 |
| |
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara Since they owned it and lived there, yes. Just because what Israel was assigned wasn't a viable state doesn't mean it's not fair. |
No it would not have been fair to create a non-viable Jewish State! If you are going to create a new State then you should give them land that they can live on. What would be the point in creating a Jewish State if the Jews can't live on it?
And we get back to my original point: if the land wasn't viable, then why did the Arabs refuse the partition? If the land was not viable, then a Jewish State would not have lasted long, right? Then, why didn't the Arabs accept the Partition and simply wait for the new Jewish State to fall apart.
The fact that they refused even a deal that would have created a minimalistic and non-viable Jewish State, just proves that they did not want a Jewish State at all. So, they attacked Israel, hoping to crush it and win all the land. They wanted all the land with no Jews at all, and ended up losing all. It's not Israel's fault that it won!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
No it would not have been fair to create a non-viable Jewish State! If you are going to create a new State then you should give them land that they can live on. What would be the point in creating a Jewish State if the Jews can't live on it?
And we get back to my original point: if the land wasn't viable, then why did the Arabs refuse the partition? If the land was not viable, then a Jewish State would not have lasted long, right? Then, why didn't the Arab accept the Partition and simply wait for the new Jewish State to fall apart.
The fact, that they refused even a deal that would have created a minimalistic and non-viable Jewish State, just proves that they did not want a Jewish State at all. So, they attacked Israel, hoping to crush it and win all the land. They wanted all the land with no Jewish at all, and ended up losing all. It's not Israel's fault that they won! |
As has been said, 45% of the people in the Jewish half was Arab. Do you think these 400,000 Arabs were happy about having to live in a state designed to be jewish above everything else? What did that mean for them, hmmm?
The Palestiians rejected the plan because it meant that the people f this area were not being given the rigth to rule themselves, and make their own laws, according to the notion of self-determination. After all, Palestinians made up 66% of the population: why should the land be split then, 50-50% with Jerusalem run by the UN under the plan?
There are smaller viable states out there in the world, so I don't see how this state was non-vaible. Aftre all, did you look at the 1937 Peel commission partition plan?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
No it would not have been fair to create a non-viable Jewish State! If you are going to create a new State then you should give them land that they can live on. What would be the point in creating a Jewish State if the Jews can't live on it? |
So if my business isn't viable, I should be allowed to just appropriate some of yours? Why should Arab lands be given to the Jewish state? Why should Arab people be forced to live in a Jewish state? If the Jews didn't have the basis for a viable state, then they didn't deserve one. They were only able to create a viable state through theft.
quote:
And we get back to my original point: if the land wasn't viable, then why did the Arabs refuse the partition? |
Because no person or person should be forced to accept to live in someone else's state. The Arab states had no say in the matter, it was up to the Arabs of Palestine, and they said they didn't wan their country divided up and they didn't want to live in a Jewish state.
Not that anyone cared what the majority of the people of Palestine wanted. After all, only the Jews are worth caring about.
quote:
So, they attacked Israel, hoping to crush it and win all the land. They wanted all the land with no Jews at all, and ended up losing all. It's not Israel's fault that it won! |
This is not an assertion you can back up with facts. Who attacked the Israelis? There were six Arab states involved in the war, Egypt, Lebanon (a Christian state, BTW), Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Of these six states, only two intiated combat with the Israelis, the Syrians (in one battle) and the Egptians, with half their forces. However, only the battle with Syrians took place in the Jewish Partition. The Egyptians fought the Israelis near Ashdod, wich is clearly part of the Arab Partition. So obviously, the Israelis had already invaded the Arab portion of the country.
The Lebanese grabbed the West Galilee for themselves, which was Arab territory, without ever attacking the Israelis (they did attack an abandoned settlement). In December of 1948, after the second truce, the Israelis attack the Lebanese and seized the West Galilee. The Iraqi were supporting the Jordanians, and both forces simply defended territory that the Israelis had secretly agreed would go to Jordan. Israel did attack the Iraqis, but the Iraqis managed to hold their ground, which is why Samaria is still Arab and not part of Israel.
Except in Jerusalem, which Jordan could not let fall to the Israelis, there was little fighting between the two countries. The Isrealis did try and seize the fortress of Latrun, overlooking the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway, but it was beaten back.
The Saudis didn't do anything.
Furthermore, half of Egyptian forces moved East, to try and block the Jordanians from moving into the Gaza area (which they succeeded in doing, enabling the Israelis to annex most of the region).
The war, while rhetorically about the Jews, was in reality an attempt by all the surrounding countries to grab a piece of Palestine. Only Israel and Jordan were able to accomplish this.
If the Arab states were seriously trying to destroy the nacent Jewish state, then why did they only send 23,000 poorly armed, poorly trained men to face 25,000 resistence fighters who had just thrown off one of the most powerful countries in the world?
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 18-11-2002 at 10:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
I agree Che, the Brits (and the French) are the cause of the problems of the ME. At least the Brits are now helping us fix the problems.
Any single-state solution would have to have a guarantee against a state religion, and a guarantee of freedom of religion, not unlike our first amendment.
I think, but I do no know, that the problem most Israeli's have with a single state solution is that they like the parliamentary form of government where the majority parties rule both the legislature and the executive. The US form of government, though, would work, IMHO.
As to the election of president, I see no problem with an Arab president, provided, of course, that he is a "republican."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Gepap : here lies your mistake. the rest of the lands weren't all owned by palestinians. The desert wasn't owned by anyone, and many lands were owned by governments, the Ottoman, and then the british. Most of the land given to the jews was desert. Desert is defined metorologically defined as a place where less than 200mm of rain fall per year. now let's place that baby on the partition plan. all lands that are south to the orange line are desert. |
hi ,
its a bit small , but okay , .......
actually did anyone at all forget to check the 1898 records , .......; yes they did , ......
in those records you can see what whas really owned by jews , .... and that portion is far larger then the map shows , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kropotkin
You mean people like Siro and Eli, eh? |
hi ,
no , like people who are on this forum , who think they know it all , yet they have never put a foot in the middle - east , .......
people who claim to know everything , yet they sit behind their comp , 10000 miles away , .......
thats one group , ....
the second group is the people in Israel that actually have nothing to do with it , refugees from all over the arab world , and all the other legal and illegal aliens who come only for the reason to bring forth terror , ....
thats the second group
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OldWarrior_42
|
|
quote:
At least I have the sense to look at the entire historical record. It isn't pretty, but it sure as hell helps to get a better picture. But I am sorry if I unfortunitelly have brought up something so terrible as facts into the mix.
Just wanted to point out that if you really feel you have committed to bringing the "facts" to the discussion.... you need to go back a little more than just 54 years of history. You are not looking at the entire historical record as it clearly goes back centuries before Israel ever became a nation.
Just wanted to point out that there are more than one or two sides to a story, and there are long underlying reasons for the problems faced in this region today.
Back to your regularly scheduled program. :-P~~
Kropotkin
Emperor
of Ålidhem
Mar 1999
time: 14:19
17-11-2002 11:05 link
Oh come on! This idea that what happened centuries ago has much to do with the current situation is clearly overrated. I agree that there's good reasons to go back more than 54 years, something like 100-150 might be in place. Taking the exodus of 70 AD is pretty much to accept one side of the story as correct. In my opinion what happend 2000 years ago mean very little besides to justify the actions by one or the other side. |
The statement made was "At least I have the sense to look at the entire historical record."
Followed up with "But I am sorry if I unfortunitelly have brought up something so terrible as facts into the mix."
My response was simply to those 2 remarks. I made no mention of "The Exodus or anything else. Simply put, if you are to look at the "entire historical record" , you need to go back to the beginning.
And to be factual, it should have been stated that Israelis have killed more Arabs than Arabs have killed Israelis, "since 1948". That was not stated. That would have been a factual statement. But it was not put forth as such, so therefore it was not bringing facts into the mix.
Facts would need to include the numbers of deaths caused by each side since the beginning. And since there are probably no records of said numbers going back thousands of years, the statement cannot be factual, only opinion, and incomplete as it had not brought forth the entire historical record.
And yes, I do believe that we are where we are today , between these people, based on countless centuries of hatred. It does have a bearing on what happens today and now. They have hated each other for so long, I don't think they will ever learn not to. Maybe one day they can learn to "tolerate" each other and coexist peacefully, but I don't know if that will ever happen in my lifetime.
Carry on with the thread now, sorry to interupt with my pedantic uselessness. :-P~~
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
GePap, Back to my original point. The history lesson show us that Jews lived everywhere in Palestine as did Arabs. There were areas of majority Jewish population. There were areas of Arab majority population. But as far as I could tell, there was no law, policy or rule that forbad either nationality from living anywhere in Palestine they wanted - to the extent, of course, that the owners of the land would rent or sell it to the interested party.
The Jews and Arabs were equality Palestinians.
Now, along comes the '48 war. Jordan and Egypt occupy (illegally in your view) portions of Palestine. In '67, the Israeli Palestinians kick the aggressor-conquerors Arab states out of Palestine.
Up 'til this point, I think we agree on the facts.
Now, why is it "illegal" for Jewish-Palestinians to return to their homes is the former Jordanian and Egyptian occuppied areas? Why it "illegal" for new settlements to be made?
I see the situation as analogous to some extent with our own civil war. We were one country. Americans, whether born in the North or South, could live anywhere in the US they wanted. Along comes the war. Northerners flee the South. Eventually the North wins. Why can't the Northerners who fled return to the South? Why is it "illegal" for Northerners to build new settlements in the South?
The problem with your view is of the ME is that you deny that Jews have equal rights to Arabs. Arabs, in your view, are the only Palestinians. Jews are invaders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
Ned:
To begin, I never lump Palestinians with Egyptians, syrians, Lebanese, Saudis, Yemenis, so forth and so on. The Palestinians are Arabs, yes, but that does not mean that they are one and the same with all other Arabs. That is ike saying that someone from california is the same as someone from Alabama. they are both Americans, no? They speak the same language, no? So they must be the same! Same thing with Portugese and Brazilians perhaps?
SO, here in as short as I can make it, why the settlements re not the same:
From the 1880's to 1918, Jews moving into Palestine did so by buying land and moving there, legally with the consent of the government (the Ottomans). All of that is totaly legal. Then, from 1920 to 1947 the leagl government was that of Britian as the mandate power. It was up to Britian (though this was ahrdly fair to the locals) to set up immigration laws, and until 1939 they set laws that allowed substantial Jewish immigration, in the same pattern: Jews would buy lands, and new Jewish immigrants would come into these lands to work and set up a life.
NOw, from 1939 to 1947 the British tried, to maintain calm among the Palestinians, a trickle of jewish immigration. They geenrally begun to fail after 1945, for all the reasons we know. Now, at this point the UN general assembly recommends partition. That is, the creation of 2 states. The Palestinians reject, in my view, because such a plan utterly ignored their right of self-determination (as had the mandate), a right that is central to the Un charter and that of the League before it (and is also central to the Zionist claim) since they were the majority of the population and yet were being tld what was going to be their political future, with no right for them to make it. This lead to the first round of fighting, which is all generally one-sided as the Palestinians were very badly organized, so Zionist forces not only secured their partion area, but begun taking over lands assinged to the Palestinians. The Isreal declares independence, and it is at this point that the neighboring Arab armies invade.
NOw, this is the point of contention, Ned:
There were advances by the Arab armies into Jewish partition areas, most of which were repulsed: but most of the time the invading Arab forces were in ares that had been assinged as Palestinian, and when israel signed armistice agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, the boundaries of israel were set. They were set because the lands now under Arab control had all been assigned as Palestinian lands, with the exception of Jerusalem, which neither side was supposed to hold. The Arab league then moved to declare their intention to have an independent Palestinian state: this was sabotagued by Abdullah in transjordan, with British baking, wen he declared the west bank part of Jordan. Yes, I agree that this was an illegal act by Abdullah, but the fact is that Israel had no legal claims to these lands whatsoever. Jews that lived in thos lands previous to 1948 (thsat is, the very individuals) had, and still have, the right a refugee has, to return to homes lost because of war, not because of choice. Egypt, for its part, never annexed Gaza but instead installed a military governor for the interim.
When 1967 rolls over and israel invades Egypt and Jordan and Syria, it took lands that , as I said before, israel as a state has no right to. they were not Israeli lands under Arab occupation, since they had never been part fo israel before the 1950 armistice agreements. They were, and I think they are, palestinians lands, now simply under new occupiers. Now, these lands fall under the classification of lands under military occupation, with their final status up for negotiations. What the immigration regimes should be for those lands are ruled by internaional law. As I said before, any individual Jews that lived anywhere in those ares prior to 1948 have every right to return.Other Jews wanted to go into the territories and convince local landowners, palestinians, to sell them their property so that they could move in, that would be fine too, as long as it was not done backed with government intimidation.
But e settlements, especially something like hebron, don't fit either pattern. these arent refugees going home. These aren't individuals going to buy the land from the landowners to move and live wih their new neighbors. these are individual who move inot a locality and illegally set themselves there (like squatters). Then the IDF comes and forces, without compensation, all the rightfull landowners to evactuate, then either appropriates their property so that these squatters can move in, or demolished the owners property, and then builds new houses for the squatters. then the IDF goes further, and agin, without compensation, moves more families out of homes, or forces business owners to close so that a security cordon is set up. The settler then are sqautter who have moved in backed by the power o the gun (the IDF), with the purpose of having israeli citizens there, so that any new Israeli government will be forced to maintain troops there to keep them safe, and f course, since the Israeli government wants to remain there as well, it is more than glad to oblige these ilegal squatters.
So, Ned: does this sound anything like that Civil war example?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
GePap, I see now that you do agree that Jews can live anywhere they want in Palestine, not just refugees, provided they buy the property from its owner, etc. What you seem to be objecting to is forced, no compensation expropriation land for that purpose. You also seem to be objecting to the presence of the IDF who protect the very lives of the settlers.
Now, to your surprise, I agree with you that the forced expropriation of occuppied land for settlers is wrong. I further agree that expropriation without compensation is reprehensible under any legal theory, unless, that is, the property is owned by a combatant.
However, I see nothing wrong in Israeli's settling on unoccupied land they formerly owned prior to '48, owned by prior governments or land for whom there is no record owner.
Do you see any problem?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
GePap, As we saw in the maps Che provided, Israel had a lot less land at the start of the '48 war than ended up with in '49. However, the UN did not demand a retreat to the '48 line.
Similarly, Israel took all of the rest of Palestine (and the Golan and Sanai) in '67. If Israel were willing to absorb all of the Palestinians into a new state, I am sure than no one would have any real objection to Israel retaining all of the land of the former Palestine.
So the problem has become what to do about the Palesinians that Israel does not want to absorb. It is a given that the lands they, the Palestinians, occupy now will be theirs in any settlement.
However, the so-called disputed lands of the West Bank (unoccuppied, that is) is not simply Palestinian land by divine right any more than it is Israeli land by divine right. The Palestinians forfeited any rights they had to to this unoccuppied land when they made war on Israel. Israel conquered the territory from a conqueror (Jordan or Egypt) and have just as much right to the land as any other people on Earth.
So now the Israeli's occupy the land and make it fruitful. The Pals object that the Israeli's are stealing their land. But it is not Palestinian land, is it? They never owned it. Nor did they have a state that owned it. They simply want the land because had they accepted the '48 UN resolutions instead of fighting, the land would have been part of a Palestinian state.
But, this said, forcible expropriation of presently occuppied land for Jewish settlement is wrong unless totally justified by articulated security concerns.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
Ned:
There is no such thing as forefitting ones rights. Ones rights can only be taken away either by a higher authority, or in international negotiation you 'give' them away by signing some agreement. BUt no act of yours ever makes them invalid, only the acts of others.
A few points: the re is no such thing as an 'unoccupied' part of the west bank. Even if no Plaesitnians live there, it is still land under military occupation. As for the Israelis making it 'fruitfull', bollocks. One of the interesting facts of many Israeli statistics on how much they did, is that all lands not under Jewish conrol were counted as laying falow, even if there was a working Palestinian farm there before. Look at British surveys of the early mandate or before. Most of the land Israel claims to have brought into fruitfulness was under use by palestinians back then.
Under modern interantional law and under the theory of human rights and selr-determination, it is the people of a land that choose their government. This is why the world outlaws the gaining of land through military force. Israel signed unto this notion when it joined the UN, in 1949. It is why it had to leave the lands it gained by invading Egypt in 1956 (the great unmentioned war of the middle east). Even if Israel took the West Bank from an unlawful jordanian occupation, it is still up to the population to decide its fate. force is no longer a valid method of land aquisition. It has not been since 1945.
On the issue of land ownership. First we can't confuse lands held in private hands with public lands. Now, when the Ottomans gave the lands to the League, and the League to Britian, the tiels of those public lands passed on. When Jordan took the West Bank and when israel took it in turn, they did gain control of public lands. But their rule is invalid and illegal. How can one honor an ilegally gained lease? What, if I jump somebody and steal the lease to their car, it becomes my car? NO.
Also, the Golan and Sanai were NEVER part of the madate of palestine. The Sanai is Syrian land also occupied by Israel.
And on the defensive nature of 1948 and 1967. As I already said, Israel was the first to undertake offensive operations against the paletinians, before it declared its independence, which was the point at which Arab armies invaded. Interestingly enough, Israel did not claim a specific set of borders when ti declared it independence, since Israeli leaders were expecting to make further gains, and they did not wan to limit themselves to some declared piece of land, but to whatever they could get out of the war. When they were admitted into the UN and signed the armistice agreements with their neighbors, those borders were set, as were the borders of toehr states. And as i said beofre, all mebers of the UN are ledged to repect the borders of toehrs, and gains through military aggression are invalid.
1967 is a very complex situation: the shortest I can make it is this. Egyt feared that Israel was on the verge of invading Syria, so it undertook various actions to try to have Israel back down, since it would loose credibility if Israel sucessfully invaed a fellow Arab friend and ally. But Egypt was not prepared for war with israel at that time: its third army was in Yemen. Alo, Egyptian fears were based on false Soviet reports, so that the Israelis were cuaght somewhat off guard. When the Egyptian moves to scare the israelis into not attacking Syria were done in such a manner that israel could no longer ignore them, it is at this point that Israel invades Egypt, then when jordan fires on israel, invades Jordan, and then finally invades Syria. So saying that 1967 is a defensive war is half accurate, but the picture is much more complicated than that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
It is interesting that you demark 1945 as the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate land grabs by conquerors. Most of Eastern Europe is guilty of grabbing something from the Germans, Japanese or their allies. I remember the hardship this imposed on millions who were forced to move ("flee"). DP was a word then in the lexicon. It meant "displaced person."
While were are talking about "illegalities" since 1945, I can think of Chinese conquest of Tibet and East Turkestan, of Pakistani conquest of half of Kashmir, of North Vietnam's conquest of the South, and of Indonesian conquest of East Timor. In your view of the world, all these are "illegal" and must be reversed.
However, the problem arrises that reversing these conquests risks world peace. In fact, the effort to roll back many of these conquests would result in World War III. The very purpose of the UN is to keep the peace, not to prolong conflicts and provoke world war.
I see that Arab insistance at rolling back Israeli conquests of '67 a major cause of the continuing turmoil in the ME. They are trying to win the war they lost in '67 by other means. I think you would agree with this.
The rule that one cannot aquire territory permanently as a result of a war is a rule that is not followed historically, let alone from 1945. It is a rule that certainly prolongs conflicts.
This said, I do agree that "peoples" have should have right of self determination under certain conditions. I beleive the Palestinians meet those conditions. I also believe they would be an independent state now if they were not so greedy and like the other Arab nations were attempting to win the '67 war, and perhaps even the '48 war, diplomatically. Imagine if the Palestinians simply asked for land they currently occupy, granted Israeli's road access to their settlements, and only asked for similar road access to Gaza. I think peace would happen sooner rather than later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting that you demark 1945 as the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate land grabs by conquerors. |
Seems like a good place to do the dividing.
quote:
While were are talking about "illegalities" since 1945, I can think of Chinese conquest of Tibet and East Turkestan, |
Which we both considered part of China by the rest of the world. They only becamse "independent" when China fell apart in 1919. 1919 - 1949 is the warlord period in China, there were dozens of "independent" states.
quote:
of Pakistani conquest of half of Kashmir, |
It's not recognized by most countries in the world.
quote:
of North Vietnam's conquest of the South, |
The South wasn't a real country, but a dictatoship foisted upon the Vietnamese people to keep the country from being united after the 1956 elections. It never had any legitamacy, and therefore the North's occupation wasn't illegal, anymore than the North's occupation of the Confederacy was illegal.
quote:
of Indonesian conquest of East Timor. |
This has finally be rectified.
Odin, Israel wasn't ordered to return to the Partition boundries because everyone new that a Palestinian state at the time wasn't a viable entity. It simply wouldn't have worked. That's why the UN didn't press it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
Ned:
The 1967 war ended with a UN inspoired cease-fire, and then resolutions 262 and 338 came along. The key points of that resolution were that all states would recognize the existence of the others (so all the Arab states that border Israel have already recognized its right to exist). It called for the creation of dimilitarized areas and scurity zones and security guarantees, and then it called for an Israeli pulback from lands taken in 1967. The rights of Palestinians are already mentioned elsewhere.
NOw, what lands israel keeps from what it took in 1967 is open to negotiation between Israel and all other parties- but noen of the lands taken in 1967 are recognized by the world to be Israeli. In that sense the Arabs in general and Palestinians in aprticular have evry right to continue to deman Israeli coimplience with these two and all previous resoltuions. Egypt already got what it wanted, as did Jordan. The problem that remain are between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, and the issue of the Palestinians. So this is not all about 1967: older issues are still at stake.
Now, as I have said formt eh beginning: Israeli settlements have no right to exist, so the notion that all the Paletinians have to do is grant riad access i find difficult to swallow. In truth, for peace to ahppen, and Most Israelis know this already, the bulk of all settlements will have to go, period, just as the Sanai settlements had to go, and just as the Golan settlements will have to go.
s for those issue of territorial land-grabs since 1945. The vast majority occur insituations were the very legitmacy of th existance of a state or political boundary comes into question. East Timor, or Go, which were seen as states taking over colonial left-overs. Or the Chinese reinstituting rule over Outer aprts of the former empire, or one part of vietnam unifying all of Vietnam...
There is thoguh one classic difference between all these examples and what has gone on in Palestiniasn areas. In all these cases the people of the territory taken were made citizens of the new power: all tibetans are chinese citizens, for example. Israel never made, or had any intention to, make citizens out of the residents of the lands in took in 1967. In a way, talking over a place and then making everyone there part fo yourself goes a long way to soften the reaction that a taking over of land has. Israel took the west bank and Gaza but never made Israeli out of them, which begs the question: if israel refuses to make the people of these lands Israelis, then what right dos Israel have to them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
GePap, the last sentence is the real problem isn't it? From the posts on the forum, it is clear to me that there is support in Israel for granting the Palestinians citizenship. This means they must be granted independence. Continued indecision, continued "occupation" is tragic.
At the same time, the Israeli's have a right to demand, in my view, that the government it to which it surrenders power be committed to peace. The current government is not so committed. Arafat is the main obstacle to peace now.
As to the settlments, there will be a negotiation. I predict a good number will continue to exist after peace.
As to the RoR, this cannot be negotiated only by the PALS. The other Arab states are involved because they will have to pay Israel compensation for expropriation of Jewish property in their own states.
Last edited by Ned on 20-11-2002 at 07:57
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-11-2002 03:55
)
|