It's May 05, 2024, 08:49:21 PM
ok explain me this why wouldn't israel except the cease fire agreement? why did they take out all references to UN boarders in their declaration of independence? like i said before the media is very slaunted in support of israel even in britain I just feel for the palestinian people i hope they get a fair deal, they have already lost so much why should they lose more? and i agree both sides do need to co exist arfrat has recently shown alot more willingness to co oporate regretting not excepting clintons deal, putting pressure on militant groups, recognising israel should stay jewish etc. yet israel shows little willingness to cooporate and still does everything on their own terms even going against america who are extremely lienent towards israel. is we could sort out the whole conflict the whole middle east would be alot more stable.
Quote from: Don Rizzle on May 10, 2006, 03:16:12 AMiraq would just get annexed by iranThat would be a great solution. If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
iraq would just get annexed by iran
i know palestine still isn't officially a country but that still doesn't give any other country the right to take land they have owned for hundreds of years away from them. and yes b4 israel was born jews muslims and christians all lived at peace in palestine, go figure that one out.
well from what i have read the person who lead to israel to independence didn't want to be confined by the UN boarders and had bigger ambitions for israel hence taking out references to UN boarders. then in 67 it was redefined and israel wants another redefinition now.
From the inception of Zionism, the Zionist leaders have fed their people false propaganda. Probably the picture above can tell you a bit of the real story. It is misleading and unfair to focus on what Palestinians might allegedly do in the future, while Palestinians' past and present are filled with Israeli war crimes. These types of accusations are meant to deflect and confuse the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The core issues of the conflict are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people for the past five decades, and the conflict would have been on the same level of intensity, even if both warring parties were Muslims, Christians, or even Jewish. From the start, the Zionist leaders were keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on "Jewish majority" by immigrating Jews to Palestine in mass numbers, which was primarily motivated by the fleeing European Jews from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When it became increasingly clear to the Zionist leaders at the time (such as Ben-Gurion and Theodor Herzl) that it was impossible to achieve Jewish majority solely based on immigration and natural growth, they concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution to the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following: In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938: "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." 1 In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947: "In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." 2 And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council: "From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." 3 In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th, 1948: "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population." 4 For Israeli Zionists to excuse themselves from any war crimes, such as compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) and dispossessing the Palestinian people, they've resorted to a myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, businesses, banks, boats, cars, ..etc. based on their free will.5There is no denying of the fact that some Palestinians think exactly like the Zionists (which is the Palestinian version of Zionism), and very possibly they do so because they were the victims of such treatment. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, you have to agree that it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism, which are facts that all decent people must accept and deplore simultaneously. No matter what the circumstances are (such as the urge to seek vengeance, revenge, reprisals, ... etc.), targeting civilians to achieve political or military objectives, in either war or non-war situations, is terrorism. It is worth noting that the Palestinian people have been on the receiving end of Israeli terrorism, the chief of which are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of 8.5 million Palestinian for the past five decades.Finally, the Palestinian mainstream does not and will not condone massive ethnic cleansing the way Israeli Zionists have done to the Palestinian people. Palestinians, as Muslim and Arabs, have their long history and track record to prove exactly the opposite. Omar Ibn al-Khatab's and Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem are solid proof of how Arabs and Muslims fairly treated their defeated subjects, the Byzantines and the Crusades respectively. Ironically, many of today's Christian Palestinians trace their roots to the Crusades, such as the famous Rock family of Jaffa. In other words, if freeing Palestine shall imply perpetrating war crimes similar to the ones perpetrated against the Palestinian people, Palestinians shall wait for another Omar or Saladin to right the wrongs of the past. The Muslim Arabs have their history to prove their tolerance towards their subjects, however, the Israeli Zionists have their track record to speak for them.
Are you aware that in March 1948 the United States, along with China and France, was withdrawing from its earlier commitments to partition Palestine, and was pressing for "trusteeship" - an extension of Great Power rule- in Palestine beyond May 15th, 1948? 14 And on March 19th, 1948, Ben-Gurion responded to the idea of UN trusteeship in a press conference in Tel-Aviv with the following: "It is we who will decide the fate of Palestine. We cannot agree to any sort of Trusteeship, permanent or temporary. The Jewish State exists because we defend it." 15It should be noted that since November 1947 the UN GA failed to reaffirm the 1947 U.N. partition plan. Are you aware that the 20th Zionist Congress, which convened in Zurich in August 1937, almost UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED the British proposed partition plan of Palestine (which became known as the Peel Commission Partition plan)? 16. Although the proposed Peel Commission's partition plan was rejected because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" was "too small," the concept of partitioning the country was adopted by the 20th Zionist Congress. Consult the Peel Commission map (URL available at footnote 17) which was rejected by the 20th Zionist Congress, and the map proposed by the U.N. in 1947 (available at footnote 18). While inspecting both maps, note the following:
We call upon your sense of fairness while contemplating the following questions: 1) If the Peel Commission plan was accepted by the Zionists in 1937, how many Jews might have been saved from the Nazi holocaust? In that respect, it is worth quoting Ben-Gurion, who wrote twenty years later: "Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel."192) If the Zionist Jews rejected such an offer, which could have "saved" many Jews from the Nazi holocaust, why are the Palestinians often blamed for rejecting a plan which allocated them much less land in 1947? 3) Why is the same excuse accepted by Zionists for rejecting the 1937 Peel Partition plan, but not accepted when used by Arabs for rejecting the 1947 UN GA Partition plan?
Are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition in favor of creating a "Jewish State" in Palestine was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had such power to partition a country, such a resolution is not binding since it was indorsed by General Assembly rather than Security Council.
Assuming in 1947 Israeli Jews constituted a 2/3 majority, and owned and operated 93% of Israeli lands, contributed 55%-60% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), would you accept a U.N. imposed partition of Israel in favor of an alien settler minority? It should be NOTED that currently Palestinian-Israeli citizens make up 20-22% of the total population, so is it acceptable for the United Nations to partition Israel in a favorable way to its Palestinian minority? As an Israeli Jew, would you accept a UN GA proposed partition of Israel?
In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for "Jewish state" on part of Palestine only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest when he wrote: "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." 27
Ben-Gurion wrote in his dairy on November 30, 1947 after the UN's vote to partition Palestine into two states: "In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 Arabs."
On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor" with the following: "The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." 34
Ben-Gurion addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th 1948, just a few days before the implementation of Plan Dalet which signaled the official Zionist offensive against the Palestinians: "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population." 36 Note the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 U.N. Partition plan. 37 Finally, it seems often hypocritical when on one hand many Israeli Zionists use UN GA partition plan as a pretext to legitimize "Israel's" existence, and on the other hand they've rejected almost every other UN resolution since "Israel's" creation, chief among them U.N. GA resolution 194 which calls for the immediate Right of Return of all ethnically cleansed Palestinians to their homes, farms, plantations, businesses, banks, boats, buses, ... etc. To suit "Israel's" political agenda, Israeli Zionists have deliberately chosen to ignore most, if not all, UN resolutions, of course with the exception of withdrawing from occupied southern Lebanon in May 2000. Sadly, Israel has accepted the UN resolution to withdraw its occupation forces out of southern Lebanon not because it was influenced by the UN, U.S., or even European diplomatic pressure, but because it was compelled to do so by the heroic Lebanese resistance.
In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the Intifada I), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary: "The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement."100 In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of Intifada I: "When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." 101
" it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism"