By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 22:53 - May 21 by eirannach_gorm
This is the Beaufort Declaration.
How much of the "civil and religious rights of existing non Jewish communities" remain in Israel / what's left of Palestine?
It's getting harder and harder to actually find Palestine.
I've never seen that graphic before although the 'settlement', displacement, land-steal, ethnic cleansing, whatever you want to call it is very well-known of course. But that graphic really brings home the extent of the injustice incrementally done to a people over the course of last eighty years, four generations.
Imagine if the image on the left represented the garden boundary of a long held family home you inherited. Now imagine a neighbour returns from a long overseas trip and instead of peacefully re-integrating decides to grub up your boundary hedges and systematically annex parts of, and then very nearly all of your property.
All you are left with is some tiny, scattered fragments of your garden, and the neighbour keeps taking more and also knocking down any rough shelters you manage to construct on what's left.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 08:42 - May 22 by NthQldITFC
I've never seen that graphic before although the 'settlement', displacement, land-steal, ethnic cleansing, whatever you want to call it is very well-known of course. But that graphic really brings home the extent of the injustice incrementally done to a people over the course of last eighty years, four generations.
Imagine if the image on the left represented the garden boundary of a long held family home you inherited. Now imagine a neighbour returns from a long overseas trip and instead of peacefully re-integrating decides to grub up your boundary hedges and systematically annex parts of, and then very nearly all of your property.
All you are left with is some tiny, scattered fragments of your garden, and the neighbour keeps taking more and also knocking down any rough shelters you manage to construct on what's left.
"Now imagine a neighbour returns from a long overseas trip and instead of peacefully re-integrating decides to grub up your boundary hedges and systematically annex parts of, and then very nearly all of your property."
And systematically murders your family, while the police and authorities watch on and do nothing.
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 08:45 - May 22 by noggin
"Now imagine a neighbour returns from a long overseas trip and instead of peacefully re-integrating decides to grub up your boundary hedges and systematically annex parts of, and then very nearly all of your property."
And systematically murders your family, while the police and authorities watch on and do nothing.
Indeed.
And your cat.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 22:53 - May 21 by eirannach_gorm
This is the Beaufort Declaration.
How much of the "civil and religious rights of existing non Jewish communities" remain in Israel / what's left of Palestine?
It's getting harder and harder to actually find Palestine.
Just to add some historical accuracy to those maps. As facts matter.
The fist map is labled incorrectly there was no state of Palestine in 1947. It was British Mandated a Palestine and the term “Palestinian” applied to all people living in the area, whether Jew or Arab.
The White dots representing Israel is misleading as there was no state of Israel in 1947.
The 1948 map is an accurate representation of the UN charter which divided British Mandated Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. Israel’s Declaration of Independence explicitly called on Arab inhabitants to remain and become equal citizens in the state of Israel. The Arab response explicitly called for genocide and expulsion of Jews in the area which is now referred to as being “from the river to the sea”.
Religious leaders told Arabs to go into exile rather than accept the two state solution.
Around 150,000 Arabs did remain inside Israel after the war. Today their descendants make up around 20% of Israeli citizens, who hold positions in the Israeli Parliament, the judiciary, the police and the armed forces.
Just one day after Israel declared its independence five Arab countries, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria launched coordinated military attacks against Israel.
None of this excuses massacres like Deir Yassin. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were also expelled eastward during Operation Dani. Israeli forces carried out war crimes such as poisoning water supplies which also caused 1000's of Arabs to flee.
Getting back to the war, the Arab states expected to strangle the state of Israel at birth. They heavily outnumbered Israeli forces and expected a quick victory. However, Israeli forces won the war and took control of all the territory originally allocated to the Jewish state, as well as approx 60% of the land designated for the Arab state. This included the Galilee, the coastal plain, the Negev desert, and West Jerusalem.
Which takes us to the 1967 map.
The 1967 map is also misleading because it labels Gaza and the West Bank as Palestine. What it omits to show is that during the 1948 Israel/Arab war Egypt annexed Gaza and Transjordan, now Jordan, annexed the West Bank. Both areas were controlled by the invading Arab forces for nearly twenty years. Not by the Palestinians.
The six day war in 1967 was caused by a combination of Soviet misinformation and Egypt’s blockade of The Straits of Tiran. Once again Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq fought against Israel. And again Israel won, resulting in Israel gaining control of theWest Bank (including East Jerusalem, captured from Jordan)The Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula (captured from Egypt) and The Golan Heights (captured from Syria).
These are occupied territories which Israel had no legal right to hold, although successive Israeli governments have justified the occupation as being vital for self defence due to the historical attacks by their Arab neighbours. However, more recently, the religious far right in an Israel claim that these lands are their God given right.
In 1973 Israel once again expanded their borders after once again they were attacked by their Arab neighbours in the Yom Kippur War if 1973. Eat sleep rave repeat.
Since then illegal Israeli settlements, encouraged by successive Israeli governments have continued to encroach on Palestine land. We are now seeing settlers attacking Palestinian farmers with little action being taken against them by the police. The people carrying out these attacks are terrorists. No ifs no buts.
Israel did withdraw completely from Gaza in 2005, demolishing all illegal settlements. In 2006, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and assumed control of Gaza Strip and we all know how that ended.
One has to wonder had the Arab coalition not invaded Israel in 1948, and that the religious leaders in British Mandated Palestine not told the Arab population not to go into exile, we may have two fully function states living peacefully in the area. It is the most long running conflict in modern times.
There have been attempts to revive the two state solution. Two, the 2000 Camp David Summit and the 2008 Annapolis-based negotiations came really close.
So as I said in my opening, if maps are going to be posted then I believe the historical context should also be published. Oh and it’s Balfour.
[Post edited 22 May 9:55]
“What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it........."
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 15:56 - May 21 by wrightsrightglove
But you haven’t clarified anything through abstraction have you? All you’ve done is to try and confuse the situation to make a point with zero relevance to what I said.
Really quickly, do you think the ongoing genocide will be compared to the Holocaust by historians in the future? Straight forward yes or no will do
Of course it will. They idea that future or present historians researching genocide, ehtnic cleansing or war crimes etc would be free to compare and contrast say the genocidal actions of the British colonial state with the Nazi regime or Assads actions in Syria with other atrocities.
But would somehow not be allowed to compare Isreals recent and fresh genocide with Nazi Germanys atrocities is just nonsense and as no reality in historical research or theory.
Comparing historical similarities and differences is literally how history works.
Once people attempt to enforce what historical actions historians can and can't compare we are on a very dangerous and slippery slope
5
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 08:53 - May 23 with 497 views
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 09:46 - May 22 by GlasgowBlue
Just to add some historical accuracy to those maps. As facts matter.
The fist map is labled incorrectly there was no state of Palestine in 1947. It was British Mandated a Palestine and the term “Palestinian” applied to all people living in the area, whether Jew or Arab.
The White dots representing Israel is misleading as there was no state of Israel in 1947.
The 1948 map is an accurate representation of the UN charter which divided British Mandated Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. Israel’s Declaration of Independence explicitly called on Arab inhabitants to remain and become equal citizens in the state of Israel. The Arab response explicitly called for genocide and expulsion of Jews in the area which is now referred to as being “from the river to the sea”.
Religious leaders told Arabs to go into exile rather than accept the two state solution.
Around 150,000 Arabs did remain inside Israel after the war. Today their descendants make up around 20% of Israeli citizens, who hold positions in the Israeli Parliament, the judiciary, the police and the armed forces.
Just one day after Israel declared its independence five Arab countries, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria launched coordinated military attacks against Israel.
None of this excuses massacres like Deir Yassin. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were also expelled eastward during Operation Dani. Israeli forces carried out war crimes such as poisoning water supplies which also caused 1000's of Arabs to flee.
Getting back to the war, the Arab states expected to strangle the state of Israel at birth. They heavily outnumbered Israeli forces and expected a quick victory. However, Israeli forces won the war and took control of all the territory originally allocated to the Jewish state, as well as approx 60% of the land designated for the Arab state. This included the Galilee, the coastal plain, the Negev desert, and West Jerusalem.
Which takes us to the 1967 map.
The 1967 map is also misleading because it labels Gaza and the West Bank as Palestine. What it omits to show is that during the 1948 Israel/Arab war Egypt annexed Gaza and Transjordan, now Jordan, annexed the West Bank. Both areas were controlled by the invading Arab forces for nearly twenty years. Not by the Palestinians.
The six day war in 1967 was caused by a combination of Soviet misinformation and Egypt’s blockade of The Straits of Tiran. Once again Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq fought against Israel. And again Israel won, resulting in Israel gaining control of theWest Bank (including East Jerusalem, captured from Jordan)The Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula (captured from Egypt) and The Golan Heights (captured from Syria).
These are occupied territories which Israel had no legal right to hold, although successive Israeli governments have justified the occupation as being vital for self defence due to the historical attacks by their Arab neighbours. However, more recently, the religious far right in an Israel claim that these lands are their God given right.
In 1973 Israel once again expanded their borders after once again they were attacked by their Arab neighbours in the Yom Kippur War if 1973. Eat sleep rave repeat.
Since then illegal Israeli settlements, encouraged by successive Israeli governments have continued to encroach on Palestine land. We are now seeing settlers attacking Palestinian farmers with little action being taken against them by the police. The people carrying out these attacks are terrorists. No ifs no buts.
Israel did withdraw completely from Gaza in 2005, demolishing all illegal settlements. In 2006, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and assumed control of Gaza Strip and we all know how that ended.
One has to wonder had the Arab coalition not invaded Israel in 1948, and that the religious leaders in British Mandated Palestine not told the Arab population not to go into exile, we may have two fully function states living peacefully in the area. It is the most long running conflict in modern times.
There have been attempts to revive the two state solution. Two, the 2000 Camp David Summit and the 2008 Annapolis-based negotiations came really close.
So as I said in my opening, if maps are going to be posted then I believe the historical context should also be published. Oh and it’s Balfour.
[Post edited 22 May 9:55]
The Clinton clip enhances the myth of the 'generous' Camp David offer
To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).
Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).
The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the regions scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.
Because of the geographic placement of Israels proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new 'independent state' would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called 'bypass roads' that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.
Thanks for the spellcheck on the Balfour Agreement, it was a major mistake on my part.
Anyway back to the OP, this is also not a great look.
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 08:53 - May 23 by eirannach_gorm
The Clinton clip enhances the myth of the 'generous' Camp David offer
To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).
Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).
The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the regions scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.
Because of the geographic placement of Israels proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new 'independent state' would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called 'bypass roads' that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.
Thanks for the spellcheck on the Balfour Agreement, it was a major mistake on my part.
Anyway back to the OP, this is also not a great look.
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 08:53 - May 23 by eirannach_gorm
The Clinton clip enhances the myth of the 'generous' Camp David offer
To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).
Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).
The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the regions scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.
Because of the geographic placement of Israels proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new 'independent state' would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called 'bypass roads' that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.
Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.
Thanks for the spellcheck on the Balfour Agreement, it was a major mistake on my part.
Anyway back to the OP, this is also not a great look.
2.1 million people being forcibly contained within an area smaller than the Isle of Wight. No chance of escape, no option to leave, under constant bombardment. Aid being blocked, medical facilities targeted and medics murdered, innocent children killed on a daily basis, journalists targeted and murdered. Innocent people dying every day, not just from being murdered but from starvation, from a lack of healthcare, from a lack of housing and medical aid. And all being broadcast on a daily basis, being supported by our governments, even being celebrated by some people, it’s an utter stain on our generation and will be looked back upon with disgust and disbelief
Instead of copying and pasting the article as if it was your own work?
[Post edited 23 May 9:12]
So my posting is not up to your satisfaction? Interesting that you haven't rebuffed the information and just tried to belittle the countering of Bill Clinton's not unbiased view of Camp David negotiations. I have posted images of the Israeli response to those that do their own work in trying to support the Palestinian people. You might give me a comment on that while you are correcting my homework.
2
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 14:23 - May 23 with 275 views
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 13:23 - May 23 by eirannach_gorm
So my posting is not up to your satisfaction? Interesting that you haven't rebuffed the information and just tried to belittle the countering of Bill Clinton's not unbiased view of Camp David negotiations. I have posted images of the Israeli response to those that do their own work in trying to support the Palestinian people. You might give me a comment on that while you are correcting my homework.
Mate, you went to the time an effort of looking for an article and then copying and pasting it o address just three lines of my post whilst completely ignoring the rest of it so stop blubbing about me not giving you a comment.
I think we are done here. You're not a serious person.
“What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it........."
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 14:23 - May 23 by GlasgowBlue
Mate, you went to the time an effort of looking for an article and then copying and pasting it o address just three lines of my post whilst completely ignoring the rest of it so stop blubbing about me not giving you a comment.
I think we are done here. You're not a serious person.
Oh dear, you seem to be taking this badly. Because you can't get the better of my argument, you go for the man. You are done here because you have nothing left to offer in the defence of your views.
3
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 15:26 - May 23 with 208 views
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 15:19 - May 23 by eirannach_gorm
Oh dear, you seem to be taking this badly. Because you can't get the better of my argument, you go for the man. You are done here because you have nothing left to offer in the defence of your views.
Same old same old.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Not a good look when Netanyahu reprimand you on 15:19 - May 23 by eirannach_gorm
Oh dear, you seem to be taking this badly. Because you can't get the better of my argument, you go for the man. You are done here because you have nothing left to offer in the defence of your views.
You didn't make an argument. You copied and pasted an article that suited your point of view and tried to pass it off as your own work because you lack the skills to debate those views yourself.
You previously posted a completely misleading series of maps, each of which I challenged with historical facts which you completely ignored.
We see your agenda. We saw your agenda when just a day after the Hatzola ambulances you started posting this nonsense.
More antisemitism by eirannach_gorm25 Mar 21:20 As Semites is a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East and the Horn of Africa including Arab and Israeli people, this must be added to the list.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
