Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I never said "a few consessions".

Oh...so then it's actually "many concessions"?

What are they? What is that end state?

Is it possible you don't really beleive in it either?

[Hippikos]

Is it possible you don't really beleive in it either?

Reverting to straw man tactics yourself now, Maggie?

I believe peace is possible, as much as it was possible in N-Irleand. Basically it all reverts to 1967.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Basically it all reverts to 1967.

So...1967 wasn't OK in 1967, but it's OK now?

It was a causus belli then.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

So, history starts in 1947? Before that it's a black hole? Even in 1947 the Jews were in minority (third of the population).

The Jews were in the majority of the land partitioned to Israel by the UN.

The official UN estimate was 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs (a number that included Christians, Bedouins, Druze, and others).

The planning of colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine originated already before the Holocaust. Herzl and the "Der Judenstat", remember?

I'm sorry, when you say "Palestine", are you referring to British land which they intended as a Jewish homeland?

Originally Posted by Arthur J. Balfour

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

Sure, in hindsight, one might say that was a huge mistake. Personally, I think it would have been a better outcome if ALL the European Jews decided to move there in 1917. See, if they had only done that, they would still have a chance at being alive in 1947. Unfortunately they faced pogroms in Palestine so I'm sure many Jews weren't convinced it was safe.

People might compare your map with this one. This map is 1947, yours begins in 1948. The difference was a war, in which the side that started the war lost.



People might notice how the orange areas coincide with the blue areas on your map.

Does history begin in 1947? No it sure doesn't; nor in 1917, nor 1948, nor 1967. We can go back further to how the whole concept of colonization no longer worked in the 20th century, and how the world had to wreak havoc for a while to settle on what it is now, and how this is the last vestage of that old problem.

But the best thing for all concerned would be if they would just sit down and shut the fuck up. All the land Israel has gained since the orange areas on that map are due to initially-defensive wars. The land Israel has gained has been the land from which they were attacked. If the Arabs would have sat down and shut up in 1947, they would have not only a state but a huge and great one. Instead they have been used, over and over again.

[richlevy]

Basically, the British screwed up in Israel and Kashmir by leaving things half-done. The UN had to finish up in Palestine. The India/Pakistan split worked out much better, and occurred a few months before the Palestine partition.

The Arab League had the chance to accept the partition at that time, and had the example of Pakistan, but decided to refuse.

[Hippikos]

The Jews were in the majority of the land partitioned to Israel by the UN.

The official UN estimate was 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs (a number that included Christians, Bedouins, Druze, and others).

Palestine was inhabited by 2/3 Arabs and 1/3 Jews at the time of the division. Which btw was rejected by the Brits. Israel has declared the State of Israel unilaterally as it has always imposed all new borders, unilaterally.

I'm sorry, when you say "Palestine", are you referring to British land which they intended as a Jewish homeland?

The Zionist movement knew where to concentrate their lobby Weizmann having close ties to Lloyd George and Balfour. Given this context then, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 can be seen as an effective tool for Britain to serve multiple ends. Seen through British eyes and from the perspective of late 1917, it would serve as a powerful propaganda tool aimed at the world’s Jewish community in hopes of securing additional financial support – cash contributions, loans, grants - to fill the depleted coffers of the Allied governments. Secondly, it would effectively preempt Germany’s ongoing efforts to enlist both informal and formal support from the Zionist movement. In a very real sense whichever side issued such a declaration first would effectively preclude any positive impact of the other side's efforts.

Unfortunately they faced pogroms in Palestine so I'm sure many Jews weren't convinced it was safe.

Palestine was not safe for nobody. Jews were never shy to use terrorism to obtain their goal. Neither Brits nor Arabs were save for their terrorism. Google on Irgun, Hagganah, Stern Gang and you'll find some interesting names.

Whatever year is used, fact is that hundreds of thousands Palestines whos families lived there were ethnic cleansed, exiled, prisoned and live in reservates with no future, just for living here.

If the Arabs would have sat down and shut up in 1947,

I asked before and I ask again, would YOU have shut up if your house was confiscated?

[MaggieL]

I think Hippikos gets his internet access at work. I wonder if he's paid for his propagandizing online? If so, I hope he's not paid for answering my last question, because he didn't.

[Hippikos]

ah...Maggie... mother of innuendo. As usual your response only adresses the messenger and not the message.

I have internet access both at work and at home and wished I got paid for my writings. Maybe you can make me an offer I can't refuse?

As for your question; pls try to read my messages instead of only looking at it, your answer was responded to.

Have a nice day!

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Palestine was inhabited by 2/3 Arabs and 1/3 Jews at the time of the division.

And again, the portion allotted to Israel was majority Jews.

Israel has declared the State of Israel unilaterally as it has always imposed all new borders, unilaterally.

Where "unilaterally" means "for defensive purposes, took the land via which they were attacked in a war, without asking the attackers their preference."

The withdrawl from Gaza was unilateral in the more traditional sense of the term. Unilateral Israeli withdrawl? That REALLY doesn't match your worldview, so you can't even see it, can you?

I asked before and I ask again, would YOU have shut up if your house was confiscated?

"...and that's why international terrorism is justified."

[Hippikos]

Where "unilaterally" means "for defensive purposes, took the land via which they were attacked in a war, without asking the attackers their preference."

Defensive...really...

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.

Israel has a legacy of provocations in order to excuse their expensionism. In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

And not to forget the bombing of US Liberty in order to provocate US into war with Egypt.

"...and that's why international terrorism is justified."

That's no answer, that's an evasion.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

As for your question; pls try to read my messages instead of only looking at it, your answer was responded to.

Perhaps you can point out where. Assuming you're reading rather than only looking at it.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Perhaps you can point out where. Assuming you're reading rather than only looking at it.

Are we looking at the same thread, Maggie?

I believe peace is possible, as much as it was possible in N-Irleand. Basically it all reverts to 1967.

[Undertoad]

Yes, the only way you can paint the 67 war as offensive is to cherry-pick quotes here and there.

That's no answer, that's an evasion.

Evasion answer to an evasion question.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Are we looking at the same thread, Maggie?

Maybe not. The one I'm talking about includes:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

So...1967 wasn't OK in 1967, but it's OK now?

It was a causus belli then.

But then if you're "just looking at it" you might have missed it.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes, the only way you can paint the 67 war as offensive is to cherry-pick quotes here and there.

Now it's cherry picking quotes suddenly? Does that mean they didn't say it or doesn't these quotes fit your world view?

Evasion answer to an evasion question.

It was a direct question and you're still evasing it.

MaggieL; again, it all goes back to the 1967 borders. It has been stated by all parties concerned that these borders are acceptable to all. Which means peace in the area. But, I have to repeat myself in your case; that means concessions from Israel and we know that they don't negotiate, they impose actions unilaterally.

Their "unilateral" withdrawal from Gaza (in which they're back again) was a well calculated strategy to increase their territory on the West Bank. 7000 settlers at the end were impossible to protect without collossal efforts and costs. Just a matter of cost and balances.