Why should Israel give one inch of land to the arabs? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
By Deicidus
#27462
Actually, the romans didnt think they could wipe out the jews. Jews were banned from Judea after their second revolt agaisnt the romans in 132-135 AD. Why would you need toWipe out a people that wasnt even there. Jews were dispersed to the four corners of the Empire, hoping that divided they would soon all fall into roman assimilation. The remaining jewish communities in Judea were declared unrelevant as no army or goverment could be raised from it, was therefore left alone until the middle ages and the Crusades.

After the Roman conquest of Judea, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 AD, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin".

So no, the British had nothing to do with the arabic people called palestinians in Palestine.

Second, I never denied the right of Israel to be and remain a State.


Guilty by association ???

Being killed by a israeli rocket for the only reason that you were walking next to it on the street ? What are you guilty of then ?

I never excused or approved palestinian terrorism agaisnt Israel citizens, contrarly of what others here try to pin on me.

Again I say, what I hate is when you excuse israeli actions. With the same things the US uses in Iraq saying ``we kill less civilians then them, therefore we are better, we are the good guys``. You really think you can convince me of Israel's good intentions by saying things like that. I dont approve more of suicide bombings than of israeli actions. What I do approve of is the Palestinian cause of fighting, not for just a peice of land, or the destruction of Israel, but for the simple right to exist, right that has been denied to them. Argue all you want about the never existence of a palestinian entity. What matters is not if it did or didnt exist in the past, what matters today is that the Palestinians want to exist, they want to live. The only response they even had was they they never existed.
By ihavenoname
#27478
If the Pals simply wanted to live in peace with Israel, then why didnt arafat accept Baraks offer? What was wrong with Baraks offer?
User avatar
By The American Lion
#27503
ihavenoname wrote:If the Pals simply wanted to live in peace with Israel, then why didnt arafat accept Baraks offer? What was wrong with Baraks offer?


Because Araffat wanted the other 2% of the land. :roll:
By Deicidus
#27729
Haaretz, 10 march 2000 called Barak's offer the 10-40-50 plan. American and occidental media made a great job hiding the truth. They tried to make the people believe that they were going to give 90% of Cisjordania to Palestinian state and that they refused it all because they wanted 100% or even more of it. That quite far from the truth. The map that Barak proposed in May 2000 seperated the possible Palestinian State into 4 Enclaves. Gaza was still reuced by half its size by settlers, holding and keeping 47% of the Gaza stripe. Cisjordania was divided into 3 other Enclaves. The northern part being seperated completly of the others by Israeli controled roads, settlements like Elkana, Ariel, Shilo and Shomron. The Enclave of the Center, wich is where Ramallah is, is seperated from the two others, again seperated by the previously stated settlements and seperated from its southern part by settlements like Bet El, Ofra, Maalé Adoumim, Modin Illit and Oarim. Not to count the settlements inside this Enclave, that counts for 44% of its surface. The southern part Is completly incercled by Israeli soldiers that occupy a zone that is called a ``temporary security zone``.

In may 2000, the Media stated that Barak had proposed 90% of the Cisjordanian territory for the creation of the State of Palestine. Altough it was not mentioned that 2 500 000 palestinians were living inside 50% of the territory while 40 000 jewsish settlers were living inside the other 50%(includes permanent and ``temporary`` settelements, occupied territories) The 10-40-50 plan went like this. Barak wanted the imediate annexation of around 10 and 13% of the cisjordanian territory. That leaves around 90%. In the proposal, 40% of it was to be debated has many colonies had implented there. That leaves around 50 to 55%. Inside that 50%, there remained 40 colonies, all joined by routes(controled by Israel) that takes another 10%. That would leave less than 40% of the Cisjordanian land to make a country of. Country that would still be divided from the inside by other settlements(not included inside the debatble 40%)

In Baraks map, he divided the country into 4 parts, palestinian controled territory, israeli controled territory(supposly ``temporary``), territory under israeli sovergnity and territory that would be included in the new Palestinian country. The land that would become Israel total property was amounted of 25% of Cisjordania(90.6% owned by jews) The land that is controled and maintained by Israeli soldiers equals 16% of it. That leaves 59% that would become Palestinian controled lands(59% is not the final number has 40 colonies remain inside it, that will probably cut more that 10% of it)

That is whats wrong with Baraks offer. While ``debating`` what will happen with the 40% remaining, he was not forbided to keep expanding the settlements has the debate(has stipulated by the proposal) could last has much has 20 years. Arafat didnt refuse the proposal because he was greedy, he refused it because he wasnt stupid enough to accept.
By Freedom
#27734
. Argue all you want about the never existence of a palestinian entity. What matters is not if it did or didnt exist in the past


So when discussing the Middle East we cannot bring in any reference to history? AHAHAHAH

What was the history of Palestine between Biblical times and the modern era?



In 539 B.C. the Persians conquered the Babylonians. The Jewish Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, was rebuilt (516 BC). Under Persian rule the Jewish state enjoyed considerable autonomy. Alexander the Great of Macedon, conquered the area in 333 BC His successors, the Ptolemies and Seleucids, contested for control. The attempt of the Seleucid Antiochus IV (Antiochus Epiphanes) to impose Hellenism brought a Jewish revolt under the Maccabees, who set up a new Jewish state in 142 BC The state lasted until 63 BC, when Pompey conquered the region for Rome.

At the time of Christ the Jewish state was ruled by puppet kings of the Romans, the Herods. When the Jews revolted in 66 AD, the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem (70 AD). The Bar Kokba revolt between 132 and 135 AD was also suppressed, Jericho and Bethlehem were destroyed, and the Jews were barred from Jerusalem. The Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel. At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more in slavery. Some of those who survived left the devastated country (and established Jewish communities throughout the Middle East) but there was never a complete abandonment of the Land of Israel. That is, there were always Jews and Jewish communities in Palestine, though the size and conditions of those communities fluctuated greatly.

When Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity (312), he took steps to elevate the status of Jerusalem and the city became a center of Christian pilgrimage. Constantine relaxed some restrictions on Jews, but renewed the prohibition on the residence of Jews in Jerusalem, permitting them to mourn for its destruction once a year, on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av.

Palestine over the next few centuries generally enjoyed peace and prosperity until it was conquered in 614 AD by the Persians. It was recovered briefly by the Byzantine Romans, but fell to the Muslim Arabs under caliph Umar by the year 640. During the Umayyad rule, the importance of Palestine as a holy place for Muslims was emphasized, but little was done to develop the region economically. Few Arabs came to Palestine; the Muslim rulers ruled Christians and Jews.

In 691 the Dome of the Rock was erected on the site of the Temple of Solomon, which is claimed by Muslims to have been the halting station of Muhammad on his journey to heaven. Close to the Dome, the al Aqsa mosque was built. In 750, Palestine passed to the Abbasid caliphate, and this period was marked by unrest between factions that favored the Umayyads and those who preferred the new rulers.

In the 9th century, Palestine was conquered by the Fatimid dynasty, which had risen to power in North Africa. The Fatimids had many enemies - the Seljuks, Karmatians, Byzantines, and Bedouins - and Palestine became a battlefield. Under the Fatimid caliph al Hakim (996-1021), the Christians and Jews were harshly suppressed, and many churches were destroyed. In 1099, Palestine was captured by the Crusaders, establishing the Latin Kingdom. Jews were seen by the Crusaders as infidels, as bad as the Muslim occupiers of Jerusalem, and were slaughtered by Christian soldiers along their way to liberate Jerusalem and then thousands in the city when they got there. Following the first Crusade, a Papal Bull was issued in 1119 AD to reinforce St. Augustine's earlier plea, in 427 AD, not to kill the Jews, but to allow them to wander the earth as evidence of their rejection by God.

By the time the Crusaders were defeated by Saladin at the battle of Hittin (1187), and the Latin Kingdom was ended, Palestine had become a wasteland. Mongol invaders who arrived in 1260 destroyed many of the villages. The Mamluks ended the Crusader period in 1291, but under Mamluk rule Palestine declined further. Mamluks burned and sacked towns and villages, uprooted orchards, and destroyed wells. In 1351, the Black Death was reported in Palestine and by 1500 the population had declined to barely 200,000 people. For comparison, the state of New Jersey, roughly comparable to Israel in size, had a 2001 population of about 8.5 million people and still had rural, undeveloped areas.


Click for larger image.
Map courtesy of Azanne Research. In 1516 the Mamluks were defeated by the Ottoman Turks. The first three centuries of Ottoman rule isolated Palestine from outside influence. The discovery of sea routes to the East began to erode the importance of the Middle East to commerce. In 1831, Muhammad Ali, the Egyptian viceroy nominally subject to the Ottoman sultan, occupied Palestine. Under him and his son the region was opened to European influence. Ottoman control was reasserted in 1840, but Western influence continued. The Ottoman tax system was ruinous and did much to keep the land underdeveloped and the population small. When Alexander W. Kinglake crossed the Jordan in 1834-35, he used the Jordan's only bridge, a survival from Roman antiquity. Among the many European settlements established, the most significant in the long run were those of Jews, Russian Jews being the first to come (1882).

It is important to note that there was a Jewish population in Palestine continuously. Even after the Jewish state was ended by the Romans, Jewish communities continued to exist. All of the successor governments tried to eliminate the Jews at one time or another, but none succeeded as numerous accounts testify over the centuries. When the Zionists started the modern "return" to Eretz Yisrael in the 19th Century, they were joining Jews who never left.

In 1918, a Yiddish book by David BenGurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Eretz Yisrael in the Past and Present, was published in New York by the Poale Zion Palestine Committee. The authors note that long after the destruction of the Second Temple — and even after the defeat of Shimon Bar Kokhba, leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in the second century C.E. — large masses of Jews still tilled the soil of Eretz Yisrael.

In the wars and uprisings, many cities were ruined and many communities destroyed, but the farm population could not be wiped out so easily. Under foreign oppression, city dwellers — the propertied and educated classes — chose to leave their homes and migrate to freer countries such as Babylonia. The Jewish peasant, however, like peasants the world over, would not leave his land so quickly, for it was land developed by his sweat and that of his parents.


The conclusion of the book contains historical facts that establish the "denationalizing" of Eretz Yisrael. The authors ask us to remember that after Bar Kokhba's fall, "Rome and Byzantium held on to Palestine for 500 years (136 C.E. to 636 C.E.), but neither the Romans nor the Byzantines made Palestine their national homeland, an organic part of their national existence." Likewise, the book says, the Arabs and Egyptians, who reigned over Palestine for about 880 years — from 637 to 1517 — "never had organic ties to the land." During their rule, it continues, the cradle of Arab nationality remained in the great expanse of the Arab peninsula. And when it came to the Turks, who ruled from 1517 to 1917, the authors tell us that they "were even less integrated into the country than the Arabs." After a 400-year reign, Turkish culture and the Turkish language remained as foreign in Palestine as they were 400 years earlier.

"The denationalization of Eretz Yisrael resulted in a state of affairs where the country lay in ruins and desolation," the book says. "And the land waits for the Jewish people to come and repair and restore its old home."

Source: http://www.palestinefacts.org

but for the simple right to exist, right that has been denied to them.


You dont actually believe this is what they are fighting for? Tell me what year exactly did the PLO form?
User avatar
By ItsMe
#27773
Good post Freedom

you are actually answering some of the questions i had about the true palestine.
By Freedom
#27811
Good post Freedom


I really cant take credit for it. The researchers at the site i sourced deserve it. I had written something to similar effect but it wasnt as detailed as the above, so i posted it instead.
User avatar
By naked_turk
#27916
You people are so ignorant, I think its a waste of time posting replies to people like you. Its like getting into an argument when you're 5 years old... you can prove the other kid wrong but instead of admitting he's stupid, he simply says "no that it doesnt count!" and moves on.

btw Freedom, you've shown proven nothing by posting an article written by someone just as or even stupider than you. That article can convince any idiot that doesn't know the first thing about real history but not me. Don't bother replying to my post because even if you do I don't see a point in me replying back.
By Freedom
#27922
btw Freedom, you've shown proven nothing by posting an article written by someone just as or even stupider than you.]



Welcome to the board i guess...

It was in response to a post above on the history of Palestine.

That article can convince any idiot that doesn't know the first thing about real history but not me.


Then what is the real history? Please tell me.

Also many historians, at the time of the partition, Arab Historians included, testified that their was never a Palestinian State...hell even a few of Arafats lackies admit to it. Fact if their was never an independent Palestinian state ever. This isnt ment as an excuse to murder all the Arabs in the land now known as Palestine or anything...but please inform me of the real history...oh glorious one...
By Tovarish Spetsnaz
#27937
Also many historians, at the time of the partition, Arab Historians included, testified that their was never a Palestinian State...hell even a few of Arafats lackies admit to it. Fact if their was never an independent Palestinian state ever. This isnt ment as an excuse to murder all the Arabs in the land now known as Palestine or anything...but please inform me of the real history...oh glorious one...


And this has to do with what??

True...there never was an independant Palestinean state.

Also true...there never was a German state before 1849.

Does this mean the German state is an illegal anomoly and that it should break up and pieces of it go back to the French or Dutch or Prussians or whever had them before??

Logic...how McDonalds hamburgers eat away at it...
By ihavenoname
#27939
The problem with this arguement is that the Arab counties try to use it to justufy thier rejection of Israel. To say that neither side has a claim to the land is an error. The problem arises when one group wants ALL of the land. Until arab rejectionism stops- Israel has no incentive to give the pal's thier own state. Israel is ready to recognize arab sovereignity over the WB and Gaza strip- The arab world is not ready to recognize Israeli sovereinity in Israel.

King Hussein offered the Palestinians thier own state on the West bank- and on sides of the east bank - All the arab regimes at the time- including the palestinians rejected the offer.


just in case you didnt get my point- an no one has been able to deny it except with 'the Zionists must die" .....

The arab world must accept Israel as a Jewish state- until it does- Israel has no reason to give up ANY land for the developement of an independant palestinian state.
By Freedom
#27948
Tov,

I think you miss the point...Palestinians Terrorists and their appeasers still believe that their was such a thing as an independent Palestinian state sometime in history. I merely refute this statement like i refuted the 4-1 statistic for deaths in current Intifada with facts.

Also i dont eat McDonalds...
User avatar
By naked_turk
#27955
Freedom wrote:Welcome to the board i guess...


Thanks. Sorry about my overly-harsh post though, I get a bit too personal when it comes to political arguments.
By GandalfTheGrey
#28402
Hi. I'd just like to dispel a popular myth, namely that Palestinians overwhelmingly reject the right for the Israelis to have their own state. See for example a recent opinion poll (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p8a.html). This demonstrates that 56% of Palestinians support the road map, 56% support ending incitement against Israel, and most significantly, 71% support reconciliation between the two people, and the establishment of a Palestinian state .recognised by Israel. This is hardly the stereotypical view that all Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the sea. In fact public opinion has consistently been supportive of reconciliation and coexistence.

What we should be looking at is not the Palestinian disregard for an Israeli state, but the Israeli disregard for a Palestinian state. Israel has consistently adopted a policy of creating facts on the ground, namely by establishing as many illegal settlements in Palestinian territory as possible, so as to reduce the amount of land elibible for a Palestinian state. The latest tactic is the hideous wall that is still under construction in the west bank. I cannot say that this wall is being constructed around Palestinian territory, because this is simply untrue. The wall cuts right into the territory, incorporating far more territory than that incorporated in the so called 'green line'. This makes a mockery of Israel's claim that the wall is for security. The wall cuts into farmer's land, requires the demolition of property and devastates the economy. Even the right wing Bush administration has voiced its concern over this oppressive wall.

Palestinians have an obligation to denounce terrorism - absolutely, but this is not the only ingredient for peace. Israel must take seriously the notion that Palestinian's have a right to a viable - repeat viable state of their own. I'm afraid a state that is segregated into isolated enclaves, littered with illegal and hostile Israeli settlements, and intruded by Israel-only highways is not viable by anyone's standards.
By ihavenoname
#28420
UN resolution 242:
Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;




It is supported in UN resolution 242 that states "territories" as opposed to the whole of the west bank and Gaza strip.s well as "peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"
It was left intentionally vague in the resolution- as to why it was passed. To say the wall is inside Palestinian territory is incorrect. Until the arab world ceases all threats states of belligerency then the "territories" do not belong to anyone- least of all the palestinians.
By GandalfTheGrey
#28433
ihavenoname wrote: To say the wall is inside Palestinian territory is incorrect.


When the wall cuts a farmer off from his property, when it requires the demolition of houses, then I consider this to be 'inside Palestinian territory'. Does it not matter to you who is living there now? Is it right to evict the people who are living there now, and who were born there because of some ancient and forgotton Israeli right of sovereignty?
By ihavenoname
#30417
GandalfTheGrey wrote:
ihavenoname wrote: To say the wall is inside Palestinian territory is incorrect.


When the wall cuts a farmer off from his property, when it requires the demolition of houses, then I consider this to be 'inside Palestinian territory'. Does it not matter to you who is living there now? Is it right to evict the people who are living there now, and who were born there because of some ancient and forgotton Israeli right of sovereignty?



no it doesnt- but we are not talking about rational people here. If the killing stopped- then the fence would not be needed-
By Efrem Da King
#30470
Exactly, maybe if they didn't want the fence which is a defensive measure (though I don't support it completly) they should stop attacking israel.
By Sleepy
#30536
Efrem Da King wrote:Exactly, maybe if they didn't want the fence which is a defensive measure (though I don't support it completly) they should stop attacking israel.


Do you think Israel should stop attacking them? Doesn't it seem insane to ask the Pals to "crack down on terror" or stop attacking Israeli troops and civilians while the Israelis are still killing people? People support these groups because they don't have anywhere else to turn. Arafat can't stop the Israeli incursions or roadblocks. He can't stop the curfews and the continual repression and occupation. These are things that are legitimate grievances and only Israel has the power to use these bargaining chips to try and appease the Pals into giving less support to terrorist groups. I know it would mean giving support or even worse credibility to Arafat but Israel supported Iran against Iraq (via weapons supply) so they know sometimes you gotta deal with the devil.

Below is something I found at the Likud party page on the Knesset site.

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.



Does this make you think of Sharon and his party any differently?
By Efrem Da King
#30538
To make a long story short.... No.


First the terror has to stop. Then lifting of restrictions. Then palestinian state. And the terror won't stop while yasser is at the head. You really outa read his arabic announcments as well as his english ones, the difference is incredible.

So you agree that slavery was used to steal techn[…]

If vitamin D deficiency was such a problem, why a[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Prof Timothy Snyder of Yale: "...defeat is a […]

update : https://x.com/i/status/1805691458881511[…]