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 -
Black Red Devil

Netanyahu plans to annex the Jordan Valley

123 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
8 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

As I've said situation is much easier to deal with for Israel if Palestinians are broken into further enclaves. New plans for annexation are one more step towards making the two state solution impossible - if it already is not impossible for it to be achieved politically.

Placements of settlement blocks and security checkpoints, along with walls also aid such goals and all are later incorporated in de facto Israeli land.

On that map we see what is proposed by the UN. Map is not realistic representation of the situation on the ground. It only represents that which was agreed on politically.

Ah, and there we have the nub. Who - exactly - "agreed" on this UN proposal ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sir Smoke aLot
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Ah, and there we have the nub. Who - exactly - "agreed" on this UN proposal ? 

All but those who mattered. Anyhow that map was there just to show how Palestine get's broken in pieces and then incorporated in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

All but those who mattered. Anyhow that map was there just to show how Palestine get's broken in pieces and then incorporated in the state.

It was rejected by Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Greece (?!?), Turkey... oh....  and Cuba !

So all of the neighbours of "Palestine". I think they probably matter ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Well, I think the basis for the discussion has been made moot.  Netanyahu is trailing and will not be forming the next government.  I guess the hit job by the Left had enough of a negative affect to take him out.  It will be interesting to see how long the next government, if they can cobble one together, lasts.  I don't see any other PM, especially one from the Left, having the influence with Trump that Netanyahu did.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Woke up and now awakened ...

Quote

 

[00.05:45]

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
1 hour ago, and then said:

Well, I think the basis for the discussion has been made moot.  Netanyahu is trailing and will not be forming the next government.  I guess the hit job by the Left had enough of a negative affect to take him out.  It will be interesting to see how long the next government, if they can cobble one together, lasts.  I don't see any other PM, especially one from the Left, having the influence with Trump that Netanyahu did.  

The focus on influence of a new Israely PM should not be with Trump or anyone else but with the Israely and Palestinian people.

It is their land, their past, present and future and anyone else, including you and me should not stand in the way of their peace, freedom and prosperity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, odas said:

The focus on influence of a new Israely PM should not be with Trump or anyone else but with the Israely and Palestinian people.

It is their land, their past, present and future and anyone else, including you and me should not stand in the way of their peace, freedom and prosperity.

 

Oh, I agree that the decision is rightly to be theirs.  America has no business telling them what government they need.  I'm simply pointing out that Trump has been the most pro-Israel U.S. president in my lifetime and while he will deal with anyone they pick, he won't be as likely to bend, IMO.  I believe that his peace plan will still be rejected by the Palestinians but accepted by a Left leaning Knesset.

We disagree on the dynamic there and always will.  I see Israel's enemies as being completely intransigent and unwilling to ever give up the struggle to push the Jews completely off that land and I believe that it will eventually lead to a horrific loss of life - for BOTH sides.  No Palestinian leadership will ever agree to anything other than Hudna.  They also won't be honest about that.  What will be will be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
22 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

It was rejected by Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Greece (?!?), Turkey... oh....  and Cuba !

So all of the neighbours of "Palestine". I think they probably matter ? 

That doesn't change anything, especially because old demographic data support my argument here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
17 hours ago, and then said:

Well, I think the basis for the discussion has been made moot.  Netanyahu is trailing and will not be forming the next government.  I guess the hit job by the Left had enough of a negative affect to take him out.  It will be interesting to see how long the next government, if they can cobble one together, lasts.  I don't see any other PM, especially one from the Left, having the influence with Trump that Netanyahu did.  

It's interesting, given all the popular moves Bibi has made, moves which helped his image campaign. Especially his relationship with Trump. But i would not worry, Trump had great connections with Israel even before Netanyahu as his family supported illegal settlements project even back in 1960's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

That doesn't change anything, especially because old demographic data support my argument here.

The point is, @Sir Smoke aLot, is that you produced an old UN map to support your point. However, the entire Arab world rejected that map, so what possible relevance does it have ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
16 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The point is, @Sir Smoke aLot, is that you produced an old UN map to support your point. However, the entire Arab world rejected that map, so what possible relevance does it have ? 

So let's say that i could have done better and send older map let's say from 1870's.

What difference does it make? My point is clear and mistake is easily corrected even tho i do not see it as a mistake.

Point is not about UN plans but about doctrine in which, over the years we've seen separation and incorporation of territory by Israel. It's modern way of making claim to become sovereign on the land, something which was believed to be thing of the past. Every political question which arose from controversy of occupying the land for long periods of time tends to grow intricate and into absurdities like those where both occupier and the occupied build strong claims.

In the end no one could clearly dispute claims for sovereignty of either side. That's one of the reasons why taking of land is forbidden by international law. Using occupied land for any other purpose that to support your military, as occupier, is also forbidden. 

 This most recent Bibi's claim is not his personal goal or idea but instead it is national project and Bibi merely promised to get it on paper, de jure. While de facto, that wish is already in power.

So tell me please what does Arabian decision to reject non demanding proposal has to do with this?

Most important thing to note about that plan is that Israel accepted it plan for two reasons,

1. was that they got best and most land even tho they were still great minority,

2 it was sort of CONDITION for international community to accept Israel as a state, that's why Israeli officials of the time often called it as binding for them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
49 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

So let's say that i could have done better and send older map let's say from 1870's.

What difference does it make? My point is clear and mistake is easily corrected even tho i do not see it as a mistake.

Point is not about UN plans but about doctrine in which, over the years we've seen separation and incorporation of territory by Israel. It's modern way of making claim to become sovereign on the land, something which was believed to be thing of the past. Every political question which arose from controversy of occupying the land for long periods of time tends to grow intricate and into absurdities like those where both occupier and the occupied build strong claims.

In the end no one could clearly dispute claims for sovereignty of either side. That's one of the reasons why taking of land is forbidden by international law. Using occupied land for any other purpose that to support your military, as occupier, is also forbidden. 

 This most recent Bibi's claim is not his personal goal or idea but instead it is national project and Bibi merely promised to get it on paper, de jure. While de facto, that wish is already in power.

So tell me please what does Arabian decision to reject non demanding proposal has to do with this?

Most important thing to note about that plan is that Israel accepted it plan for two reasons,

1. was that they got best and most land even tho they were still great minority,

2 it was sort of CONDITION for international community to accept Israel as a state, that's why Israeli officials of the time often called it as binding for them.

 

 

Hmm... OK then :) 

One minor detail: the last people to "own" the land where the Jordanians (up until 1967), by right of conquest.  Prior to that, it was the Ottoman Empire. The allies in WW1 kicked them out, and effectively occupied the territory under a league of nations Mandate. 

So who owns the land, and who is Israel "occupying" it FROM ? The Turks ? The British ? Or the Jordanians ? 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Farmer77
45 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... OK then :) 

One minor detail: the last people to "own" the land where the Jordanians (up until 1967), by right of conquest.  Prior to that, it was the Ottoman Empire. The allies in WW1 kicked them out, and effectively occupied the territory under a league of nations Mandate. 

So who owns the land, and who is Israel "occupying" it FROM ? The Turks ? The British ? Or the Jordanians ? 

Comeon its the middle east. All you have to do is claim some land as your magical ancestral homeland and boom its yours. Right Israel?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Comeon its the middle east. All you have to do is claim some land as your magical ancestral homeland and boom its yours. Right Israel?

Yes indeed,  Mahmoud ! 

Now then @Farmer77, are  you actually going to respond to my post ? 

Who's land is Israel occupying ? Jordanians, Britains, or the Turks ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... OK then :) 

One minor detail: the last people to "own" the land where the Jordanians (up until 1967), by right of conquest.  Prior to that, it was the Ottoman Empire. The allies in WW1 kicked them out, and effectively occupied the territory under a league of nations Mandate. 

So who owns the land, and who is Israel "occupying" it FROM ? The Turks ? The British ? Or the Jordanians ? 

Right after Bibi's promise was revealed, situation on the ground (in the occupied areas) started to escalate. From tightened security over to acts of aggression towards Palestinians and their property.

I see you mention Ottomans. OK, then remember that in peace deal with Brits it was noted that there was indeed Palestine and Trans Jordan - as two states and also border between them was recognized in relevant document. It was further confirmed after French takeover of Syria.

Important thing to note here is that Mandate was obliged to held elections and respect nations right of self determination, something which was not fulfilled to this day in the case of Palestine. 

[edit] to add, recommended read about the subject of Palestine and Zionists in early days of conflict, or in the early days of colonization, LINK, if you have troubles finding full documents i will find them in my collection and will upload if you are interested. It's good starting point, from legal aspect, in order to determine if whole people is ''fakestinian'' or Palestinian indeed.

Then we can proceed to discussion about passport, personal ID card, state currency and other aspects of life in Palestine before Zionist takeover, namely before early 1900's political game started.

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yes indeed,  Mahmoud ! 

Now then @Farmer77, are  you actually going to respond to my post ? 

Who's land is Israel occupying ? Jordanians, Britains, or the Turks ? 

Mongol.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

Let me also ask you, @RoofGardener, form moral point of view and assuming that there was no Palestine - does it make a difference if people at the land were politically organized or not? 

Does lack of political organization gives justification for abuse of the land and it's inhabitants to third party?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
18 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Let me also ask you, @RoofGardener, form moral point of view and assuming that there was no Palestine - does it make a difference if people at the land were politically organized or not? 

Does lack of political organization gives justification for abuse of the land and it's inhabitants to third party?

 

In interesting question, @Sir Smoke aLot. The land was "disorganised"... meaning that it wasn't formally owned by anybody.. in the meaning of a nation state

Where the Jews therefore within their rights to declare the State of Israel ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
41 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Mongol.

No problem then. Get the Mongol Horde's into the UN, and the Israeli's can thrash out a deal with them :D 

Seeing how the Mongol's treated the "Palestinians" the LAST time they where in the area, I'm not sure that the PLO will be ENTIRELY chuffed with that suggestion :P :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot
13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

In interesting question, @Sir Smoke aLot. The land was "disorganised"... meaning that it wasn't formally owned by anybody.. in the meaning of a nation state

Where the Jews therefore within their rights to declare the State of Israel ? 

It's exactly what i asked you, to assume that the land was ''disorganized'' and everything which comes under that. You often have to twist things around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Just now, Sir Smoke aLot said:

It's exactly what i asked you, to assume that the land was ''disorganized'' and everything which comes under that. You often have to twist things around.

I'm afraid I'm confused @Sir Smoke aLot. Could you explain your meaning ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
On 9/11/2019 at 3:20 AM, Manwon Lender said:

I just hope that the US stays out of it, let them do what ever they want to over. Just keep our soldiers home, we really don't have a dog in this fight.

JIMO

Whatever Israel does... the US have two feet in it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
9 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

In interesting question, @Sir Smoke aLot. The land was "disorganised"... meaning that it wasn't formally owned by anybody.. in the meaning of a nation state

Where the Jews therefore within their rights to declare the State of Israel ? 

Sorry Roofgardener if this sounds racist it is not meant to be but, exactly your view of " formaly not owned by anybody" gave the white man the "right" to conquer all what he was able to qonquer. This was and is a dangerous mindset and a linguistic and political tool that is used by the western white man in the past as well as an excuse today.

Formal or not formal. People were there, living in this land before the Israely statehood.

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.