Options
One author states no authority for Palestine State
brianjd
Posts: 201
Can someone produce a map of any kind showing there was a country called Palestine at any time?
What Occupation?
Commentary; New York; Jul/Aug 2002;
Abstract:
Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza. The history of Israel's so-called "occupation" of Palestinian lands and the ways in which Palestinians and Arabs have distorted Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza are discussed.
NO TERM has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than "occupation." For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel's supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel's allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people.
For most Western observers, the term "occupation" describes Israel's control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of "occupations" dating back to the very creation of Israel on "stolen" land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London's Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled "Occupied Palestine." That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian "right of return" that is meant to reverse the effects of the "1948 occupation"-i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself.
Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel's actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today's terrorist attacks were "what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people"-a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state.
Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 "occupations." "I come to you today with a heavy heart," she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, "leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe]":
In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population .... On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties.
This original "occupation"-that is, again, the creation and existence of the state of Israel-was later extended, in Ashrawi's narrative, as a result of the Six-Day war:
Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution.
Taken together, the charges against Israel's various "occupations" represent-and are plainly intended to be-a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.
IN 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.
Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.
The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination-an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today-namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).
As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."
What Occupation?
Commentary; New York; Jul/Aug 2002;
Abstract:
Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza. The history of Israel's so-called "occupation" of Palestinian lands and the ways in which Palestinians and Arabs have distorted Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza are discussed.
NO TERM has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than "occupation." For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel's supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel's allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people.
For most Western observers, the term "occupation" describes Israel's control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of "occupations" dating back to the very creation of Israel on "stolen" land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London's Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled "Occupied Palestine." That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian "right of return" that is meant to reverse the effects of the "1948 occupation"-i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself.
Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel's actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today's terrorist attacks were "what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people"-a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state.
Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 "occupations." "I come to you today with a heavy heart," she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, "leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe]":
In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population .... On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties.
This original "occupation"-that is, again, the creation and existence of the state of Israel-was later extended, in Ashrawi's narrative, as a result of the Six-Day war:
Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution.
Taken together, the charges against Israel's various "occupations" represent-and are plainly intended to be-a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.
IN 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.
Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.
The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination-an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today-namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).
As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
1916
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sykesmap.html
150 CE
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/romanmap2.html
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
So you are saying Palestine shouldn't exist and Israel has every right to kick these people from their homes and set up a home of their own? In essense, the Israelis should be allowed do the same sick, evil shit that was once did to them...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
umm, isn't it the israeli's that have given up their homes and their lands to "palestenians". didn't israel, according to clinton, offer up 97% of the land that the "palestinians" wanted. the israeli's don't want was with these people. they just want to live in peace, in israel of all places.
100% correct....all the palestinians want is war.
If they want peace so badly, they might want to stop bulldozing homes and occupying land that they have no right to. They take more and kill more in the process. What has Palestine taken from Israel? If you want peace you need to do more than just say it. Killing doesn't start peace. When they stop killing, I'll believe they want peace, until then why pretend they are any better than the Palestinians?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
While I'm sure there's some exceptions, Israel does not bulldoze homes and occupy lands as an offensive proactive policy -- it's been pretty much reactive defensive methodology. We can debate chicken/egg semantics til we're blue in the face (creation of israel started it all, et al), but I think Israel is more amenable to living in peace with Palestinans than vice versa?
If they could, Palestinians would TAKE IT ALL, Israel has shown some restraint in that regard. When the Palestinians stop the killing, I'll believe they want peace.
I just don't see either side suckin up a non-response to the cycle of aggression, sadly. But I think it's not quite fair to put the onus on Israel alone, Book.
So rockets come into Israel, kidnappings, random shootings, a few more buses and cafes get blown up ... what if Israel did nothing to repond to that? You think the violence would wane? "Oh gee, they just want to talk with us now! Cool, let's do that!"
Yet you go on with chicken vs the egg mentality throughout your post. If you want violence to end...stop participating in it. There is no other way. This defense excuse is used on BOTH sides and it has done nothing to stop this conflict. The only way to peace is to actually practice it,. Sadly, most are far too filled with fear to do so.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Palestine did exist pre-1948, it is ignorant to not agree with that. I showed you maps that said Palestine on them. They were under British mandate like the USA once was, and the Palestinians fought the Ottoman's for their freedom and lost it to the Jews.
Show me the fear in walking into a cafe and blowing oneself up? I somewhat agree that the stronger of the two parties (debatably Israel) should make the first step, which by the way, I think they have tried many times - Oslo, Gaza pullout, etc. In the words of the Godfather, "I keep trying to get out and they keep pulling me back in!"
I can give hugs to both Israel and Palestians, kudos for postive steps and all, I haven't seen you do that. I just see stones hurling from your peaceful hands at one party, Book.
The post you just quoted from me sited both parties as responsible. I do see Israel as more dangerous via weaponry and they often kill more numerously and it bothers me that they are armed and funded by my country when that will only prolong the conflict and create more instability, not prevent it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Stop bulldozing, occupying - Israel
They take more and kill - Israel
What has Palestine - Palestine
If you want peace - big group hug, universal "you"
When they stop killing -- is that also the big collective "they"? I kinda parsed that as a shot at Israel, my bad? The conclusion seemed to say the onus was on israel, so no I don't see you as saying both parties where responsible except for the big group hug.
Yes, because you seem to be of the thinking that Israel is innocent and justified in what they do...so I post to you how they are not. There aren't too many on here who justify suicide bombers, at least not that I've seen so I don't have to disagree with an arguement that is not there.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
the history of arab and palestinian desire for jewish blood goes back to before 1948. arab religous leaders have been calling for the deaths of jews since before 48 and even allied themselves and fought with Hitler. read the following and then tell me how one should feel empathy with a people who commit thelmselves only to violence,.
The Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni
Main article: Amin al-Husayni
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."[citation needed] He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."[19] [20] In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a new “warrant for genocide.”[citation needed]
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
It's that "seem to be thinking" that is telling because yes, my hedge words, wiggle words, perhaps, sort of, it's debatable, it seems, and what not are slight references to my middle ground in this conflict. it's your assumption that I have a horse in this race by my posts, but I haven't ever had my sig read: We are all Israelis.
And of course, yes, I think Israel is justified in many of their actions (not all, many). And I think palestinians have a legitimate complaint in the matter as well. I am however much more appalled at how the Palestians lobby for their cause than I am by Israel. I am appalled at some Israeli actions. I am heartened by others. I've seen nothing from the Palestinians to give me hope.
The point at hand is that the UN, the world body at the time, mandated the creation of Israel and Palestine. One party accepted that, one did not. And here we are.
The Jews also worked with the Nazis to a certain extent. So did the USA. You know Lethal Injection was a Nazi idea. The Nazis believe it or not had a major influence on the way we do things today. If association with Nazis is all it takes to be evil then we are in trouble.
As eharmonic said, an Arab can not be anti-Semitic as they are semites themselves.
The person quoted above obviously didn't know that, or omitted it from their fact book, which makes me wonder how much else they omitted.
That sums it up
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
I guess the US is occupying the Southwest these days, cause actually it is Mexico's land. And that isn't really even a good analogy because it is true that we did take that land from Spain. Who took it from the natives.
Damn, we really should all just go back to the Fertile Crescent and live there cause we have no rights to any other land as far as I can see.
This rehash of history is just a tool used to continue the arguments for more war, so I suggest we look at who is propogating the hatred and realize that they are not the way to peace anywhere.
The same UN who continually condemns Israels actions? Why bring the UN up if you only care about what they say when it fits your argument? Saying we are all Palestinians in no way says that Palestinians have the right to kill, it says that they are humans just like anyone else. Israelis have a huge arsenal which they use to bombard people on a very large scale....that gives me no hope. Israel doesn't have to lobby shit they have they have all the funding they need. They seem less 'out there' and 'crazed' because they are not as deseperate.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok, just bare with me here for a moment. I bring the UN up because.....
That is what the thread is about, the Authority for a Palestinian State. I attempted to indicate that by "The point at hand..."
Very subtle clues I know but, thus is language.
Its hard to take "but the UN condemns Israel" arguments all that seriously, when you look at what the content of the resolutions generally is. Its basically harassment, and not much else.
Last week i ran across a massive book from 1852 called "The History of All Nations" by S.G. Goodrich. It not only makes reference to Palestine, but it devotes an entire short chapter to it, maps and all. From what I remember, it desribed it as a land of the Philistines, who in ancient times vied with the Jews for supremacy of that region.
Its just my opinion, but I don't buy the notion that a formal Palestinian state had to exist in order that the Palestinian people be given more recognition for the difficulties that they have had to endure. I think thats a cop-out.
I agree, actually ... In fact, I think many of these historical arguments (Palestine never existed, Israel never existed, Israel shouldn't exist, etc.) basically miss the boat by ignoring current realities. In our current reality, Israel does exist, and the Palestinians do indeed have a legitimate claim to their own state, given current social and economic realities.
it sems that the palestinians are more interested in israel not existing at all, than having their own state.
I don't know ... That assertion applies to groups like Hamas, as well as to many in the rest of the Arab world. However, I think many more moderate Palestinians would simply get on with their everyday lives if the conflict came to an end. People like Abbas would settle for being left alone.
Yes, but I think it is wrong to point to them for reference only when you agree with them and give them no credibility the rest of the time.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So you wouldn't have a problem with a group or country taking over the US now? They would be justified?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This statement is somewhat problematic. First, if you don't believe in something from the very start, or by its very nature, then you won't believe in it later, or because someone else tells you to. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the formation of Israel in 1948, the land was largely inhabited by Arabs - approx. 67 % were Arabs. Why would you, as a sizeable majority, want to lose the land you've been living on for centuries ?
Secondly, the Israeli's have done their fair share in terms of frustrating matters for a Palestinian state - esp. of late. Camp David was/is a joke, yet its held up as a shining example of what Israel offers to the Palestinains. But do you know what Camp David offered the Palestinins ? If you don't know, you should investigate it and maybe you'll understand why the Palestinians were right to refuse it. Its disgraceful that such a proposal saw the light of day, and its even more disgusting that Clinton tried to flog it to the Palestinians.