Pages: 1 2

 

2006-08-18 07:15:42
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6508|Texas
1. Before 1947 when the U.N. established "Israel", was there a country in that spot called "Palestine" and did it have a government, an infrastructure, an ambassador to the U.N., etc.? As best I can tell the answer to that question is no. This is an important point for me. Enlighten me if you can.

2. When Egypt blockaded Israel in 1967 and the Six Day war ensued, was the Gaza Strip part of Egypt, and was the West Bank part of Jordan?

If those areas were not part of the attacking forces countries, I'm going to need a better explanation of why Israel thinks they can be there.

If the answer to #2 is Yes on both accounts, and Egypt and Jordan lost ground in a war, then I'm going to have a hard time being all that upset about the "occupation". My answer would be to call it more of a "conquering". Egypt started a war with Israel, and they're lucky the whole country isn't called Israel. At the very least you can't call it an occupation of Palestine when it was actually Egypt.

Just looking for a few facts and a little clarification.
2006-08-18 07:52:44
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6565

Dersmikner wrote:

1. Before 1947 when the U.N. established "Israel", was there a country in that spot called "Palestine" and did it have a government, an infrastructure, an ambassador to the U.N., etc.? As best I can tell the answer to that question is no. This is an important point for me. Enlighten me if you can.

2. When Egypt blockaded Israel in 1967 and the Six Day war ensued, was the Gaza Strip part of Egypt, and was the West Bank part of Jordan?

If those areas were not part of the attacking forces countries, I'm going to need a better explanation of why Israel thinks they can be there.

If the answer to #2 is Yes on both accounts, and Egypt and Jordan lost ground in a war, then I'm going to have a hard time being all that upset about the "occupation". My answer would be to call it more of a "conquering". Egypt started a war with Israel, and they're lucky the whole country isn't called Israel. At the very least you can't call it an occupation of Palestine when it was actually Egypt.

Just looking for a few facts and a little clarification.
1. It was the British administered ex-Ottoman territory of Palestine (from the end of WWI until the UK pulled out under increasing pressure from both jewish and arab 'terror' attacks). The UN did not 'establish' Israel. Jewish immigrants 'established' Israel through violence and through the driving of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and land. After they had stabilised the area, countries then began to start recognising them as a state. The UN plan of which you probably speak was never implemented. The people of the region of Palestine should have been given the ability to govern themselves but instead the Brits allowed wave after wave of immigrants into their homeland, thus producing the stinking pile of shit we now call the Palestine-Israel conflict.

2. Gaza never formed part of internationally recognised Egypt. Gaza was temporarily administered by Egypt and the West Bank was temporarily administered by Jordan. The fact that Israel 'conquered' the areas is beside the point. Hitler 'conquered' Poland. This 'conquest' is morally wrong and is not recognised internationally anyway. To answer your question - the West Bank was never part of Jordan and Gaza was never part of Egypt. Both regions were administered temporarily by said parties, much like the Brits did up until 1948.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-18 19:29:26)

2006-08-18 12:29:51
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6508|Texas
Am I confused, or are you telling me that all these Jews just showed up in Palestine without the assistance or approval of the United Nations, formed an army and took over?

That hardly sounds possible to me.
2006-08-18 13:09:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6565

Dersmikner wrote:

Am I confused, or are you telling me that all these Jews just showed up in Palestine without the assistance or approval of the United Nations, formed an army and took over?

That hardly sounds possible to me.
You'd better believe it. It's testament to how shit arabs are at fighting wars. Second only to France. During and immediately after WWII it was actually officially ILLEGAL for jews to immigrate into the region but they did so anyway, in large numbers (especially from Russia). There was no 'assistance' from the international community. Just words really - expressing a desire for some sort of jewish homeland. Uganda was even considered as a potential jewish state.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-18 13:11:04)

2006-08-18 13:13:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6591|SE London

Dersmikner wrote:

Am I confused, or are you telling me that all these Jews just showed up in Palestine without the assistance or approval of the United Nations, formed an army and took over?

That hardly sounds possible to me.
Mass scale Jewish immigration (with restrictions on it) to Palestine was authorised by Arthur Balfour.

Here is the document (1939 white paper) that expresses the terms of the Jewish immigration clearly (I've put some of the important bits in bold):

British Government wrote:

* Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:

          "His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

          "The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."

    * Section II. Immigration: Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British Mandate was to be limited to 75,000 for the first five years, and would later be contingent on Arab consent:

          "His Majesty's Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [...] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East."

          "Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next five years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows: For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits. In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted. After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it."

    * Section III. Land: Previously no restriction had been imposed on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews, while now the White Paper stated:

          "The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land."
Hope that clears some stuff up for you.

Basically Israel as a state was never supposed to exist. The British considered it against their obligations to the Arab population to create a Jewish state within Palestine. The Jewish immigrants ILLEGALLY formed the state of Israel, which they were able to do by ignoring the rules laid down about immigration to Palestine. Israel is a state of illegal immigrants who took over. Imagine if Mexicans took over the US (I know that could never happen, it's just an example).

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-18 17:13:59)

2006-08-18 15:18:38
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6508|Texas
The Mexicans are taking over Texas. I ride down the road and see nearly as many billboards in Spanish as I do in English. There are over a half a dozen Spanish language radio stations in my LITTLE area of East Texas. It's not like I live on the border either. I'm as close to Nebraska as I am to Laredo.

Did the Jews simply move in and outvote the Arabs or did they literally gather up guns and take over? How the hell did they form borders, get recognized by the "West" if they weren't supposed to be an independent state?
2006-08-18 16:43:22
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6591|SE London

They illegally immigrated and established themselves as the dominant force in the area. During Arab uprisings and riots protesting this fact Jewish settlers formed militant groups The Haganah (The Defence, the precursor to the IDF) and the more extreme Irgun (National Military Organization). These groups launched attacks on the British who were attempting to stem the flow of Jewish settlers into Palestine. Soon after the even more extreme group Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) entered into negotiations with the Nazis to forcibly move all European Jews to the new Zionist state of Israel (still officially Palestine).

Following continued violence directed towards them by the Jewish settlers, more specifically by the militant group Irgun, the British withdrew from Palestine. Following this the newly formed UN decided a partition between the Arab and Jewish populous would be a good idea. This was the 1947 UN partition plan. Under the terms of this plan the Jewish settlers would have 55% of the nation (Israel) and the Palestinians 45%. Who says terrorism doesn't work - it got the Jewish settlers in Palestine a 55% share of a country they had no claim to.

The next year the Arab states surrounding Israel declared war on the state of Israel and the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 began. It is a testament to how crap at war they were and how effective the Jewish terror groups (for that is effectively what they had been up until that point) were that the combined forces of the Arab states were defeated by the Israelis.

Ultimately the Jewish settlers immigrated illegally until they were in sufficient numbers to dominate the nation and then through acts of terrorism drove out the British and took control, control that was legitimised by the UN under the partition plan.
2006-08-19 03:28:46
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6675|NT, like Mick Dundee

Bertster, Balfour started this off in 1917 I believe. That was when he first officially declared his support for a jewish state in the region.

Wiki's article onthe Balfour Declaration of 1917, more can be found in various places on the web.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2006-08-19 06:00:38
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6591|SE London

Flecco wrote:

Bertster, Balfour started this off in 1917 I believe. That was when he first officially declared his support for a jewish state in the region.

Wiki's article onthe Balfour Declaration of 1917, more can be found in various places on the web.
Not for a Jewish State - It was due to this mis-interpretation of the declaration of 1917 that the white paper of 1939 was written to clarify the details and to slow the massive influx of Jewish settlers to the region.
2006-08-19 06:41:11
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6654|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

CameronPoe wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

Am I confused, or are you telling me that all these Jews just showed up in Palestine without the assistance or approval of the United Nations, formed an army and took over?

That hardly sounds possible to me.
You'd better believe it. It's testament to how shit arabs are at fighting wars. Second only to France. During and immediately after WWII it was actually officially ILLEGAL for jews to immigrate into the region but they did so anyway, in large numbers (especially from Russia). There was no 'assistance' from the international community. Just words really - expressing a desire for some sort of jewish homeland. Uganda was even considered as a potential jewish state.
2006-08-19 07:02:06
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6767|Argentina

Dersmikner wrote:

The Mexicans are taking over Texas. I ride down the road and see nearly as many billboards in Spanish as I do in English. There are over a half a dozen Spanish language radio stations in my LITTLE area of East Texas. It's not like I live on the border either. I'm as close to Nebraska as I am to Laredo.

Did the Jews simply move in and outvote the Arabs or did they literally gather up guns and take over? How the hell did they form borders, get recognized by the "West" if they weren't supposed to be an independent state?
Wasn't Texas part of Mexico anyway?  I think you are mixing things up.
2006-08-19 07:05:30
jonsimon
Member
+224|6505

sergeriver wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

The Mexicans are taking over Texas. I ride down the road and see nearly as many billboards in Spanish as I do in English. There are over a half a dozen Spanish language radio stations in my LITTLE area of East Texas. It's not like I live on the border either. I'm as close to Nebraska as I am to Laredo.

Did the Jews simply move in and outvote the Arabs or did they literally gather up guns and take over? How the hell did they form borders, get recognized by the "West" if they weren't supposed to be an independent state?
Wasn't Texas part of Mexico anyway?  I think you are mixing things up.
LOL Beautiful analogy. Texas was originally part of Mexico, but the mexican government encouraged immigration. Eventually, American immigrants decided they wanted the land for themsevles, and formed a state. Very similar to the situation in Israel.
2006-08-19 07:06:52
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6767|Argentina

jonsimon wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

The Mexicans are taking over Texas. I ride down the road and see nearly as many billboards in Spanish as I do in English. There are over a half a dozen Spanish language radio stations in my LITTLE area of East Texas. It's not like I live on the border either. I'm as close to Nebraska as I am to Laredo.

Did the Jews simply move in and outvote the Arabs or did they literally gather up guns and take over? How the hell did they form borders, get recognized by the "West" if they weren't supposed to be an independent state?
Wasn't Texas part of Mexico anyway?  I think you are mixing things up.
LOL Beautiful analogy. Texas was originally part of Mexico, but the mexican government encouraged immigration. Eventually, American immigrants decided they wanted the land for themsevles, and formed a state. Very similar to the situation in Israel.
I rest my case your honor.
2006-08-19 14:47:04
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6508|Texas
Actually we TOOK it from them, the same way all countries were formed. The dominant military force prevailed in armed conflict.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's not like ALL those nations weren't formed by the Ottomans conquering someone, the Turks conquering someone, the Huns, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Romans, the Norse, the Pilgrims...

All nations were formed and borders created by military superiority, so now that I think about it, I'm sick of hearing them whine. If the ARabs don't like it, just take the Jews out. If they can't because they have a clusterfuck of a military complex, so be it, I'm tired of hearing them whine.

I'm for a death match and whoever survives, survives, and screw the losers. I'm tired of dealing with all the bullshit and the TV news and the car-bombs and the suicide dipshits and the rockets and the airplane crap.

I either want to see the Jews wipe out the Arabs, or the Arabs wipe out the Jews and then I want to see the winner quit whining to the world. Goddamn worthless region. Build a computer. Create something. Write some software. Make fabulous crystal. Become a comsumer goods giant. Fucking oil and olives and violence, that's all the hell more we get out of that place.

When that's all over, if the Arabs have taken over all the Middle East and there are still car bombings and planes hijacked, I'm for a full on religious war until we're dead or they are.
2006-08-19 15:50:27
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ
Banned
+69|6511
If you enjoy clamoring about how the Jews expelled the Arabs from current day Israel then you should as well bitch and moan moreso how the Arabs killed and expelled the Jews from the middle east long ago. The big difference now is that present day Israelis bought their land and homes while the Arabs simply killed them and took it. And after the Jews won the 1948 war the six day war the Yom Kippur war none of which were launched by Israel and then facing first intifada and another that is still ongoing it should be no surprise Israels current assertive stance. A main difference between the two being that when the Jews win a war they don't slaughter and expel their neighbor but attempt to live in relative peace.

Of course the Israel haters would prefer you had a short term memory and ignore the causes to how things came to be. Knowing about these constant attacks Israel endures gives more understanding of the nature of the Arabs and how they have tried and will continue to try to kill and destroy Israel, not based on arguments over settlements or border specifics but Israels existence at all is the cause of the violence. Also they'd rather give references to the Irgun but not mentioning or recognizing that Arab terrorist attacks far outweigh Jewish ones.

Dersminker wrote:

Am I confused, or are you telling me that all these Jews just showed up in Palestine without the assistance or approval of the United Nations

CameronPoe wrote:

You'd better believe it.
..not quite. As he's well aware but happy to ignore the League of Nations the UN predecessor approved of it. Also the Arab leaders who won their freedom from the Ottomans in WW1 and in discourse with Thomas Balfour, namely Faisal and
Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca added approval. But we should probably all be ideologues and say that the British govt should have went to every nomadic tribe and sheep herder and asked what political paths they should have taken.

Also ignore the fact that the UN designed the 1947 partition . So in that context the organization that you Israel haters so love to reference with their sanctions against Israel would probably prefer to excuse. In that context that Israel stole land from the Palestinians the Jews that lived in the west bank and Gaza can complain that they gave up their homes and their land stolen by the Palestinians. Also play up what you call Israel "stealing" land from the Palestinians without factoring in the fact that in 1920 there was 400,000 Arabs in Palestine and by 1948 their numbers had more than quadrupled from their own immigration. But you'd rather play up the displacing than admit they were first generation immigrant who simply immigrated again.

Last edited by ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ (2006-08-19 16:06:37)

2006-08-19 17:48:23
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6591|SE London

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

If you enjoy clamoring about how the Jews expelled the Arabs from current day Israel then you should as well bitch and moan moreso how the Arabs killed and expelled the Jews from the middle east long ago. The big difference now is that present day Israelis bought their land and homes while the Arabs simply killed them and took it. And after the Jews won the 1948 war the six day war the Yom Kippur war none of which were launched by Israel and then facing first intifada and another that is still ongoing it should be no surprise Israels current assertive stance. A main difference between the two being that when the Jews win a war they don't slaughter and expel their neighbor but attempt to live in relative peace.

Of course the Israel haters would prefer you had a short term memory and ignore the causes to how things came to be. Knowing about these constant attacks Israel endures gives more understanding of the nature of the Arabs and how they have tried and will continue to try to kill and destroy Israel, not based on arguments over settlements or border specifics but Israels existence at all is the cause of the violence. Also they'd rather give references to the Irgun but not mentioning or recognizing that Arab terrorist attacks far outweigh Jewish ones.

Dersminker wrote:

Am I confused, or are you telling me that all these Jews just showed up in Palestine without the assistance or approval of the United Nations

CameronPoe wrote:

You'd better believe it.
..not quite. As he's well aware but happy to ignore the League of Nations the UN predecessor approved of it. Also the Arab leaders who won their freedom from the Ottomans in WW1 and in discourse with Thomas Balfour, namely Faisal and
Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca added approval. But we should probably all be ideologues and say that the British govt should have went to every nomadic tribe and sheep herder and asked what political paths they should have taken.

Also ignore the fact that the UN designed the 1947 partition . So in that context the organization that you Israel haters so love to reference with their sanctions against Israel would probably prefer to excuse. In that context that Israel stole land from the Palestinians the Jews that lived in the west bank and Gaza can complain that they gave up their homes and their land stolen by the Palestinians. Also play up what you call Israel "stealing" land from the Palestinians without factoring in the fact that in 1920 there was 400,000 Arabs in Palestine and by 1948 their numbers had more than quadrupled from their own immigration. But you'd rather play up the displacing than admit they were first generation immigrant who simply immigrated again.
You've changed the facts a bit there.

The League of Nations were in no way involved in the deal - the deal was between the British government, the potential Jewish settlers and the Arabs who lived there.
The Balfour declaration of 1917 by Arthur Balfour, not Thomas - I don't know where you got that from - was unclear in the eyes of the British government since the Jewish settlers had taken it as license to unchecked immigration. If you read the white paper revisions of 1939 - which I have posted - it speaks for itself. There were numerical limits placed on the number of Jewish settlers allowed into Palestine each year. The Jewish immigrants broke these rules and the British set up naval bloackades. The attempts of the Illegal Jewish immigrants to avoid these blockades were known as Aliya Beth. The first Aliya was legal, the second Aliya led to many more Jewish immigrants turning up than anticipated and so the rules were changed - the white paper of 1939 - the 3rd, 4th and 5th Aliya movements were illegal.

The white paper was needed to clear up the Balfour declaration of 1917 because it was a bit vague and simple.

Balfour wrote:

Dear Lord Rothschild,

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour
They you go, I've posted both the official declarations regarding this issue. There is one other paper on this issue, regarded by some as the most anti-Jewish immigration - The Churchill white paper of 1922.

There were Arab uprisings in protest to the mass Jewish immigration, the Great Arab Uprising of 1936 this unrest amongst the Arab community is what prompted the release of the 1939 white paper. The Jewish uprisings later were far more extreme and drove the British out of Palestine.
2006-08-19 18:38:47
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ
Banned
+69|6511

Berster7 wrote:

You've changed the facts a bit there.

The League of Nations were in no way involved in the deal - the deal was between the British government, the potential Jewish settlers and the Arabs who lived there.
Actaully I havent but nice try.

Wikipedia wrote:

The conference broadly reaffirmed the terms of the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 May 1916 for the region's partition and the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917,
Although I did say Thomas and not Arthur ..I'd have to ask forgivness for that error as I wrote this stuff out of memory. Also youre spreading some misinformation of your own.. Only the 5th aliyah was considered illegal by the British government and it was not completely illegal just limited to 75 thousand in 5 years.
2006-08-20 10:19:06
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6565
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Arthur James Balfour

As such, the Balfour declaration was a load of bollocks.

Also the whole notion of the UN actually establishing the state of Israel itself is a load of bollocks. Jewish immigrants created the state of Israel. From Wiki-pedia:

"On May 12, the Jewish national administration was convened in order to decide whether to accept the American proposal for a truce or to declare the new state. A vote was taken and the decision to declare independence forthwith was supported by six of the ten voting members." (pages 5 & 7 of "The Evolution of the Israeli-Egyptian Rivalry, 1948-1979" by Professor of Political Science Dr. Zeev Maoz of Tel-Aviv University [1]).

The new state and its government was recognized de facto minutes later by the United States and three days later de jure by the Soviet Union (Stalin thought a communist or communist-oriented Jewish state could be a useful "thorn in the back" of his capitalist rivals in the Middle East). It was however opposed by many others, particularly Arabs (both the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs), who felt it was being established at their expense.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-20 10:23:19)

2006-08-20 11:27:35
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6591|SE London

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

You've changed the facts a bit there.

The League of Nations were in no way involved in the deal - the deal was between the British government, the potential Jewish settlers and the Arabs who lived there.
Actaully I havent but nice try.

Wikipedia wrote:

The conference broadly reaffirmed the terms of the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement of 16 May 1916 for the region's partition and the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917,
Although I did say Thomas and not Arthur ..I'd have to ask forgivness for that error as I wrote this stuff out of memory. Also youre spreading some misinformation of your own.. Only the 5th aliyah was considered illegal by the British government and it was not completely illegal just limited to 75 thousand in 5 years.
As I said, the league of nations were not involved in the deal. They were involved in brokering the partitioning of the mandates in the middle east - a seperate issue entirely. They also declared their approval of the Balfour declaration (which was made redundadant by the white papers succeeding it) at the San Remo conference in 1920 - 3 years after the original declaration had been made. So the league of nations were not involved in the deal - unsurprising really since the league of nations had no actual power or jurisdiction - the UN have FAR more powers than the league of nations ever did.
In fact it was the peace conference of Versailles which granted Britain control of the mandate of Palestine - which they had been in control of for some years - see Lawrence of Arabia (T.E. Lawrence). The Arabs had been promised independence for the part they played in the war.

The Palestine mandate - drawn up by the league of nations in 1922 copied the exact text from the Balfour declaration of 5 years earlier, the rest of the document concerned Britains obligations to the indiginous population. This was in no way conected to the Balfour declaration, other than reiterating it and there was no further involvement by the league of nations at all. I dismiss this as anything to do with it as it does not include any new information regarding Jewish immigration.

As for the 3rd and 4th Aliyahs not being illegal, I should draw your attention to the Hope Simpson Royal Commission which acknowledged that illegal immigration had been occuring - this is before the begining of the 5th aliyah. It also acknowledged deliberate attempts by the Jewish settlers to drive up housing prices and other financial mechanisms to drive the Arab population away.

There was Arab violence, for example the Hebron massacre - there are no reports of terrorism by the Arabs living there. Haganah and Irgun were both termed as terrorist organisations by the British governors there and attacked British and Arab targets alike. The Jewish organisations were terrorists, the Arabs had no organisations and caused only riots targeting Jewish settlers.

CameronPoe wrote:

Also the whole notion of the UN actually establishing the state of Israel itself is a load of bollocks. Jewish immigrants created the state of Israel. From Wiki-pedia:

"On May 12, the Jewish national administration was convened in order to decide whether to accept the American proposal for a truce or to declare the new state. A vote was taken and the decision to declare independence forthwith was supported by six of the ten voting members." (pages 5 & 7 of "The Evolution of the Israeli-Egyptian Rivalry, 1948-1979" by Professor of Political Science Dr. Zeev Maoz of Tel-Aviv University [1]).
Quite right. The Jewish national administration, backed by the various millitant groups who had driven established the state of Israel in defiance of British and American rulings that had led to calls for a truce.
All the UN did was to legitimise this state and create partitions for the Arab and Jewish populus to live in - partitions which the Israeli government pay little heed to. The partition plan was condemed by the British who claimed it was not fair to both sides, they abstained from the vote - refusing to recognise it or play any further part in the deal.

So - The terrorists won. Israel continue their policy of state terrorism to this day.
2006-08-20 11:34:05
jonsimon
Member
+224|6505
Perhaps the most educational thread currently active, +1 for starting it.
2006-08-20 12:46:05
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6781|PNW

jonsimon wrote:

Perhaps the most educational thread currently active, +1 for starting it.
Make that another. I'm amazed that no one-sentence nation bashing has begun yet...(knocks on wood). This is what debate threads should be doing.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-08-20 12:47:05)

2006-08-20 12:46:43
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ
Banned
+69|6511
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
I suppose that it should have had an addition that included that no matter how many riots, bombings, and killings the Jews endure they should take it with a coke and a smile. Things change and after 30 years of violence not based on any prejudice of civil or religious right but againt them buying land and building homes the rules changed.

CameronPoe wrote:

Also the whole notion of the UN actually establishing the state of Israel itself is a load of bollocks.
Actually whats 'bollocks' is putting words into someones mouth and making shit up. I never said the UN created Israel. However it is widely accepted that they initiated the 1948 war but proposing the 1947 division. One should question why the UN would do such a thing.. Do they wish to persecute arabs as well ?

Also i enjoyed when you called me a liar saying that the arab leaders were complicant in the Balfour agreement.

The Faisal-Weizmann agreements was a discorse between the arab leaders who won Palestines freedom from the Ottomans and the zionists that said..

All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.
2006-08-20 13:02:43
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6591|SE London

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
I suppose that it should have had an addition that included that no matter how many riots, bombings, and killings the Jews endure they should take it with a coke and a smile. Things change and after 30 years of violence not based on any prejudice of civil or religious right but againt them buying land and building homes the rules changed.
The Jewish settlers buying the land was one of the primary problems. Jewish consortiums bought up massive tracts of land and property. The deliberate effect of this was to artificially inflate property prices and put property out of the economic reach of the Arab peoples living in Palestine.

These effects leading to mass poverty and homelessness amongst the Arabs living there were what prompted the Arab riots. These riots were just that - riots (with the occasional massacre here and there for good measure). When the Jewish settlers fought back it was not primarily against the Arabs who were assaulting them, but against Arab civilians and anyone British (who gave them permission to move there in the first place). These terrorist organisations forced the British out and established a state. A state built on terrorism, a tradition that continues to this day.

Millitant organisations to defend your people is one thing, terror groups to drive out the governing forces and murder as many random Arabs as possible are quite another.
2006-08-20 13:05:58
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ
Banned
+69|6511

Berster7 wrote:

As I said, the league of nations were not involved in the deal.
Thats funny naming the Balfour as a League of Nations mandate invovles them in the deal. They dont have to specifically wrtie the deal to be involved. The league of nations being the geoverning body and making itan official mandate is about as involved as you can get.

Berster7 wrote:

As for the 3rd and 4th Aliyahs not being illegal, I should draw your attention to the Hope Simpson Royal Commission which acknowledged that illegal immigration had been occuring - this is before the begining of the 5th aliyah.
Sorry but having some illegal immigration does not therefore make all immigration illegal. The white paper which made mass immigration illegal was wrote in 1939 and that is the 5th aliyah ...
2006-08-20 13:13:51
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6565

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
I suppose that it should have had an addition that included that no matter how many riots, bombings, and killings the Jews endure they should take it with a coke and a smile. Things change and after 30 years of violence not based on any prejudice of civil or religious right but againt them buying land and building homes the rules changed.
Well if I had hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants pushing me aside in my home country I certainly wouldn't sit there and take it like a bitch. If Mexicans decided they wanted a 'homeland' in Southern California would you accede, given that 'things change'?

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Also the whole notion of the UN actually establishing the state of Israel itself is a load of bollocks.
Actually whats 'bollocks' is putting words into someones mouth and making shit up. I never said the UN created Israel. However it is widely accepted that they initiated the 1948 war but proposing the 1947 division. One should question why the UN would do such a thing.. Do they wish to persecute arabs as well ?
The comment I made with respect to the UN was addressing the erroneous belief of the original poster that that had been the case, not any of your comments.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Also i enjoyed when you called me a liar saying that the arab leaders were complicant in the Balfour agreement.

The Faisal-Weizmann agreements was a discorse between the arab leaders who won Palestines freedom from the Ottomans and the zionists that said..

All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.
Calling you a liar? The line regarding arab non-compliance was lifted from Wikipedia. They were not my own words. Where did the arab leaders you mention in relation to the Faisal-Weizsmann discourse get the moral authority or mandate to toy with the lives of the Palestinians anyway? I pity the Palestinians -  a temporary political vacuum destroyed their lives.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard