| 1/18/2008 6:25:42 AM | Palestine and Israelis | | 
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 64
| Hello everyone!
To gather the discussion here...
Before WWI, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the beginning of WWI (1915 -- the Hussein/McMahon Agreements), the Arab people generally and including the Palestinians revolted against Ottoman occupation, and joined their tribal forces with those of the British, who moved north out of Egypt to attack the Ottomans. Palestine was freed and the Palestinians expected that the commitments made by the British to support Arab independence would be honored. Over the protests of the Arabs, including the Syrians, Palestinians,Iraqis, etc.) the British instead helped divide the Middle East among British and French colonies, which they called 'Mandates' in the face of US opposition to the perpetuation of the European colonial system.
The key difference between a colony and a Mandate, was that the Mandatory Power does not and cannot claim sovereignty over the country it is controlling. The control is limited, and in the case of Palestine, the obligation of the British was simply to 'prepare' the Palestinians for their independence. Of course, the Palestinians were quite capable of running their own country, after WWI, but they did not have the force to throw the British out.
It was within this Mandate that the idea of a Jewish Home in Palestine was embedded (not a Jewish State, not in all of Palestine, and not as a sovereign entity; and not in any way that compromised the interests of the existing population, the Palestinians).
Through a mixture of aggressive immigration, great economic success, and a secret militarization during WWII, the Jewish settlers, headed by a de facto government organization called the Jewish Agency and assisted by massive help from Jews throughout the West and in particular from the US, were in a position to seize much of Palestine immediately after WWII. It is, in many ways, a heroic story, and one that was in response to the massive persecution of Jews in Europe.
There was only one problem. Palestine was already inhabited, and by a population that wasn't about to hand their homeland over to European migrants. This is the origin of the Palestinians-Israel conflict.
You are right: the neighboring Arab countries could have assimilated the Palestinians, and some moved in that direction. But the Palestinians simply want their own country back. They can look across the barbed ware and see their homes, see their fields, see their towns, though it is true that Israel has demolished many of them to make way for more Jewish immigrants.
It is also true that many of the Palestinian refugees fled their homes in 1948 and 1967, and it is somewhat true (though not to the extent that Israeli sources would like us to believe) that Palestinian leaders urged Palestinians civilians to flee the Israeli forces, but of course the fact that people are refugees does not mean that they have lost their rights to return home. International law and international practice is quite clear on this and formed the basis for the Allies repatriation of European refugees after WWII.
Whew! This is getting long. I'll break off here. As I said, its a pretty complicated subject...
Oceans
| | 1/18/2008 9:03:45 AM | Palestine and Israelis | | 
baggy
Cranbury, NJ
age: 41
| 1) How far back should we go as far as who is entitled to the land ?
You stopped at the Ottoman Empire. If we go back to OT days, God promised it to Abraham. And to Abraham's son Ishmael, God promised to make of his descendants extremely plentiful -- which God did as we have 22 Arab countries.
2) Land that's currently Israel had been desert. Arabs living there had been historically of the lower economic strata. Unlike many Arab countries, there is no oil underground -- so the land is much less desirable. Israel has made the desert bloom thru working hard. Arabs were encouraged to stay in Israel when the country was declared in 1948. Those that stayed enjoy many more rights than their relatives living under nondemocratic Arab regimes.
And how industrious are current Arabs in Gaza and West Bank ? When Israel vacated Gaza in hopes of restarting peace process, Arabs trashed the very profitable Greeenhouses left behind ( getting immediate $ for the scrap metal ).
3) Refugee camps have been in existence the longest of any people in history. It helps the Arabs cause to continue living in refugee camps for 60 years rather than be integrated where they are. This is to the extent that Yasir Arafat did not want to build them homes with the billions of dollars he received. Looked better for world opinion to see them in squalor conditions.
By Arabs demanding "Right of Return", would turn region into 1 state. This is against the 2 state solution. And how about the Jews right of return -- hundreds of thousands thrown out of Arab land, property and possessions confiscated (when Israel was still standing after Arabs attacked in 1948) ?
Oceans: Seems from your writeup Arabs living in that region will never accept Jews living there. Arafat once said that he negotiates with Israel because it brings him closer to the ultimate goal -- taking what comes out of negotiations is in the right direction and they will continue to press to take over all the land -- kicking out all Jews, ie; Israel is willing to give up X for peace, we as Arabs will take it and continue to terrorize. We will keep taking thru negotiations and attack.
It is totally out of line that Hamas, a terrorist organization, which the majority of Arabs voted into power will not recognize any past agreements made between their people and Israel. They outright want to take over the land completely and throw out / kill all Jews. Until that mentality changes, Israel has no peace partner.
| | 1/18/2008 11:13:36 AM | Palestine and Israelis | |
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 64
| Hi, Baggy,
God's Covenant with the Jews for Palestine was conditional on Jews not violating the Covenant to live by God's rules. The tribe gradually broke those rules (e.g. usury) and lost the benefits of the Covenant. People tend to think it was a two-way agreement, and did not confer on the Jews God's support if the Jews themselves did not live up to the agreement. Abraham asked God if the Covenant would cover his descendants for ever and ever, and God's response was quite clear.
Of course, one has to give credence to this notion of a religious claim to land for it to have any significance. International law, including US law, give no credence to religious claims, and rightly so in my opinion. Otherwise, we get a chaos of conflicting religious beliefs and assertions and way way to resolve conflicts definitely or according to commonly held rules. In terms of the Palestine-Israeli conflict, the religious claim made by some Jewish fundamentalists to the land has no legal significance, though it certainly has an interesting cultural consequence. Even the founding Zionists did not advance a religious claim to Palestine.
Yes, parts -- but only parts of Palestine were desert (and for the most part still are, as I saw recently) -- and the rest were farmlands and towns. Zionists tried to portray Palestine as an 'empty land' of nomads, but the reality is quite different. I can post statistics on this if you like. Palestinian society was educated, attractive and economically bustling. In it, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druze, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. lived side by side and regulated conflicting religious practices, where they conflicted, pretty well and generally peaceably. Arabs lived side by side with Westerners, Greeks, Persians, people from Russia and the Balkans, etc. The advent of the Zionists changed this as their numbers grew and their political ambitions became obvious.
You are right on the matter of what the Palestinians will settle for. Some will settle for a compromise, which might be in the form of a two-state solution. Some want all their land back. But I think you exaggerate their desire to 'kill all the Jews', and no responsible Palestinian leader has ever called for this, though extremists have at moments of particular anger. But I wouldn't attribute any greater weight to this than we give to US fanatics when the assert that 'The only good Indian is a dead Indian!', or that 'N**gers must be hunted down like dogs!', or that Arabs should be nuked back to the stone age, as someone here on this site did a few days ago.
Generally and deeply, Palestinians want a single Palestinian state, secular and democratic, with all living side by side. There are several things that have to happen for this to be achieved, including compensating Palestinians for the seizure of their personal property, arrangements for cultural autonomy for Jews, Arabs and other groups that would make up this Palestinian state. If this is of interest I can go into it in a lot more detail.
The Palestinians recognize that some of the Jews really are in Palestine because it is first and foremost a Jewish State, for Jews and not to be shared with anyone else, and I would expect that these Jews would leave Palestine if the alternative were to live in a secular state. But this is an oddity: most people in the world live in secular states, and do so quite happily and effectively.
Baggy, have you had a chance to meet many Palestinians? They are not the devils you are suggesting. Yes, some of them have chosen to do some pretty horrible things to fight for their freedom, and yes, what they want clashes profoundly with what the Zionists want, and what the US has come to support -- not they are not evil or ignorant, and they do fight for a cause -- freedom -- with which we should have some sympathy.
Is anything I am writing here make any sense to you?
Regards,
Oceans
| | 1/18/2008 12:52:05 PM | Palestine and Israelis | |
baggy
Cranbury, NJ
age: 41
| Sure Oceans, some makes a lot of sense ( especially the past in that region where different peoples were able to live in peace).
I never considered that Jews ever broke the Covenant with God. What historical event(s) makes you think that the Jews broke the Covenant ?
Some people could believe that as why else would God do nothing during the Holocaust when 6+ million Jews were slaughtered. My opinion would be that the covenant is still on. Jews to this day still perform the special Brit Milah ceremony ( that God made Abraham do to himself as an adult ! ) 8 days after a boy is born ( where the Hebrew for Brit means Covenant -- that Jews are bringing up their youth to be part of the covenant thru cicumcision).
Should be noted Jews first claim to land, ( besides religious grounds), is Abraham purchasing a cave for his wife Sarah to be buried ( Cave of Machpelah). See Genesis chapter 23 verses 15 thru 20.......maybe Jews failed to pay taxes thru the years 
As far as what Palestinians will settle for: They voted in Hamas. Hamas was formed for the destruction of Israel.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
"The Hamas charter states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad," and this stance has found a receptive audience among Palestinians; many perceived the preceding Fatah government as corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas's supporters see it as an "armed resistance" movement......"
I believe that speaks for itself. Arab Leaders ( even "moderate" ones ) see nothing wrong performed by any Arab in Israel's jails ( quite the contrary, they are proud of their actions). So how can they talk peace and applaud Israeli deaths at the same time ?
| | 1/18/2008 1:27:23 PM | Palestine and Israelis | |
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 64
| Hi Baggy,
The breaking of the Covenant has to do with Jews departing from God's commandments and instructions -- not just carrying out ritual. So, usury is one example. Jesus, assuming always that one believes in this God, was sent to correct the Jews and bring them back to God's path. But the Covenant was broken, of course, by then.
Does anyone know if the Jews claim any prophets AFTER Jesus's time?
HAMAS: HAMAS wasn't set up to destroy Israel, but to regain Palestinian freedom. Of course, one can say that the latter means the former, but the difference is critical. HAMAS can well accept a negotiation with Israel, and indeed their leaders have consistently taken that position since they were voted in, and have denounced to idea that they are out to 'kill Jews.' But yes, they are a militant organization, and they are willing to fight for Palestinian freedom.
JIHAD: this is a term much misunderstood in the West. It does include waging defensive war in defense of Muslim peoples and lands. But it refers primarily to the notion of religious struggle, a struggle that everyone faces to come closer to God's laws. Most jihad is performed when people, internally, try to do the right thing, strive to be good people. Another form of jihad is to talk with non-Muslims about Muhammad the prophet and his teachings, and about God and his wisdom.
I should add with regard to 'killing infidels', which has been mentioned several times in these threads: the Quran does not call at all for killing Jews and Muslims. It views them, along with Muslims, as 'People of the Book' -- 'ahl al-kitab -- God's people if you will, and it is a sin for any Muslim to kill any of them. This does not, of course, mean that Muslims cannot act in self-defense against Jewish or Christian attackers.
Further, Islam contains many political, military, and financial structures to protect what they call dhimmis -- protected communities for Jews and Christians and other monotheists. I can go more into this if you like.
Also, throughout Muslim history, Jews and Christians have held senior positions in Muslim governments, including, for example, Grand Viziers, Treasurers, and diplomats within the Ottoman Empire.
While Israel has poisoned relations among Muslims and Jews, I do not think that this is permanently the case once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved. Indeed I know many Jews and Christians who are today held in high esteem and friendship with Muslims. These aren't the ones who make the biggest headlines, but this is the basic reality, and easy to confirm.
I hope these comments are helpful.
Oceans
| | 1/18/2008 5:12:53 PM | Palestine and Israelis | |
krupa1
Abilene, TX
age: 40
| All I know...is there has never been peace there in recorded history....Those cultures wouldn't know what to do with peace if you handed it to them on a platter. Too much religious propaganda and lives steeped in mistrust and hatred since birth only continue the cycle while the flames are fanned by the local mullahs who retain power and position by giving thier countrymen a local "evil" to fear and war with. It is a cycle doomed to repeat its self far beyond my life time.
| | 1/18/2008 6:04:19 PM | Palestine and Israelis | | 
jays82
Delphos, OH
age: 44
| The thing is the Jews have just as much claim as any one else because we know they lived there thousands of years ago. It all comes down to would you rather live in war or peace and evidently they LOVE to live in war.
| | 1/18/2008 8:52:41 PM | Palestine and Israelis | |
baggy
Cranbury, NJ
age: 41
| For Ocean's comment on the Jewish people's Covenant with God:
I wonder how many people believe Jews irreparably broke the Covenant during the time of Jesus ( as you do ).
Prior prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah also criticized harshly the Jews of their time and warned of bad things happening to them.
And so during Jesus's time, certainly Jesus, who was a Jew kept the mitzvot and how many more Jews have to work on observing them in order for the Covenant to be in force ? I don't believe that's stated anywhere.
.......for instance God would have spared the cities of Sodom & Gemorrah if there were 10 righteous people in those cities.
I don't believe Jews have claimed any prophets since Jesus's time. Perhaps because the Temples are destroyed, none are recognized.
| | 1/18/2008 10:15:09 PM | Palestine and Israelis | |
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 64
| Great thoughts, good discussion....
Ancient claims to land weaken with time if they aren't acted on, or maintained.
International law was established some hundreds of years ago and formalized in the Concert of Europe, IIRC. It was an effort to eliminate some of the arbitrary power of kings, and instead establish a rule of law. Concepts of national sovereignty were adopted. Among these ideas was that conquest could not convey sovereignty. These international laws, to which all 'civilized' countries eventually adhered, including the countries of Europe, the US, the Ottoman Empire, the countries of the Middle East, etc., were further developed with time and were marked by key advances, including those of the United States, such as the end of colonialism, the right of self-determination of all peoples, the sovereignty of the people, and, most recently, humanitarian law.
International law does not recognize the singular or unique claims of particular religious groups, for that would lead to the violation of the rights of groups of other faiths. The fundamental idea of international law is the equal rights of all, defined in the principle of national sovereignty.
So if a religious group, say, from Europe asserts a claim that God gave them Minnesota, the claim is invalid because it violates the principle of national sovereignty.
To protect people against the seizure of their land, international law makes conquest illegal, and rejects all claims of the conqueror to the occupied lands. A people who have been invaded have the right to demand their land back, and to maintain that demand until it is satisfied. A thief does not get to keep what he has stolen.
This is, I think, good protection for all of us.
Oceans
| | 1/18/2008 10:24:01 PM | Palestine and Israelis | |
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 64
| Some thoughts on this question of whether 'they have always been fighting over Palestine.'
There have been very long periods of time when Palestine lived in full peace. The period of the Ottoman Empire is the most recent example. It lasted hundreds of years, at a time when Europeans were experiencing near-continuous war.
Before that came equally long-lived periods of peace: the Ummayid period; the Abbassids, etc.
The last time, prior to the arrival of the Zionists in the 1920s, that Palestine experienced significant strife goes back to the time of the Crusades, a period that lasted about 100 years and ended up with some of the crusaders integrated into the region, and the others going home to Europe.
There was a very brief period in which Napoleon, having conquered Egypt at the end of the 18th century, tried to go on to seize Palestine and Syria, but he was rebuffed, and in the end barely made it home, having abandoned his Army in Egypt when the British burnt his ships at the Battle of the Nile. The interesting thing about this event, from the point of view of our thread here, is that the people of Palestine -- Muslim, Christian, Jew, Orthodox, etc, stood united in their resistance to the Napoleonic Army.
I hope these comments are useful.
Oceans
| | 1/18/2008 11:00:34 PM | Palestine and Israelis | | 
flyingdutchman
San Diego, CA
age: 43
| In a few months, the Arab-Israeli conflict will be 60 years old, if we use the 1948 war and the establishment of Israel as its starting point. What happened in Palestine and Israel this week? Israeli troops attacked assorted targets in Gaza, killing dozens of militants and civilians. Various Palestinian resistance groups (the US, Israel, Micronesia and a few other powers see them only as terrorist groups) fired hundreds of missiles into Israel. The Israeli government threatened tougher military measures, "no mercy", and a tighter blockade of the Gaza Strip, including cutting off all fuel supplies. Israeli and Palestinian leaders met to negotiate a peace accord, while US President George W. Bush traveled to the region to show his support for a negotiated Arab-Israeli peace agreement.
What's wrong with this picture? The juxtaposition between military action on the ground and the words and acts of politicians is dizzying in its contradictions. Sixty years after the tensions between Zionism and Arabism in Palestine erupted into a full war, we continue to experience warfare as a routine mode of interaction between Israelis and Arabs, mostly on the Palestinian-Israeli front, and occasionally on the Lebanese-Israeli front. Simultaneously, politicians explore opportunities to end the conflict through a negotiated peace agreement, but without any major successes on the Palestinian-Israeli front.
The most important single development in recent weeks, I suspect, was the Palestinians' firing of longer-range missiles into southern Israel, some of them traveling over 15 kilometers. They have caused very little material damage in Israel; they frighten and traumatize many people, and have killed maybe half a dozen Israelis over the years, while Israeli attacks against Gaza and the West Bank in the past year have killed hundreds of Palestinians.
This imbalance in numbers is typical of the history of Palestinian-Israeli warfare. More relevant today is the trajectory of the fighting. Israel has had total control and a free hand in Gaza and the West Bank since 1967, through a combination of direct occupation, punitive and preemptive attacks, and attempts to seal the border through the use of walls, fences and blockades. What does it expect to achieve with renewed military ferocity and brutality that it has used for 40 years, since 1967? It should recognize at some point the real legacy that it will continue to reap from such a policy: Palestinian rockets that reach deeper into southern Israel, and many young men who are prepared to risk death to fire them, and who are not intimidated by Israel's military capabilities or renewed threats.
The Israeli threat to attack Gaza will result in more deaths and widespread suffering by civilians. It is unlikely to crush Palestinian national resistance, though, or the will to live in freedom and dignity. A new Israeli assault would probably only trigger Palestinian efforts to develop or obtain rockets with an ever longer range, perhaps to hit central coastal cities in Israel. This is clearly one of the lessons of the past 60 years: Sustained Israeli attacks elicit greater Arab technical proficiency and political will to resist and retaliate. Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and other smaller groups manifest this reality. The regional infrastructure to enhance Palestinian military technical proficiency is in place, as Hamas and other resistance groups forge increasingly close working relations with fellow Islamists and nationalists throughout the region.
| | 1/19/2008 5:32:41 AM | Palestine and Israelis | |
baggy
Cranbury, NJ
age: 41
| flyingdutchmen: you write well.
However I believe that Israel's actions are defensive in nature. They have continually been under attack since their establishment in 1948.
Arab leaders have constantly called for the Jews to be pushed into the sea.
Reminds me of 2 brothers fighting separated in age by about 6 years. The younger one continually looks for openings to attack the older and more powerful one. When the more powerful has the upper hand, the younger one cries out truce. And when the older lets go, the younger still plots and maneuvers to attack again. That is how I see this ongoing conflict between Israel and the Arabs, ie; Arabs will not be satisfied till they get their way -- in the long run, no compromises.
And in terms of numbers killed on both sides, seems more appropriate to look at goals. Arab goals is to kill Jews -- no matter if military or civilian targets. In fact, civilians are much easier to attack, ie; celebrating in hotels, eating in restaurants. And in the Lebanon war, Hizballah randomly fired thousands of rockets -- wherever they landed and caused devastation, so be it.
Israel goals have been and remain terrorist targets, ie; years ago in Jenin refugee camp, the Arabs were quick to call out massacre, massacre. However Israel was going on a house by house mission at great peril to its soldiers ( encountering boobytrapped homes and snipers ) to try to only hone in on terrorists. By hiding within the civilian population, it makes this work very difficult.
[Edited 1/19/2008 5:47:45 AM]
| | 1/19/2008 9:58:45 AM | Palestine and Israelis | |
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 64
| Nice summary, Dutchman.
Baggy, the notion of who is on the offensive, and who on the defensive will depend entirely on when you date the start of the conflict.
If you accept the establishment of Israel in 1948 as legitimate, you can say that the Palestinians are on the offensive because they rejected the seizure of their lands that formed the basis for the establishment of Israel. You can even assert that the subsequent wars in which Israel attacked its neighbors -- 1956, 1967, their raids into Jordan, the Golan, and most recently, Lebanon, were only some form of expanded 'self-defense' -- though each fully violated international law.
But if you go back to 1939, say, than the establishment of Israel itself becomes the controlling aggressive act, and everything that ensued can best be seen as Palestinian self-defense.
You are rightly concerned with the death of Israeli civilians, but I would hope that you would care too about the far, far greater number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israelis. (I can post actual numbers here if anyone is interested.) The Israelis try to defend this horrible record by saying that they only target bad guys, but the reality is that they use methods that MUST kill vastly larger numbers of civilians, and so their claim to target only bad guys rings false.
International law does not accept the excuse of 'collateral damage' -- an attacker is legally and morally responsible for ALL the consequences of his actions. (This is the same principle we have in the US: if a robber takes a gun to a bank, he will be charged with the murder of bank customers if her kills them, even though he will plead that he didn't really want to shoot anyone.)
Good discussion, everyone. Thanks.
Oceans
| | 1/19/2008 10:07:13 AM | Palestine and Israelis | |
krupa1
Abilene, TX
age: 40
| All pretty much a moot point.....the only way I can see getting them to keep from tearing out each others throats is to move one group or the other to the deserts of Nevada.....give them thier own land.....but..NOOOOOOOOOO! They all want to be on a chunk of the "Holy Land".....Talk is cheap and they....both sides...ain't gonna back down....Hell...when Isreal made consessions and gave up part of the west bank...it simply provided a closer staging point for extremist attacks.....thereby encouraging more isreali strikes....I have no doubt that there are good and moderate people from both cultures.....but they ain't the ones running the show. Blood and body parts WILL continue to fly.
| | 1/19/2008 5:37:47 PM | Palestine and Israelis | |
baggy
Cranbury, NJ
age: 41
| Oceans said "HAMAS can well accept a negotiation with Israel, and indeed their leaders have consistently taken that position since they were voted in, and have denounced to idea that they are out to 'kill Jews.' But yes, they are a militant organization, and they are willing to fight for Palestinian freedom."
From January 2006: http://www.pforp.net/olmert.conditions.hamas.asp
"Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told world leaders over the weekend that Israel will not hold talks with a Palestinian government comprised of Hamas legislators.
He told leaders that Israel stands by three strict principles with regards to Hamas: It must disarm, annul its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, and accept all the agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority with Israel. "
Don't let Hamas fool you otherwise, ie; the means for destroying Israel ( as their charter calls for ) means killing Jews. Only if Israel would agree to a One State Solution then Hamas wouldn't have to kill Jews. In meantime, they want negotiations as steps in the process ( of eliminating Israel ) by gaining time to build up arms.
As far as 1948, the United Nations sanctioned the creation of Israel. Most countries including USA thought Israel would be short-lived when 5 Arab countries immediately attacked. It was a miracle Israel held its own with the most minimal, inferior equipment, but with very passionate personnel.
Every war Israel has engaged in has been for its survival.
|
|