Zionism

Pulled this from another site that I posted it to, and thought it might spark some interesting debate here.

OK kids here we go on a historical trip through the middle east as it relates to Zionism! Buckle up and hold onto your seats.

(one comment, I do not wish to argue about wether right of conquest is a legitimate way to claim land. The fact is, that is how the world worked throughout history, if you don't like it tough. Deal with it, History cannot be changed after the fact)

In the 1920's the British and French created the states that now define the middle east. These were Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Previously the Brittish promised the Jews a "National Home" in what is now known as the Palistine Mandate. But in 1921 the British seperated 80% of the mandate east of the Jordan rive and created the Arab Kingdom of Transjordan and gave it to the Arabian Monarch Abdullah instead of the Jews.

What was left of the original Palestine Mandate west of the Jordan had been settled by both migrant arabs and jews. The Jews unlike the migrant Arabs had in fact lived in the area continuously for 3700 years, even after the Romans destroyed their state of judea in 70AD. Arabs first became the dominant culture in the 7th century AD due to Muslim invasions. These Arabs were nomads, with no seperate and disctinct culture, or language to seperate them from the other Arab peoples of the time. In all the time since the 7th Century they had made no attempt to create a seperate independant Palistinian state, east or west of the Jordan and none was ever established.

The pressure (international and Zionist) to form a jewish homeland was vastly increased by the Nazi Holocaust, England and the US refused to open their borders to the jews fleeing this persection which later caused much guilt to be felt for the end results. In 1948 the United Nations voted to partition what was left of the Palistine Mandate that had not been given to Jordan to make a Jewish homeland possible.

Under the partition plan the Arabs were given the Jews ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria (now known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt. The Jews were alotted 3 strips of disconnected land along the Mediteranian and the Sinai desert. Theyw ere also given access to the Holy city of Jeruselem but it was surrounded by Arab lands and cut off from the jewish lands and under Internationl control. 60% of the lands given to the Jews was the negev Desert, and the entire amount of land given to the jews was only about 10% of the entire original Palistine Mandate. This land was called Israel in 1948. In 1948 there was still no move to or even a an idea to create a state of Palstine. At the time that Israel was created, 800,000 arabs lived alongside and amongst 650,000 Jews but jews were legally barred from setteling in any other parts of the Palistine Mandate. (we see here that what is good for the goose is not apparently good for the gander). The reason that there were so many Arabs in these lands to start with is because that when the Zionists first began moving intothe are in the late 1800's they brought Industriel and Agricultural development wich attracted Arabic workers to what had previously been sparesly populated lands.

If the Arabs had been content with having received 90% of the Palistine Mandate (which had really been promised to the jews) and under which they benefited from the industry, enterprise and political democracy that the jews brought to the region, then there would have been no Middle East conflict. But that was not the case.

The Arab League (Lebanon, Syria, TransJordan(Jordan) Iraq and Egypt) Declared war on Israel and attacked,sending troops into the slivers of land given tot he jews. UN Mediators estimate that nearly 470,000 Arabs fled the lands of Israel with the intent of coming back after Israel was destroyed to take possesion of the land for themselves.

The jews refused to be defeated (many of them survivors of the Holocaust) and fought with almost maniacal ferocity. (I can hardly blame them). The Arab League with their armies defeated refused offers of peace and were determined to remain at war. In 1950 Jordan simply annexed the entire west bank and Egyt Annexed the Gaza Stip (that means they just took it from the Arabs that it had been given to, who had fled due to the war). There were no protests, there were no cries of anguish over the plight of the Palistinian people..because no one even dreamed that they might be considered a seperate people.

As a result of tha Annexation and the continued state of war the Arabs who had fled the area, still did not attempt to return. the only refugees entering this are at this time were the jewish refugees who were being expelled from their homes all over the Arab controlled Middle East. Roughly 600,000 more jewish refugees relocated to Israel. the "palistinian" refugees were not welcomed by any of the Arab states nor were they allowed to become citizens.

The Jews by contrast treated the Arab peoples who remained in Israel allthis time compartitivly well. They enjoy more rights and priveledges than any other Arab population in the middle east (this straight from the reference material on the web and may be dated because at the time of this material no other Middle Eastern country allowed its citizens to vote, but Iraq does now...if even for only a single candidate).

Jordan it should be known, is a country whos population majority is what can be considered Palistinian Arabs, but have no rights and are disenfranchised by the Hashemite Minority.
When Egypt and Jordan seized the so called "Palistinian" lands of the west bank and gaza strip there was no hew and cry from the arab states about the rights fo the palistinians nor any Arab government demanding they be returned to the Palistinian Arabs.

In 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan whose leaders had never ceased to call for the destruction of Israel (up till then) massed hundreds of thousands of troops on Israels borders and blockaded the straits of Tiran (to the south of Israel) and blocked their only access to the east. This was seen as an act of war, and Jewish leaders fearful of the massive troop concentrations on their borders with not much in the way of geography seperating them, decided to strike first rather than to wait for the hostile nations to strike. Israel defeated the Arabs and came to control the Gaza strip and the west bank and the oil rich fields of the Sinai desert. By nternational law, Israel had every right to keep the lands that they won from the defeated Arab Armies and count them as annexed territories. Israel did not do this, but then again they did not withdraw their armies either. It was thought that by holding these lands they could use them as a buffer between the small state of Israel and the much larger surrounding Arab states. The defeated Arab league still did not ask for peace and in fact maintained that they were still atr war with Israel.

In 1973, the Arabs again attacked Israel, this time led by Syria and Egypt, who were aided by Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and five other countries who gave military support to the aggressor countries (Soviet Union was one of them) this also included an Iraqi Division of 18,000 men (I mistakenly thought it was Iran). Israelagan defeated the Arab armies and Egypt and Egypt alone sued for peace, Anwar Sadat was later assassinated for making this peace. Under the Camp David Accords Israel gave back to egypt Sinai oil fields.

In my mind this should have ended the fighting in the Middle east, but the Arabs hatred of the Israeli's has nothing to do with where they live or who lives on the west bank. it seems to me that it is all about the Muslims/Arabs not being willing to live and let live. You will notice that throughout the history of the Middle eastern wars, it is always the Arabs who are initiating the agression. and up till 1973 not one person or government has mentioned it being about the plight of the Palistinian people.

Now the PLO was formed in 1964 when Israel did nt control the west bank but had been seized by jordan. The PLO was not formed to fight for the rights of Palistinians (a disenfranchised majority population in Jordan at the time) The PLO was created to (in the wordsof its own leaders) "Push the Jews into the sea!"

The official charter of the PLO refers to the Zionist invasion, declares that israels jews were not an independant state (14 years after the UN had recognized the Nation) It describes Zionism as racist and fascist, called for "the liquidation of the Zionist presence" and specified "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine". The PLO was not even constructed by Plaistinian Arabs, it was constructed by the Arab League.

Following the 1993 Oslo accords PLO leader yasser Arafat removed those offensive clauses but publicly reassured his people that their removal was a necessary compromise that did not alter the motives or plans of the PLO. He did this publicly and explicitly and cited historical precedent in which the Prophet Muhammad insincerely agreed to a peace with his enemies in order to gan time to mass the forces with which he intended to destroy them. Duriong the Oslo Accords the PLO demanded the right of return for 5 million displaced refugees...more than 10 times the number of Arabs that fled the region during the wars between Israel adn the Arab League.

Well there is the sum of my research...It is as accurate as i could make it, and as true as any history text can be considering that the winners usually write the history. All though my childhood I was aware of the PLO and its violent actions, I have never heard of a group that was more completly vile in its racism and hatred for another people, they seem to me to be even worse than the KKK or even the nazi's because they have been allowed to continue their assault on a country that has tried many times over the years to appease the Arab nations that surround it. Yes they have had their dark and nasty sides on occasion, but on balance I maintain that the jews still hold the moral high ground over all.

Thank you and good night gracie!

[Iron_Ranger]

Your going to get a beating for this one MagiK

[Davros]

Originally posted by MagiK: Thank you and good night gracie!

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Davros: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Thank you and good night gracie!

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people [/QUOTE]Thats how I feel about most debates. Usally very little is solved. More so if a liberal is involved

[Morgeruat]

very nicely put together, it has quite a bit of very concise information, and I agree with the general idea put forth by Magik

Originally posted by Davros: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Thank you and good night gracie!

When someone holds an opinion this strongly, any attempt to debate them is pointless. Even if I cared enough to make any points in opposition, it is apparent that I would be dealing with a mind that has made its decision and is totally closed to other viewpoints. My advice to people is to simply avoid the argument (note the deliberate lack of use of the word "debate").

Don't say I didn't warn you people [/QUOTE]See now Davros you just do not know what you are talking aobutwhen it comes to me. All I did was research history and post the facts and the conclusion I drew from those facts. Im prefectly willing to debate the conclusion and Id be interested in any proof anyone has that the facts that I posted are incorrect. [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not a Jew, so I doubt It could be claimed that I have any ulterior biases on subject.

The reason I took the time to write thisup this way, is because of an thread elsewhere. I thought the views and opinons there were interesting but didnt sound very accurate so I posted this, and it effectivly ended the thread, those who were pro-plo didnt come back with anything except one phrase "historicly yes, currently no" that was the sum total of the debate after I posted this. I was hoping for a balanced opposition but maybe... I guess that these facts are undisputed and thus you cannot debate the issue. I personally would love to hear some opposing views as long as they are based on historical fact and not just political biases and racism.

[ 10-28-2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: In 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan whose leaders had never ceased to call for the destruction of Israel (up till then) massed hundreds of thousands of troops on Israels borders and blockaded the straits of Tiran (to the south of Israel) and blocked their only access to the east. This was seen as an act of war, and Jewish leaders fearful of the massive troop concentrations on their borders with not much in the way of geography seperating them, decided to strike first rather than to wait for the hostile nations to strike. Israel defeated the Arabs and came to control the Gaza strip and the west bank and the oil rich fields of the Sinai desert. By nternational law, Israel had every right to keep the lands that they won from the defeated Arab Armies and count them as annexed territories. Israel did not do this, but then again they did not withdraw their armies either. It was thought that by holding these lands they could use them as a buffer between the small state of Israel and the much larger surrounding Arab states. The defeated Arab league still did not ask for peace and in fact maintained that they were still atr war with Israel.

A lot of what you posted is a great (slanted a bit) Cliff's Notes version of history. But, they were NOT entitled to keep ANY land by international law. I don't mean to cross-post here, as I also attempt to point this out to you regarding this on another thread. It's a mistaken assumption you've made before. Otherwise, the UN would not have sanctioned action against Iraq during the gulf war. To drive home my point, here's the UN Resolution regarding Kuwait, a recent act affirming my assertion that sovereignty of a nation is permanent, and will be "restored" if taken away by another sovereign. http://www.lexicorient.com/e.o/un687.htm

[ 10-28-2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Leonis]

MagiK, this is an honest question. Do you do this because you want to learn from people around the planet with both different and similar opinions to yourself; or do you do it because you enjoy arguing and trying to convert others to your own world view?

If it's the latter, then Davros is quite correct, there is no point discussing anything with you. But if it's the former, I'm interested to know how you assess other people's opinions and factual evidence and whether you feel you do learn from them and even alter your POV when new ideas are introduced.

As I said, this is an honest question, not a flamebait. I'm not accusing you of either motive - merely asking. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Leonis: MagiK, this is an honest question. Do you do this because you want to learn from people around the planet with both different and similar opinions to yourself; or do you do it because you enjoy arguing and trying to convert others to your own world view? If it's the latter, then Davros is quite correct, there is no point discussing anything with you. But if it's the former, I'm interested to know how you assess other people's opinions and factual evidence and whether you feel you do learn from them and even alter your POV when new ideas are introduced. As I said, this is an honest question, not a flamebait. I'm not accusing you of either motive - merely asking. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The answer to your queston, and it is legitimate [img]smile.gif[/img] because some times I do just stir the pot (yes I can admit it unlike some others) THis time as I stated above, I welcome any one who can give a fact based opposition to the information given above. To date most people who opposed the information couldn't do so with fact but merely said it wasnt fair to take the land from the Ottoman Empire which isn't an issue because it was done and it cannot be changed. Im pretty sure Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan would not want to give all that land back to Turkey.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: A lot of what you posted is a great (slanted a bit) Cliff's Notes version of history. But, they were NOT entitled to keep ANY land by international law. I don't mean to cross-post here, as I also attempt to point this out to you regarding this on another thread. It's a mistaken assumption you've made before. Otherwise, the UN would not have sanctioned action against Iraq during the gulf war. To drive home my point, here's the UN Resolution regarding Kuwait, a recent act affirming my assertion that sovereignty of a nation is permanent, and will be "restored" if taken away by another sovereign. http://www.lexicorient.com/e.o/un687.htm

Ok, I explained the purpose of that other post to you in a PM and it is not an issue in this thread [img]smile.gif[/img] . Secondly The right of conquest at the end of World War I is a fact, it has been done and cannot be undone. I am pretty sure, that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan will not agree to give the land back to Turkey no matter what the UN would say. The UN didn't even exist when the land was first partitioned. In this issue it is too late to say you have to give the land back to the people who held it before it was given to others. If you want to take the land from the Jews, you have to take it from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan as well.