US - Israeli relationship

[USMC the Almighty]

However do you really think you can fairly compare the two situations?

Yes. You said: "There is something about having your home taken from you, your orchards uprooted and a housing development erected on your former home that puts a real bad taste in your mouth towards the occupiers."

To which I responded "Just ask the Southerners". A perfectly legitimate parallel. I wasn't necessarily equating the two as much as I was confirming your assertion of "having your home taken from you...puts a real bad taste in your mouth towards the occupiers".

Ever talk to Southerners about Lincoln, the Union, or the "War of Northern Aggression"? They still shake every time you mention the name Sherman.

 

[palerider]

Upon looking again at palerider's National Review article, I submit that the "Palestinian Mandate" is ultimately not germane to the issue here.
Why not?
Because that was a piece of work consequent to British meddling.
It would be a similar thing if the US had gone over to the Pyrhenees and delineated a portion of that area to be the "Basque Mandate".L

IOW, whatever arrangements have been made by the people who actually lived there - on top of the superficial lines drawn by colonialists - are their own business.

Some research is in order on your part Lilly.

Modern international agreements established the jew's right to rebuild their homeland in what is presently Israel and the territories. The 1917 Balfour Declaration that called for settlement of the land by jews was incorporated by the league of nations into the palestinian mandate and by the UN in article 80 of its charter.

Does the word legal mean anything to you if it flies in the face of what you wish?

Due to the fact that Israel entered into the territories in 1967 as the result of defensive action, their administration of the area is also legal. UN resolution 242 says that Israel is to administer the area until such time as the enemy states committed to a “just and lasting peace.” Arabs, not Israel is responsible for the present state of affairs. They refused to accept any negotiation that included a jewish state. UN resolution also states that israel was to negotiate new, and more defensible borders.

The law is the law Lilly. Why is it that you openly and aggressively support lawbreakers?

In any event, here is a little history of the region and it is written by a Jewish author.

You do this often Lilly and frankly, it strikes me as racist. Are you under the impression that just because a jew writes a thing, that it must be accurate? Or that just because a jew writes a thing, its premise must be accepted? Information must be accurate lilly, no matter who it comes from. Your history from the "jewish" author conveniently leaves out the legal framework for the state of israel completely.

Is the law not germane to you if it defeats your apologetics?

 

[palerider]

Palerider,

I am not going to go on a search to substantiate a statement you made. Often times you can not proove a negative and I doubt that your figure can be prooven.

Of course you aren't. And I am not surprised at all. And I would never think of asking you, or anyone else for that matter to prove a negative. I don't lie, and I don't fabricate. Here, let me do the research for you since you are clearly too lazy to do it yourself.

I will even guide you through the process in case you should ever want to research anyting on your own in the future.

First, I looked at a map showing the palestinian mandate.

Then I looked at a map showing present Israel and Jordan.

The total land mass of the palestinian mandate was 43,667 square miles. According to the CIA factbook, today jordan is 35,646 square miles and Israel is 8021 square miles. These two countries occupy what was the palestinian mandate. Do you still want to argue that jordan doesn't occupy at least 75% of the palestinian mandate?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Modern international agreements established the jew's right to rebuild their homeland in what is presently Israel and the territories. The 1917 Balfour Declaration that called for settlement of the land by jews was incorporated by the league of nations into the palestinian mandate and by the UN in article 80 of its charter.

And ?
My point concerned that very same "Balfour Declaration".
Exactly what on earth gave Great Britain the right to declare boundaries in the Middle East ?

The Palestinian Mandate you keep referencing ...was a consequence of that earlier British meddling.

Does the word legal mean anything to you if it flies in the face of what you wish?

No, the word legal means less than nothing to me in this context.
Need I remind you that all of Sadaam Hussein's actions within Iraq were "legal" as well ?

Due to the fact that Israel entered into the territories in 1967 as the result of defensive action, their administration of the area is also legal. UN resolution 242 says that Israel is to administer the area until such time as the enemy states committed to a “just and lasting peace.” Arabs, not Israel is responsible for the present state of affairs. They refused to accept any negotiation that included a jewish state. UN resolution also states that israel was to negotiate new, and more defensible borders.

It is not true that Arabs have rejected negotiations every time. Also, many of the offers they've received have been notably unacceptable.

It's astonishing how much stock you seem to place in the UN's pronouncements ...
I wonder how faithfully you're willing to abide by their consensus in other matters ?

FYI, nothing the UN has to say about Israel holds any interest for me.
Practically the entire world reacted to the Holocaust in an emotional frenzy and that includes the UN.
They did not stop to ask themselves why the indigenous people of Palestine should take the hit for it.

The law is the law Lilly. Why is it that you openly and aggressively support lawbreakers?

But you would be among the first to urge that a law be declared null and void if it stood in the way of accruing additional land for Israel, wouldn't you ?

You do this often Lilly and frankly, it strikes me as racist.

The race card again ?
You resort to that as often as any liberal I've met.
But,
There is a problem for you this time that was not a problem when you tried to do it over "the little brown girls" of Iraq.

What is that problem ?

The problem is that there is scarcely a greater insult to Jews than to characterize them as a "race".
That was Hitler's view, and Jews have been highly sensitized to it ever since then.
They consider themselves a religion and even a people but NOT A RACE.

Are you under the impression that just because a jew writes a thing, that it must be accurate? Or that just because a jew writes a thing, its premise must be accepted? Information must be accurate lilly, no matter who it comes from. Your history from the "jewish" author conveniently leaves out the legal framework for the state of israel completely.

Is the law not germane to you if it defeats your apologetics?

I used the material from a Jewish author to underscore the same thing I emphasized in the other thread by furnishing material from the Neturei Karta ...
namely that this argument is not about Judaism but rather about Zionism.

 

[valgal]

Palerider, your complete disrespect and rudeness leave me not to get past the first insult. You will have to wait for another person to come around to verbally abuse.....

I have tried a sampling of this board and realize that it isn't for me.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, your complete disrespect and rudeness leave me not to get past the first insult. You will have to wait for another person to come around to verbally abuse.....

I have tried a sampling of this board and realize that it isn't for me.

You were the one that suggested that I, in some way, was expecting for you to prove a negative which in and of itself, suggested that I fabricated the statement that jordan had occupied over 70% of the palestinian mandate. I had done neither.

Since it wasn't difficult to get the maps, I could only assume that either you don't know how to research for information, or you are too lazy to research for information. Which is it?

 

[Friendindeed]

Palerider, your complete disrespect and rudeness leave me not to get past the first insult. You will have to wait for another person to come around to verbally abuse.....

I have tried a sampling of this board and realize that it isn't for me.

valgal I hope you will not leave on those grounds. This board could use more women on it besides the two.

See near the end of the thrad "define conservatism", this has been the flu talking more than anything else, he's not like that normally. In fact he went out of his way to do me a favor awhile back.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Exactly what on earth gave Great Britain the right to declare boundaries in the Middle East ?

The Ottoman Empire played for the Central Powers in WW1...and lost. That's what.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

The Ottoman Empire played for the Central Powers in WW1...and lost. That's what.

You must not understand what I'm asking.

Recall that Great Britain had made two previous agreements about that area - one with France and one with the Arabs - before the Balfour Declaration ...which were contradictory to it. Britain used the Balfour Declaration to renege on its first two agreements.

And it all comes down to meddling as I pointed out earlier.
Nothing gave them the right to bestow occupied land to another people.

Even Moshe Dayan knew that:

"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish, state here...Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages...There is not a single community in the country that did not have a former Arab population." Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's "Original Sins."

 

[Friendindeed]

valgal I recommend to you a book called "The Un-Civil War" by Mike Scruggs.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You must not understand what I'm asking.

Recall that Great Britain had made two previous agreements about that area - one with France and one with the Arabs - before the Balfour Declaration ...which were contradictory to it. Britain used the Balfour Declaration to renege on its first two agreements.

And it all comes down to meddling as I pointed out earlier.
Nothing gave them the right to bestow occupied land to another people.

Even Moshe Dayan knew that:

"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish, state here...Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages...There is not a single community in the country that did not have a former Arab population." Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, quoted in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's "Original Sins."

I understand your point fully -- you're speaking of the Husain-McMahon letters (1915-1915) and the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916). The point I'm making is that, when you lose a war, the people who defeated you typically take your land and can divide it as they please. The Ottoman Empie lost WW1. If you have something, but are not able to defend it, in all likelihood someone bigger and stronger is eventually going to come and take it from you. It's how the world works.

I'm not saying that it wasn't populated by Arabs. You can look at it one of two ways.

(1) You can see it as the Jews getting a homeland following the horrors of the Holocaust -- in which case, as the Arabs never hesitate to bring up, the Palestinians are essentially being punished for a European crime.

(2) Jews returning to their homeland -- land given to them by God, and thus it was already rightfully theirs.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

[USMC, before addressing your reply, I had meant to mention something to you last night after seeing your post to valgal: the History Channel is planning to air a special about Sherman in April ...that is one episode of history which almost literally boils my blood. I figure you probably already knew about it because you are fond of history but thought I'd mention it just in case.]

I understand your point fully -- you're speaking of the Husain-McMahon letters (1915-1915) and the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916).

McMahon made a fully documented deal with the Arabs. The latter fulfilled their part of it by fighting the Turks and so as far as I see, the subsequent Agreement and Declaration are rendered null and void.

The point I'm making is that, when you lose a war, the people who defeated you typically take your land and can divide it as they please. The Ottoman Empie lost WW1. If you have something, but are not able to defend it, in all likelihood someone bigger and stronger is eventually going to come and take it from you. It's how the world works.

Indeed. The Jews were unable to defend their area and lost it 2000 years ago (after managing it for not even very long a time).

I'm not saying that it wasn't populated by Arabs. You can look at it one of two ways.

(1) You can see it as the Jews getting a homeland following the horrors of the Holocaust -- in which case, as the Arabs never hesitate to bring up, the Palestinians are essentially being punished for a European crime.

(2) Jews returning to their homeland -- land given to them by God, and thus it was already rightfully theirs.

As you probably have reckoned I see it the first way. But please understand that it's not because I'm some kind of atheist who doesn't believe in God. There is another side to this story of God 'giving them the land'.
Please read the material I posted in the thread "Israel is Guilty of....".

 

[Friendindeed]

Lilly I believe there were later agreements that reconciled the contradictions.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Lilly I believe there were later agreements that reconciled the contradictions.

You are probably talking about the Churchill White Paper.
It tried to resolve the contradictions but it did not succeed. They could not promise land to some people in exchange for a specific action, and then give it to other people after that action was performed, and then put the whole affair to rights by composing an eloquent phrase or two.

Here is what happened, according to

http://www.mideastweb.org/1922wp.htm


Soon after the Balfour Declaration was issued, it became clear to the British that it was inconvenient to implement a "National Home" for the Jewish people in Palestine. None of the persons who had issued that declaration in 1917 were in power. Britain had meanwhile, reneged on their commitment to give Syria to the Arabs, in favor of their commitment to give Syria to France based on the Sykes Picot agreement. The Hashemites were no longer in power in Saudi Arabia either. The Mandate had created intense resentment, and riots had occurred in Palestine in 1920 and 1921. Motions were raised in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to repeal the Balfour declaration. The motion was defeated in commons with the help of Churchill, Ormsby Gore and others, but it was felt that a compromise would be necessary. The "as implemented" mandate would be somewhat different from what the Zionists and the framers of the mandate had envisioned. Churchill, possibly with the help of Herbert Samuel, was given the thankless task of reframing the mandate in such a way that it would placate the Arabs, but still give Britain an excuse to keep Palestine from the French in the form of the "homeland for the Jewish people"

The British government decided to detach Palestine east of the Jordan river, constituting most of the area of Palestine, and form the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, as shown in the map at right.


The White Paper of 1922, known as the "Churchill White Paper," or "Command Paper" alludes somewhat obliquely to this change. It affirms the right of Jews to a homeland in Palestine, refers to a Zionist resolution of 1921 declaring willingness to build the country in cooperation with the Arabs and notes:

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.

The White Paper attempts to resolve the various contradictory promises of the British Foreign office. The detachment of the eastern part of Palestine is said to satisfy both the provisions of the McMahon letter of 1915 to Sheriff Hussein, and also the wording of the Balfour declaration, which promised a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as opposed to a home encompassing all of Palestine. The White Paper also makes it clear that the Jews will not rule the Arabs in Palestine, but will only govern themselves, according to the then current British Foreign Office interpretation of the mandate. Churchill noted:

But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

The above is in conflict with the interpretation of Lloyd George, who had been Prime Minister when the Balfour Declaration was issued and with the interpretation of the American delegation to the Paris peace conference. Lloyd George wrote:

It was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a National Home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. (Memoirs, pp 736-7) (see the discussion in the introduction to the Balfour Declaration).

However, the winds of British policy had shifted, and Churchill's task was to justify the shift in yet another ambiguous document that could be interpreted in different ways to different people and at different times, or, in Churchill's words:

...the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

However, the White paper contained a great many things that caused justifiable alarm to both sides, as the Arabs were not reassured that there would not be a Jewish-ruled entity in Palestine, and the Jews could see clearly the threat to partition Palestine and to limit immigration...