, but that's it.

Now it's looking like this might go hot. There certainly have been wars fought for less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Israel just dropped like 50 bombs on Palestinian men, women and children. If "eye for an eye" means anything more than just some rhetorical bs, I have to think that Hamas (o/w known as Gaza to the thinking world) needs to reply with about 17 bombs (50/3) on Israeli men, women and children. That's how stupid I would be if I was as stupid as an Izbot.

Seventeen ? Since 1st July (inclusive), HAMAS has fired approximately 300 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel, with the majority (around 230 or so) being in the last three days. These where inaccurate 'area effect' weapons, so they where "aimed" at men, women, children, dogs, cats, goldfish etc.

http://en.wikipedia....rael,_2014#July

If we apply Yamato's ratio, then Israel 'needs' to throw another... ummm...... 850 bombs/missiles etc into Gaza ? :P

Obviously, nobody here wants that to happen.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Seventeen ? Since 1st July (inclusive), HAMAS has fired approximately 300 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel, with the majority (around 230 or so) being in the last three days. These where inaccurate 'area effect' weapons, so they where "aimed" at men, women, children, dogs, cats, goldfish etc.

http://en.wikipedia....rael,_2014#July

If we apply Yamato's ratio, then Israel 'needs' to throw another... ummm...... 850 bombs/missiles etc into Gaza ? :P

Obviously, nobody here wants that to happen.

Imagine any city, anywhere in the world living under the constant (random) threat of potentially deadly attack. How long would you stand for it in the Midlands? In south Alabama we'd form a hunting party ourselves if the state reserve wasn't called in to deal with it in a matter of hours. These people have been living with it for YEARS. I hope this round is different and that when it ends there will be a real change on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Crudely speaking, "the Palestinians" (if you count HAMAS as being Palestinian) throw more mortars, rockets and bombs in ONE year, than the Provisional IRA did in Britain (and Northern Ireland) over 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

If it was "TO" the UN, there would have been peacekeeping forces moving in as law enforcement.

What are you talking about?

The British handed over the process to the UN. The state of Palestine, such as it was at the time, remained nominally under British authority.

"State" lands went to Israel because it was the only organized body.

There was no 'organised body' known as "Israel" at that time - and would not be until ben Gurion declared the State of Israel. There was an organisation of Zionist Jews calling for the founding of a Jewish State, but that organisation was not "Israel".

The Palestinians were not and neither had they attempted to prepare for it.

According to whom? The Palestinians were "just as ready" for independent statehood as the Zionist Jews were. The sticking point was about the division of land - not any "preparedness".

I really doubt it. I think the British knew that anything would devolve into violence.

There was already violence in Mandated British Palestine - largely against the British authority. That is why the British wanted to be rid of it.

A shared homeland is a violation of Islamic principles.

At the time, the Palestinians were not 'Islamic'. They didn't even identify themselves as "Arab" - although the Arabs did. There were Islamic Arabs in Palestine and, while they were part of the discussion as to the division of land under the Partition Plan, they were not clamouring for a 'unified Islamic State'.

Your information appears to have been gleaned from pro-Israel sources - and much modified by pro-Israel propaganda. I am not saying the Palestinians and Arabs were without fault for the fiasco which followed, but I certainly do not excuse the Zionist Jews of any culpability as you appear to be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

.......

At the time, the Palestinians were not 'Islamic'. They didn't even identify themselves as "Arab" - although the Arabs did. There were Islamic Arabs in Palestine and, while they were part of the discussion as to the division of land under the Partition Plan, they were not clamouring for a 'unified Islamic State'.

Are you SURE about that Leonardo ? I was under the impression that they self-identified as being both Islamic AND Arab. ??

I've not researched this, and I could be wrong. (I so often am).

what leads you to believe that - on the runup to 1948 - the Arabs in the Mandate Area did not consider themselves to be Arabic or Islamic ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Are you SURE about that Leonardo ? I was under the impression that they self-identified as being both Islamic AND Arab. ??

I've not researched this, and I could be wrong. (I so often am).

what leads you to believe that - on the runup to 1948 - the Arabs in the Mandate Area did not consider themselves to be Arabic or Islamic ?

I was referring to the Palestinians, not the Arabs. Although the two are conflated today, the Palestinians at that time considered themselves 'separate' from the Arabs - and I believe the majority were not Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I was referring to the Palestinians, not the Arabs. Although the two are conflated today, the Palestinians at that time considered themselves 'separate' from the Arabs - and I believe the majority were not Muslim.

that's intriguing. I was under the impression that prior to around 1970, the term "Palestinian" was purely a geographical construct, and the "Palestinians" considered themselves Islamic Arabs. (strictly speaking, between 1948 and 1967 most of them have characterised themselves as "Jordanian". That is to say, Islamic Arabs who are citizens of Jo rdan. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I was referring to the Palestinians, not the Arabs. Although the two are conflated today, the Palestinians at that time considered themselves 'separate' from the Arabs - and I believe the majority were not Muslim.

Say what? I thought the majority of the region - Arab or other - had been primarily Muslim since the Ottoman empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Israel just dropped like 50 bombs on Palestinian men, women and children. If "eye for an eye" means anything more than just some rhetorical bs, I have to think that Hamas (o/w known as Gaza to the thinking world) needs to reply with about 17 bombs (50/3) on Israeli men, women and children. That's how stupid I would be if I was as stupid as an Izbot.

What??? You’re not going to mention *ANYTHING* about the rockets being fired at Israel?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yamato

What??? You’re not going to mention *ANYTHING* about the rockets being fired at Israel?

Pathetic obsolete weapons; can't hit a baseball field from a mile away. When the oppressed group doesn't have weapons far superior to what they've got, freedom is far from guaranteed.

If your freedom to trade and move were being denied you by govt, what would you shoot? Your mouth off? So you not only condone government violence to solve your problems with Muslims, you also support completely bending over for your government too. I wouldn't want to be you bro.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

What??? You’re not going to mention *ANYTHING* about the rockets being fired at Israel?

He's made it clear (as possible for him) that ANYTHING Hamas or the Palestinians do is justified - full stop, end of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

What are you talking about?

Evidently something that you are not aware of or haven’t thought about because you are too busy totting the party line.

The British handed over the process to the UN. The state of Palestine, such as it was at the time, remained nominally under British authority.

If they did that then what was and where was the body for law enforcement? The British were pulling out. They had no more authority, actual or nomial.

There was no 'organised body' known as "Israel" at that time - and would not be until ben Gurion declared the State of Israel. There was an organisation of Zionist Jews calling for the founding of a Jewish State, but that organisation was not "Israel".

On 14 May 1948 there was (the day before the Mandate ended).

According to whom? The Palestinians were "just as ready" for independent statehood as the Zionist Jews were.

If that were true then the Grand Mufti would be in lock-step with Israel declaring statehood. But very few had legitimate land deeds. Without land ownership of the land, you have a transient population. Without that land, there cannot be representation and organization based in the land.

The sticking point was about the division of land - not any "preparedness".

Yes, that is a sticking point. Israel initially got stuck with the Negev which was most of their land. The Jews were given lemons and they’ve made lemonade from it. It’s hard for the Palestinians to prepare when they are fleeing on the orders of the Grand Mufti because he knows that the Arab armies are going to attack. But if Israel did not declare statehood, do you think the Palestinians would have been able to retain the land from their neighbors?

There was already violence in Mandated British Palestine - largely against the British authority. That is why the British wanted to be rid of it.

Duh! The Brits were getting it from both sides. They were charged with leaving the land to an organized body representing the indigenous. There was no organizational body until Israel declared statehood.

At the time, the Palestinians were not 'Islamic'.

Say Whaaaaaat!? The Palestinians were not Muslim? Probably less than 10% Arabs were Christian and they had to deal with the same discrimination the Jews did.

They didn't even identify themselves as "Arab" - although the Arabs did.

Yes! That is correct. There were no Palestinians prior to the 1920s and even then, the term was just de facto. Most “Palestinians” considered themselves as Syrian or as any number of semi-nomadic Arab tribes (http://dspace.africa...an tribes.pdf?1) that wandered the territory. Very similar to Italy prior to the 1840s. In that time, there were no Italians. You were Venetian, Genoese, Sicilian, Fiorentini, etc.

There were Islamic Arabs in Palestine and, while they were part of the discussion as to the division of land under the Partition Plan, they were not clamouring for a 'unified Islamic State'.

But you said they were prepared for statehood?? Are they or are they not?

Your information appears to have been gleaned from pro-Israel sources - and much modified by pro-Israel propaganda.

You just lost the argument. When you can’t counter the counter-point and then resort to trying to invalidate it by labeling it as a pro-Israeli source. It may or may not be pro-Israel. But it is the facts. What must it say if the facts are pro-Israel?

I am not saying the Palestinians and Arabs were without fault for the fiasco which followed, but I certainly do not excuse the Zionist Jews of any culpability as you appear to be doing.

I don’t excuse either side, but that isn’t the issue anymore. With everything against them, Israel has flourished and a two-state solution can never work because such a state goes against Islamic principles and there will be no one else that will be allowed to defend Jews but Jews (Zionism). The only solution is as what Obama stated; that the solution is between Palestinian and Jew. Prolonging the inevitable just causes more misery and instability. What is going to happen is that the Palestinian will be beat into submission as they were in Jordan. This Isis crisis may egg on a more violent climax with 40,000 troops waiting to move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Say what? I thought the majority of the region - Arab or other - had been primarily Muslim since the Ottoman empire.

That the majority religion in the region was Islam does not mean the majority of Palestinians in the region were Muslims. As I have repeatedly stated, I am referring to the Palestinians when stating they did not self-identify as "Muslim Arabs".

If they did that then what was and where was the body for law enforcement? The British were pulling out. They had no more authority, actual or nomial.

*sigh*

The British, while extricating themselves from the situation, retained a presence of authority (albeit dwindling) in the Mandated Palestine until the envisaged handover. They (the British) were still the "body for law enforcement" up until that event.

On 14 May 1948 there was (the day before the Mandate ended).

No, the body comprising the Zionist organisation did not take legal authority over any part of the Mandated Palestine until they (via ben Gurion) declared statehood.

If that were true then the Grand Mufti would be in lock-step with Israel declaring statehood. But very few had legitimate land deeds. Without land ownership of the land, you have a transient population. Without that land, there cannot be representation and organization based in the land.

A completely irrelevant argument. If there was a central body of authority representing the Palestinian/Arab peoples, then that is all that matters to the argument - and there was.

Yes, that is a sticking point. Israel initially got stuck with the Negev which was most of their land. The Jews were given lemons and they’ve made lemonade from it. It’s hard for the Palestinians to prepare when they are fleeing on the orders of the Grand Mufti because he knows that the Arab armies are going to attack. But if Israel did not declare statehood, do you think the Palestinians would have been able to retain the land from their neighbors?

The land the Jews were granted under the Partition Plan was more than adequate for their settlement - even excepting the Negev which was assigned to them largely because no other party wanted it. The Zionist authorities made a fuss because they wanted extra land set aside for 'future returnees' - but the Plan was only to take into account the current population, as it should. The Palestinians and Arabs also made a fuss for their own reasons - such is the way of negotiations where the end result is something unappealing to both sides.

Say Whaaaaaat!? The Palestinians were not Muslim? Probably less than 10% Arabs were Christian and they had to deal with the same discrimination the Jews did.

I repeat again for the hard-of-hearing here. The Palestinians did not identify as "Arab", nor were the majority Muslim.

Yes! That is correct. There were no Palestinians prior to the 1920s and even then, the term was just de facto.

Self-determination is a core principle of decolonisation. If the peoples being referred to self-identified as 'Palestinian', then Palestinian they were - your objection notwithstanding.

I don’t excuse either side, but that isn’t the issue anymore. With everything against them, Israel has flourished...

Are you quite sure that "everything is against" Israel?

What about the US and much of Western Europe (and, by default of that, the UN)? It seems your statements are still tinged with a pro-Israel bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

.....

I repeat again for the hard-of-hearing here. The Palestinians did not identify as "Arab", nor were the majority Muslim.

....

Interesting.

In your opinion, how DID they identify themselves then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

*sigh*

The British, while extricating themselves from the situation, retained a presence of authority (albeit dwindling) in the Mandated Palestine until the envisaged handover. They (the British) were still the "body for law enforcement" up until that event.

You better believe *sigh*. When the British left on 15 May, 1948, they left lock, stock, and barrel. There was no authority but Israel. The British really didn’t hand over anything, they simply abandoned it. And Israel became the de facto authority. There were for sure no UN forces present to hand anything over to.

No, the body comprising the Zionist organisation did not take legal authority over any part of the Mandated Palestine until they (via ben Gurion) declared statehood.

Double sigh! OK fine, have it your way. And when was that?

A completely irrelevant argument. If there was a central body of authority representing the Palestinian/Arab peoples, then that is all that matters to the argument - and there was.

And that authority rejected declaring statehood and ordered its populace to flee. Land ownership is key in this. It always is. Without land, you have nothing. Very few Palestinians had legitimate deeds. I know, there was a whole warehouse full of deeds but they were proven bogus. That is a controlling factor. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. This fact is written in stone. (pardon the pun)

The land the Jews were granted under the Partition Plan was more than adequate for their settlement - even excepting the Negev which was assigned to them largely because no other party wanted it. The Zionist authorities made a fuss because they wanted extra land set aside for 'future returnees' - but the Plan was only to take into account the current population, as it should. The Palestinians and Arabs also made a fuss for their own reasons - such is the way of negotiations where the end result is something unappealing to both sides.

The UN partition had no authority. It was just a suggestion. Israel abided by it initially giving the Palestinian every chance to co-declare. When the Palestinian refused, it became a land rush and the partition plan became void. The genie is out of the bottle now.

Yeah, give the Jew the Negev because nobody else wanted it. Actually, Israel made the argument that they needed Eilat. Both sides fussed but if they had become co-states, then the UN could have aided in negotiations. That never happened because the Muslim was going to drive the Jew into the sea. That’s the choice that they are going to have to live with, but now they want to call a do-over. We see what happens with that with repeated rocket attacks.

I repeat again for the hard-of-hearing here. The Palestinians did not identify as "Arab", nor were the majority Muslim.

I’ll let you reply to RoofGardener.

Self-determination is a core principle of decolonisation.

Or colonization… Self-determination shouldn’t include fleeing.

If the peoples being referred to self-identified as 'Palestinian', then Palestinian they were - your objection notwithstanding.

The point was when did the Palestinian start identifying themselves as Palestinian? Prior to 1922, they were various Muslim, Arabic tribes. It took a long time to migrate from tribes to a collective and even today, there are clear clan and tribe boundaries.

Are you quite sure that "everything is against" Israel?

I personally don’t but many do. Either way, Israel has had to overcome much.

What about the US and much of Western Europe (and, by default of that, the UN)? It seems your statements are still tinged with a pro-Israel bias.

Now let me get this straight. I state that everything is against Israel and you call me pro-Israeli?? I am pro-Israeli but that had no logic to it. I’m pro-Israeli because I am anti-Islamic, not Islamophobic but anti-Islamic Doctrine. Now, don’t get me wrong, I admire the Quran as well as Mein Kampf and Rules for Radicals and other similar works. I acknowledge that as far as manipulation goes, these are great works, they just so happen to be counter to my way of life. That’s why I stand where I stand.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.