This message was self-deleted by its author

[polly7]

This message was self-deleted by its author (polly7) on Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:04 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[samsingh]

1. where should Israelie's live?

[Tetris_Iguana]

2. In Israel with naturalized Palestinians.

But that would make too much sense.

[Fozzledick]

4. That wouldn't be Israel, and they wouldn't be allowed to live there

but then that's your whole idea, isn't it?

[Tetris_Iguana]

8. If such a peaceful integrated state isn't Israel

Then, yes, that is my whole idea.

[Fozzledick]

11. You know it wouldn't be peaceful.

[Tetris_Iguana]

13. It can be

If it's a tightly supervised prison state like the US.

Not saying it's ideal, but it is effective in keeping the general peace.

[sabbat hunter]

43. so you are in favor

of a single state solution?

[Tetris_Iguana]

47. Absolutely

Two statism is nonsense since the two states will just continually best up on each other like today.

[polly7]

3. This is to show the extermination of Palestinian's land, resources, lives

and their entrapment into poverty-filled enclaves surrounded by a military and gov't fully supporting that theft even more, daily. No comment whatsoever about that?

[samsingh]

45. wasn't land stolen from the Jewish people?

where would you have them live?

[Fozzledick]

5. Oh Jeez, not this shit again!

No matter how many times those bogus maps get thoroughly debunked people keep throwing them up again as if they hadn't already been exposed as frauds.

[azurnoir]

20. yes I'll agree the maps are bogus as they make Palestinian territory appear far more

contiguous than they are in reality

[azurnoir]

21. Here is a more accurate map of the West Bank

even though as recent events have proven the Palestinians really have no control over any area of the West Bank as Israeli security invades , demolishes, confiscates, 'detains' as it pleases in all areas of the West Bank

[Fozzledick]

28. So the West Bank is under defensive military occupation to prevent attacks against Israel.

It seems to be working fairly well, especially compared to the situation in Gaza, which Israel unilaterally withdrew from.

What's your point?

[azurnoir]

30. and defense includes the transfer of almost half a million Israeli civilians to the West Bank too?

if that were another group they would be called "human shields"

[Scootaloo]

33. "Defense" includes any and all actions ever perpetrated against Palestinians

There's no bottom limit. After all, as Fozzie himself made clear, it's the Palestinians themselves who are the problem. he's backed up by the likes of Israeli lawmaker Aleyet Shaked who makes it clear that the Palestinian people are "The enemy," calling for relentless bombing and killing until "they" submit. Further backing comes from Schmuley Boteach, self-proclaimed "America's Rabbi" who argues for opening total war against the Palestinian people until they cave - he draws parallels to the end of the Pacific campaign in WW2 - you know, where the US nuked Japan.

This mentality is the crux of the majority of "support for Israel" - the notion that no matter what, no matter when, Arabs always "deserve it."

[Jefferson23]

34. That is, an excellent account. n/t

[Fozzledick]

36. Ooh, another silly game!

I know this one! This is where you ignore what I actually say and argue with your own straw men.

Please proceed!

[Fozzledick]

35. So just throwing out any shit to see if it sticks. I see.

[azurnoir]

37. you claimed that Israels presence in the WB is a "defensive military occupation" I asked if

a "defensive military occupation" included allowing the transfer of nearly 500,000 Israeli civilians (not including East Jerusalem) and added that in such a case if those civilians belonged to another group they would be clled human shields

could seem you want to distract from that question

[Fozzledick]

38. So let me get this straight:

You're claiming that the occupation of the West Bank is NOT to defend Israel from attacks from there, trying to fog the issue by misrepresenting the meaning of the word "transfer" to try to sneak in a tie to a treaty that addresses the forced expulsion of populations but doesn't have anything to do with this situation, and making up some nonsense about "human shields" that doesn't even begin to make sense.

Ok, I got ya. Seems I was right the first time.

[azurnoir]

39. No I asked how the 2 worked you claimed "defensive military occupation" how does that dovetail

with the 100's of thousands of Israeli civilians that have taken up residence in the West Bank? As I pointed out if they were another group they would be called human shields

[shaayecanaan]

56. I don't think that anyone seriously makes that claim

You're claiming that the occupation of the West Bank is NOT to defend Israel from attacks from there

The original claim was that the occupation of the West Bank was intended as a buffer zone against an attack from Jordan. That argument ceased to have relevance after 1994 when the peace treaty was signed by Jordan. The West Bank Palestinians aren't exactly a military superpower, in fact they're much less of a threat than Hezbollah. If Israel couldnt justify continuing to occupy south Lebanon in order to protect itself against Hezbollah, I'm not sure why any person with a brain would believe that their main reason for occupying Palestine is to protect themselves from the Palestinians.

The other argument is that the Palestinians would fire rockets from the West Bank in the same way they do in Gaza if the occupation was ended. This ignores the fact that rocket fire from Gaza began during the occupation of it, and in fact was the precipitating factor that led to the withdrawal of the settlements and military presence from Gaza.

[Jefferson23]

59. Yes. Although this may be ignored..for one reason or another. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

55. I didn't get that impression

I thought that Azurnoir put you on your arse with a well-crafted riposte, myself.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

40. defensive military occupation does not equal offensive military colonization.

[polly7]

54. My apologies, we've been having heavy flooding here and I haven't spent much time here lately.

It's an important topic though - should be re-posted daily, imo.

[COLGATE4]

6. It's interesting that the maps do not indicate WHY the

changes happened.What do you suppose is the cause of the difference between the 1947 and 1949 map? Equally, why the major change between 1967 and after? Could it possibly have been because Israel was viciously and unprovokedly attacked by its Arab 'neighbors'. The maps look like that because, against all odds Israelis chose to defend themselves and defeated numerically superior Arab forces. That's how borderlines are drawn throughout the history of the world. Had the Arabs chosen to leave the small 1948 State of Israel in peace the map would still look like the 1947 map. Bad choice - bad consequences.

[Scootaloo]

9. A few hitches in your ranting

1) In 1948, Israel declared its independence and sought recognition from the rest of the world. To do this a nation must declare its boundaries. According to israel its boundaries followed the lines of the Jewish segment of the 1947 map - the second one i nthe graphic. At the time of this declaration Israel was in occupation of territory outside these bounds, and in 1949 it affirmed that these occupied territories were indeed occupied and not part of israel. In 1950, israel tried to get the UN to allow Israel to annex this land in exchange for readmitting "some" refugees it had driven out; the UN declined the deal, primarily because the UN can't do shit like that. This is why the "Green Line" - the 1949 armistice line - is not a border.

2) Israel did the attacking in 1967, as I have recently explained to another poster here. i categorize it as an "understandable mistake," however, and lean the heaviest blame on hte soviet Union (again as outlined in the post).

In neither case, no matter the excuses offered, Israel is not entitled to keep the land it occupies. Conquest through force of arms is an illegal act under the international laws Israel agreed to follow when it joined the united nations - and just because i know what you want to say, no, violation of laws by one party does not justify violation of laws from another party. The only way any of the territory beyond the borders Israel declared in 1948 can ever become legally Israel's, is if the Palestinians - the recognized owners of the territory - agree to cede that land to Israel (Or Egypt, or Syria, or Lebanon, who Israel has also tried to conquer from.)

No agreement has been signed, though since 1993 the offer has been on the table to cede the land behind the 1949 Armistice line to Israel as part of a peace treaty - that's about a third of the legal territory of Palestine, a free gift for a peace agreement. Israel has been demurring on this for twenty years, seeking to squeeze even more territorial concessions from Palestine, most recently a demand for all its (highly illegal) settlements as well as total control over the Jordan River valley - a proposal that would end upo looking very much ;like the "2000" map above, minus the settlement blocks in Gaza (removed in 2005).

[COLGATE4]

10. None of which negates the point I made originally. Had

the Arabs chosen to let the Israelis live in peace in the little area given them the map would look substantially like that of 1947. They didn't and here we are. No one seriously believes that the map as it now exists is going to significantly change. And that's not even taking into account the Palestinian dream of pushing every last Jew into the sea which so poisons any possibility of some accomodation.

[Scootaloo]

12. Well, some more history...

"The Arabs" weren't exactly given a choice in the matter.

Y'see, there was a demographics problem to the proposed Jewish state - most of the people living there were Arabs. Even the areas with the highest Jewish populations - Jaffa and Haifa - Jews were still the minority (albeit a large one in those two cases.) This was the crux of "Plan Dalet," an orchestrated and intentional effort to "clear the land," to drive out - or kill - as many of the Arabs of what would become Israel as possible. Naturally, "The Arabs" resisted the efforts to purge them, and thus, tadaa, the Palestinian Civil War.

But what of the Arab League's involvement?

have you ever read the Arab League's Declaration of Intervention? There's some JVL editorializing at the top of that page, but otherwise the document is clear enough. The Arab league stated its intent to intervene in a civil war in order to interrupt and protect against the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Arabs by Jews in the territory of Palestine. it cited this as the Arab league's obligation, given both the failure of the British administrators of the territory to even try to put a halt to the conflict, and the UN's refusal to step in so long as it was a British holding.

Now it's often asked by Israel's supporters, "what if Quebec were firing rockets at Buffalo?" Okay, well what if Canada were in the grip of a French-Anglo civil war, with the anglos clearly intent on simply eradicating the notion of "Quebec" entirely, resulting in a quarter-million refugees fleeing into Buffalo and threatening to spill over into the borders of the US? Would the US intervene? or would we "live in peace" with the eradication of Francophone Canadians just over the border?

[COLGATE4]

26. Unmitigated bullshit. nt

[Scootaloo]

29. Except for all the factual parts. n/t

[BillZBubb]

32. Yes, your comments are. nt

[COLGATE4]

61. File under "Clever Retorts" nt

[kjones]

44. Are you describing your posts?

[FarrenH]

71. The bluster of someone who has no factual riposte

[COLGATE4]

72. I don't bother responding to why the

Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't factual either.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Except.

Of course, plan Dalet wasn't even instituted until months after the civil war already began. As a response to the war of the roads. I'm not sure how you mentally resolve this obvious paradox, but I've no doubt that you manage.

There tend to be similar historical problems with most of your revisionist history.

[Scootaloo]

51. You mean when Arab villages closed roads to Jewish militia? Those fiends

Tell me how this justifies ethnic cleansing, please.

[Shaktimaan]

52. Simple. It didn't.

Ethnic cleansing occurred not as an objective of plan Dalet but when the war ceased and Israel refused to allow arab civilians who fled (for the most part of their own accord), to return to areas they were living within Israel.

Dalet was initiated btw, to open supply routes to settlements and cities under blockade. Such as Jerusalem, whose Jewish population was quickly running out of food.

I notice you didn't even bother refuting my initial statement though.

[Scootaloo]

53. Then what does?

Because obviously it was justified, right? it must be, for so many peopel to defend it into perpetuity.

[Shaktimaan]

57. In short...

To prevent civil wars split down ethic lines such as the one Israel had just won, in the future. It bears noting that the Arabs never accepted the authenticity of the Jewish state at any point, rejecting several options for compromise before the war in 47, such as the peel plan and the partition plan. The great arab uprising, the riots in Jerusalem, the massacre and ethic cleansing in Haifa and most importantly an unwillingness to negotiate any compromise that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, much less a willingness to commit to a peace treaty with it, even one that allowed for the return of over 100,000 refugees.

The past several decades had been fair warning as to the unwillingness of the Arab population to peacefully co-exist with their Jewish neighbors, and nothing at the time gave them reason to doubt these findings.

Israel was a shaky, new state of only 600k that in its first few years would receive over a million Jewish refugees. To expect that they would welcome back a population that still considered itself at war with its enemies who had just stolen their land seems a bit fantastical. A war during which 100% of the Jewish residents living in Arab areas found themselves either killed or cleansed.

It's important to note that fully 20 percent of Israel's citizenship remains non Jewish. A figure made more impressive when you consider how many Jews remain in Arab lands. Less than 1 percent.

I realize you look at the Nakba with certain assumptions already made. That those who were not allowed back would have been peaceful productive members of the Israeli state. That the only reason they were kept out was due to demographics, racism and fear. I won't lie to you. Those three things played a key role in the decision, I'm sure. But context is everything. For the state of Israel to succeed demographics would clearly play an important role. And if you choose to equate a reaction to racism as being the same thing as racism itself, then I'm sure you'll find a simplistic answer to the Israelis fear of allowing the return of an enemy that had fought so hard and so violently to prevent their state's existence.

But at the end of the day the answer I think you're looking for is this: I believe Israel has a right to exist, as a Jewish state. After all, the 99.8 percent of the Middle East which is arab should be more than enough to accommodate them. I do not believe that their rights as people wanting to return home superseded the collective right for Israel to ensure its own existence. I believe that Israel's primary duty, first and foremost, was to secure a functional and defended state to provide a safe haven for its own citizens and the coming Jewish refugees of the war.

If there is a realistic reason you can think of as to why Israel in 1949 should have admitted a huge population of people who had just lost a long and bloody war to it, without getting in return even so much as a promise of peaceful coexistence, then I'd be interested in hearing it.

[azurnoir]

22. No one well it seems Barack Obama believed the map could change

and believs in a Palestinian based on the Green Line

[COLGATE4]

25. I'm not sure WHAT Barak Obama believes about

most anything. I've supported him without restriction all these years but the more I see the more convinced I become that his convictions are subject to change depending on the way the political winds are blowing at any given time. So I don't put much stock on what he says he believes about that situation either.

[azurnoir]

31. sounds almost like 'buyers remorse'

[COLGATE4]

60. No, because who in their right mind

would have wanted Gramps as President?

[Jefferson23]

41. That's honest and I respect that. Regardless of your support for Israeli policy versus

whatever concerns you may have about Obama's regarding Israel..I think that is your right.

No different than any other issue..one supports what we believe is deserving of support.

[Shaktimaan]

58. Sigh

In 1948, Israel declared its independence and sought recognition from the rest of the world. To do this a nation must declare its boundaries. According to israel its boundaries followed the lines of the Jewish segment of the 1947 map - the second one i nthe graphic.

If you'll look up Israel's Declaration of Independence you'll find no mention of borders for the precise reason that Ben gurion did not want to limit the state in the event of a war which resulted in their control of more territory.

There simply is no official declaration on the part of Israel defining it's borders like you suggest. The document you keep showing as evidence isn't even from Israel, nor does anyone consider it relevant to the current debate over Israel's borders. The fact that you have no other evidence to back up your claim would seem to support its irrelevance.

I've seen this topic discussed at length by various notables of international law and never once has anyone put forward your absurd argument as tenable. That should tell you something.

2) Israel did the attacking in 1967, as I have recently explained to another poster here. i categorize it as an "understandable mistake," however, and lean the heaviest blame on hte soviet Union (again as outlined in the post).

Actually for the land in question it was Jordan who attacked Israel. Yes I'm aware of the defense pact. It doesn't really mitigate the basic facts of the matter. Jordan DID attack Israel first.

[King_David]

7. Maps exposed as being bogus by Jeffrey Goldberg long ago

Not that it was needed though it's pretty obvious to anyone who knows a little history .

[Jefferson23]

14. Ah, a trusted source for Israel's Bibi. n/t

[King_David]

16. The maps are bogus from any honest source

[Jefferson23]

17. Juan Cole, that wretched liar. n/t

[King_David]

19. Not exactly the most knowledge source on IP

He has an uber biased agenda .

[Jefferson23]

23. Like Jeffery Goldberg...no bias there.

What in your estimation is Cole's agenda?

[aranthus]

62. Well, yes; Juan Cole that wretched liar.

He claims to be an expert on the this area, so he must know that the maps and the way he has used them are lies. Look at Map 1. It shows Jewish land as all the land that Jews actually owned, and Palestinian land as everything else, even though Palestinians owned almost none of it. That's a false comparison, and Juan Cole knows it. So he's lying.

[Jefferson23]

64. Alrighty then, that is settled for you. n/t

[aranthus]

66. The question is why it isn't enough for you?

It would be to an intellectually honest person.

[Jefferson23]

68. I don't agree that you're correct about Cole's works and that makes me dishonest?

Save that nonsense for someone else.

[aranthus]

69. Mere disagreement without reason is denial, which is intellectually dishonest.

I've explained why Map 1 is a deliberate falsehood. If you think that Map 1 is an honest representation, I'd appreciate a reason why. So far, you haven't given one.

[Jefferson23]

70. Nonsense. You have created a strawman. Not wanting to engage you is not dishonest.

As I said, the matter is settled for you..you believe you're correct. I have no obligation
to address your claims.

Yet do consider this, your claims against Cole are not sourced, yet you wish to be taken
seriously..why I don't know.

You believe you have an intellectual standing over this gentleman, I don't share that
view. I suggest that you take your opinion of Juan Cole, that he is a wretched
liar and post this with any OP of his out of I/P.

Let me know how it is received.

[aranthus]

15. Lying with maps

Let's take the first one. It purports to show "Jewish Land" and "Palestinian Land" Except it's really describing two different things. The "Jewish Land" shown is that which was actually owned by Jews. If that is the definition of "Jewish Land," then what is shown as "Palestinian Land" should be limited to only that land which was owned by Palestinians, right? Except the map doesn't show that. If it did, it would show a lesser amount of land than the "Jewish Land," since Palestinian Arabs didn't actually own very much of the land in Palestine. So what it is actually comparing is Jewish owned land with Palestinian claimed land. But it doesn't tell you that. The map is a lie. Unfortunately people like you believe it because you are ignorant and because you want to. A good question to ask yourself is why you want to believe the lie?

The second map shows the Partition Plan proposed by the UN. So what? It's a suggestion; an offer of compromise. One of many that the Palestinians rejected in favor of starting a war to keep all of the land for themselves. It only represents a loss of territory if you believe the lie of the first map.

The third map shows the situation after the first war started by the Palestinians. Interestingly, while it shows the core areas of the proposed Palestinian state as "Palestinian Land" the areas of the West Bank and Gaza were conquered by Jordan and Egypt. The truth is that the proposed Palestinian state was conquered and destroyed by Egypt and Jordan, not by Israel. And the Palestinians and their supporters never said boo about that. Why do you think that is?

The fourth map purports to show the situation after the 1967 war fomented by the Palestinians. Seeing a pattern yet?

[azurnoir]

18. The 1967 war was formented by the Palestinians?

not quite it was started by what if done by any other country would be called a 'sneak attack' by Israel on Egypt he flimsy pretext used- Egypt had closed off its own territorial waters

more here to Scootaloo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=68642

[Jefferson23]

24. Yea, but many don't like that version..the factual one. n/t

[aranthus]

42. Yes.

Beginning in 1964 the PLO began a series of attacks on Israel. The point of them was to provoke an Israeli military reaction against the states that were hosting the terrorists (Jordan and Syria) in the hope that those states would be brought into active conflict with Israel and eventually the entire Arab world would have to join in. Additionally there was conflict between Israel and Syria over the Galilee, with the Syrians trying to do the same thing as the PLO; create an escalation that the Arab world couldn't ignore. Eventually, with some Soviet help, Nasser was pushed into confronting Israel to maintain his position in the Arab world. Nasser didn't close the Straits of Tiran (an act of war) or move his army into Sinai on a whim. He was reacting to the escalating tension caused by the PLO and the Syrians, which is what the PLO had wanted. So yes, the Palestinians fomented the war.

[azurnoir]

46. Because in 1964? really? no it was started when Israel attacked Egypt for

closing off what is Egypt's own territory

[aranthus]

63. You're simply ignoring what I posted.

I said beginning in 1964. Do you think that the war began just because of what happened in May of 1967 without any context? Do you think that Nasser moved his army into Sinai and closed of the Straits of Tiran just because? There's an historical context that you are conveniently ignoring. You are also ignoring the fact that closing off the Straits was itself an act of war. So which is it? Is Egypt's act justified because it was already at war with Israel, or is Egypt's closing of the Straits an unjustified act of war and breach of the Truce?

[azurnoir]

65. No however it should be noted that you seem to think what a country on it's own sovereign

territory as justifying attacks from a foreign country, everything Egypt did was on its own territory it neither invaded or blockaded from another countries sovereign territory

[aranthus]

67. The Straits of Tiran are an international waterway.

Israel's port of Eilat can only be reached by going through the Straits. Closing the Straits is a blockade of Israel's port by the threat of force. How is that not an act of war? What the hell does it matter that the Egyptian troops were on their territory?

[Scootaloo]

27. Just one portion of the BS in your post...

The second map shows the Partition Plan proposed by the UN. So what? It's a suggestion; an offer of compromise. One of many that the Palestinians rejected in favor of starting a war to keep all of the land for themselves. It only represents a loss of territory if you believe the lie of the first map.

The second map also accurately represents the legal borders of Israel - as declared by Israel and recognized by the rest of the world. Everything beyond those lines is not Israel. Nor is it Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt. Ergo it belongs to none of those states, and none have any legal claim or right to it, its people, or its resources whatsoever.

Second, Palestinians did not "start a war to keep the land to themselves." In fact the proposals the Palestinian leaders were making at the Un were exactly the opposite - they wanted a binational democratic state for Jews, Muslims, and Christians with a governing body modeled on the UK Parliament. The Palestinians didn't start any war in fact - they were not the people organized into paramilitary units going village to village executing men and driving out what women and children didn't get killed as well. Palestinians were the victims of ethnic cleansing, and it's fucking perverted that you will look at that and claim "they started a war!"