Palestinian Internet Guide

[Global Crier]

This is an Internet guide to help you study the Palestinian side of the crisis. The Pro-Israel side has a great influence over the mainstream information we receive in America this is less true on the Internet. The Internet can bring you right to the horse’s mouth. This Internet guide is designed to help people get information from the Palestinian perspective. Because of the economic and political strangle hold the Israelis have over the Palestinian establishment most of the information is from people and groups outside of Palestine.

This Internet guide will help you get to the pro Palestinian think tanks, government and private intuitions, publications and actives. Where one get their information is as important as the information. Unfortunately when the government or establishment tells a lie or mistruth it becomes a fact for the time being. This is a big part of the problems in the Middle East today. Rarely is the truth heard over the lies. Although this is a Pro Palestinian Guide the goal is to get closer to the true understanding of the problems.

PLO Negotiations Affairs Department – The Internet can bring information right from the horse’s mouth.
http://www.nad-plo.org/index.php

For the latest news about what is going on in Palestine from the United Nations perspective this is a good site.
http://www.un.org/unrwa/english.html

The Israeli Information Center For Human Rights in the Occupied Territories – The Israelis who want justices for the Palestinian people.
B’Tselem
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

American Task Force on Palestine – This is probably the United States strongest Pro-Palestinian group.
http://www.americantaskforce.org/

Reports from Rafah Palestine – This site has great pictures capturing the suffering and destruction of the Palestinian society.
http://rafah.virtualactivism.net/about/messages1.htm

The Middle East Network Information Center – Many good links to the Pro-Palestinian side.
http://menic.utexas.edu/Government/Politics/Israel_Palestinian_Conflict/

If American Knew – This site contains many good charts and up to date information about the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

MIFTAH The Palestinian Initiative for Promotion of Global Dialog & Democracy –This site contains many good links to other Pro-Palestinian sites.
http://www.miftah.org/Index.cfm


Pro-Israel Side
National Action Committee Political Action Committee – This site show how well organized and entrench the Pro-Israeli side is in American politics.
http://www.nacpac.org/

One must know their adversary before they can understand the answers to the problems. This guide is created so you can get too the other side of the story that you cannot get in the mainstream American media.

http://peacereform.blogspot.com/

[Global Crier]

I am only trying to raise the level of understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis. Yes, it is difficult for those people who have been blessed with so much have created so much ill will among mankind.

Arundhati Roy on the Palestinian / Israeli Conflict
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vnaf8R_SJo&eurl=

[exarmyranger]

I am enclined to view material(s)offerd by any government/or agency within... as suspect in it's factuality.Omission of,and/or manipulation of substanciated data in order to sway opinion.Is one of the many tools used in the formating of Propoganda.Still the adage "know thy enemy...as well as thy freind"apply's imo.ex.

[Global Crier]

I am enclined to view material(s)offerd by any government/or agency within... as suspect in it's factuality.Omission of,and/or manipulation of substanciated data in order to sway opinion.Is one of the many tools used in the formating of Propoganda.Still the adage "know thy enemy...as well as thy freind"apply's imo.ex.

I Agree with everything you are saying.

Thanks to You Tube the American people can hear the truth right from the horse’s mouth. Whether it is what former President Carter has to say about “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” or what is really happening in the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis.

You Tube Palestine Peace
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Palestine+Peace&search=Search

This is one of the best short documentary movies on the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis. It is fair and balance showing the reality on the ground of this crisis. “Searching for Peace”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iev3K06xWOc It is a must see for those people who want to understand the roots to the Palestinian-Israeli Crisis. The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) http://www.fmep.org/ sponsored the production of “Searching for Peace”. In cooperation with Alternative Focus; http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=AlternateFocus&search=Search By using the internet a person can get to the truth and understanding of many of the problems we face in the world today. Someone can get the information right from the horse’s mouth clearing up the fog of the lies of politics and wars. It is said a picture says a thousand words then “Searching for Peace” in twenty-eight minutes tells the modern lifetime story of the Palestinian society.

[Betty Blowtorch]

It's important for the American people to be exposed
to the Palestinian point of view. Unfortunately the
American media has always been biased in favor of
the Israeli or Zionist point of view.

Personally I tend to side with the Palestinians.
It was their land that was stolen by military force
and by the 1948 U.N. partition that created the
state of Israel.

Americans look down on the Palestinian suicide
bombers, calling them terrorists. But every time
an Israeli gunship or tank kills Palestinian civilians,
it's an act of terrorism too. State terrorism.

[kres24GT]

I am not going to pretend to know a lot about foreign policy. It's the one area I tend to stay out of the debate because I think we as the general public can't really make informed decisions about it, there is too much behind the scenes we don't know about. I served under a commander in chief in both parties and found that most of the debate is political and as a Marine it was just best for me to go with the commander and chief and not question it. I have a similar feeling now as a civilian.

However I can make one observation. Anytime there is a conflict it seems one of the parties involved is always Muslim. If I am just imagining this, please feel free to point it out, but it seems to be the common denominator is Islam when it comes to armed conflict anywhere in the world. Not saying others aren't at fault, just an interesting trend I think a lot of people are ignoring.

[Betty Blowtorch]

I am not going to pretend to know a lot about foreign policy.
Or history apparently. http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8927/lol045gs4.gif



However I can make one observation. Anytime there is a conflict
it seems one of the parties involved is always Muslim. If I am just
imagining this, please feel free to point it out, but it seems to be
the common denominator is Islam when it comes to armed conflict
anywhere in the world.
Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me I recall
a few armed conflicts that didn't involve Muslims:


American Revolution:

Christians vs. Christians (plus a few deists) No Muslims allowed.


American Civil War:

Oops. Those damn Christians vs. Christians again. No Muslims.
The negro slaves weren't black Muslims in those days.
They were good little Christians.


World War I:

OK, now we're talking: All that cool Lawrence of Arabia shit.
Muslim bedouins fighting the Turks allied with the Germans.
But that was just a sideshow. The main event involved
Christians slaughtering Christians in the fields of France.


World War II:

Mostly Christians killing Christians, Christians killing Jews,
Christians killing Japs, Christians killing godless commies...

(Not a lot of Muslim action I'm afraid, but the Christians
were starting to notice that the ragheads, the dune coons,
the sand niggers, were sitting on top of a lot of black gold.
And Christians do love their big gas guzzlers.)


Korean War:

Christians killing Chinese and North Korean commies.
No Muslims anywhere in sight.


Vietnam War:

Christians killing godless commie gooks. No Muslims, but there
were a few Buddhist monks who cooked themselves with gas.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4237/buddhistmonkburningresixk3.jpg


Oh, but I guess you weren't talking about armed conflicts
in the past. You were talking about armed conflicts in

THE PRESENT.


Well, I got two words for you, buddy:

OILhttp://img67.imageshack.us/img67/1742/oilgusherbloodna5.gif

and

ISRAEL
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6259/israelijetresizetv0.jpg

[exarmyranger]

The Teapot Dome scandel(1922)Sec.of State Albert Fall,was convicted of excepting bribes for oil leases.Paving the way for future politicians to avoid prosecution for thier criminal acts.

[kres24GT]

Or history apparently. http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8927/lol045gs4.gif


Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me I recall
a few armed conflicts that didn't involve Muslims:


American Revolution:

Christians vs. Christians (plus a few deists) No Muslims allowed.


American Civil War:

Oops. Those damn Christians vs. Christians again. No Muslims.
The negro slaves weren't black Muslims in those days.
They were good little Christians.


World War I:

OK, now we're talking: All that cool Lawrence of Arabia shit.
Muslim bedouins fighting the Turks allied with the Germans.
But that was just a sideshow. The main event involved
Christians slaughtering Christians in the fields of France.


World War II:

Mostly Christians killing Christians, Christians killing Jews,
Christians killing Japs, Christians killing godless commies...

(Not a lot of Muslim action I'm afraid, but the Christians
were starting to notice that the ragheads, the dune coons,
the sand niggers, were sitting on top of a lot of black gold.
And Christians do love their big gas guzzlers.)


Korean War:

Christians killing Chinese and North Korean commies.
No Muslims anywhere in sight.


Vietnam War:

Christians killing godless commie gooks. No Muslims, but there
were a few Buddhist monks who cooked themselves with gas.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4237/buddhistmonkburningresixk3.jpg


Oh, but I guess you weren't talking about armed conflicts
in the past. You were talking about armed conflicts in

THE PRESENT.


Well, I got two words for you, buddy:

OILhttp://img67.imageshack.us/img67/1742/oilgusherbloodna5.gif

and

ISRAEL
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6259/israelijetresizetv0.jpg



Who said anyhting about historically?? I don't follow your logic here.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Who said anything about historically??
I don't follow your logic here.
http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/8113/avatarhuhwd3.jpg

I'm sorry. Was I unclear?


Well, let me explain it to you http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/8629/avatarsamjacksonsnakescn2.gif
again. Now listen carefully...



Does that clear things up? http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8213/avatar2398vh0.gif

[kres24GT]

I don't have the sound on, so no.


I agree humans have along history of killing each other.


Today most humans seem to be over that. A few centuries ago you couldn't stop Europeans from fighting wars, now you can't pay them to fight one. So we have come a long way. The one obstacle remaining seems to be Muslims, as most of the current conflicts in the world (almost all of them) include Muslims. Not that others aren't without fault, it certainly takes two to tango, however it's an interesting thing to look at. Or you can just ignore it because you are too PC or whatever.

[Betty Blowtorch]

I don't have the sound on, so no.
Well, turn the sound on!! http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8053/drunkirish048ag5.gif




I agree humans have along history of killing each other.
Today most humans seem to be over that.

Exqueeze me? Do you live on the same planet I live on? http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6135/avatar4803pp9.gif




A few centuries ago you couldn't stop Europeans from fighting
wars, now you can't pay them to fight one. So we have come
a long way.
A few centuries ago? World War II was only 60 years ago. http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5773/avatarfatcatfu2.gif
Were you sleeping during history class? Or drunk?




The one obstacle remaining seems to be Muslims, as most
of the current conflicts in the world (almost all of them)
include Muslims.
Yeah, let's blame the Muslims. Better yet, let's eliminate them. http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3416/armsblownoffbd5.jpg
That'll make it easier to steal their oil, and it'll make the world
safe for Israel.

[kres24GT]

Well, turn the sound on!! http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8053/drunkirish048ag5.gif



Exqueeze me? Do you live on the same planet I live on? http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6135/avatar4803pp9.gif



A few centuries ago? World War II was only 60 years ago. http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5773/avatarfatcatfu2.gif
Were you sleeping during history class? Or drunk?



Yeah, let's blame the Muslims. Better yet, let's eliminate them. http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3416/armsblownoffbd5.jpg
That'll make it easier to steal their oil, and it'll make the world
safe for Israel.



I will try to use more specific dates for you.

I could care less about Israel and I hate using foreign oil.

You don't think there is any correlation between Islam and violence around the world?

[Betty Blowtorch]

I will try to use more specific dates for you.

Thank you. http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5329/avatar4914dm8.gif




I could care less about Israel

Then you'll probably have difficulty understanding politics
in the Middle East. But I guess you already admitted that
you don't know much about foreign policy:



I am not going to pretend to know a lot about foreign policy.
A man should know his limitations. http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/3108/dirtyharry1hm1.png




I hate using foreign oil.
So I assume you don't drive.




You don't think there is any correlation between Islam
and violence around the world?
Too vague. It sounds like you want to blame Muslims
for the violence in the world. Can you give us a more
in-depth analysis?

If your analysis doesn't include a discussion of

OILhttp://img260.imageshack.us/img260/831/oilgusherbloodjl3.gif

and

ISRAEL...
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/5686/israelijetresizeoe7.jpg

... it probably won't carry much weight.

[kres24GT]

Our addiction to foreign oil is bad and creates a lot of the problems we have. I never said otherwise. You want to make this into an argument I am not trying to make. I am not sure why.


My point was that right now almost every armed conflict in the world involves Muslims. Are you debating this or ignoring it?

[Betty Blowtorch]

You want to make this into an argument I am not trying
to make. I am not sure why.

My point was that right now almost every armed conflict
in the world involves Muslims. Are you debating this or
ignoring it?
I thought you had a deeper point lurking in there
somewhere. Apparently I was mistaken.

Silly me. http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3518/dancebearrd8.gif

Anyway, thanks for giving me http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/6634/simpsonsskatedf1.gif
some material to riff on.

[exarmyranger]

What deeper point would that be,B.B.?Please do tell,won't you?t/c ex.

[Betty Blowtorch]

What deeper point would that be,B.B.?
I was wondering the same thing, but Kres hasn't elaborated yet.



Please do tell,won't you?
You're asking the wrong guy. I'm not a mind reader.

[David Lyle Segal]

GC> Because of the economic and political strangle hold the Israelis have over the Palestinian establishment most of the information is from people and groups outside of Palestine. <

How does Israel stifle the Palestinian establishment's access to the internet? It seems to me that if you want to say such a thing, you should back it up with evidence.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

None of your sites includes any actual Palestinians who actually speak about peace, GC. You've got President Carter, a Quaker named Bolling, but not a Palestinian who comes with any ideas of what will bring anything that makes peace. Rabbi Asherman is featured in Bolling's piece about the 'terrible things that happened to him'. Hanan Ashrawi says that Palestinian violence is of Israel's making.

The most any of the Jews think will be good enough are promises to stop killing Israelis if the Israelis will first agree to their maximalist demands: Jerusalem, repatriation, the Green Line, and reparations (For what!? For winning the war to throw them into the sea?).

One guy (another Jew), says that accommodation can be achieved if both sides believe that peace will come. Another guy (a West Bank 'settler') offered to move, if it would bring peace. Peace to these people is more than a hudna, GC. Hudna's expire as soon as the weaker party believes that it is now capable of winning through war.

Can't you find any Palestinians who actually talk about a real, permanent peace that the Palestinians will accept as their own obligation? In short, GC, 'where's the beef'?

David Segal

[exarmyranger]

Yo David,nothing to add that anyone can read in the newspapers.I am not for or against Israel...I do lean toward thier side though,mainly due to my dislike/distrust of the P.L.O. as well as any terrorist group...MAINLY JUST THOUGHT I'D SAY HOWDY.Have'nt seen your name as of late.cya ex

[David Lyle Segal]

[QUOTE=Betty Blowtorch]Personally I tend to side with the Palestinians.
It was their land that was stolen by military force and by the 1948 U.N. partition that created the state of Israel.

That's an interesting viewpoint, BBT, but it ignores most of the actual events and seeks to revisit the wisdom of the Allies' decision at San Remo in 1922 to give the Jews a chance for their own self-determination. By 1948, there were enough Jews in Palestine to make a state for themselves and they declared their statehood. Do you have a problem with that?

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

By 1948, there were enough Jews in Palestine to make a state
for themselves and they declared their statehood.
That's a rather simplistic view. Here's how I see it:

For more than 1000 years, 90% of the people living in Palestine
were Arab Muslims. For generations, these were the people
who built the houses and towns, planted the groves and farms,
herded the sheep and cattle, and lived on the same land that
many generations of their ancestors lived on.

Regardless of whichever imperial nation imposed its will on the
Palestinian people over the centuries, the Palestinian region
has always been inhabited by an overwhelming majority of
Arab Muslims, with a tiny minority of Christians and Jews.

It wasn't until the 20th century that Arab-Muslim Palestine
was invaded by a growing number of Zionist Jews seeking to
establish the Jewish state of Israel right in the heart of the
Muslim Middle East.

As more and more Jews moved to Palestine, there was more
and more fighting between Arabs and Jews. In 1947, the U.N.
passed a resolution that divided Palestine into a Jewish state
and a Palestinian state.

Since the Jews owned less than 10% of the land in Palestine,
and the U.N. was handing them 50% of the land to establish
the state of Israel, the Jews loved the U.N. partition plan.

The Arabs hated it.

In the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Jews conquered more land
through military force than was granted to them by the
United Nations.

Terrorized by Israeli forces, thousands of Arab Palestinians fled
their homes and became refugees. The ones who stayed behind
became second-class citizens in their own ancestral homeland.

David, you make it sound like the Jews simply declared their
statehood and Voila!... the state of Israel was born. But the
reality was much uglier and more violent than what you describe.

In 1967, Israeli military forces conquered more Arab land:
the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. In violation of
international law, the Israelis established Jewish settlements
in the occupied territories. Their ultimate goal is to annex
the entire West Bank.

The Israelis have remained in power because the U.S. provides
them with $3 billion a year in foreign aid, much of which is spent
on high-tech U.S. military weapons. For all of Bush's talk about
the threat of WMD's in the Middle East, Israel is the only nation
with an arsenal of nuclear warheads.

But that's OK because the Israelis are the good guys, right?
And the Arab Muslims are the bad guys, right?

So we've become bosom buddies with an aggressive Jewish state
that has hundreds of nuclear warheads, but not a drop of oil...

And we've made enemies of Arab nations who have no WMD's
but have some of the largest oil reserves in the world...

And we've pissed off a billion Muslims.



Do you have a problem with that?
Yup. I do.

[kres24GT]

So everyone who ever forcibly took land from anyone should give it back now?

[Betty Blowtorch]

So everyone who ever forcibly took land
from anyone should give it back now?
That's a straw man argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

The American Indians aren't strapping explosives to their waists
and blowing themselves up in shopping malls, killing hundreds of
innocent Americans.

We're talking about the Arab-Israeli problem. And yes, according
to international law, the Israelis should close their settlements
and get the fuck out of the West Bank, which they took through
military force.

[kres24GT]

I made no argument, I asked a question.


You sure do like to make arguments for other people.

[Betty Blowtorch]

I made no argument, I asked a question.

Yeah, but I really wanted to insert a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMOsy9lcXI8&mode=related&search=) in a sentence.



Do you enjoy looking at racy stuff? (http://www.vanessamontagne.com/pictures/sneakpeak/sneak/medium/pic07.htm) http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7916/avatarninjaracerdr8.gif




You sure do like to make arguments for other people.
Actually I prefer posting goofy pictures. http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/2800/avatarcowwk7.gif


You got a problem with that? http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3816/avatarmeanmachinezf7.jpg


Well, do ya, punk? http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/2564/dirtyharrykb8.jpg

[Simon IA Cash]

That's a straw man argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

It doesn't have to be a straw man argument to point out that it's a bit silly to say "ok, from this point on, no one can take new land, but all that was taken before is cool." What if before the laws, land was taken, then after, it was taken back? The arbitrariness of the point and its disregard for history can't be ignored.

Now granted, that offers more in the way of problems than solutions, but I think this whole human business of claiming land is insanity and the root cause of just about every global problem. No one owns land, and conflict comes when people start pretending they do. If we really are going to internationalize and try to pretend we're 21st century, then we can't work within the frameworks of an archaic system and apply laws with modern intentions.

[exarmyranger]

Wounded Knee took the Lakota people a long time to get over!Many are still pissed off,but know they are a never going to be a free nation again.So thier time and effort now is (other than feeding thier children)to preserve what remains of thier culture.That is why (in part)"The American Indians aren't strapping explosives to their waists
and blowing themselves up in shopping malls, killing hundreds of
innocent Americans".In 1979 the Sioux were awarded $105 million for "THIER LAND."
Ending a suit that began in 1923...Loose change,but better than nothing! :truce:

[Betty Blowtorch]

In 1979 the Sioux were awarded $105 million for "THEIR LAND."
Ending a suit that began in 1923... Loose change, but better
than nothing!
I love the fact that Indian tribes are making billions of dollars
from Indian casinos all across the country. It's one way to
pay them back for all the land that was taken from them.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4769/indiancasinoheroom1.jpg

Who wants to blow themselves up when they're getting rich?


http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5229/palestiniansheroresizegc7.jpg

"We pray that Allah, in all his great wisdom, will grant us casinos."

[kres24GT]

Trying to bring freedom to the Middle East was a bad idea, Capitalism would have been a better one. However we don't believe in either in this country anymore. Maybe if we bring the glorious sense of entitlement to the ME they will stop blowing themselves up so much. Everyone in the "civilized" world is far too busy figuring out what they are entitled to without earning it to blow each other up.

[exarmyranger]

[QUOTE=Betty Blowtorch]I love the fact that Indian tribes are making billions of dollars
from Indian casinos all across the country. It's one way to
pay them back for all the land that was taken from them.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4769/indiancasinoheroom1.jpg

Who wants to blow themselves up when they're getting rich?


http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5229/palestiniansheroresizegc7.jpg


True some native american tribes,have,due to thier reservations being in close proximity to urban locations.Due to the development of land for increasing populations.The $1.000.000's casinos take in however are not making billion's,or million's for themselves.Better living standard's to be sure.Higher level Education for those who want it,ect.The bulk of the profits go to Taxes,and the unseen management companys who direct the daily operations of the casinos.The fact remains that over 50% of native american's on Fed.Reservation's live below poverty level...ex:talktothehand:

[Betty Blowtorch]

Trying to bring freedom to the Middle East was a bad idea.
Who tried to bring freedom to the Middle East? http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8678/tigerie0.gif


I didn't hear anything about that. http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/831/hummerdc8.gif
I was too busy playing with my new Hummer.

[David Lyle Segal]

To Betty Blowtorch, #23:

DLS > By 1948, there were enough Jews in Palestine to make a state
for themselves and they declared their statehood.

BBT> That's a rather simplistic view. Here's how I see it:

For more than 1000 years, 90% of the people living in Palestine
were Arab Muslims. For generations, these were the people
who built the houses and towns, planted the groves and farms,
herded the sheep and cattle, and lived on the same land that
many generations of their ancestors lived on.

Regardless of whichever imperial nation imposed its will on the
Palestinian people over the centuries, the Palestinian region
has always been inhabited by an overwhelming majority of
Arab Muslims, with a tiny minority of Christians and Jews.

It wasn't until the 20th century that Arab-Muslim Palestine
was invaded by a growing number of Zionist Jews seeking to
establish the Jewish state of Israel right in the heart of the
Muslim Middle East.

As more and more Jews moved to Palestine, there was more
and more fighting between Arabs and Jews. In 1947, the U.N.
passed a resolution that divided Palestine into a Jewish state
and a Palestinian state.<

So far, so good, BBT, although I have to make some comments. 'Invaded' seems to be a bit strong description of people who came unarmed and with the permission of the sovereign to buy land and live on it. Sure, they had a dream of seeing a Jewish state established, where Jews could finally live as independent, self-validated people, not under the constant sufferance of others. What's wrong with dreams?

You also apparently have a problem with the 'sovereign' idea, but who's problem is that? Is it the Jews' fault for wanting, or the Arabs' fault for resenting? After all, the sovereign after WWI was the British Mandate, which was established by the Allies after holding hearings and considering the testimony of the interested parties. The Arabs' principal witness was Emir Feisal, son of Hussein of the Hejaz. He was all in favor of the Zionists setting up a Jewish state, as you can read in the Frankfurter/Feisal correspondence and the Weizmann/Hussein agreement. In fact, he extended a 'most hearty welcome home to 'our [Jewish] cousins' with the following words:

[I]"Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through..."[/I]

Maybe you, in your enlightened persona, know better than to afford Emir Feisal the respect that he received at Paris, but did the Allies there assembled have the benefit of your hindsight? NO. They had only the evidence before them. And they made their decisions accordingly. Quite frankly, BBT, you expect more of mere men and less of mere Arabs. They had the opportunity to have their day in court; if they chose (not for the last time, as you undoubtedly know) to ignore the reality of the day, then that's their problem. It's a little late for you to come pretending that they made arguments that they didn't even make.

And as to the 'more and more fighting', why don't you go back to before the UN vote and expand on your description. Start in 1920, with the Nebi Musa riots. Then in 1921, the Jerusalem and Sfat riots. In 1929, I'm sure you'll remember in great detail the Hebron, Jerusalem and Sfat 'fighting'. Hell, BBT, you make it sound like this 'fighting' was pretty equal, between the 'invaders' and the 'Palestinian people'.

It wasn't. ALL of these were Arab-on-Jew genocidal massacres, unprovoked by the Jews (other than their presence and unhidden ambition to achieve self-determination) and replete with the cry, "It-bal al-Yahud' ("Kill the Jews"). They weren't pitched battles, with armies drawn up on either side of the field, but infiltration by armed fighters into Jewish homes to murder Jewish men, women and children, rioters storming into Jewish shops to pillage and murder, and mobs storming the homes and schools of Jewish teachers.

You REALLY need to review your so-called better-than-simplistic 'view' to include the actual facts, BBT. I'm sure that they are inconvient to your thesis, but that's your lookout, not mine.

BBT> Since the Jews owned less than 10% of the land in Palestine, and the U.N. was handing them 50% of the land to establish the state of Israel, the Jews loved the U.N. partition plan. The Arabs hated it.<

Yup, they hated it, all right. So what? The Jews didn't like being killed, either. The question to be addressed is "what are the rights and obligations of the people". Did the Jews do anything that they had no legal right to do? Did the Arabs somehow gain the right to murder Jews because the Jews wanted a state of their own? I won't answer this question, BBT; I want you to answer it.

[B]BBT> In the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Jews conquered more land through military force than was granted to them by the United Nations. Terrorized by Israeli forces, thousands of Arab Palestinians fled their homes and became refugees. The ones who stayed behind became second-class citizens in their own ancestral homeland. David, you make it sound like the Jews simply declared their statehood and Voila!... the state of Israel was born. But the reality was much uglier and more violent than what you describe.<

Don't take me for the uninformed ass you apparently expected, BBT. I know the history; you know the complaints of the losers. Arabs certainly were terrorized by the reports of Jewish terrorism, but just how many instances were there, really? Deir Yassin? Sure that was a bad'un, but wasn't Gush Et-Zion? Jewish forces (not under the Jewish Organization's control) killed a bunch of Arabs at Deir Yassin between April 9 and 11, 1947. Gush et-Zion, in which Arabs lined up Jews and mowed them down started with the initial attack in January, 1947, and finished up on May 13.

You are trying to make capital out of Arab susceptibility to rumor-mongering, and make it the Jews' fault. That's Bullshit. The Arabs had every bit of information that the Jews had; if they ran because they expected (without any more evidence than that had been the Arabs' treatment of Jews for over twenty years) that the Jews would be as bloodthirsty as they had been, then that's not the Jews' fault, either. In fact, they should have paid more attention to David Ben-Gurion's words in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel:

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

If they, in their Jew-hating paranoia, chose to continue trying to throw the Jews int the sea, that's their lookout. Choices have consequences.


BBT> In 1967, Israeli military forces conquered more Arab land: the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. In violation of international law, the Israelis established Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Their ultimate goal is to annex the entire West Bank.

Don't think that anyone who reads your words is so naive, BBT. You couldn't be more wrong, on both the facts and on the law.

1. Facts: Israel 'begged' King Hussein not to attack. Instead, King H relied on the assurances of President Nasser that he was 'rolling back' the Jewish forces in the Sinai, and shelled Jerusalem and other Jewish communities. The IDF responded as was their obligation, and the Jordanian piracy was finally removed from Palestine (you are free, of course, to challenge this characterization of the 19 years of Jordanian occupation).

2. Law: The Israel/Jordan armistice agreement, UNSC 242, and the Oslo Accords all agree on one point (you are invited, of course, to disagree, with evidence): the political boundary on Israel's eastern border will be determined SOLELY by negotiation. The Green Line is EXPLICITLY NOT a political boundary. Only negotiation can produce such a boundary. Israel's establishment of Jewish communities in the West Bank is absolutely NOT a violation of international law; instead, it is entirely lawful in view of 25 years of Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a de jure state, much less negotiate a border or offer peace as required by UNSC242.

In short, BBT, if the Arabs aren't willing to take Israel for real, too bad. Israel owes them nothing at all. If they want peace, they'll find a wonderfully interested listener in Israel, but if all they want to do it complain, then they should lodge their indictments with Hajj Amin al-Hussein and his political progeny.

BBT> The Israelis have remained in power because the U.S. provides them with $3 billion a year in foreign aid, much of which is spent on high-tech U.S. military weapons. For all of Bush's talk about the threat of WMD's in the Middle East, Israel is the only nation with an arsenal of nuclear warheads.

Boy, BBT, you really don't like Israel, do you? You can't even conceive of Israel's ability to defend herself in the face of Arab forces. Instead, you have to pretend that Israel's existence is due solely to US support. You can't be more wrong.

FYI, as of 1967. when Israel took possession of everything from Qunetra in the Golan Heights to the Suez Canal and Sharm al-Sheikh in the Sinai, Israel had NADA, $0, NOTHING from the US. The US EMBARGO on sales of US arms to Israel and financial aid to Israel was in FULL EFFECT. I really hate to break it to you, BBT, but the Jews blew up all those Egyptian MiS in Egypt and Syria with FRENCH airplanes. They rolled up all those Egyptian forces in Sinai and Syrian tank battalions in the Golan with old British Centurion tanks captured from the Transjordanians. Don't take EVERYONE for a nincompoop; some of us actually know the history, apparently better than you do.

BBT> But that's OK because the Israelis are the good guys, right? And the Arab Muslims are the bad guys, right?

Do you REALLY have to reduce a useful conversation to this kind of melodrama?

BBT> So we've become bosom buddies with an aggressive Jewish state that has hundreds of nuclear warheads, but not a drop of oil... And we've made enemies of Arab nations who have no WMD's but have some of the largest oil reserves in the world... And we've pissed off a billion Muslims.

Yeah, Israel sure is agressive. Just look at the size of their empire! Migod, they're taking over the whole world. If you think we have problems with Arab control over oil, just wait until the Jews reach the Euphrates. Then they'll never have to worry about having one night's worth of oil last eight whole days, eh?

David Segal

[kres24GT]

Who tried to bring freedom to the Middle East? http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8678/tigerie0.gif


I didn't hear anything about that. http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/831/hummerdc8.gif
I was too busy playing with my new Hummer.

I believe, it was one of the ever changing reasons for going to Iraq. It may no longer be. I can't keep up.

[Betty Blowtorch]

I believe, it was one of the ever changing reasons
for going to Iraq. It may no longer be.
It never was the real reason. It was the third --
or maybe it was the fourth -- fake reason for
going to Iraq.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7578/oilgusherbloodvx5.gif

At first, the Bush-Cheney gang wanted to call the invasion
of Iraq "Operation Iraqi Liberation" -- or O.I.L. for short --
but that made the real reason for the invasion too obvious,
so they changed it to "Operation Iraqi Freedom." (O.I.F.)



I can't keep up.
Well, then run faster, buddy! http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/7563/avatar1912tv3.gif



Here, this should help: If you automatically assume http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/3368/avatarbushspideysenselp4.gif
that every word uttered and every word written by
the Bush-Cheney gang is bullshit, you should have
no trouble keeping up.


I'm always here to help. http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5166/03jajcarne005tm5.gif
I know life can be so confusing.

[kres24GT]

Anything said by an politician is BS, Chaney and Bush are no different from any of the other slime in D.C.

Although the War for Oil mantra is about as old and tired as "Bush lied, people died" your OIL vs OIF comment was pretty good. Might want to take that to moveon.org.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Anything said by a politician is BS.

True.




Cheney and Bush are no different
from any of the other slime in D.C.

NOT true.

I won't tell you my age, http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/389/03jajcarne004jw9.gif
but I've seen a lot of Presidents come and go.
I gotta tell you, these Bush-Cheney gangsters
are the scariest motherfuckers I've ever seen.


I just hope they don't bomb Iran. http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/650/atomicblastar7.png




Although the War for Oil mantra
is old and tired...
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/3968/03jajcarne003qe4.gif
Old and tired,
but true.




"Bush lied, people died"
Undeniably true.



The problem is:

MORE PEOPLE
ARE GONNA DIE
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6630/arlingtongravessmcv6.jpg
FOR A LIE.

[Betty Blowtorch]

'Invaded' seems to be a bit strong description of people
who came unarmed and with the permission of the sovereign
to buy land and live on it.
It doesn't seem too strong a word to me, and I suspect
that the Palestinians might agree.

Here, let's ask one:

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/6411/suicidebombermx2.jpg
Betty is right. My homeland was invaded
and taken over by foreign Zionist Jews.
And I'm so pissed off, I could just...


http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/2489/suicidebombing1ym0.jpg
BLOW THEM UP!!





They had a dream of seeing a Jewish state established,
where Jews could finally live as independent, self-validated
people, not under the constant sufferance of others.
What's wrong with dreams?
Are you kidding?

If the dream consists of moving into someone else's turf
and militarily dominating the people who are living there,
and turning the Palestinian homeland into a Jewish state,
do you suppose the people who were living there first
might not be as sympathetic to the Zionist dream as
you are?

You have a fawning respect for the Zionist dreams
of the Jews, but you clearly don't have much respect
for the dreams (or the rights) of the Palestinians.




You also apparently have a problem with the 'sovereign' idea,
but who's problem is that? Is it the Jews' fault for wanting,
or the Arabs' fault for resenting? After all, the sovereign after
WWI was the British Mandate, which was established by the
Allies after holding hearings and considering the testimony of
the interested parties. The Arabs' principal witness was
Emir Feisal, son of Hussein of the Hejaz. He was all in favor
of the Zionists setting up a Jewish state, as you can read in
the Frankfurter/Feisal correspondence and the Weizmann/Hussein
agreement. In fact, he extended a 'most hearty welcome home
to 'our [Jewish] cousins' with the following words:

[I]"Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the
proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to
Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper.
We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help
them through..."[/I]

Maybe you, in your enlightened persona, know better than to
afford Emir Feisal the respect that he received at Paris, but did
the Allies there assembled have the benefit of your hindsight?
NO. They had only the evidence before them. And they made
their decisions accordingly. Quite frankly, BBT, you expect more
of mere men and less of mere Arabs. They had the opportunity
to have their day in court; if they chose (not for the last time,
as you undoubtedly know) to ignore the reality of the day, then
that's their problem. It's a little late for you to come pretending
that they made arguments that they didn't even make.
Long-winded but totally irrelevant.

Emir Faisal was the king of Iraq. He wasn't a Palestinian.
What the fuck does his opinion matter? You might as well
have asked the king of Siam for his opinion.

You have a high regard for the opinions of the foreign powers
who helped the Zionist cause (to the detriment of Palestinians)
but not much regard for the opinions of the Palestinians, who
clearly opposed what was being done to their homeland, but
lacked the power to stop it.

Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the Zionist Jews, cut a deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement)
with Faisal to sell out the Palestinians by supporting the
Zionists. And what about the rights of the Palestinians?
"The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored."




And as to the 'more and more fighting', why don't you go back to
before the UN vote and expand on your description. Start in 1920,
with the Nebi Musa riots. Then in 1921, the Jerusalem and Sfat
riots. In 1929, I'm sure you'll remember in great detail the Hebron,
Jerusalem and Sfat 'fighting'. Hell, BBT, you make it sound like this
'fighting' was pretty equal, between the 'invaders' and the
'Palestinian people'.

It wasn't. ALL of these were Arab-on-Jew genocidal massacres,
unprovoked by the Jews (other than their presence and unhidden
ambition to achieve self-determination) and replete with the cry,
"It-bal al-Yahud' ("Kill the Jews"). They weren't pitched battles,
with armies drawn up on either side of the field, but infiltration by
armed fighters into Jewish homes to murder Jewish men, women
and children, rioters storming into Jewish shops to pillage and
murder, and mobs storming the homes and schools of Jewish
teachers.
The Jews didn't come to Palestine to assimilate with the
Arab Muslim majority already living there. The Jews came
to take over the place.

It's not surprising that the Arab majority reacted violently
to this sudden invasion of foreign locusts who wanted to
move in and take over.

I notice that you only talked about Arabs attacking Jews.
You neglected to say anything about the Jewish terrorist
organizations that attacked Muslims and British. I'm sure
you remember good old Menachim Begin, who started out
as a terrorist and ended up as an Israeli prime minister.

Begin was the mastermind behind the infamous bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)
of the King David Hotel, which was British headquarters.
The bomb killed 91 people, most of them Arabs.

Wow! What a great country! It's the Israeli version of
the American dream: any lowly terrorist can become
prime minister if he kills enough people.




BBT> Since the Jews owned less than 10% of the land in Palestine,
and the U.N. was handing them 50% of the land to establish the
state of Israel, the Jews loved the U.N. partition plan. The Arabs
hated it.<

Yup, they hated it, all right. So what? The Jews didn't like being
killed, either.
If they didn't want to be killed, they shouldn't have invaded
somebody else's turf. The Jews didn't come to Palestine to
assimilate. They came to take over somebody else's turf.




The question to be addressed is "what are the rights and obligations
of the people". Did the Jews do anything that they had no legal
right to do? Did the Arabs somehow gain the right to murder Jews
because the Jews wanted a state of their own? I won't answer
this question, BBT; I want you to answer it.
Since Arab Muslims held an overwhelming majority in Palestine,
they should have had the right to govern themselves without
being controlled by a foreign colonial power like Britain.

If the Palestinians had political control of their own territory,
instead of the British, the Jews wouldn't have been allowed
to emigrate to Palestine. The Palestinians would have had
the legal power to set immigration quotas and to prevent a
large influx of Jews.

There would have been little need for violence because the
Palestinian police and immigration authorities would simply
round up any illegal Jewish immigrants and deport them.

The Jews would have never gotten a foothold in Palestine
without the collusion of the British, a Judeo-Christian nation
with low regard for Arabs. Winston Churchill once referred
to them as "the dogs in the manger."




[B]BBT> In the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Jews conquered more land
through military force than was granted to them by the United Nations.
Terrorized by Israeli forces, thousands of Arab Palestinians fled their
homes and became refugees. The ones who stayed behind became
second-class citizens in their own ancestral homeland. David, you
make it sound like the Jews simply declared their statehood and
Voila!... the state of Israel was born. But the reality was much
uglier and more violent than what you describe.<[/B]

Don't take me for the uninformed ass you apparently expected, BBT.
I know the history; you know the complaints of the losers.
We ALL know the complaints of the losers.
They tend to register their complaints...

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1388/wtc432ah8.jpg
[SIZE="7"]VIOLENTLY.[/SIZE]

(But I guess you're not too concerned about that.)




Arabs certainly were terrorized by the reports of Jewish terrorism,
but just how many instances were there, really? Deir Yassin?
Sure that was a bad'un, but wasn't Gush Et-Zion? Jewish forces
(not under the Jewish Organization's control) killed a bunch of Arabs
at Deir Yassin between April 9 and 11, 1947. Gush et-Zion, in which
Arabs lined up Jews and mowed them down started with the initial
attack in January, 1947, and finished up on May 13.

You are trying to make capital out of Arab susceptibility to rumor-
mongering, and make it the Jews' fault. That's Bullshit. The Arabs
had every bit of information that the Jews had; if they ran because
they expected (without any more evidence than that had been the
Arabs' treatment of Jews for over twenty years) that the Jews would
be as bloodthirsty as they had been, then that's not the Jews' fault,
either.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: "Yes, I'm sure the reports of Israeli
massacres of Palestinians are greatly exaggerated."

It's all a batch of Arab "rumor-mongering." That's why the people
left their homes and became refugees. They're highly susceptible
to rumors. Especially rumors about Arabs being massacred.




[B]BBT> In 1967, Israeli military forces conquered more Arab land:
the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. In violation of
international law, the Israelis established Jewish settlements in the
occupied territories. Their ultimate goal is to annex the entire
West Bank.[/B]

Don't think that anyone who reads your words is so naive, BBT.
You couldn't be more wrong, on both the facts and on the law.

1. Facts: Israel 'begged' King Hussein not to attack. Instead,
King H relied on the assurances of President Nasser that he was
'rolling back' the Jewish forces in the Sinai, and shelled Jerusalem
and other Jewish communities. The IDF responded as was their
obligation, and the Jordanian piracy was finally removed from
Palestine.
No matter who started the war in 1967 -- I could have sworn
the Israeli air force launched a pre-emptive surprise attack
that caught the Egyptian air force on the ground -- it doesn't
justify Israeli settlements in the West Bank 40 years after the
war is over.

If the Israelis are sincere about wanting peace, they need to
start by getting back behind the Green Line -- the boundary
prior to the 1967 war.

They need to remove all Jewish settlements from the West Bank,
or else it means they're not sincere about peace. They need to
build their separation fence on their own side of the Green Line.




2. Law: The Israel/Jordan armistice agreement, UNSC 242, and
the Oslo Accords all agree on one point (you are invited, of course,
to disagree, with evidence): the political boundary on Israel's
eastern border will be determined SOLELY by negotiation. The
Green Line is EXPLICITLY NOT a political boundary. Only negotiation
can produce such a boundary. Israel's establishment of Jewish
communities in the West Bank is absolutely NOT a violation of
international law; instead, it is entirely lawful in view of 25 years
of Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a de jure state, much less
negotiate a border or offer peace as required by UNSC242.

UNSC 242 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) was adopted by the UN Security Council after the
six-day war in 1967. It calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli
armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
Most Arab states accepted the resolution. However the
Israelis rejected it.

If the Israelis sincerely want peace, they would have withdrawn
from the occupied territories 40 years ago, and they wouldn't
have built Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

[David Lyle Segal]

To Betty BlowTorch, Message #39:

DLS> 'Invaded' seems to be a bit strong description of people who came unarmed and with the permission of the sovereign to buy land and live on it.

BBT> It doesn't seem too strong a word to me, and I suspect that the Palestinians might agree. Here, let's ask one:

"Betty is right. My homeland was invaded and taken over by foreign Zionist Jews. And I'm so pissed off, I could just...BLOW THEM UP!!"
Now that's an inane response to a serious subject, BBT. You don't address the facts at all, but rely instead on a fanciful post hoc rumor-based impression that simply doesn't fit the events. I had hoped for a more intelligent answer from you, but you are apparently too ready to flame and not ready to discuss.

What did occur is that individual Jews immigrated to the region with the permission of first the Sultan and later the British Mandate, unarmed and with no military programme at all. They lawfully bought homes and farms and raised their children where they believed that they could live a freer life, just like most immigrants. In no way did they 'take over' anyone's homeland; they operated entirely within the law and without the use of force.

Their success brought capital and a higher standard of living for everyone in Palestine -- and Arab immigrants as well who came for the same reason. Studies show that Arab immigration (which was unregulated by the British) increased enormously with the arrival of the Jews. Your "Palestinian" could well be from a family that came to Palestine after the Second Aliyah for the opportunities created by the influx of Jews.

Everyone living under the Mandate knew that it was temporary and would end once the people were in a position to establish their own sovereign government. Until the Arab Revolt of 1936, it wasn't even clear to the Jews that the Mandate would end in a bi-national state or two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The revolt -- and the Arabs' rejection of the Peel Commission's two-state proposal -- was the last straw. Their intent to wipe out the Jews if they got the chance was patent and inescapable. Once WWII was behind them, they had no choice but to leave or to set up a Jewish state in part of this small land.

DLS> They had a dream of seeing a Jewish state established, where Jews could finally live as independent, self-validated people, not under the constant sufferance of others. What's wrong with dreams?

BBT> Are you kidding? If the dream consists of moving into someone else's turf and militarily dominating the people who are living there, and turning the Palestinian homeland into a Jewish state, do you suppose the people who were living there first might not be as sympathetic to the Zionist dream as you are? You have a fawning respect for the Zionist dreams of the Jews, but you clearly don't have much respect for the dreams (or the rights) of the Palestinians.

Are you actually familiar with the actual events as they unfolded, BBT? I don't think so if the above represents your version. Jews didn't attack Arabs until after almost two decades of Arab-on-Jew ambushes, riots and massacres. There was no expectation of the use of military power. In the words of one Zionist, their plan was to "buy, buy, buy". And that is what they did. Lawfully. Peacefully. And with the same rights as any person of any religion who was lawfully in the country.

You are quick to characterize my attitude as 'fawning' on the Zionists while I have no 'respect' for the Arabs (everyone living there at the time was called a Palestinian); you are only dodging the reality. The reality was (and is) that the Arabs were the ones who were ever-ready to employ death-dealing force, while the Zionists were careful not to offend the Mandate's need for order (which would have been used as an excuse to stop further immigration).

More later.

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

To Betty BlowTorch, Message #39:

DLS> 'Invaded' seems to be a bit strong description of people
who came unarmed and with the permission of the sovereign to
buy land and live on it.

BBT> It doesn't seem too strong a word to me, and I suspect
that the Palestinians might agree. Here, let's ask one:

"Betty is right. My homeland was invaded and taken over by foreign
Zionist Jews. And I'm so pissed off, I could just...BLOW THEM UP!!"

Now that's an inane response to a serious subject, BBT. You don't
address the facts at all, but rely instead on a fanciful post hoc rumor-
based impression that simply doesn't fit the events. I had hoped for
a more intelligent answer from you, but you are apparently too ready
to flame and not ready to discuss.
Too ready to FLAME?

Apparently you don't know what "flame" means.
A flame is an insulting personal attack directed at you.

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/678/dickcheneypj0.jpg

Here's a flame for you: Don't be a humorless dick
or I won't want to play with you.


More importantly, don't be a Dishonest Dick. http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/2951/dickcheneygrrrredresizelx5.jpg
You falsely claim that I didn't address the "facts" you posted.
That's bullshit. I took the time to seriously address most of
the points you raised in your leeeeeeeengthy post.




What did occur is that individual Jews immigrated to the region with
the permission of first the Sultan and later the British Mandate,
unarmed and with no military programme at all. They lawfully bought
homes and farms and raised their children where they believed that
they could live a freer life, just like most immigrants. In no way did
they 'take over' anyone's homeland; they operated entirely within
the law and without the use of force.

Their success brought capital and a higher standard of living for
everyone in Palestine -- and Arab immigrants as well who came
for the same reason. Studies show that Arab immigration (which
was unregulated by the British) increased enormously with the arrival
of the Jews. Your "Palestinian" could well be from a family that came
to Palestine after the Second Aliyah for the opportunities created by
the influx of Jews.

Everyone living under the Mandate knew that it was temporary and
would end once the people were in a position to establish their own
sovereign government. Until the Arab Revolt of 1936, it wasn't even
clear to the Jews that the Mandate would end in a bi-national state
or two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The revolt -- and the Arabs'
rejection of the Peel Commission's two-state proposal -- was the
last straw. Their intent to wipe out the Jews if they got the chance
was patent and inescapable. Once WWII was behind them, they had
no choice but to leave or to set up a Jewish state in part of this small
land.

DLS> They had a dream of seeing a Jewish state established, where
Jews could finally live as independent, self-validated people, not under
the constant sufferance of others. What's wrong with dreams?

BBT> Are you kidding? If the dream consists of moving into someone
else's turf and militarily dominating the people who are living there,
and turning the Palestinian homeland into a Jewish state, do you
suppose the people who were living there first might not be as
sympathetic to the Zionist dream as you are? You have a fawning
respect for the Zionist dreams of the Jews, but you clearly don't
have much respect for the dreams (or the rights) of the Palestinians.

Are you actually familiar with the actual events as they unfolded,
BBT? I don't think so if the above represents your version. Jews
didn't attack Arabs until after almost two decades of Arab-on-Jew
ambushes, riots and massacres. There was no expectation of the
use of military power. In the words of one Zionist, their plan was
to "buy, buy, buy". And that is what they did. Lawfully. Peacefully.
And with the same rights as any person of any religion who was
lawfully in the country.

You are quick to characterize my attitude as 'fawning' on the Zionists
while I have no 'respect' for the Arabs (everyone living there at the
time was called a Palestinian); you are only dodging the reality. The
reality was (and is) that the Arabs were the ones who were ever-ready
to employ death-dealing force, while the Zionists were careful not to
offend the Mandate's need for order (which would have been used as
an excuse to stop further immigration).
It's funny how you make the Zionists seem so innocent.
You make it sound as though they came to Palestine
in huge numbers with the intent to assimilate with the
existing Arab Muslim majority, which would have meant
that the Jews would be a minority governed by the
Arab majority.

The reality is: Theodore Herzl, the father of Zionism,
wrote a book called "The Jewish State" in 1896. From
the very beginning, the Jews came to Palestine with
the intent of creating their own Jewish state on the
Arab Muslim majority's turf.

You pretend that the Zionists weren't really sure if
they wanted to create Jewish state in the Palestinian
homeland. You make it sound like they only did it
because they were "forced" to do it as a response
to Arab violence.

What a crock.


http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1135/israelitankherojj6.jpg
"It's true, Betty. We had no intention of creating
a Jewish state in the Arab Palestinian homeland.
Honest."




More later.

David Segal
Oh joy.

Apparently I've aroused a tireless fanatic
who wants to throw a truckload of verbiage
at the issue.

Instead of going around and around, http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5092/avatarcatchasenl5.gif
debating your rose-colored version of Zionism,
can we just cut to the chase?


Are the Israelis going to shut down all of their
Jewish settlements in the West Bank --
or aren't they?

Are the Israelis going to move their separation
fence back behind the Green Line --
or aren't they?

Yes or no?

If the Israelis don't do these things, then they're
not really interested in peace, and all the rest is
just bullshit.

[Global Crier]

There are three questions I would like a direct answer too. Without side tracking the answer to other issues and cases as a philosopher, lawyer and propagandist often does.

How can you justify the persecuted Jewish people from Europe and Asia having more rights over another distant people homeland i.e. Palestine than the people who’s families roots go back hundreds if not thousands of years in this region?

How can you justify Israel’s latest (2006) massive bombing of Lebanon?

On what grounds can you justify Israel as the only nuclear military power in the Middle East region?

Without using two wrongs make it right. David Global Crier

[David Lyle Segal]

To Betty Blowtorch, Message #41:

BBT> You pretend that the Zionists weren't really sure if they wanted to create Jewish state in the Palestinian homeland. You make it sound like they only did it because they were "forced" to do it as a response to Arab violence. What a crock.
You take the tiresome path of looking back at an Israel that succeeded in wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 against seemingly impossible odds, that has its own nuclear arsenal and advanced weapons manufacturing capability, that conscripts almost all of its citizens into the armed forces and devotes a god-awful share of its national budget to national defense. Who wouldn't think that such a powerhouse was always scheming to deprive the hapless Arabs from their rightful heritage?

Horsepucky (I apologize if my library of flashy graphic images isn't up to your standards for flashiness). That doesn't fit the Zionists of the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. They had no military. They didn't even have guns. They barely had any skills for farming or capital for self-sufficiency, and many of their pitiful attempts to build self-sustaining farms failed and had to be abandoned. They were the refuse of the Pale of Settlement (and later, the DP camps). They were powerless and largely friendless, dependent on their powers of persuasion to gain entrance.

They confined their activities to buying up land and using the acquisitions as arguments to convince the British to keep the doors open to Jewish immigration for a little while longer. Against this, you will learn if you take the time to study, were the Arab leadership who were constantly in the Mandatory's ear about stopping the Jews from entering and the British Mandate's budgetary deficits that drained more from London than London was willing to spend. The costs, as you would learn if you bothered to look, were those of trying to maintain order in the face of Arab violence against the Jews, both those who immigrated and those whose families had lived in Palestine for centuries.

It is you who pretends that the Jews arrived ready to take over, by force if necessary, land that was properly the Arabs'. That's simply untrue; in fact, it's laughable, given their inability to apply force in any regard. Whatever Theodor Herzl's dream (he died in 1904) or the Zionists' dreams may have been, they saw the reality that (at the time) only fools would think that suchg dreams were attainable. The controlling majority of their leadership was consistent in its drive for a bi-national state until, by 1936, the virulence of the Arab response convinced them that accommodation was not in the cards.

Yes, BBT, there is a point where, paraphrasing W Churchill, "there is some shit even Jews won't eat". Maybe the Arabs, given their expectations of no reprisal, thought that they could carry the British on their backs to help turn back the Jewish tide, but they hadn't counted on the Jews responding at all; they learned better during the revolt.

Read the damn history, BBT. If you can find the Jews taking any land by force or removing any Arabs from land the Jews hadn't lawfully purchased, I'll be happy to exchange humorous quips and clever icons with you. But so long as you continue to distort and exaggerate what actually took place, I'll conserve this resource for something that is genuinely funny. Telling lies about Zionist history isn't funny; in fact it feeds the same appetites that are today portraying rehabilitation of a collapsed bridge in the Old City as an 'attack on the holy Haram al-Sharif'.

BBT> Oh joy. Apparently I've aroused a tireless fanatic who wants to throw a truckload of verbiage at the issue.
What a chicken's way to avoid dealing with the issues. Just reduce your opponent to a 'tireless fanatic' and you don't have to deal with reality at all. You can get away with showing stupid hard-on graphics and divert attention from the simple fact that yours is the zealot's rendition of history. C'mon, BBT, if you want to trade fact-for-fact, then I'm prepared with chapter and verse. I doubt that anyone in the list is all that wowed by your cleverness at iconography to forget to check your arguments.

BBT> Are the Israelis going to shut down all of their Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- or aren't they? Are the Israelis going to move their separation fence back behind the Green Line -- or aren't they? Yes or no?
Why on earth should they? The West Bank is nothing more than a clever label applied to King Abdullah's piracy in seizing land that was in no wise but unlawful conquest his. You are free to make the case for the West Bank belonging to the Palestinians, BBT, but please be prepared for rebuttal.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

There are three questions I would like a direct answer too. Without side tracking the answer to other issues and cases as a philosopher, lawyer and propagandist often does.

Put it back in your pants, GC. Even lawyers have to come up with useful arguments.

GC> How can you justify the persecuted Jewish people from Europe and Asia having more rights over another distant people homeland i.e. Palestine than the people who’s families roots go back hundreds if not thousands of years in this region?

I haven't even tried, GC. The Jewish immigrants arrived as immigrants. Their rights were no more than immigrants have. They purchased their landholdings with money. They never asserted that they had rights not enjoyed by the Arabs. They also never allowed that their rights were any less.

GC> How can you justify Israel’s latest (2006) massive bombing of Lebanon?

I haven't tried to do any such thing. While arguments are available, I don't see how this question doesn't violate your own principle of avoiding 'sidetracking'.

GC> On what grounds can you justify Israel as the only nuclear military power in the Middle East region?

I don't. Israel built her defense capability according to her means and the threats that confront her. If others have reasonable apprehension of similar threats to their safety, then they can build their defenses to the extent of their capacity, too.

GC> Without using two wrongs make it right. David Global Crier

I haven't been able to make enough sense of this statement to respond, GC. Perhaps you would be so kind as to re-phrase.

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

Read the damn history, BBT. If you can find the Jews taking
any land by force or removing any Arabs from land the Jews
hadn't lawfully purchased, I'll be happy to exchange humorous
quips and clever icons with you.
In 1947, the Jews only owned 8% of the land in Palestine.
Disregarding the will of the Arab majority in Palestine, the
1947 U.N. Partition handed more than 50% of the land to
the Jews.

In the 1948 war, the Jews captured even more land than
was granted to them by the United Nations. In the 1967
war, Israeli forces captured and occupied even more land:
the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

In defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, the
Israelis refused to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Instead they established Jewish settlements in defiance
of UNSC 242.

All of these Jewish settlements were built on land taken
by military force.

Villages which were entirely populated by Arab Muslims
are now populated by Jews. In many cases, the Arab
names of the villages have been changed to Jewish
names.

There are thousands of Palestinian refugees suffering in
squalid refugee camps who still own the deeds to homes
and farms in Israel, but they are barred from reclaiming
their property. Jews live there now.

It's ludicrous for you to suggest that the Jews didn't take
any land by force or by removing any Arabs from land the
Jews hadn't lawfully purchased.




BBT> Are the Israelis going to shut down all of their
Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- or aren't they?
Are the Israelis going to move their separation fence
back behind the Green Line -- or aren't they?
Yes or no?

Why on earth should they? The West Bank is nothing more
than a clever label applied to King Abdullah's piracy in seizing
land that was in no wise but unlawful conquest his. You are
free to make the case for the West Bank belonging to the
Palestinians, BBT, but please be prepared for rebuttal.

I'll take that as a "no." You believe that the Israelis don't
have to leave the West Bank, and the Palestinians have no
legal or moral claim to the West Bank as a Palestinian state.

I think the Palestinians have a much stronger legal and moral
claim to the West Bank than the Israelis have. Here's a few
reasons why:

The 1947 U.N. Partition divided Palestine into a Jewish state
and an Arab state. The Arabs were granted the West Bank,
Gaza and the Golan Heights, along with other territories.

In 1967, after Israel captured and occupied the West Bank,
Gaza and the Golan Heights, the United Nations demanded
Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories.

The 1997 Oslo Accords recognized the Palestinian right to
their own self-government in the West Bank and Gaza.

From a moral standpoint, most of the world now believes
that the Palestinians deserve their own state -- one that
contains no Jewish settlements, Israeli army checkpoints
or a "Berlin Wall" that encroaches on Palestinian territory.

Now I'd like to hear your case supporting Israel's legal
and moral claim to the West Bank. And spare us the
King Abdullah blah-blah-blah. He's long gone and
no longer relevant.

This is between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
In 2007, who has stronger legal and moral claim
to the West Bank? Israel or the Palestinians?

[Global Crier]

David

You did fine. The first line of defense for any good lawyer is denial. If it does not exist then there is no problem. This is method the Jewish supporters of the Greater State of Israel have used from the very beginning making them the most hated nation on earth in modern times. If you think there is any other nation in the world that is hated by more people and nations than Israel? Please let me know.

Originally Posted by Global Crier
There are three questions I would like a direct answer too. Without side tracking the answer to other issues and cases as a philosopher, lawyer and propagandist often does.

DS Reply> Put it back in your pants, GC. Even lawyers have to come up with useful arguments.

Lawyers are at the roots to many of the problems we have today in the world. From insurance and the medical fields to governments and the military industrial complex lawyers are in the middle of the deals usually screwing everyone! So do not take this out of context and quote me as lawyers do. For it was said in response to your comment.

GC> How can you justify the persecuted Jewish people from Europe and Asia having more rights over another distant people homeland i.e. Palestine than the people who’s families roots go back hundreds if not thousands of years in this region?

DS Reply> I haven't even tried, GC. The Jewish immigrants arrived as immigrants. Their rights were no more than immigrants have. They purchased their landholdings with money. They never asserted that they had rights not enjoyed by the Arabs. They also never allowed that their rights were any less.

Do you really believe what you have said here to be the truth? Are you in total denial of the truth and realties on the ground in the Holy Land? You say “They purchased their landholdings with money.” Are (they) the Jewish National Fund that disguising themselves as an environmental arborist society that owns and controls over 85% of the land within Israel proper?

GC> How can you justify Israel’s latest (2006) massive bombing of Lebanon?

DS Reply> I haven't tried to do any such thing. While arguments are available, I don't see how this question doesn't violate your own principle of avoiding 'sidetracking'.

Two negatives to make a positive does not hold water. To say this question is “sidetracking” when it is heart of the historical conflicts and wars in the region is denial once again. Israel’s attacks on Lebanon were international war crimes. In the name of self-defense Israel has been the first to attack her neighboring nations of people time in and time out including Egypt in 1967 starting the Six-Day War.

GC> On what grounds can you justify Israel as the only nuclear military power in the Middle East region?

DS Reply> I don't. Israel built her defense capability according to her means and the threats that confront her. If others have reasonable apprehension of similar threats to their safety, then they can build their defenses to the extent of their capacity, too.

First and foremost Israel is a welfare state supported by the United States Government and the Jewish Temples and Jewish organization from around the world. For you to suggest other nations in the region to build their defenses when it is Israel and the United States that will be the first to attack is being pretty smug.


DS Reply> I haven't been able to make enough sense of this statement to respond, GC. Perhaps you would be so kind as to re-phrase.

David Segal


If you could not make sense of my three basic questions, I’ll try one more.

What makes the United States and Israel’s attacks on other nations any different than that of a terrorist’s nation?

I know this is something that will be hard for you understand. For simplicity let us only deal with the Israeli part. Israel bombs Iraq’s nuclear program. Israel bombs and occupies Lebanon. Today there plans on the table to bomb Iran. Please explain how the military actions of Israel are any different than that of a terrorist nation.

David Global Crier

[exarmyranger]

In 1947, the Jews only owned 8% of the land in Palestine.


All of these Jewish settlements were built on land taken
by military force.
Jews hadn't lawfully purchased.

In 2007, who has stronger legal and moral claim
to the West Bank? Israel or the Palestinians?:doh: Good question!But not being a member of "The Bar",or a Cleric...,the legal/moral aspects are not answerable by me.I've been enjoying the debate (you,D.Lyle,GC,Kress)have going.Not to be a nit-pic but U.N.,did'nt excist in the 1920's(under that name)"In 1920 the former "Turkish" province of Palestine,was mandated to Britian by,The League of Nations...Israel "declared its independence"in May of 1948.Israel spends(not counting a little help from thier friends)15% of her gross national product/$,on defence,or close to 3 times the world average.Military service is compulsory for both men&women.Hmmm dos'nt sound like they plan on moving backwards,forward...maybe yes maybe no.They sure as hell are prepared to hold thier lines though... retreat is no option to them.cya.ex :cool:

[Global Crier]

If you want to understanding the history of the transfer of land in the Holy Land you must understand the role of the “Jewish National Fund” http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=history

Brief history of Jewish National Fund role
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-national-fund.html

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #45:

DLS> Read the damn history, BBT. If you can find the Jews taking any land by force or removing any Arabs from land the Jews hadn't lawfully purchased, I'll be happy to exchange humorous quips and clever icons with you.
BBT> In 1947, the Jews only owned 8% of the land in Palestine. Disregarding the will of the Arab majority in Palestine, the 1947 U.N. Partition handed more than 50% of the land to the Jews.
For what it’s worth, in 1947 Arabs owned barely more than did Jews of the portion that the UN partitioned for the Jewish state (i.e., where the Jews were in the majority). The great bulk of the land was miri land, owned by the sovereign, not by Arabs. I limit the statement because the UN partition plan didn’t create Israel; the war did.
BBT> In the 1948 war, the Jews captured even more land than was granted to them by the United Nations. In the 1967 war, Israeli forces captured and occupied even more land: the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.
The Arabs didn’t rely on the UN partition – they rejected it. They relied on the force of arms, by which they sought that there be NO border at all, that the Jews be driven out. They (and you) have no call for complaint on the grounds that they failed to win what they started according to the standards that they themselves set. Israel offered them peace and respect for the border; they offered nothing but war.

BBT> In defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, the Israelis refused to withdraw from the occupied territories. Instead they established Jewish settlements in defiance of UNSC 242.
Israel had no obligation to withdraw from the occupied territories. UNSC242 doesn’t tell them to do any such thing. Instead it sets up a formula of land for peace, a formula that Israel immediately accepted. You are purposely hiding the fact that the Arabs had pre-emptively rejected the formula two months earlier in the Three Noes resolution. And the Arabs abided by the earlier resolution for the next two plus decades: no recognition of Israel, no negotiation of Israel, no peace with Israel.
It’s a bit rich for you to ignore the passage of twenty-five years with no movement on the part of the Palestinians towards giving up the Khartoum directive, BBT and to pretend that Israel only held the disputed territories in some sort of trust for the Palestinians.
BBT> All of these Jewish settlements were built on land taken by military force. Villages which were entirely populated by Arab Muslims are now populated by Jews. In many cases, the Arab names of the villages have been changed to Jewish names.
Just what “Jewish settlements” are you talking about and when, BBT? There are different analyses for the time of the 1948 war and for the post-1967 period. The term is used by some (including you, I suspect) for Jewish communities on either side of the Green Line. In fact, your language suggests that you are relying on a long-discredited misquote by General Dayan, which was in regard to those west of the line

BBT> There are thousands of Palestinian refugees suffering in squalid refugee camps who still own the deeds to homes and farms in Israel, but they are barred from reclaiming their property. Jews live there now.
To the extent that this is accurate, they have had the right since the early 1950s to compensation for their losses. About a third have taken it up and the rest refuse, insisting instead on being repatriated to a land towards whose government they have no interest in upholding. You may consider their attitude justified, BBT. I may even understand their anger and desire for revenge. But I can’t say that that realization leads to the idea that any sane country would admit such people into its tent. If the refugees really wanted repatriation, they would have indicated their readiness to sign up as loyal Israeli citizens. If they want any relief in this regard, they are going to have to content themselves with compensation of some sort.

BBT> It's ludicrous for you to suggest that the Jews didn't take any land by force or by removing any Arabs from land the Jews hadn't lawfully purchased.
My statement pertained to the Ottoman and British Mandate period, BBT, not to the period following the exit of the British and the onset of the general Arab attack on the Jews to drive them into the sea. The 1948 war – started by the Arabs – changed the rules altogether. I can imagine you making your arguments in behalf of the poor Jews who had been run out, had the war’s outcome been different.
More later…
David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, #45: (Continued)

BBT> Are the Israelis going to shut down all of their Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- or aren't they? Are the Israelis going to move their separation fence back behind the Green Line -- or aren't they? Yes or no?
DLS> Why on earth should they? The West Bank is nothing more than a clever label applied to King Abdullah's piracy in seizing land that was in no wise but unlawful conquest his. You are free to make the case for the West Bank belonging to the Palestinians, BBT, but please be prepared for rebuttal.
BBT> I'll take that as a "no." You believe that the Israelis don't have to leave the West Bank, and the Palestinians have no legal or moral claim to the West Bank as a Palestinian state.
Don’t think that you have to balls to tell me what I believe. You’re wrong if this is your take on what I write. You only wish I wrote that.

What I believe is very simple: the armistice agreement of 1949, UNSC resolution #242, and the Oslo Accords all prescribe the proper means of sorting out national boundaries in the disputed territories: negotiation. I believe that those who would discard those controlling agreements in favor of revisiting the wisdom of the UN partition and the peace efforts of both sides ever since only demonstrate a sad ignorance of what will happen without their presence.

BBT> I think the Palestinians have a much stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the Israelis have. Here's a few reasons why: The 1947 U.N. Partition proposed to divide Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

I don’t know why you continue to flog this idea, BBT. The Arabs rejected the UN vote altogether and absolutely. They didn’t want a two-state solution, not for the Jews and not for themselves. They wanted what they could get by force of arms and the Hell with the UN. They can hardly be heard to rely on the UN after they have refused its effect for over forty years. It’s not like it’s a fifty dollar bill they found in last winter’s jacket pocket; they rejected it and chose an entirely different path – the one that lead to Itbal al-Yahud.
(BTW, the Golan Heights had nothing to do with the 1947 partition plan; it had already been assigned to Syria in the original demarcation of Palestine in the 1920s).

BBT> In 1967, after Israel captured and occupied the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, the United Nations demanded Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories.
No it didn’t. Read the resolution, if you dare. Quote to me the ‘action’ words as they are set down in the UNSC’s Holy Writ, not as you would like them to have been written, but as they were actually written.

BBT> The 1997 Oslo Accords recognized the Palestinian right to their own self-government in the West Bank and Gaza.
Are you sure that this is an argument that you want to make? I don’t recollect that the Oslo Accords recognized Palestinian self-government of the West Bank, but in the WB, BBT.

And that’s what they got, until they decided to throw it away for the joys of intifada. They got the major cities (Ramallah, Hebron, Jericho and Nablus) and about 95% of the Palestinian people who live in Areas A and B. They didn’t get Area C, which is where the Jews were living, nor Jerusalem.

BBT> From a moral standpoint, most of the world now believes that the Palestinians deserve their own state -- one that contains no Jewish settlements, Israeli army checkpoints or a "Berlin Wall" that encroaches on Palestinian territory.
Hooray for most of the world. They don’t live there and they, as you, don’t seem to feel that making the disputed territories judenrein offends their vaunted “moral standpoint”. The demarcation of the border between Israel and the Arab State of Palestine will be made by negotiation between the two parties. "Moral standpoint" didn’t come from the UN, which still stands behind UNSC242’s negotiation formula. It didn’t come from the Oslo Accords, which still stands behind the principle of negotiation. It didn’t come from the demands of the so-called world, which has no legal say in the matter anyhow.

BBT> Now I'd like to hear your case supporting Israel's legal and moral claim to the West Bank. And spare us the King Abdullah blah-blah-blah. He's long gone and no longer relevant.
Boy, BBT, when the facts are agin’ you, you pound (what you seem to think is) the law. When the law is agin’ you, you pound (what you seem to think is) the facts. And when the law and the facts are agin’ you, you really pound the table. Israel’s claims in the West Bank are the same as the Palestinians’: it’s as much that of the one as of the other until a line is negotiated.


BBT> This is between the Palestinians and the Israelis. In 2007, who has stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank? Israel or the Palestinians?Sometimes I really wish the rest of the ‘world’ would butt out. They’re the perfect example of the error of assuming too much authority without the responsibility. The dispute isn’t about “morals” but about resolving conflicting claims, each legitimate enough to be worthy of compromise. As soon as you get into “morals”, you are taking an absolutist position that prevents compromise. In 1967, Israel could morally have driven all of the Arabs out of Jerusalem and the West Bank. She didn’t. She even left the Temple Mount in the hands of the Muslim Waqf and the Arabs living in the Old City in their homes (much to their amazement). Compare that 'moral standard' to the Arabs' attitude towards the Jews' desire to pray at the Western Wall, if you're so concerned about 'moral' values, BBT. Quite frankly, you are in short pants here.

Those who argue the Palestine quandary in what they consider to be “moral” terms are clearly on the losing side. Morals has certainly not characterized the Arab approach to the issue. Their policy has been Itbal al-Yahud. If they had a moral case, they would have come in peace to make it, rather than blowing up restaurants and buses and college lunchrooms. The solution will only come in realpolitik form: negotiations in good faith and with a shared view of peaceful accommodation.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

GC> You did fine. The first line of defense for any good lawyer is denial. If it does not exist then there is no problem. This is method the Jewish supporters of the Greater State of Israel have used from the very beginning making them the most hated nation on earth in modern times. If you think there is any other nation in the world that is hated by more people and nations than Israel? Please let me know.

Don’t think that I can let you get away with blaming hatred for Israel on the Jews (or lawyers), GC. Deny what? Deny the facts-not-in-evidence and idiotic stereotypes that you loaded your questions with? You posit that I believe that Jews have ‘more rights’ than others. I don’t and I’ve never said anything that could remotely lead you to any such conclusion if you hadn’t already come to the table with a mind filled with fantasy. For example:

GC> Lawyers are at the roots to many of the problems we have today in the world. From insurance and the medical fields to governments and the military industrial complex lawyers are in the middle of the deals usually screwing everyone! So do not take this out of context and quote me as lawyers do. For it was said in response to your comment.

What gives you the idea that you have more rights than Jewish lawyers do to speak of the history of the Middle East? You can put your fears of inadequacy aside; I won’t try to throw you on your ass using legalistic jew-jitsu.

and

GC> How can you justify the persecuted Jewish people from Europe and Asia having more rights over another distant people homeland i.e. Palestine than the people who’s families roots go back hundreds if not thousands of years in this region?

DS Reply> I haven't even tried, GC. The Jewish immigrants arrived as immigrants. Their rights were no more than immigrants have. They purchased their landholdings with money. They never asserted that they had rights not enjoyed by the Arabs. They also never allowed that their rights were any less.

GC> Do you really believe what you have said here to be the truth? Are you in total denial of the truth and realties on the ground in the Holy Land? You say “They purchased their landholdings with money.” Are (they) the Jewish National Fund that disguising themselves as an environmental arborist society that owns and controls over 85% of the land within Israel proper?

Would you mind putting your thoughts into an intelligible form so that I can answer? The JNF is one of the organizations that was created by the Zionist Organization to assist in the acquisition of interests in Palestine. It was founded in 1901 (during the Ottoman years) for the purpose of buying (for money) land for Jewish settlement. It was the main mover in the effort to plant trees in Israel. In 1961, it transferred its holdings to the Israeli government and has since devoted its efforts at conservation and application of lands to recreational use. Just what part of this amounts to ‘total denial of the truth’, GC? Where are the facts of the ‘disguising themselves’ business that you are introducing?

GC> How can you justify Israel’s latest (2006) massive bombing of Lebanon?

DS Reply> I haven't tried to do any such thing. While arguments are available, I don't see how this question doesn't violate your own principle of avoiding 'sidetracking'.

GC> Two negatives to make a positive does not hold water. To say this question is “sidetracking” when it is heart of the historical conflicts and wars in the region is denial once again. Israel’s attacks on Lebanon were international war crimes. In the name of self-defense Israel has been the first to attack her neighboring nations of people time in and time out including Egypt in 1967 starting the Six-Day War.

You were the one to bring up last summer’s fighting in Lebanon; now you say that it is at ‘heart of the historical conflicts’. Why don’t you take a drink and think before you mouth off? For example, you seem to think that it was Israel who started the Six Day War (for some reason you haven’t yet stated) by attacking first. Even General Rikhye (the UNEF’s commander whose forces Egypt had removed from the Sinai so that they could begin their ‘glorious war’) would tell you that you’re wrong.

Israeli military doctrine calls for striking her enemies’ forces outside her borders, rather than take the first blow. That’s what happened in June, 1967. It makes sense for a country that at some places was only eight miles wide. That hardly qualifies as proof of the kind of Israel you are portraying. I’m sure that, if you were to work on it, you could come up with what you thought proves of Israeli imperialistic appetites, but so far you haven’t even tried. Instead, you’ve just ranted.


GC> On what grounds can you justify Israel as the only nuclear military power in the Middle East region?

DS Reply> I don't. Israel built her defense capability according to her means and the threats that confront her. If others have reasonable apprehension of similar threats to their safety, then they can build their defenses to the extent of their capacity, too.

GC> First and foremost Israel is a welfare state supported by the United States Government and the Jewish Temples and Jewish organization from around the world. For you to suggest other nations in the region to build their defenses when it is Israel and the United States that will be the first to attack is being pretty smug.

You’re still not making sense, GC. All you are doing is parading a montage of paranoid images in hopes that they come together into an intelligible statement. I was talking about Israel’s defense needs. I wasn’t suggesting that other countries go out an improve their military, only that they have the right so to do.

DS Reply> I haven't been able to make enough sense of this statement to respond, GC. Perhaps you would be so kind as to re-phrase.

GC> If you could not make sense of my three basic questions, I’ll try one more. What makes the United States and Israel’s attacks on other nations any different than that of a terrorist’s nation? I know this is something that will be hard for you understand. For simplicity let us only deal with the Israeli part. Israel bombs Iraq’s nuclear program. Israel bombs and occupies Lebanon. Today there plans on the table to bomb Iran. Please explain how the military actions of Israel are any different than that of a terrorist nation.

1. Israel bombs the Osirak nuclear plant.

Israel had never attacked Iraq. Iraq was in the forefront of the rejectionist states when it came to Israel. Its forces fought in the 1948 war and joined the Arab coalition in 1967 that was assembled to invade and drive out the Jews from Israel. It drove out all of its own Jews from its territory. Its Ba’athist leadership was never coy when it came to their intentions about Israel and they were preparing nuclear weapons to use against Israel as soon as they were able. Bombing Osirak was not the act of state terrorism, but of defense.

2. Israel bombs and occupies Lebanon.

Since Israel did both only in the late 1970s and early 1980s, you must be talking about the time that the PLO had destabilized Lebanon and set up ‘Fatahland’ in Lebanon’s south, from which they were launching daily attacks against Israel.

3. Israel has “plans”.

Israel has never attacked Iran, GC. Whatever ‘plans’ she may have won’t be put into action so long as the Iranians don’t start to execute their own ‘plans’ in re Israel.

The simple facts are that Israel hasn’t used her military to force her neighbors to do anything that they shouldn’t be required to do, such as stop attacking Israel. Following the 1948 war, Israel offered to make the Green Line into the international border with the Hashemite Kingdom. The Jordanians refused and instead joined Egypt in the Six Day War to wipe out Israel. Israel didn’t attack Syria until Syria escalated beyond its daily artillery attacks on Jewish farms in the Galilee to sending tanks and jets at the Jews. Israel didn’t attack Egypt until Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran, ejected the UNEF, massed his forces on Israel’s border for invasion and assembled a pan-Arab military coalition to attack. Israel didn’t attack Lebanon until Lebanon permitted the PLO (and later Hezbollah) to make use of Lebanese soil to attack Israel.

David Segal

[exarmyranger]

B.B.T.,D.L.S.(esquire)A spirited exchange of view's.An emotionally charged,(Israel/Judaism...Palestine/Muslim)religeous,political,debate.Personal insults,have (for the most part/so far) been refreshingly absent.Please do....Carry-on,ex

[Betty Blowtorch]

I felt a cold shiver as I read some Zionist legal arguments
that attempt to justify the Jewish usurpation of Palestine.
It became apparent that the Israeli position is essentially
a smug belief that "Might Makes Right" and that Israel
is entitled to any territory it can take by military force
and demographic invasion.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/4296/israeliflagtankrq3.jpg

In reading the legal arguments, I realized that there is a
legion of pro-Zionist lawyers, diplomats and lobbyists who
have promoted some very tenuous, hair-splitting legalistic
arguments to justify the Jewish demographic invasion and
military conquest of most of Palestine.

It is also clear that the Zionist conquest of Palestine has
scornfully trampled on fundamental principles of justice,
fairness and human rights for the Palestinians.


Applying basic human principles of fairness and justice,
let's compare the competing territorial claims of the
Jews vs. the Arab Palestinians:

The Arabs were already there.

When the father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl wrote his book
"The Jewish State" in 1896, there were only 20,000 Jews
in Palestine and half a million Muslims.

Population of Palestine:

500,000 Muslim Arabs (87%)
50,000 Christian Arabs (9%)

20,000 Jews (less than 4%)

With less than 4% of the population, the Jews didn't have
any legal or moral claim to having their own Jewish state
in Palestine. Based on population, Palestine should have
become an Arab Muslim nation just like all of the other
Arab nations in the Middle East.

So how was this overwhemingly Muslim region transformed
into a Jewish state? And how was the Arab Muslim majority
transformed into an oppressed minority by the Jews?


ZIONISM: The demographic invasion
and military conquest of Palestine.

Early Zionists referred to Palestine as "a land with no people
for a people with no land." But of course they were lying.
There were hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Palestine.
There just weren't very many Jews.

Starting around 1900, the Zionists began flooding Palestine
with waves of foreign Jewish immigrants. By 1940, there
were almost half a million Jews in Palestine, an increase
of 2500% in only 40 years.

This massive flood of foreign Jews was not just an innocent,
peaceful immigration, as you claim. It was a calculated and
intentional demographic invasion whose intent from the very
beginning was to establish a Jewish state in Arab Palestine.

Jews throughout the world targeted Palestine as the site
on which to establish a Jewish state.


Foreign colonial powers assisted the
Zionists in their demographic invasion
of Arab Palestine.

Since the Muslims held an overwheming popular majority in
Palestine for centuries, why didn't they stop the demographic
invasion by Zionist Jews?

The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews
were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion.

The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right of
the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion
by foreign Jews. The British allowed the Zionists to flood
Palestine with half a million foreign Jews.

Was this fair to the existing Muslim majority? Of course not.

One of the most important political trends of the 20th century
was the overthrow of the European colonial system, replaced
by the doctrine of self-determination and self-government for
indigenous populations.

The Arab majority in Palestine (and the surrounding regions)
should have had the legal right to set immigration quotas for
foreign Jews seeking to immigrate to Palestine.

The Arab majority should have had the legal right to use any
means necessary to deport excess foreign Jews, ESPECIALLY
Zionists seeking to carve out a Jewish state in Arab territory.

Britain, in its foreign colonial stupidity, threw common sense
to the wind and allowed foreign Zionists to demographically
invade Arab Palestine.


The Zionist demographic invasion
turned into violent military conquest.

The Jews are ultimately responsible for ALL of the violence
which has occurred as a result of their demographic invasion
of Palestine, which was the initial provocation that started
the conflict. The indigenous Muslim majority was minding its
own business until the Zionists flooded Palestine like a swarm
of locusts, with the well-documented intention of taking over
and establishing a Jewish state.

You like to focus on the early days of Zionism as nothing more
than peaceful, innocent immigration. The fact is: the Zionists
were merely biding their time until they had sufficient numbers
to establish a Jewish state and hold it by military force.

By 1940, Palestine had been flooded with half a million Jews.
At that point, they began a campaign of Zionist terrorism (http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestine/jewish-terrorism.htm)
followed by violent military force in 1948.

The 1948 war established the Green Line as the de facto
border of Israel. The Jews should have been satisfied
with that border, considering that only 50 years earlier,
there were only a measly 20,000 Jews in Palestine, and
the new Jewish immigrants didn't have the strong roots
in the region that the Arab Muslim majority maintained
for centuries.

Despite their complete lack of personal roots in Palestine,
militant foreign Zionists believe that the Jews are entitled
to control ALL of Palestine -- Eratz Israel (Greater Israel) --
and the Arab Muslims who have lived there for centuries
deserve only the leftover table scraps.

In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and the
Golan Heights. In response, the U.N. Security Council
passed UNSC Resolution 242 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) which called for the

"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories
occupied in the recent conflict."

Not only did the Israelis refuse to withdraw, they began
a demographic invasion of the occupied territories by
establishing Jewish settlements there.

Israel's refusal to comply with
UNSC 242 is based on a tenuous
legal argument that perverts the
meaning of the English language.

To justify Israel's defiance of UNSC 242, pro-Zionist legal
"experts" have promoted one of the most hair-splitting,
nitpicking, legalistic perversions in history:

They claim that UNSC 242 does NOT actually call for the
"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories
occupied in the recent conflict."

And why do they say that? Because there's no "the"
in front of the word "territories."

Yup, that's it. http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/5495/avatar4437kf1.gif
That's their actual reasoning.

They claim that because there's no "the" in front of "territories"
the U.N. was NOT saying that Israel must withdraw from "all"
of the territories -- they were saying that Israel doesn't have
to withdraw from "any" of the territories until new borders
and terms are negotiated and agreed upon.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8840/avatarhuhrl2.jpg

And you wonder why people think lawyers and politicians are
dishonest? This is a perfect example of how lawyers can take
clear, unambiguous language and turn it upside-down, claiming
that it means the opposite of what it says in plain English.

If the U.N. wanted Israel NOT to withdraw from the occupied
territories until after new borders and terms are negotiated,
then the U.N. would have written something like: "Israel does
NOT have to withdraw from the occupied territories until
after new borders are negotiated."

But that's not what the U.N. wrote. Immediately after Israeli
armed forces invaded and occupied the West Bank, Gaza and
the Golan Heights in the 1967 war, the U.N. demanded the

"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories
occupied in the recent conflict."

The intended meaning seems crystal clear to me, but then
of course, I speak English. I don't speak Lawyer Bullshit.


Israel uses a tenuous legal argument
to justify its illegal Jewish settlements
in the West Bank.

International law prohibits an occupying military power
from establishing settlements in occupied territory.

The 4th Geneva Convention specifically states that an
"Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of
its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Israel claims that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply
because the Palestinians aren't a High Contracting Party.
What this boils down to is: a sleazy legalistic loophole
to allow the Israelis to violate the Geneva Convention.

The U.N. and the International Court of Justice have
ruled that the Geneva Convention DOES apply to the
occupied Palestinian territories, and that the Jewish
settlements are illegal.

Several U.N. resolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_446) have determined "that the policy
and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967
have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction
to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle East."

The Jewish settlements "have no legal validity
and constitute a serious obstruction to peace
in the Middle East."

That's not just my opinion. It's the...

United Nations.
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4831/unitednationsexteriorheiz7.jpg

David,

I'm still waiting to hear your legal and moral arguments
explaining why Israel has stronger legal and moral claim
to the West Bank than the Palestinians have, and why
Israel shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the
West Bank.

(Don't just nitpick my arguments, come up with some
well-documented arguments of your own.)

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #53:

BBT> I felt a cold shiver as I read some Zionist legal arguments that attempt to justify the Jewish usurpation of Palestine. It became apparent that the Israeli position is essentially a smug belief that "Might Makes Right" and that Israel is entitled to any territory it can take by military force and demographic invasion.
I get heartburn every time I read anti-Zionists who put words in my mouth, rather than respond to the arguments I actually make. Now, you might be referring to other Zionists than me, but I rather doubt it. Do you really need a strawman argument, BBT? Can’t you make do with what’s in front you?

BBT> In reading the legal arguments, I realized that there is a legion of pro-Zionist lawyers, diplomats and lobbyists who have promoted some very tenuous, hair-splitting legalistic arguments to justify the Jewish demographic invasion and military conquest of most of Palestine.
Is this broad mischaracterization supposed to absolve you from the arguments themselves? Is there something wrong about an argument on the ground that it is ‘legal’?

BBT> It is also clear that the Zionist conquest of Palestine has scornfully trampled on fundamental principles of justice, fairness and human rights for the Palestinians.
That’s a great first sentence for a whole paragraph, but standing alone, it is nothing more than smear.

BBT> Applying basic human principles of fairness and justice, let's compare the competing territorial claims of the Jews vs. the Arab Palestinians:

The Arabs were already there.

When the father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl wrote his book "The Jewish State" in 1896, there were only 20,000 Jews in Palestine and half a million Muslims.

Population of Palestine:

500,000 Muslim Arabs (87%)
50,000 Christian Arabs (9%)
20,000 Jews (less than 4%)

With less than 4% of the population, the Jews didn't have any legal or moral claim to having their own Jewish state in Palestine. Based on population, Palestine should have become an Arab Muslim nation just like all of the other Arab nations in the Middle East. So how was this overwhemingly Muslim region transformed into a Jewish state? And how was the Arab Muslim majority transformed into an oppressed minority by the Jews?
I can understand your confusion, BBT, when you insist on ignoring the facts and substitute a fanciful version of what you consider to be a self-evident political theory to make your case. The problem with that approach is that the world didn’t fit your vision back when the events took place and the decisions were made. People got moved around a lot as a result of wars back then (remember the Ruthenians?), and the Middle East was certainly not immune.

You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. From the start of history until WWI, the way of the world had always been through the strength of arms (albeit, never Jewish arms). The Ottoman Empire was constructed that way no less than were the European empires. At the end of the Great War, the Middle East was conquered enemy territory, disconnected from the Ottoman Empire, in disarray and open to the imperialistic appetites of anyone who could raise an army and grab up some land for himself.

The perspective of ALL of those who were present wasn’t that of the natural right of indigenous people to self-determination through democratic means, but of what the winners in the war decided to do with the losers. There was nothing to prevent the British, French, Italians and Greeks from dividing it up amongst themselves. And if they left it alone, there was nothing to stop the Arab chieftains in Arabia, the Hejaz, Mesopotamia and Syria. The Greeks took a shot at snatching the south-east coast of Anatolia (they lost) and the Saudis drove out the Hashemites from the Hejaz.

At Paris, President Wilson came with his famous 14 Points, of which the twelfth, Self-Determination for the former Ottoman Empire territories, was the radical new concept: “… the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of an autonomous development …”.
Wilson’s speech didn’t burst forth like the light of the Lord down on Paris, though. Quite the contrary, his idea was debated and resisted and reconsidered as time went on. The Allies’ ultimate response – after months of testimony from representatives from the region -- was a system of ‘mandates’: the conquered regions would be husbanded towards sovereignty under European tutelage and according to maps drawn by the Europeans themselves. France took responsibility for Lebanon and Syria, while Britain took responsibility for Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and Palestine.

Compared with what had preceded, the mandate system was a revolutionary and enlightened advance. Rather than divvying up the ME, independent governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are the principal results. In Palestine, the Allies decided to allow the Zionist Jews from Europe the chance to see if they could ship enough Jews to Palestine to create a Jewish state. This decision lies at the heart of what you consider to be the Allies’ Original Sin: letting Jews in where Arabs didn’t want them. You’re wrong on the facts and the law.

The Allies didn’t see things your way back then; nor did the Arabs (cf, Efraim Karsh, Empires of the Sand). They had the testimony of Emir Feisal, who positively welcomed the Jews into Palestine for the purpose of setting up a Jewish state (cf Frankfurter/Feisal correspondence). Feisal, you will remember, was Lawrence of Arabia’s great friend, who gathered Arab fighters to knock the Ottomans out of Sharm al-Sheikh in support of the British efforts during the war. His forces never entered Palestine (which was liberated by General Allenby), and he was quite happy to see the Jews come. Hence, the Allies’ decision at Paris (and later San Remo) was consistent with the facts as they then appeared.

At this point, BBT, I expect that you will raise up your horror of Jewish lawyers. It is, after all, a long draft for you to take while sitting on your high horse. Too bad; the facts are the facts. The Europeans wanted the Jews to come to Palestine. The Arabs wanted the Jews to come to Palestine. Only those who want to re-write the history have the chutzpah to re-invent history to suit their ex post facto views can see these events as other than they were: the lawful disposition of conquered territory following a terrible war.

More later…

David Segal

[exarmyranger]

Well,from my quite limited knowledge concerning Palestine,and the M.E.of the past,and the numerous military conflicts,and thier outcome(s).I've adopted the role of an obserever,mostly because one,or both of you have addressed my questions,before I asked,or stated any historical references as to factual dates,of events pertaining to who gave what to whom...I do have an opinion/belief as to what to look for if one is in need of council...A word to the wise The best lawyers are Jewish...Take that to the bank.ex

[Betty Blowtorch]

BBT> Betty Blowtorch
DLS> David Lyle Segal

BBT> I felt a cold shiver as I read some Zionist legal arguments that
attempt to justify the Jewish usurpation of Palestine. It became apparent
that the Israeli position is essentially a smug belief that "Might Makes Right"
and that Israel is entitled to any territory it can take by military force and
demographic invasion.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/4296/israeliflagtankrq3.jpg

DLS> I get heartburn every time I read anti-Zionists who put words in
my mouth, rather than respond to the arguments I actually make. Now,
you might be referring to other Zionists than me, but I rather doubt it.
Do you really need a strawman argument, BBT? Can’t you make do with
what’s in front of you?

Empty worthless crap.

I made no personal reference to you whatsoever in these
two sentences. I didn't begin my post by quoting you,
I didn't refer to you in any way, and I didn't address you
in any way, so everything you wrote here is GARBAGE.
All of your self-deluded crap about me putting words in
your mouth and using a strawman argument is garbage
because it's based on a false premise.

You automatically jumped to the erroneous assumption
that it's all about you-you-you-you. It's not always
about you, David.

Please leave this type of worthless crap out of the
debate. I don't have time to respond to crap like this,
but you put me in the position of having to waste time
rebutting this crap so other readers won't think there
is any validity to what you've written.

It would save us both time and effort if you don't post
this crap in the first place. It saves you the time of
writing the crap and saves me the time of responding
to it.

What is truly ironic is that you took the time to nitpick
my first two sentences which make no reference to you
at all, but you ignored the sentences in which I actually
DID address you personally:

"David,

I'm still waiting to hear your legal and moral arguments
explaining why Israel has stronger legal and moral claim
to the West Bank than the Palestinians have, and why
Israel shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the
West Bank.

(Don't just nitpick my arguments, come up with some
well-documented arguments of your own.)"



BBT> In reading the legal arguments, I realized that there is a legion
of pro-Zionist lawyers, diplomats and lobbyists who have promoted
some very tenuous, hair-splitting legalistic arguments to justify the
Jewish demographic invasion and military conquest of most of
Palestine.

DLS> Is this broad mischaracterization supposed to absolve you
from the arguments themselves? Is there something wrong about
an argument on the ground that it is ‘legal’?

Stupid worthless crap.

Somehow you seem to have missed the fact that this
sentence is the third introductory sentence in my post,
and it obviously refers to the legal arguments I discuss
further down in my post.

Instead of jumping the gun and nitpicking the first four
sentences in my post, why don't you just read the rest
of my post? Once you do that, you'll see that your
comment here is premature and absurd.




BBT> It is also clear that the Zionist conquest of Palestine has
scornfully trampled on fundamental principles of justice, fairness
and human rights for the Palestinians.

DLS> That’s a great first sentence for a whole paragraph,
but standing alone, it is nothing more than smear.

MORE stupid worthless crap.

The sentence isn't standing alone, David. If you look close,
you'll see that it's surrounded by other sentences, and this
sentence is the fourth introductory sentence in my post,
and it leads directly into the following sentence:

"Applying basic human principles of fairness and justice,
let's compare the competing territorial claims of the
Jews vs. the Arab Palestinians..."

David, we need to set some ground rules here. If you insist
on nitpicking every sentence, make sure your remarks aren't
completely stupid and a waste of time, because I don't have
time to rebut every stupid nitpicking comment you make.

Better yet, why don't you hold off on nitpicking my arguments
until after you've presented some well-documented legal and
moral arguments of your own, explaining why you think Israel
has stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the
Palestinians have, and why Israel shouldn't remove its illegal
settlements from the West Bank?



BBT> Applying basic human principles of fairness and justice,
let's compare the competing territorial claims of the Jews vs.
the Arab Palestinians:

The Arabs were already there.

When the father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl wrote his book
"The Jewish State" in 1896, there were only 20,000 Jews in
Palestine and half a million Muslims.

Population of Palestine:

500,000 Muslim Arabs (87%)
50,000 Christian Arabs (9%)
20,000 Jews (less than 4%)

With less than 4% of the population, the Jews didn't have any legal
or moral claim to having their own Jewish state in Palestine. Based
on population, Palestine should have become an Arab Muslim nation
just like all of the other Arab nations in the Middle East. So how was
this overwhemingly Muslim region transformed into a Jewish state?
And how was the Arab Muslim majority transformed into an
oppressed minority by the Jews?

DLS> I can understand your confusion, BBT, when you insist on
ignoring the facts and substitute a fanciful version of what you
consider to be a self-evident political theory to make your case.

Don't be a pompous ass. You're the one who's confused.
You falsely misinterpreted my argument as some sort of
"fanciful version of a self-evident political theory" when
in fact I made a fundamental human moral argument
that resonates with most human beings:

The Arabs were already there.

The Arab Muslim Palestinians were living in Palestine for
centuries. The Jews weren't. The Jews left Palestine
2000 years ago and thereby gave up all territorial claim
to Palestine.

For 2000 years prior to the Zionist demographic invasion
of Palestine in the 20th century, there weren't enough
Jews in Palestine to fill half of Yankee Stadium, but there
were half a million Arab Muslims whose ancestors were
buried in the soil of Palestine.

Regardless of whether you agree or not, most of the world
is coming around to the belief that the Arab Palestinians
have an innate human right to their homeland. Or what's
left of it after the Jews have swallowed the lion's share.

You accuse me of looking through the telescope from the
wrong end. That's funny. I'm looking through the telescope
from the 21st century end, but you insist on looking though
the 19th century end of the telescope.

I believe in late-20th century principles of international law,
human rights and self-determination for indigenous peoples,
but you constantly return to outdated 19th century principles
of European colonialism, which are ultimately based on the
belief that "Might Makes Right" -- or "strength of arms"
as you put it.



DLS> The problem with that approach is that the world didn’t fit your
vision back when the events took place and the decisions were made.
People got moved around a lot as a result of wars back then
(remember the Ruthenians?), and the Middle East was certainly not
immune.

You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. From the start
of history until WWI, the way of the world had always been through the
strength of arms (albeit, never Jewish arms). The Ottoman Empire was
constructed that way no less than were the European empires. At the
end of the Great War, the Middle East was conquered enemy territory,
disconnected from the Ottoman Empire, in disarray and open to the
imperialistic appetites of anyone who could raise an army and grab up
some land for himself.

The perspective of ALL of those who were present wasn’t that of the
natural right of indigenous people to self-determination through
democratic means, but of what the winners in the war decided to do
with the losers. There was nothing to prevent the British, French,
Italians and Greeks from dividing it up amongst themselves. And if
they left it alone, there was nothing to stop the Arab chieftains in
Arabia, the Hejaz, Mesopotamia and Syria. The Greeks took a shot
at snatching the south-east coast of Anatolia (they lost) and the
Saudis drove out the Hashemites from the Hejaz.

At Paris, President Wilson came with his famous 14 Points, of which
the twelfth, Self-Determination for the former Ottoman Empire
territories, was the radical new concept: “… the other nationalities
which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted
security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of an
autonomous development …”. Wilson’s speech didn’t burst forth like
the light of the Lord down on Paris, though. Quite the contrary, his
idea was debated and resisted and reconsidered as time went on.
The Allies’ ultimate response – after months of testimony from
representatives from the region -- was a system of ‘mandates’: the
conquered regions would be husbanded towards sovereignty under
European tutelage and according to maps drawn by the Europeans
themselves. France took responsibility for Lebanon and Syria, while
Britain took responsibility for Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and Palestine.

Compared with what had preceded, the mandate system was a
revolutionary and enlightened advance. Rather than divvying up
the ME, independent governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen
and Saudi Arabia are the principal results. In Palestine, the Allies
decided to allow the Zionist Jews from Europe the chance to see
if they could ship enough Jews to Palestine to create a Jewish state.
This decision lies at the heart of what you consider to be the Allies’
Original Sin: letting Jews in where Arabs didn’t want them. You’re
wrong on the facts and the law.

The Allies didn’t see things your way back then; nor did the Arabs
(cf, Efraim Karsh, Empires of the Sand). They had the testimony of
Emir Feisal, who positively welcomed the Jews into Palestine for the
purpose of setting up a Jewish state (cf Frankfurter/Feisal
correspondence). Feisal, you will remember, was Lawrence of Arabia’s
great friend, who gathered Arab fighters to knock the Ottomans out
of Sharm al-Sheikh in support of the British efforts during the war.
His forces never entered Palestine (which was liberated by General
Allenby), and he was quite happy to see the Jews come. Hence,
the Allies’ decision at Paris (and later San Remo) was consistent
with the facts as they then appeared.

This whole long, drawn-out block of type boils down to
a set of facts that support one of my arguments:

Foreign colonial powers assisted the
Zionists in their demographic invasion
of Arab Palestine.

Thanks for the supporting facts.

[David Lyle Segal]

TO BBT, Message #56:

BBT> I made no personal reference to you whatsoever in these two sentences. I didn't begin my post by quoting you, I didn't refer to you in any way, and I didn't address you in any way, so everything you wrote here is GARBAGE. All of your self-deluded crap about me putting words in your mouth and using a strawman argument is garbage because it's based on a false premise. You automatically jumped to the erroneous assumption that it's all about you-you-you-you. It's not always about you, David. Please leave this type of worthless crap out of the debate. I don't have time to respond to crap like this, but you put me in the position of having to waste time rebutting this crap so that people won't think there is any validity to what you've written. It would save us both time and effort if you don't post
this crap in the first place. It saves you the time of writing the crap and saves me the time of responding to it.
If you weren’t referring to me in your message, BBT, then you were simply changing without warning the subject from our earlier discussion. I’m not here to defend every argument offered by every Zionist, just my own. You didn’t say where you got the idea that Zionists make the ‘might makes right’ or the ‘Israel is entitled to any territory it can take by military force and demographic invasion” arguments. I don’t make them and I don’t recall seeing other Zionists base their theories on either. If anyone raised a strawman, you did.

BBT> What is truly ironic is that you took the time to nitpick my first two sentences which make no reference to you at all, but you ignored the sentences in which I actually DID address you personally:
I answer your arguments as they appear on the page, BBT. I respect your ability to communicate your ideas, and I therefore hold you to a literate standard of intellect in expressing yourself. My comments weren’t nitpicking at all; you followed your “cold shiver” statement with two made-up arguments. I’m not about to let such facts-not-in-evidence go by without comment.

BBT> "David, I'm still waiting to hear your legal and moral arguments
explaining why Israel has stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the Palestinians have, and whyIsrael shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the West Bank. (Don't just nitpick my arguments, come
up with some well-documented arguments of your own.)"
I have never said that Israel has ‘stronger legal and moral claim[s] to the West Bank than the Palestinians’. That’s just another application of your strawman approach. My position has always been that both Israel and the Palestinians have cognizable rights and interests in the West Bank and that the conflicts arising from those interests should be resolved by negotiation, not by force of arms.

All that is needed to establish the legality of the Jewish communities in the West Bank is the fact that Israel has cognizable rights and interests there. The legitimacy of Israel’s interest arises out of the consistent course starting with the Arab attack in 1948 and passes through the prescription for resolution outlined in the 1949 Armistice Agreement, the 1967 UN Security Council resolution (#242), and the 1993 Declaration of Principles (the “Oslo Accords”). The Arab attack in 1948 opened the question of the border between the Arab and Jewish states to debate; had they not attacked, the border would have been that outlined by the UNGA Partition Plan. The agreements and the resolution all recognize that border-drawing must come from negotiations between the two sides. I have never said otherwise.

BBT> In reading the legal arguments, I realized that there is a legion of pro-Zionist lawyers, diplomats and lobbyists who have promoted some very tenuous, hair-splitting legalistic arguments to justify the Jewish demographic invasion and military conquest of most of Palestine.
DLS> Is this broad mischaracterization supposed to absolve you from the arguments themselves? Is there something wrong about an argument on the ground that it is ‘legal’?

BBT> STUPID worthless crap. Somehow you seem to have missed the fact that this sentence is the third introductory sentence in my post, and it obviously refers to the legal arguments I discuss further down in my post.
How could you be so stupid to have missed that?
Are hysteria and offense always your first choice of response? I’m neither stupid nor cowed by the amount of heat you can pump into this correspondence. My arguments are neither ‘tenuous’ nor ‘hair-splitting’ nor even ‘legalistic’. Your characterization of the creation of Israel as a “Jewish demographic invasion and military conquest” is so far from the reality that it needs to be addressed before proceeding.

BBT> Instead of jumping the gun and nitpicking the first four sentences in my post, why don't you shut the fuck up and read the rest of my post? Once you do that, you'll see that your comment here is premature and absurd.
I read the rest of your post, BBT, but my response was already too long in dealing with the first part to continue it; hence my “More Later” statement. If you don’t have the patience to await my treatment, that’s not my problem but yours.

BBT> It is also clear that the Zionist conquest of Palestine has scornfully trampled on fundamental principles of justice, fairness and human rights for the Palestinians.
DLS> That’s a great first sentence for a whole paragraph, but standing alone, it is nothing more than smear.

BBT> MORE stupid empty crap. The sentence isn't standing alone, doofus. If you look close, you'll see that it's surrounded by other sentences, and this sentence is the fourth introductory sentence in my post, and it leads directly into the following sentence:
"BBT> Applying basic human principles of fairness and justice, let's compare the competing territorial claims of the Jews vs. the Arab Palestinians..."

David, we need to set some ground rules here. If you insist on nitpicking every sentence, make sure your remarks aren't completely stupid and a waste of time, because I don't have time to rebut every stupid nitpicking comment you make.
Simple: don’t exaggerate, mischaracterize or invent facts and I won’t have to call attention to your having done so.

BBT> Better yet, why don't you hold off on nitpicking my arguments until after you've presented some well-documented legal and moral arguments of your own, explaining why you think Israel has stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the Palestinians have, and why Israel shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the West Bank?
Asked and answered, BBT. I don’t make those arguments.

BBT> Until you do that, you're just parasitically feeding off my work.
If I was hungry, BBT, I wouldn’t feed on your so-called work. There is some shit even I won’t eat (with thanks to W Churchill).

DLS> I can understand your confusion, BBT, when you insist on ignoring the facts and substitute a fanciful version of what you consider to be a self-evident political theory to make your case.
BBT> Don't be a pompous ass. You're the one who's confused. You've falsely misinterpreted my argument as some sort of "fanciful version of a self-evident political theory" when anybody with a brain should be able to see that I made a fundamental human moral argument that resonates with
most human beings -- but not lawyers apparently:
Isn’t this an example of exactly the ‘nitpicking’ of which you are so concerned? After all, you’ve even excised the first sentence out of the same paragraph that expands on it, not to mention the six paragraphs that followed.

BBT> The Arabs were already there. The Arab Muslim Palestinians were living in Palestine for centuries. The Jews weren't. The Jews left Palestine 2000 years ago and thereby gave up all territorial claim to Palestine. For 2000 years prior to the Zionist demographic invasion of Palestine in the 20th century, there weren't enough Jews in Palestine to fill up a small baseball stadium, but there were half a million Arab Muslims, whose ancestors were buried in the soil of Palestine. Regardless of whether you agree or not, most of the world is coming around to the belief that the Arab Palestinians have an innate human right to their homeland. Or what's left of it after the Jews have swallowed the lion's share.

You accuse me of looking through the telescope from the wrong end. That's funny. I'm looking through the telescope from the 21st century end, but you insist on looking though the 19th century end of the telescope. I want to apply 21st century principles of international law, human rights and self-determination for indigenous peoples, but you constantly return to outdated 19th century principles of European colonialism, which are ultimately based on the belief that "Might Makes Right" -- and fairness to indigenous
populations be damned.
And that is precisely proof of the error that you are making. You take the Jewish immigration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but you take it out of the context of its time, to apply what might happen today if the Jews only started coming now. Assuming that today’s worldview wouldn’t permit it and is superior (even morally) than the attitude that prevailed at the time of the immigration, SO WHAT? At the relevant time, as I documented, there was nothing immoral at all about the immigration.

You may be happy to pass ex post facto judgments on the Jews of that day, but if so you are being suspiciously picky, perhaps to preserve your own current rights of residence. After all, if you start History with the European invasion of the Americas (not to mention the genocide of the native Americans), you might have to move just to be consistent. Perhaps you would be willing to explain why late 18th and early 19th Century approaches to the question of national land acquisition are OK, but not late 19th Century and early 20th? Don’t leave me to wonder if this new-found morality is limited to the case where Jews are concerned. Just where does history begin for you, BBT?

BBT> This whole long, drawn-out block of type boils down to a set of facts that support one of my arguments: Foreign colonial powers assisted the
Zionists in their demographic invasion of Arab Palestine. Thanks for the supporting facts.
All it proves is that your view depends on which end of the telescope that you are using. The one used by the Allies and the Arab leaders saw only good things to come from a Jewish state in Palestine. The one used by those who are so callous as to ignore human history don’t have to bother with learning all that history crap. After all, their current ‘moral’ beliefs have obviously scaled the highest peak; those who come after us will have nothing to say about how morally we lived, will they?

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

BBT> Betty Blowtorch
DLS> David Lyle Segal

BBT> I made no personal reference to you whatsoever in these two
sentences. I didn't begin my post by quoting you, I didn't refer to you
in any way, and I didn't address you in any way, so everything you
wrote here is GARBAGE. All of your self-deluded crap about me putting
words in your mouth and using a strawman argument is garbage
because it's based on a false premise. You automatically jumped to
the erroneous assumption that it's all about you-you-you-you. It's not
always about you, David. Please leave this type of worthless crap out
of the debate. I don't have time to respond to crap like this, but you
put me in the position of having to waste time rebutting this crap so
that people won't think there is any validity to what you've written.
It would save us both time and effort if you don't post this crap in the
first place. It saves you the time of writing the crap and saves me the
time of responding to it.

DLS> If you weren’t referring to me in your message, BBT, then you
were simply changing without warning the subject from our earlier
discussion. I’m not here to defend every argument offered by every
Zionist, just my own. You didn’t say where you got the idea that
Zionists make the ‘might makes right’ or the ‘Israel is entitled to any
territory it can take by military force and demographic invasion”
arguments. I don’t make them and I don’t recall seeing other Zionists
base their theories on either. If anyone raised a strawman, you did.


OK, David, now you're just being an asshole. http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8748/headupasspw1.jpg

First you falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth
and creating a straw man argument. It was easy for me
to prove the falseness of your accusation by pointing to
the words I actually wrote. All you can point to is your
own self-deluded misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I asked you to "please leave this type of worthless crap
out of the debate." But what do you do? You compound
your bullshit by making yet another false accusation:
you accuse me of "changing without warning the subject
from our earlier discussion."

That's not just absurd, David, it's dishonest.

I didn't change the subject at all, and you damn well know it.
All of my recent posts on this thread have been in support of
the Palestinian claim to the West Bank and the removal of
the illegal Jewish settlements.

Where on earth do you get the gall to claim that I changed
the subject?

So let's recap: First you made one absurd false accusation.
Then when I called you on it, instead of dropping the issue,
you made yet another absurd false accusation.

You've exceeded your quota of false accusations, David.

I'm seeing a pattern here: even if it's obvious you're
wrong, you shamelessly make further false accusations
because it's more important for you to keep arguing
than to be honest.

I've dealt with people like that before. They're irritating
and a waste of time. They like to argue just for the sake
of arguing. Honesty is of secondary importance to them.

I can see your real reason for obsessively focusing on my
first four sentences: you don't want to deal with the bulk
of the arguments I offered in my fairly lengthy post.



BBT>What is truly ironic is that you took the time to nitpick
my first two sentences which make no reference to you
at all, but you ignored the sentences in which I actually
DID address you personally:

"David,

I'm still waiting to hear your legal and moral arguments
explaining why Israel has stronger legal and moral claim
to the West Bank than the Palestinians have, and why
Israel shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the
West Bank.

(Don't just nitpick my arguments, come up with some
well-documented arguments of your own.)"

DLS> I have never said that Israel has ‘stronger legal and
moral claim[s] to the West Bank than the Palestinians’. That’s
just another application of your strawman approach.

No, that's just you making another false accusation.
I never claimed you made the statement above. I've
repeatedly asked you to give us your honest views
on the West Bank issue, but you continue to duck
rather than giving us a straight answer.

If you're not gonna get real -- if you're not gonna be
honest -- then I won't waste my time on you.

DLS> My position has always been that both Israel and the
Palestinians have cognizable rights and interests in the West Bank
and that the conflicts arising from those interests should be
resolved by negotiation, not by force of arms.

That's such a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, fence-sitting
position that it doesn't really count as a real position.

Do you expect us to believe that you hold such a neutral
position on the issue of whether Israel should withdraw
all of its military forces and illegal settlements from the
West Bank?

I think you're ducking the issue. http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/3470/angryduckwv4.gif

It's clear from your posts that you're extremely pro-Zionist.
You're not neutral at all.

Let me know when you want to get honest and real.
Until then, you're just ducking.



DLS> All that is needed to establish the legality of the Jewish
communities in the West Bank is the fact that Israel has cognizable
rights and interests there.

In your 19th century colonial world, perhaps. But not
according to the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_446) which has stated in
no uncertain terms that the Jewish settlements
"have no legal validity and constitute a serious
obstruction to peace in the Middle East."

Do you disagree with the United Nations, David?



DLS> Your characterization of the creation of Israel as a “Jewish
demographic invasion and military conquest” is so far from the reality
that it needs to be addressed before proceeding.

So why didn't you address it?



BBT> Instead of jumping the gun and nitpicking the first four
sentences in my post, why don't you shut the fuck up and read
the rest of my post? Once you do that, you'll see that your
comment here is premature and absurd.

DLS> I read the rest of your post, BBT.

Then it's difficult to understand how you could make the
ridiculous false accusations you made about my first four
sentences.



BBT> David, we need to set some ground rules here. If you insist
on nitpicking every sentence, make sure your remarks aren't
completely stupid and a waste of time, because I don't have time
to rebut every stupid nitpicking comment you make.

DLS> Simple: don’t exaggerate, mischaracterize or invent facts
and I won’t have to call attention to your having done so.

It's obvious that you made ridiculous false accusations,
and it's easy to prove.



BBT> Better yet, why don't you hold off on nitpicking my arguments
until after you've presented some well-documented legal and moral
arguments of your own, explaining why you think Israel has stronger
legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the Palestinians have,
and why Israel shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the
West Bank?

DLS> Asked and answered, BBT. I don’t make those arguments.


I know you don't, David. You duck the issue. http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2479/daffyqi9.jpg



BBT> Until you do that, you're just parasitically feeding off my work.

DLS> If I was hungry, BBT, I wouldn’t feed on your so-called work.

If only it were true.



BBT> You accuse me of looking through the telescope from the wrong
end. That's funny. I'm looking through the telescope from the 21st
century end, but you insist on looking though the 19th century end
of the telescope.

DLS> And that is precisely proof of the error that you are making.
You take the Jewish immigration of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, but you take it out of the context of its time, to apply
what might happen today if the Jews only started coming now.
Assuming that today’s worldview wouldn’t permit it and is superior
(even morally) than the attitude that prevailed at the time of the
immigration, SO WHAT? At the relevant time, as I documented,
there was nothing immoral at all about the immigration.

On the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank,
the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_446) agrees with my position, not yours.

I can see why you keep trying to drag the debate back to
the 19th century. In the 21st century, the United Nations
is saying a big loud "NO!!" to Zionist demographic invasion
of the West Bank.



BBT> This whole long, drawn-out block of type boils down
to a set of facts that support one of my arguments:

Foreign colonial powers assisted the
Zionists in their demographic invasion
of Arab Palestine.

Thanks for the supporting facts.


DLS> All it proves is that your view depends on which end of the
telescope that you are using. The one used by the Allies and the Arab
leaders saw only good things to come from a Jewish state in Palestine.


They sure were wrong, weren't they, David? http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5682/doofusbc2.jpg

[David Lyle Segal]

BBT> OK, David, now you're just being an asshole. First you falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth and creating a straw man argument. It was easy for me to prove the falseness of your accusation by pointing to the words I actually wrote. All you can point to is your own self-deluded misinterpretation of what I wrote. I asked you to "please leave this type of worthless crap out of the debate." But what do you do? You compound your bullshit by making yet another false accusation: you accuse me of "changing without warning the subject from our earlier discussion."

That's not just absurd, David, it's dishonest. I didn't change the subject at all, and you damn well know it. All of my recent posts on this thread have been in support of the Palestinian claim to the West Bank and the removal of the illegal Jewish settlements. Where on earth do you get the gall to claim that I changed the subject?

Well, let’s review, shall we?

Strawman. Your messages have demanded that I make the “case supporting Israel's legal and moral claim to the West Bank.”

And (Message #53):

“the legal and moral arguments explaining why Israel has stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the Palestinians have, and why Israel shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the West Bank.”

I answered the first message through the terms of the agreements and UN resolutions that acknowledge that the border won’t be settled until it is negotiated. I objected to the second message on the grounds that I have never claimed that Israel’s claims are ‘stronger’ than those of the Palestinians. Your claim that I have argued that Israel’s claim is stronger is a strawman argument, by definition. I made no such argument. Much as your insults and clever animations encourage me to respond in kind, I’d prefer to treat the subject as a serious matter. Let me make it simple for you: I have no obligation to support an argument that I didn’t make.

About Me. You say that your ‘two sentences’ weren’t about me, yet they follow in a direct line from:

Message #41:

BBT> It's funny how you make the Zionists seem so innocent. You make it sound as though they came to Palestine in huge numbers with the intent to assimilate with the existing Arab Muslim majority, which would have meant that the Jews would be a minority governed by the Arab majority. …

And

BBT> Oh joy. Apparently I've aroused a tireless fanatic who wants to throw a truckload of verbiage at the issue.

Message #45:

BBT> It's ludicrous for you to suggest that the Jews didn't take any land by force or by removing any Arabs from land the Jews hadn't lawfully purchased.

And

BBT> Now I'd like to hear your case supporting Israel's legal and moral claim to the West Bank.

Now, BBT, each of these statements marks me as a Zionist who is making the case for the State of Israel. Are you following along? Now let’s examine the statement in Message #56 that you say wasn’t about me:

BBT> I felt a cold shiver as I read some Zionist legal arguments that attempt to justify the Jewish usurpation of Palestine. It became apparent that the Israeli position is essentially a smug belief that "Might Makes Right" and that Israel is entitled to any territory it can take by military force and demographic invasion.

Those are the famous two sentences, BBT. You say they aren’t about me, but in light of your earlier treatment of me, you don’t give any indication that that was true. In my response (Message #54), I allowed that “Now, you might be referring to other Zionists than me, but I rather doubt it.” Apparently, you take particular offense at the idea that you ‘changed the subject”. You led with me as your Zionist, and you shifted to some un-named Zionist when you felt the ‘cold shiver’.

Quite frankly, BBT, that was the only way to leave your statement with any dignity at all. The transition was seamless to you; but to any honest reader, it paints a clear line. Without it, you’re nothing but a coward, hiding from your own words when called on it. Take your choice. I’m only going to support my own arguments.

BBT> So let's recap: First you made one absurd false accusation. Then when I called you on it, instead of dropping the issue, you made yet another absurd false accusation. You've exceeded your quota of false accusations, David. I'm seeing a pattern here: even if it's obvious you're wrong, you shamelessly make further false accusations because it's more important for you to keep arguing than to be honest.

I don't have to 'accuse;, BBT. Your statements are on the record of our correspondence. You have tried to have me defend an argument that I didn’t make and you ducked the question when you were called on it. I am clear on my subject, BBT; apparently, you aren’t on yours.

BBT> I've dealt with people like that before. They're irritating and a waste of time. They like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Honesty is of secondary importance to them. I can see your real reason for obsessively focusing on my first four sentences: you don't want to deal with the bulk
of the arguments I offered in my fairly lengthy post.

In a word, BBT, Horseshit. Get back to me when you are in the mood to discuss serious subjects like an adult. I acknowledge Palestinians' interestsi n the West Bank just as I acknowledge Israel's. If you are so obsessed with defending the superiority of the Palestinians' rights, then make your case.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

TO BBT, Message #58:

DLS> I have never said that Israel has ‘stronger legal and moral claim[s] to the West Bank than the Palestinians’. That’s just another application of your strawman approach.
BBT> No, that's just you making another false accusation. I never claimed you made the statement above. I've repeatedly asked you to give us your honest views on the West Bank issue, but you continue to duck rather than giving us a straight answer.
I don’t argue that Israel’s claims are ‘stronger’ than the Palestinians’. If you had started out by asking for my views on the conflict, I would have been happy to respond, but I won’t let you put words in my mouth. Your statement,

I'm still waiting to hear your legal and moral arguments explaining why Israel has stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the Palestinians have, and why Israel shouldn't remove its illegal settlements from the West Bank.
puts words in my mouth that aren’t mine and dishonestly tries to force me to adopt your vocabulary in discussing the status of the disputed territories.

My view is that the Arabs put their own rights at risk in 1948 when they rejected the two-state plan in 1947 and tried to take away the Jews’ rights of self-determination by war. My view is that the Arabs are lucky that Israel didn’t simply annex the whole when it repelled the Arab attack in 1967 and drove the Jordanian army back across the river. My view is that the Arab attack gave Israel an equal claim to the whole until negotiations reveal which side of the border is Israel and which is the Arab state. My view is that the Palestinians have had the ability to negotiate the border since 1948, but have refused, since negotiating would mean that they accepted their defeat and now recognized Israel as a de jure state. My view is that, except for the illusory interlude of willingness to negotiate that they used to gain Arafat & Co’s entry into the West Bank, they still refuse to accept the reality of Israel. My view is that until they show that they are for real in accepting Israel’s presence, Israelis have the same rights to live in Judea and Samaria as do Palestinians.



David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #58:

DLS> My position has always been that both Israel and the Palestinians have cognizable rights and interests in the West Bank and that the conflicts arising from those interests should be resolved by negotiation, not by force of arms.
BBT> That's such a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, fence-sitting position that it doesn't really count as a real position. Do you expect us to believe that you hold such a neutral position on the issue of whether Israel should withdraw all of its military forces and illegal settlements from the West Bank?
Not wishy-washy at all, BBT. I’m very clear on my views and the legal and moral reasons for holding them. I believe agree that the Jewish communities in Samaria and Judea are as legal as any Palestinian community so long as their assignment to Israel or to the Arab state-to-come remains in doubt. I believe that Israel has the right and obligation to maintain her military forces anywhere that may become Israel in the negotiations. I believe that Israel has no legal or moral obligation to withdraw her military forces from anywhere that Palestinians work to threaten the safety of Israeli citizens.

You may not have much faith in negotiations, hence your preference for force in settling the issue. However, you’re all alone in that view. The negotiations path is the one chosen by the parties in 1948. It is the path prescribed by the UN Security Council in 1967. And it is the path prescribed in the Declaration of Principles in 1993.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #58:

DLS> All that is needed to establish the legality of the Jewish communities in the West Bank is the fact that Israel has cognizable rights and interests there.
BBT> In your 19th century colonial world, perhaps. But not according to the United Nations which has stated in no uncertain terms that the Jewish settlements "have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to peace in the Middle East." Do you disagree with the United Nations, David?
I disagree with the UN’s resolution #446. It was adopted under Chapter VI, and is therefore advisory, not compulsory. The UN doesn’t have the judicial authority to make a binding judgment on the question, only the political authority to express its views. As you have amply shown, opinions are like assholes; everyone has one.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #58:

BBT> You accuse me of looking through the telescope from the wrong end. That's funny. I'm looking through the telescope from the 21st century end, but you insist on looking though the 19th century end of the telescope.
DLS> And that is precisely proof of the error that you are making. You take the Jewish immigration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but you take it out of the context of its time, to apply what might happen today if the Jews only started coming now. Assuming that today’s worldview wouldn’t permit it and is superior (even morally) than the attitude that prevailed at the time of the immigration, SO WHAT? At the relevant time, as I documented, there was nothing immoral at all about the immigration.
BBT> On the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the United Nations agrees with my position, not yours. I can see why you keep trying to drag the debate back to the 19th century. In the 21st century, the United Nations is saying a big loud "NO!!" to Zionist demographic invasion of the West Bank.
1. If it were a ‘big loud NO’, it would have been issued under Chapter VII. It wasn’t.

2. The UN Resolution 446’s views on the Jewish communities outside the Green Line says nothing about the Jewish immigration before and during the British Mandate. Quite the contrary, the partition plan recognized the Jews’ right of self-determination and the UN has stuck to that position ever since.

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

DLS> About Me Me Me Me Me Me:

You say that your ‘two sentences’ weren’t about me me me me me,
yet they follow in a direct line from:

Message #41:

BBT> It's funny how you make the Zionists seem so innocent.
You make it sound as though they came to Palestine in huge numbers
with the intent to assimilate with the existing Arab Muslim majority,
which would have meant that the Jews would be a minority
governed by the Arab majority.

And

BBT> Oh joy. Apparently I've aroused a tireless fanatic who
wants to throw a truckload of verbiage at the issue.

Message #45:

BBT> It's ludicrous for you to suggest that the Jews didn't take
any land by force or by removing any Arabs from land the Jews
hadn't lawfully purchased.

And

BBT> Now I'd like to hear your case supporting Israel's legal
and moral claim to the West Bank.[/B]

Now, BBT, each of these statements marks me as a Zionist who is
making the case for the State of Israel. Are you following along?
Now let’s examine the statement in Message #56 that you say
wasn’t about me me me me me me:

BBT> I felt a cold shiver as I read some Zionist legal arguments
that attempt to justify the Jewish usurpation of Palestine. It became
apparent that the Israeli position is essentially a smug belief that
"Might Makes Right" and that Israel is entitled to any territory it can
take by military force and demographic invasion.

DLS> Those are the famous two sentences, BBT. You say they
aren’t about me me me me me me, but in light of your earlier
treatment of me me me me me me me, you don’t give any
indication that that was true. In my response (Message #54),
I allowed that “Now, you might be referring to other Zionists
than me me me me me me, but I rather doubt it.” Apparently,
you take particular offense at the idea that you ‘changed the
subject”. You led with me me me me me me as your Zionist,
and you shifted to some un-named Zionist when you felt the
‘cold shiver’.

Quite frankly, BBT, that was the only way to leave your statement
with any dignity at all. The transition was seamless to you; but to
any honest reader, it paints a clear line. Without it, you’re nothing
but a coward, hiding from your own words when called on it. Take
your choice. I’m only going to support my own arguments.
David,

This nitpicking marathon is getting creepy and tedious.
I can't believe that you're still obsessively attempting
to prove that your false accusation is true.



"I get heartburn every time I read anti-Zionists who put words
in my mouth, rather than respond to the arguments I actually
make. Now, you might be referring to other Zionists than me,
but I rather doubt it. Do you really need a strawman argument,
BBT? Can’t you make do with what’s in front you?"
You've combed through my past posts, looking for quotes
which you think are evidence proving that your accusation
is true.

But you missed the most important piece of evidence of all:
you missed the "QUOTATION BOXES."


The quotation boxes, David!

These funny little blue boxes where I can quote
one of your posts if I want to refer to something
you've written.

How could a smart lawyer like you have missed
the most important piece of evidence of all?

Frankly, I don't think you missed it -- you just
failed to mention it because it blows your case
out of the water.
While you were combing through my posts, you couldn't have
missed the fact that whenever I refer to a statement of yours,
I always use "quotation boxes."

I quoted you 10 times in Post #39 (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5260&postcount=39) and I used 10 quotation boxes.

I quoted you 3 times in Post #41 (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5268&postcount=41) and I used 3 quotation boxes.

I quoted you twice in Post #45 (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5284&postcount=45) and I used 2 quotation boxes.

But --

In Post #53 (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5312&postcount=53) -- the focus of your nitpicking marathon --
how many times did I quote you?

None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.




And how many quotation boxes did I use in Post #53 (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5312&postcount=53)?

None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
Ya see, David... http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9763/avatarcokebottleglassesvw4.jpg

Instead of playing your game (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5300&postcount=49) of going back and forth,
tediously nitpicking every frigging sentence posted by
Global Crier and myself, I bypassed your tedious posts (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5301&postcount=50)
entirely.

I did some research, then I wrote a "stand alone" essay (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5312&postcount=53)
in which I presented a set of arguments supporting my
pro-Palestinian views regarding the West Bank. I hoped
that you would present your own "stand alone" essay,
giving us a comprehensive detailing of your pro-Zionist
views regarding the West Bank, instead of just tediously
feeding off my work.

Not only did you fail to present your own "stand alone"
essay, you didn't even focus your response on answering
the serious arguments I raised. Instead you began your
response by making a stupid, offensive, false accusation
that my first two sentences mischaracterized something
you wrote (or didn't write) in a previous post somewhere.

Get a grip, David. Get in touch with the simple, obvious
reality that those first two sentences didn't refer to you
in any way whatsoever! In fact, I barely referred to you
at all in my rather lengthy post. (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5312&postcount=53) Go back and comb
through it, David. See for yourself.

In fact, the only direct reference I made toward you
was at the very end of my essay, in which I directly
addressed you by name and asked you NOT to just
tediously nitpick my arguments, but to come up with
some well-documented arguments of your own.

But of course, you did the exact opposite of what
I asked you to do. You wasted a couple of days
tediously and erroneously nitpicking the first two
sentences of my post and falsely accusing me of
mischaracterizing something you wrote.

Now I regret letting you suck me into this tedious,
demented game of yours. When I responded to
your false accusation the first time, (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5423&postcount=56) I assumed
that would be the end of it.

I made the mistake of assuming that you're a decent,
honest human being who, when confronted with the
glaringly obvious fact that your false accusation is
nothing more than an obsessively pursued, nitpicking
piece of worthless, self-deluded horseshit, you would
have the common decency to drop it.

Boy, was I wrong about that!

Instead it looks like you're intent on pursuing this
stupid offensive crap until the cows come home.

What's really ironic is that you falsely accused me
of mischaracterizing what you wrote, when in fact
you're the one who is guilty of mischaracterizing
what I wrote.

Well, here's little test of character, David. http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3043/avatar1296bi9.gif

I think I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that your false accusation is horseshit. This
should be the absolute end of your obsessive
pursuit of this matter. If you come back with
any further debate on this issue, then I'm not
sure if I'm willing to have anything further to
do with you.

Life's too short for me to waste it on trying
to correct false accusations you make.




In a word, BBT, Horseshit. Get back to me when you are in the
mood to discuss serious subjects like an adult. I acknowledge
Palestinians' interests in the West Bank just as I acknowledge
Israel's. If you are so obsessed with defending the superiority
of the Palestinians' rights, then make your case.
I did present my case, (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5312&postcount=53) David. Several days ago.
Apparently you were too busy pursuing your
false accusations to notice.

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #64:

BBT> I did present my case, David. Several days ago. Apparently you were too busy pursuing your false accusations to notice.

Please refer to my messages nos. 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62 and 63, all of which respond to the substance of your arguments against Israel.

In #49, I addressed your theory that the Jews shouldn’t have been given 50% of the land, since they only owned “8%” of it. I also addressed your mis-reliance on UNSC242 in regard to Israel’s occupation of the disputed territories and establishment of Jewish communities there, and your twisting of the ideas of repatriation and compensation.

In #50, I refuted your claim that I “believe that the Israelis don't have to leave the West Bank, and the Palestinians have no legal or moral claim to the West Bank as a Palestinian state”, your crocodile tears about the 1947 partition line, your mis-statement of the text of UNSC242, and your vaunted self-righteousness in regard to matters that you apparently haven’t studied. In short, I have made no such argument, it's decades too late for the Arabs to fall in love with the 1947 lines, and your judgment of the years before the 1948 was suffers from the flaw of anachronism.

In #51, I answered Global Crier’s questions on the topic.

In #54, I called your attention to the fact that you were mis-applying later political theories to earlier times.

In # 57, I not only dealt with your strawman argument technique, but directly (again) denied that I support the argument that “Israel has stronger legal and moral claim to the West Bank than the Palestinians have”. In short, I never said it and don’t believe it. Your repetition of the claim only compounds the factual error.

In #60, I gave my views on the question of how Israel came to have a interest in the disputed territories sufficient to permit occupation as well as the establishment of Jewish communities.

In #61, I gave my views on the occupation.

In #62 and 63, I gave my views on UNSC446 and its significance.

You may be very proud of your 'stand alone' essay, BBT, but that's not my take. IMV, it's a long string of invented falsehood, craven misdirection, and blind zealotry. I've been dealing with the issues you raised, not just the way you raise them.

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

Please refer to my messages nos. 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 60,
61, 62 and 63, all of which respond to the substance of
your arguments against Israel.
Yeah, I'll get right on it. http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8062/lol045no5.gif




Please refer to my messages nos. 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 60,
61, 62 and 63, all of which respond to the substance of
your arguments against Israel.

In #49, I addressed your theory that the Jews shouldn’t
have been given 50% of the land, since they only owned
“8%” of it. I also addressed your mis-reliance on UNSC242
in regard to Israel’s occupation of the disputed territories
and establishment of Jewish communities there, and your
twisting of the ideas of repatriation and compensation.

In #50, I refuted your claim that I “believe that the Israelis
don't have to leave the West Bank, and the Palestinians
have no legal or moral claim to the West Bank as a
Palestinian state”, your crocodile tears about the 1947
partition line, your mis-statement of the text of UNSC242,
and your vaunted self-righteousness in regard to matters
that you apparently haven’t studied. In short, I have made
no such argument, it's decades too late for the Arabs to fall
in love with the 1947 lines, and your judgment of the years
before the 1948 was suffers from the flaw of anachronism.

In #51, I answered Global Crier’s questions on the topic.

In #54, I called your attention to the fact that you were
mis-applying later political theories to earlier times.

In # 57, I not only dealt with your strawman argument
technique, but directly (again) denied that I support the
argument that “Israel has stronger legal and moral claim
to the West Bank than the Palestinians have”. In short,
I never said it and don’t believe it. Your repetition of the
claim only compounds the factual error.

In #60, I gave my views on the question of how Israel
came to have a interest in the disputed territories
sufficient to permit occupation as well as the
establishment of Jewish communities.

In #61, I gave my views on the occupation.

In #62 and 63, I gave my views on UNSC446 and its
significance.

You may be very proud of your 'stand alone' essay, BBT,
but that's not my take. IMV, it's a long string of invented
falsehood, craven misdirection, and blind zealotry. I've
been dealing with the issues you raised, not just the way
you raise them.

David Segal
All of this falls under the heading of "Who gives a fuck?" http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/905/smokinggirlcn8.gif
A few days ago, I might have cared.

You play too many games.

[David Lyle Segal]

BBT> "Who gives a fuck?"

Adults might.

David

[Betty Blowtorch]

Did you say something?


I can see your lips moving http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1847/talkinghead1zm1.gif
but I can't hear a word you're saying.

[David Lyle Segal]

Did you say something? I can see your lips moving http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1847/talkinghead1zm1.gif
but I can't hear a word you're saying.


Are you finished? Did you wipe yourself?

David

[Betty Blowtorch]

Are you finished? Did you wipe yourself?

David
I'm flattered by your sudden personal interest in my http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1197/05female051eb1.gif
bowel movements, David.

To be honest with you, I haven't had a good shit all day.
But when I do, I'll be happy to give you all the lurid details
if you like.

And I know you like it. http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/797/avatar4914kq3.gif

[exarmyranger]

Well so much for keeping emotionally driven personal attacks out of your posts...:talktothehand: I knew it would end up being a yo mama style argument,rather than a mature debate.All the time,effort to post historical facts,that may not have swayed the opposing opinion in your favour,but certainly lent creadence to your side of the debate.The factual data you used to strenghten,and echo your voiced opinion has been renderd mute,by one statement,your posted facts,and opinions were all for naught,as they have been over shadowed,and will soon be forgotten,with the possible exception of "WHO GIVES A FUCK".Well not me thats for sure,I 'm just bored.:sleep: g-nite grandma,g-nite grandpa,g-nite Johnboy...ex

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #53, continued...

BBT> Foreign colonial powers assisted the Zionists in their demographic invasion of Arab Palestine. Since the Muslims held an overwheming popular majority in Palestine for centuries, why didn't they stop the demographic invasion by Zionist Jews? The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion. The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right of the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion by foreign Jews. The British allowed the Zionists to flood Palestine with half a million foreign Jews. Was this fair to the existing Muslim majority? Of course not.

You are assuming facts not in evidence again. The fact is that the Muslims did not have the right to “violently” oppose anything. They were a defeated enemy, occupied by the victors. What they were entitled to was due process, and after being heard, they were obligated to abide by the decision of the authorities.

The Arabs of Palestine had their day in court at Paris in 1919. On July 2, 1919, they presented their opposition to Jewish immigration to the King-Crane Commission, which had been appointed to investigate the matter:

“7. We oppose the pretensions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country; for we do not acknowledge their title but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view.”

The King-Crane Commission report shows that they were heard:

“More than 72 per cent – 1350 in all – of the petitions in the whole of Syria [at the time, it was still an open question whether Palestine would be incorporated into Syria] were directed against the Zionist program. Only two requests – those for a united Syria and for independence – had a larger support.”

The commission also recognized the likelihood of a violent response, should the Balfour Declaration be made part of the Allies’ plans:

“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program.” “The Israel-Arab Reader”, Laquer and Rubin, editors.

Ultimately, the report recommended scrapping the idea of a Jewish state altogether and joining Palestine to Syria.

The following April, the San Remo Conference decided not to follow these recommendations and instead charged the British Mandatory authorities, “… while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced…”, with the responsibility to

“… facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and … encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes….” and to “…facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine”. Ibid.

I know that your sympathies are with the Arab population, BBT, but they lost the decision. The Jews could come. I don’t see why you think that they had the further right to resort to violence in order to try to countermand this decision. They didn’t. They were a defeated enemy. Their rights were limited to those granted by the Allies, and in light of the time and place, the right they were granted were enlightened when they didn't have to be.

BBT> One of the most important political trends of the 20th century was the overthrow of the European colonial system, replaced by the doctrine of self-determination and self-government for indigenous populations. The Arab majority in Palestine (and the surrounding regions) should have had the legal right to set immigration quotas for foreign Jews seeking to immigrate to Palestine.

Whatever right you think they should have had, they didn’t have this one. They had the right to agitate in support of their opposition; they had the right to continue to seek redress of their grievances, but they didn’t have the right to violently attack Jews, expel Jews, or dictate to the British Mandate its policies on Jewish immigration.

BBT> The Arab majority should have had the legal right to use any means necessary to deport excess foreign Jews, ESPECIALLY Zionists seeking to carve out a Jewish state in Arab territory. Britain, in its foreign colonial stupidity, threw common sense to the wind and allowed foreign Zionists to demographically invade Arab Palestine.

They didn’t have that right, either. They only had the right to be heard, and the obligation to abide by the decision by the duly constituted authorities. You are free, of course, to argue that the Allies didn’t have the authority to decide at all, and that the British Mandate was a legal nullity, but you haven’t raised this yet.

BBT> The Zionist demographic invasion turned into violent military conquest. The Jews are ultimately responsible for ALL of the violence which has occurred as a result of their demographic invasion of Palestine, which was the initial provocation that started the conflict. The indigenous Muslim majority was minding its own business until the Zionists flooded Palestine like a swarm of locusts, with the well-documented intention of taking over and establishing a Jewish state.

Your decision to absolve the Arabs and blame the Zionist organization for “all of the violence” is oblivious to the facts as they actually took place. For one thing, you can show any violence by Jews during the first half of the mandate and in any event, the Jews hardly “swarmed” at all. Annual Jewish immigration in the twelve years between 1920 and 1931 was below 15,000, excepting only 1925, when 33,801 Jews entered Palestine. I don’t see how you can justify the terrible pogroms and massacres that those years saw in Palestine. It sounds more like you are blaming the victim, not the perpetrators of outrageous, murderous violence against law-abiding immigrants.

More later…

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

Foreign colonial powers assisted the
Zionists in their demographic invasion
of Arab Palestine.

Since the Muslims held an overwheming popular majority in
Palestine for centuries, why didn't they stop the demographic
invasion by Zionist Jews?

The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews
were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion.

The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right of
the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion
by foreign Jews. The British allowed the Zionists to flood
Palestine with half a million foreign Jews.

Was this fair to the existing Muslim majority? Of course not.



You are assuming facts not in evidence again.
David,

I'm not clear on which of my sentences you're referring to.
You quoted a large block of my words that includes seven
sentences, two of which are questions, and I know you
weren't referring to those.

Please don't bore me with a long, drawn-out explanation.
Just quote the one or two specific sentences you were
referring to.

[David Lyle Segal]

BBT> You like to focus on the early days of Zionism as nothing more than peaceful, innocent immigration. The fact is: the Zionists were merely biding their time until they had sufficient numbers to establish a Jewish state and hold it by military force.

Whatever their plans were, BBT, they were law-abiding and peaceful. They acquired their lands by purchase. For money. From sellers (most of whom were Arab).

They certainly didn’t earn the kind of violence that police officer Raymond Cafferata testified about in his attempt to prevent the wiping out of the Jewish community in Hebron in August, 1929:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him."

Another Zionist-inspired oppression, I suppose? The Jewish response to this atrocity was to take all of their members out of Hebron. They couldn’t count on the British to assure their safety.

BBT> By 1940, Palestine had been flooded with half a million Jews. At that point, they began a campaign of Zionist terrorism followed by violent military force in 1948.

Yes, the 1930s saw Jews fleeing for their lives from Europe (I earlier gave your the 1920-1931 immigration statistics). The US and UK would only take a handful, and Palestine was officially open to their immigration. The numbers were hardly a ‘flood’, however. Here's the numbers, BBT. Read them and weep:

1931 4,075
1932 9,553
1933 30,327
1934 42,359
1935 61,854
1936 29,727
1937 10,536
1938 12,868
1939 16,405
1940 4,547
1941 3,647
1942 2,194
1943 8,507
1944 14,464
1945 12,032

As for your ‘campaign of Zionist terrorism’, perhaps you would be willing to provide some details. I certainly can, and my studies don’t support your conclusions in the least. In fact, they reveal an intentional preference for fantasy over reality in your case, but that’s hardly surprising, given your performance so far. You may be able to convince Ex Army Ranger with your entertaining smirking puppies, but you still can’t punch up a good fact-set when it comes to talking about what actually happened.

The 1936 – 1939 “Arab Revolt” was the event that finally drew the Jews to self-defense: a general Arab attack with little to no help from the British authorities. Sixteen years is a long time to hold your temper, BBT, in view of the consistent campaign of murder and terror from the Arab side. You’ll have to make the case for the Jews to have continued to let themselves be led to the slaughter.

The revolt began in April, 1936, with 17 Jews killed on the first day. The attacks continued until October, when a temporary peace was instituted between the Arabs and Jews. The following summer, the Peel Commission report was issued, recommending partition. The Arabs returned to the attack, which continued until early 1939. All in all, 415 Jews were killed by Arab fighters, most of them unarmed civilians. For a guy so supportive of Arab violence, you are surprisingly pacific when it comes to Jews protecting themselves.

BBT> The 1948 war established the Green Line as the de facto border of Israel. The Jews should have been satisfied with that border, considering that only 50 years earlier, there were only a measly 20,000 Jews in Palestine, and the new Jewish immigrants didn't have the strong roots in the region that the Arab Muslim majority maintained for centuries.

Would you puh-leeze pay attention to the history, BBT? It really happened. Your fantasies didn’t happen anywhere but in your self-delusion. You’ve reached the extremity of political analysis and have entered the zone of shameless fabrication.

The Green Line was NEVER a border, de facto or otherwise. Quite the contrary, it was explicitly not a border of any sort, but just the line where the soldiers stopped. A border could only be drawn by negotiations. Read the agreement, goddammit.

Despite this, Israel approached Jordan in the 1950s to convert the ceasefire line into a de jure border. The offer was refused on the grounds that to accept it would be tantamount to recognizing the Jewish state, a position which no Arab could permit himself to be placed in. If anyone is at fault for the Green Line not becoming the border, it is the Arabs, not the Jews. The Green Line became interesting to the Arabs only after they lost the West Bank and the Green Line was no longer their starting off point from which to ‘liberate’ all of Palestine. Until then, they insisted that the Green Line was no border at all, but just a ceasefire line.

Even so, the Palestinians could have realized the Green Line as their border with Israel had they acted quickly after the Six Day War. Instead, they chose the Three Noes approach: no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel, no peace with Israel, which persisted until the Declaration of Principles 27 years later. By then, there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West Bank.

More later…

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

David,

I'm not clear on which of my sentences you're referring to. You quoted a large block of my words that includes seven sentences, two of which are questions, and I know you weren't referring to those.

Please don't bore me with a long, drawn-out explanation. Just quote the one or two specific sentences you were referring to and leave out the ones you weren't referring to.

You can't expect me to respond to you if you're not precise and clear about which of my sentences you're referring to.

Now who's trying to be the lawyer around here, BBT? Don't be shy. I've quoted every one of your statements, and responded paragraph-by-paragraph. I can't help it if you can't follow. Others can. Re-read it out loud if you are having a tough time following the arguments. Maybe then you'll find the thread. I have no interest in teaching you the rudiments of explication.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #53:

BBT> Israel's refusal to comply with UNSC 242 is based on a tenuous legal argument that perverts the meaning of the English language. To justify Israel's defiance of UNSC 242, pro-Zionist legal "experts" have promoted one of the most hair-splitting, nitpicking, legalistic perversions in history:

They claim that UNSC 242 does NOT actually call for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." And why do they say that? Because there's no "the" in front of the word "territories."

Yup, that's it. That's their actual reasoning. They claim that because there's no "the" in front of "territories" the U.N. was NOT saying that Israel must withdraw from "all" of the territories -- they were saying that Israel doesn't have to withdraw from "any" of the territories until new borders and terms are negotiated and agreed upon.

And you wonder why people think lawyers and politicians are dishonest? This is a perfect example of how lawyers can take clear, unambiguous language and turn it upside-down, claiming that it means the opposite of what it says in plain English.

If the U.N. wanted Israel NOT to withdraw from the occupied territories until after new borders and terms are negotiated, then the U.N. would have written something like: "Israel does NOT have to withdraw from the occupied territories until after new borders are negotiated."

But that's not what the U.N. wrote. Immediately after Israeli armed forces invaded and occupied the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights in the 1967 war, the U.N. demanded the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

The intended meaning seems crystal clear to me, but then of course, I speak English. I don't speak Lawyer Bullshit.

I don’t know about ‘lawyer bullshit’, BBT, but yours is certainly classically smelly. In case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t used any logic or legal analysis at all, so you can put aside your assumption of the innate superiority of non-lawyers and instead use your brains like white folks. All I’ve done so far is address your statements of assumed facts. Not one statement of law, much less the self-invented universal laws of which you are sooo quick to congratulate yourself for having come up with from your own imagination. If there’s a “lawyer” around here, BBT, it’s you. I prefer to stick to the demonstrable facts.

Rather than impress us with your battery of rhetoric, why don’t you ask the people who wrote the words and voted for the resolution in the first place? Here, after all, are the words of the authors themselves:

Lord Caradon

1. The final draft was written by Lord Caradon. When later asked, “Would you say that there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from ‘occupied territories’ but not ‘the occupied territories’, he answered:

“…you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation. Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. … you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. … We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.” Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring-Summer, 1976, pp. 144-45.

Also, “We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... .” McNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978.

2. Lord Caradon was assisted by Walt Rostow, who was at the time a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School. At the time of the drafting of the resolution, he was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs.

“[I cannot] … see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.

While it’s apparent, BBT, that you can see how someone could theoretically argue that the UN said what it didn’t actually say, you have already absolved yourself from any obligation to have learned the history. Indstead, you rely instead exclusively on your rhetorical skills, as if they were a substitute for the facts. This isn’t some ‘lawyer bullshit’, BBT: the facts are what the facts are. The UN didn’t ‘demand the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces’. Your saying that it did is a LIE. And the UNSC didn’t demand any such thing on purpose. It takes a self-deluding cynic to think that he can make others believe what the record absolutely says is not so.

Walt Rostow went on in his article published in the “Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pp. 894 – 96:

“... the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.”
Hey, BBT: that’s what I have been saying. The ceasefire line isn’t a border. Pay attention. Maybe you’ll learn something (for once).[I]

... These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967.

[I]“This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” and not “from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word “the” failed in the Security Council. It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines.

In other words, BBT, my explication and analysis is precisely that of the authors of the UN resolution. Yours, on the other hand, springs forth naked and oblivious of useful study or intelligent consideration from your prejudgmental brow. Were I you, I’d probably look in my bag of idiotic images for a picture of a guy sitting in the corner wearing a dunce cap. I’ll pass on the frivolities and simply point out the self-gratifying narcissism that leads you to believe that your invented history is better than that which actually took place. In short, the facts make you liar.

As Dean Rostow told the Jerusalem Post on November 5, 1990,

“Those who claim that Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the point are either ignorant of the history of its negotiation or simply taking a convenient tactical position. “

There are other players who participated in the drafting of UNSC242, BBT. Would you like to hear from them, or are you still committed to your self-invented reconstruction of a history that never was? You may be able to convince XAR that you have something between your ears, but so far, you are nothing more than empty barrels. I hope that you are comforted by XAR's words of warm support. They're all you have.

More later…

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

Now who's trying to be the lawyer around here, BBT?
I'm not trying to be anything. I asked a very simple question
requiring a very simple answer. You don't even need to take
the time to formulate sentences of your own. I'm only asking
you to point out which of my sentences you were referring to
when you said "You are assuming facts not in evidence again."

It's very easy, David. Here are the sentences to choose from:



1) Foreign colonial powers assisted the
Zionists in their demographic invasion
of Arab Palestine.

2) Since the Muslims held an overwheming popular majority in
Palestine for centuries, why didn't they stop the demographic
invasion by Zionist Jews?

3) The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews
were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion.

4) The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right of
the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion
by foreign Jews.

5) The British allowed the Zionists to flood Palestine with half
a million foreign Jews.

6) Was this fair to the existing Muslim majority? Of course not.
I didn't present you with long blocks of verbiage to deal with.
I made it easy for you. All you have to do is pick a number.
One through six. Couldn't be easier.

Please give me an honest answer. Your previous response
was nothing but an evasion.

[David Lyle Segal]

The answer is:

"4) The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right of the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion by foreign Jews."

which you use to impart respectability to

"3) The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion."

The Muslim majority had no such right, as I explained. in the rest of the paragraph --

"The fact is that the Muslims did not have the right to “violently” oppose anything. They were a defeated enemy, occupied by the victors. What they were entitled to was due process, and after being heard, they were obligated to abide by the decision of the authorities. "

that you pretend doesn't explain the facts that you falsely assum.

Your other sentences merely distort the case with a zealot's eye.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #53:


BBT> Despite their complete lack of personal roots in Palestine, militant foreign Zionists believe that the Jews are entitled to control ALL of Palestine -- Eratz Israel (Greater Israel) -- and the Arab Muslims who have lived there for centuries deserve only the leftover table scraps.

Militants the world over have, by definition, maximalist ambitions. So what?


BBT> In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. In response, the U.N. Security Council passed UNSC Resolution 242 which called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

You edited the resolution to appear to say what it doesn’t say. What it says (in full) is:

The Security Council;
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

If you intend to use 242 in your arguments, you should at least have the honesty to recognize that:

1. The only action statement in the resolution are the requests to the Secretary General in the last two paragraphs. The earlier parts are the formulation of the land-for-peace formula that has guided the actors ever since. There are two parts to that formula: land and peace. You forgot the peace, BBT.

2. To say that Israel was ‘called’ on to withdraw from the West Bank is a rank distortion of what the resolution actually says. The recitation of the principle that Israel withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict” is bound (by the use of the word, “both”) to the principle that the fighting be terminated and that “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” be acknowledged. The one is conditioned on the other. The Arabs insisted that they would acknowledge no such thing. Instead, two months before 242 was passed, they agreed at Khartoum that no Arab state would recognize Israel, negotiate with Israel, or make peace with Israel. So long as peace is not proffered by the people who would remain there, Israel has no obligation to withdraw.

3. Each of the resolution’s three authors, Goldberg, Rostow and Caradon, confirms that it was never intended that Israel withdraw behind the Green Line. Instead, they anticipated that the peace agreement that is a necessary part to the withdrawal would draw a political border between Israel and the Arab state that would take shape. In fact, earlier versions of the resolution that dealt with the withdrawal issue in terms of “the June 4 lines” or to “the previous armistice lines” were voted down in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Abba Eban, “Personal Witness”, p. 457.

4. You need to make mention of the failure of the Arab belligerents to accept 242 or to otherwise move to make peace with Israel.


BBT> Not only did the Israelis refuse to withdraw, they began a demographic invasion of the occupied territories by establishing Jewish settlements there.

Doesn’t Israel do enough bad things that you don’t have to make things up, too?

First you claim that Israel is in violation of a provision that 242 simply doesn’t contain. Now you lie about Israel’s acceptance of the resolution. On June 19, 1967, a week after the fighting stopped (and five months before 242 was passed), Israel offered to withdraw in exchange for formal peace treaties. Each of the Arab states rejected the offer. When Gunnar Jarring was later dispatched by the UN to mediate a settlement under 242, they continued in their refusal. Even Israel’s offer to re-open the Suez Canal if Egypt would come to face-to-face talks was insufficient to help Jarring’s efforts gain traction. The Three Noes held all of the Arabs – even those in the West Bank – in its grip.

As to building Jewish communities in the West Bank, so what? The Arabs didn’t want even to speak with Israel, much less to engage in negotiations for the border. That was their choice; so long as the placement of the border remained uncertain, there is no reason that Israelis could not live there. As my mother once said, “You can’t ruin a bad reputation”. If that’s the way the Arabs want it, they can eat it.

Israel had no obligation to hold the disputed territories in some sort of trust for the Arabs, much less give deference to the Arab law that prescribes the death penalty for anyone who would sell land to a Jew. A treaty of genuine peace will sort out where the Jews may live. Until then, it’s open territory.

More later…

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #53 (final installment):

I'm thinking of a people and a place, BBT, which you might find germane to our discussion. For years, this people held fast to the belief that their knowledge of G-d was the 'true' vision of the Immanent. They call non-believers 'gentiles', from the Hebrew word that refers to tribes other than they. Even today, they consider themselves blessed with G-d's true message.

For long and many years, after their dispersal by superior military forces, they were despised in every community in which they sought to find a home. Even today, they are viewed with suspicion and doubt as to whether they hold more loyalty to country or their peculiar religion.

Non-believers often view their particular religious tenets with great suspicion and dread. On occasion, non-believers have passed laws that make their traditions illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.

At one time, their members were not merely ostracized, but even violently attacked, and as a result, they left their homes and villages and immigrated to a place where their leaders assured them they would find not only sanctuary from oppression, but the ability to direct their own lives according to their particular traditions.

There were already people living in the place they chose, however, and some of them had to leave their historic residences when the newcomers arrived and staked out their claims. Those who were displaced were people who didn't believe as the immigratns did. They resented -- sometimes violently -- their ambitions to create a state identified to their own sectarian image. They wanted to preserve the traditional ways of national identity for the land.

Does it upset you enough to insist that the immigrants I'm talking about must leave -- even after 100 years of residence -- in deference to the claims of those who lived there before them, and in some cases were displaced?

Or should they be permitted to stay where they decided to settle, to pursue their vision of their own state, so long as they grant reasonable deference to those of the indigenous who remained?

If you say that they should be permitted to stay, BBT, tell me on what terms. If you say that they have to leave, then tell me why.

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

TURD ALERT!!
TURD ALERT!!

The Shit Police have received an anonymous tip
that an incontinent asshole dumped a fresh pile
of warm, smelly shit somewhere on this forum.

Upon preliminary investigation, the Shit Police
determined that the shit in question is not just
your garden variety bullshit. It's the stinkiest
kind of shit there is: pompous lawyer bullshit.

The amount of shit is too much for the police
to handle, so they called for backup:

THIS IS A JOB FOR...
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8056/superpooperscoopermanot3.jpg
SUPER POOPER
SCOOPER MAN!!

Have no fear -- I am here!

I will hunt down the offensive pile of shit
and expose it to public humiliation, thereby
rendering it powerless to do further harm.



FIRST
I MUST







TRACK DOWN







THE PILE
OF SHIT.







I KNOW
IT'S CLOSE.






I CAN SMELL IT.




THE STEAMY




REEKING




STENCH




OF DECAYING




LAWYER




BULLSHIT:


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4551/dogshitfreshtm8.png
You are assuming facts not in evidence again.

The fact is that the Muslims did not have the
right to violently oppose anything. They were
a defeated enemy, occupied by the victors.
What they were entitled to was due process,
and after being heard, they were obligated
to abide by the decision of the authorities.

I made a simple, truthful statement of fact:



The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews
were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion.

The truth of my statement is undeniable. David Segal
has introduced facts in evidence (Arab revolt, etc.)
that clearly support and prove my statement that
the Muslims violently opposed the Zionist invasion.

Instead of attempting to refute the undeniable truth
of my statement, David used the deceptive technique
of introducing his own straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) and then
attacking that, instead of trying to refute the truth of
my original statement.

And what was David's straw man argument?

He changed my factually truthful statement into a
straw man argument about whether or not the Muslims
had the right to violently oppose the Zionist invasion,
which is an entirely separate argument, and not one
which I raised.

So, after changing my true statement into his own
straw man argument, David had the gall to accuse
me of "assuming facts not in evidence" -- when
in fact he himself has introduced facts in evidence
that prove the truth of my original statement.

David's mental sloppiness truly boggles the mind.
Apparently he jumbled a couple of my sentences
together and came up with his own very special
misinterpretation of what I wrote:



The answer is:

"4) The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right
of the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion
by foreign Jews."

which you use to impart respectability to

"3) The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews
were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion."

The Muslim majority had no such right, as I explained in the rest
of the paragraph --

"The fact is that the Muslims did not have the right to “violently”
oppose anything... blah blah blah...


CONGRATULATIONS
DAVID LYLE SEGAL
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2210/dogshitrealcz3.jpg
Winner of the 2007 Lawyer Bullshit Award


David,

When you try to impress us with Lawyer Bullshit
terminology, you should probably try a little harder
to get it right. Because when you get it wrong,
it makes you look like a

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2544/sassherope5.jpg

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT, Message #81:

BBT> TURD ALERT!! TURD ALERT!! ...

Damn. Now I've gone and upset you. You were doing so well for awhile there, but now that old hysteria demon has returned and taken over your equilibrium.

I realize how disappointing it must be for your magnum opus (Message #53) to be exposed for the illusions, delusions, and outright fabrications it represents. After all, you obviously toiled long and hard to try to convince people that the cruel Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy had manipulated the world's major powers to snatch self-determination from the Arabs of early 20th Century Palestine.

You must have been pleased with yourself for coming up with 'demographic invasion', for example, when you refer to the lawful immigration of refugees from foreign oppression. Your imagery is so much more effective in painting the Jews as shock troops intent on ejecting the Arabs from their landholdings.

I've now responded in detail to each and every one of the paragraphs in #53. You have yet to reply in substance. Instead, you have just reached into your toilet before your mother could flush your prodigious output. Wouldn't it be better to debate whether your fact-set or mine is the accurate one? We can get to beliefs and political theory only after the facts have been settled.

David Segal

[exarmyranger]

The former Persian Empire,Iran adopted its present name in 1935.A powerfull Empire under Cyrus the Great(600-529 bc)before falling to Alexander the Great (in 328 bc).Alot of things have changed since Alexander ran the show...they tend to piss off western democracy's,and hold a deep hate toward all who are not of the Islamic faith.What in the @%#!@ this has to do with the topic,I do'nt know...but I'll let you know if I remember what point I was going make...t/c ex

[Betty Blowtorch]

I've now responded in detail to each and every one
of the paragraphs in #53.
And I'm very flattered that you devoted more than a dozen
lengthy posts over the past 10 days to an in-depth critique
of each and every one of the paragraphs in my post #53.

It's a little weird and obsessive, but I guess I had you pegged
correctly in my earlier post:



Oh joy.

Apparently I've aroused a tireless fanatic http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5092/avatarcatchasenl5.gif
who wants to throw a truckload of verbiage
at the issue.

With all the verbiage you crank out, it seems like
you have difficulty telling the truth:



You have yet to reply in substance.
Are you blind, David? http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1120/avatarcokebottleglassesap5.jpg

I replied in substance to the first paragraph of the first post
in the latest batch of posts you submitted.

Apparently you missed it, so I'll give it to you again:


BULLSHIT:


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4551/dogshitfreshtm8.png
You are assuming facts not in evidence again.

The fact is that the Muslims did not have the
right to violently oppose anything. They were
a defeated enemy, occupied by the victors.
What they were entitled to was due process,
and after being heard, they were obligated
to abide by the decision of the authorities.

I made a simple, truthful statement of fact:



The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews
were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion.

The truth of my statement is undeniable. David Segal
has introduced facts in evidence (Arab revolt, etc.)
that clearly support and prove my statement that
the Muslims violently opposed the Zionist invasion.

Instead of attempting to refute the undeniable truth
of my statement, David used the deceptive technique
of introducing his own straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) and then
attacking that, instead of trying to refute the truth of
my original statement.

And what was David's straw man argument?

He changed my factually truthful statement into a
straw man argument about whether or not the Muslims
had the right to violently oppose the Zionist invasion,
which is an entirely separate argument, and not one
which I raised.

So, after changing my true statement into his own
straw man argument, David had the gall to accuse
me of "assuming facts not in evidence" -- when
in fact he himself has introduced facts in evidence
that prove the truth of my original statement.

David's mental sloppiness truly boggles the mind.
Apparently he jumbled a couple of my sentences
together and came up with his own very special
misinterpretation of what I wrote:



The answer is:

"4) The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right
of the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion
by foreign Jews."

which you use to impart respectability to

"3) The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews
were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion."

The Muslim majority had no such right, as I explained in the rest
of the paragraph --

"The fact is that the Muslims did not have the right to “violently”
oppose anything... blah blah blah...

That's my substantive assessment of your "assuming facts
not in evidence" crap.

All the rest of it -- Super Pooper Scooper Man and the
SWEATY Horse's Ass -- are just the fun part. I guess
you were having so much fun reading it, you missed the
substantive part. Oh well.

I'm going to go down the line, replying in substance to
your posts, as I find the time to do so. I have to work
for a living so I don't have a lot of time to devote to it,
but I'll get to it as I find the time.




Damn. Now I've gone and upset you. You were doing
so well for awhile there, but now that old hysteria demon
has returned and taken over your equilibrium.
Hysteria demon? http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/2670/gollumru9.gif

Do you also believe in Santa Claus
and the Easter Bunny?

[exarmyranger]

Do you also believe in Santa Claus
and the Easter Bunny?[/QUOTE]:hi: Yo BBT,I have a question or two.First are you aware D.L.Segal,Esq.is,or was,a member of the Hebrew faith?(By choice,or birth,I'm not sure)If you were aware...then reguardless of what religious,political,stance you assume,pro.Hebrew/Israel,or pro.Islam (Shi'ah,Sunni,ect.)or your personal opinion of D.L.'s mental functionality,or lack of it,in this debate...I would like to point out that Santa Claus i.e.Christmas,is not a Holy Day,and is,not celebrated,or believed to be J.C.'s "B."day.The same thing,(and I tend to agree)with the Easter Bunny i.e.Easter Sunday.the Hebrew/Jewish people do not denie a man called Jesus once lived :thumbsup: They do not however believe he was the son of God,or that he rose three days after his death,and ascended unto Heaven.As Easter is a Christian Holy Day,comemerating his resurection/ascention to Heaven,and as far as I know since there is no such thing as a Kosher Easter Basket...That rules out the Easter Bunny...as well. :talktothehand: any belief,or celebraition based on a Christian Holy Day,as reffered to in the New Testament (Strange but the Old Testament is substantially the Hebrew Bible)is forbbiden by the Talmud.Please do Carry-On...:cool: ex.

[David Lyle Segal]

To BBT (#85):

Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal

I've now responded in detail to each and every one of the paragraphs in #53.

BBT> And I'm very flattered that you devoted more than a dozen lengthy posts over the past 10 days to an in-depth critique of each and every one of the paragraphs in my post #53. It's a little weird and obsessive, but I guess I had you pegged correctly in my earlier post:

Quote: Originally Posted by Betty Blowtorch

Oh joy. Apparently I've aroused a tireless fanatic who wants to throw a truckload of verbiage at the issue.

You pegged nothing, BBT. In Message 64 you wrote:

BBT> I did some research, then I wrote a "stand alone" essay in which I presented a set of arguments supporting my pro-Palestinian views regarding the West Bank. I hoped that you would present your own "stand alone" essay, giving us a comprehensive detailing of your pro-Zionist views regarding the West Bank, instead of just tediously feeding off my work. … Go back and comb through it, David. See for yourself.

Will you please make up your mind? I merely answered your so-called ‘essay’ in separate installments, rather than all at once. There were several topics raised by you, and given that I intended to document my responses, it would have been foolish to put them all into one long answer.

BBT> With all the verbiage you crank out, it seems like you have difficulty telling the truth:
Quote: Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
You have yet to reply in substance.

Are you blind, David? I replied in substance to the first paragraph of the first post in the latest batch of posts you submitted. Apparently you missed it, so I'll give it to you again: BULLSHIT:

I’m sure that your obsession with the scatological is wonderfully fascinating to your analyst, but I’m not moved by juvenile outbursts, only responses that address the issues on the table. Take the following exchange, which you are apparently unable to comprehend enough to offer a useful response:

Quote: Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal

You are assuming facts not in evidence again. The fact is that the Muslims did not have the right to violently oppose anything. They were a defeated enemy, occupied by the victors. What they were entitled to was due process, and after being heard, they were obligated to abide by the decision of the authorities.

BBT> I made a simple, truthful statement of fact: Quote: Originally Posted by Betty Blowtorch

The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion.

The truth of my statement is undeniable. David Segal has introduced facts in evidence (Arab revolt, etc.) that clearly support and prove my statement that the Muslims violently opposed the Zionist invasion. Instead of attempting to refute the undeniable truth of my statement, David used the deceptive technique of introducing his own straw man argument and then attacking that, instead of trying to refute the truth of my original statement. And what was David's straw man argument? He changed my factually truthful statement into a straw man argument about whether or not the Muslims had the right to violently oppose the Zionist invasion, which is an entirely separate argument, and not one which I raised.

1. I didn’t deny that they Arabs acted against the Jews with violence. That they did is obvious from all the Jewish bodies they left in their wake.

2. What I did deny is that they were justified in responding with murderous violence. You implied that they were justified by concocting the idiot idea that they had the right not to have Jews move into Palestine in the first place.

3. Somehow, you seem to think that your message is limited to your precise words. That may play among the shit-obsessed, but (I hope) not to anyone in this forum. They can see the message carried by your words, just as easily as I did when I pointed them out.

BBT> So, after changing my true statement into his own straw man argument, David had the gall to accuse me of "assuming facts not in evidence" – when in fact he himself has introduced facts in evidence that prove the truth of my original statement.

That's not 'gall', BBT. "Gall" is when you expect close attention to messages to which you attach pictures of hardons and piles of horseshit. This is a supposedly adult discussion about real people with real lives in the balance, BBT. Grow the fuck up.

The fact that you assumed, BBT, was that the Arabs had the right to respond to Jewish immigration with violence. They didn’t have that right. If you want to make the case for cutting off Jewish children’s heads, please be my guest. Others nastier even that you have tried to step up to the plate on that one.

BBT> David's mental sloppiness truly boggles the mind. Apparently he jumbled a couple of my sentences together and came up with his own very special misinterpretation of what I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal

The answer is: "4) The British and the Allies, however, disregarded the right of the Muslim majority to be safe from a demographic invasion by foreign Jews." which you use to impart respectability to "3) The fact is: as soon as the Muslims realized what the Jews were up to, they VIOLENTLY opposed the Zionist invasion."

The Muslim majority had no such right, as I explained in the rest of the paragraph -- "The fact is that the Muslims did not have the right to “violently” oppose anything... blah blah blah...

[B]BBT> That's my substantive assessment of your "assuming facts not in evidence" crap.

Your obsession with shit is already well-established, BBT. Your interest in useful debate is still out with the jury.

BBT> All the rest of it -- Super Pooper Scooper Man and the SWEATY Horse's Ass -- are just the fun part. I guess you were having so much fun reading it, you missed the substantive part. Oh well.

Scatological humor is your bailiwick, BBT, not mine. I’m concerned with the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.

BBT> I'm going to go down the line, replying in substance to your posts, as I find the time to do so. I have to work for a living so I don't have a lot of time to devote to it, but I'll get to it as I find the time.

Your precious time is of no interest to me, BBT. I work, too. Either you’ve got the guns, or you don’t. If you want me to answer your ‘essays’, then I expect you to have the guts to stand behind them when challenged. After all, your facts are wrong and your political theories are morally (not to mention legally) bankrupt.

Quote: Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal

Damn. Now I've gone and upset you. You were doing so well for awhile there, but now that old hysteria demon has returned and taken over your equilibrium.

BBT> Hysteria demon? Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

What I believe is that your views on Israel and the Palestinians are a hodgepodge of infantile delusion and bitter ignorance. What I believe is that you are so enamored of your ability to tell slick stories that you have lost your attachment to honesty. What I believe, BBT, is that your graphic onanism has overtaken your senses. Sprinkling outrageous images all over the post is not a substitute for solid evidence.

David Segal

[exarmyranger]

Hear!Hear! David Lyle...or in a more current form/venacular..."GO DA---VID,GO DA---VID.lol ex

[Betty Blowtorch]

I made a straightforward statement of fact:



The 1948 war established the Green Line as the
de facto border of Israel.
This is such a straightforward, factually truthful statement,
it didn't occur to me that anyone would attempt to refute it.
But here is David Lyle Segal's bizarre, strident response:



Would you puh-leeze pay attention to the history, BBT?
It really happened. Your fantasies didn’t happen anywhere
but in your self-delusion. You’ve reached the extremity of
political analysis and have entered the zone of shameless
fabrication.
David,

This is a very weird, bizarre thing for you to say. You're
claiming that my statement about the Green Line border
is a self-delusional fantasy. You claim that I've reached
"the extremity of political analysis and entered the zone
of shameless fabrication."

I don't know what planet you're on, dude. http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4687/gnomejw4.gif
Let's take a moment to analyze your analysis.



The Green Line was NEVER a border, de facto or otherwise.
Here's the real problem, David: you don't understand the
definition of "de facto" as opposed to "de jure."

De facto means: "serving a function without being legally
or officially established."

De jure means: "according to law."

Under these definitions, there can be no dispute that the
Green Line was the de facto border of Israel from 1949
until the six-day war in 1967.

Here's a map of Israel during the period of 1949-1967.
The borderlines shown on the map are the Green Line.

Are you going to accuse the mapmaking company of
creating a shameless fabrication and self-delusional
fantasy?

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9546/palestinemap1949herorespc9.jpg

David,

You started your post by accusing me of self-delusional
fantasy and shameless fabrication because I made the
statement that "the 1948 war established the Green Line
as the de facto border of Israel."

Instead of proving that the Green Line was NOT the
de facto border, you made the absurd argument that
because no de jure border was negotiated or agreed
upon, the 1949 ceasefire/armistice lines didn't serve
as the de facto border, when in fact that is precisely
the function they served from 1949 to 1967.

If you're unclear, David, just look at the map again.
That's a real map of Israel between 1949 and 1967.
The map is reality, David.

The convoluted logic inside your head http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2981/crazygirldk9.gif
is a whole different matter.

[Betty Blowtorch]

As for your ‘campaign of Zionist terrorism’, perhaps you would
be willing to provide some details.
I already did. I guess you missed it. http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7285/eyesph9.gif
Maybe you should pay closer attention.




As for your ‘campaign of Zionist terrorism’, perhaps you would be
willing to provide some details. I certainly can, and my studies
don’t support your conclusions in the least. In fact, they reveal
an intentional preference for fantasy over reality in your case,
but that’s hardly surprising, given your performance so far. You
may be able to convince Ex Army Ranger with your entertaining
smirking puppies, but you still can’t punch up a good fact-set
when it comes to talking about what actually happened.

It's irritating when you demand details after I've already
provided the details you're demanding.

It's especially irritating when you babble on and on
as though I haven't already given you the details
you're babbling about.

It was right there under your nose. http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5505/03jajcarne010qh8.jpg
You should have clicked on Zionist terrorism (http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestine/jewish-terrorism.htm)
in Post #53. (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5312&postcount=53)

[Betty Blowtorch]

The Arabs of Palestine had their day in court at Paris in 1919.
On July 2, 1919, they presented their opposition to Jewish
immigration to the King-Crane Commission, which had been
appointed to investigate the matter:

“We oppose the pretensions of the Zionists to create a
Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known
as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our
country; we do not acknowledge their title but consider them
a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and
political points of view.”
This is excellent stuff, David. I'm glad you posted it.

It's sad, heartbreaking. Way back in 1919, the Arab Muslims
in Palestine and Syria accurately predicted the holocaust that
the foreign Zionist invaders would bring to the Arab Palestinian
homeland. The Arabs living in Palestine and surrounding regions
accurately perceived the Zionist invaders as a "grave peril
to our people from the national, economical and political
points of view."

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6372/israelisoldiersontankal1.jpg

The Arabs pleaded with the British and the Allies NOT to
allow further demographic invasion of Palestine by foreign
Zionist invaders intent on carving a Jewish state out of
the heart of the Arab Palestinian homeland.

Unfortunately the Allies ignored the will of the indigenous
Arab majority in favor of the foreign Zionist invaders.

As you pointed out:



The following April, the San Remo Conference decided not
to follow these recommendations and instead charged the
British Mandatory authorities, “… while ensuring that the
rights and position of other sections of the population are
not prejudiced…”, with the responsibility to

“… facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions
and … encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency …
close settlement by Jews on the land, and to “…facilitate
the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who
take up their permanent residence in Palestine”.
Thank you for providing this supporting material to prove
the truth of one of the arguments I made in Post #53: (http://dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=5312&postcount=53)

Foreign colonial powers assisted the
Zionists in their demographic invasion
of Arab Palestine.

It's ironic that you tried so hard to come up with facts
to disprove my argument, but instead you ended up
proving that it's true.

[exarmyranger]

I'm sure the League of Nation's,had some reason when they mandated the former Turkish province of Palestine,to Britian in 1920,and as you(BBT)pointed out,against the wishes/wants of the Arab,mainly Sunni Muslim population.So it remained untill May 1948 when Israel declared independence.The green line(s) were estabilished at the time to allow the Hebrew's to plant 1,000's of trees,cultivate food crops,and enrich the eco system(s)without anymore Jewish,or Arab/Muslim bloodshed,that had been and still was being shed by both over border disputes...post 1967,real walls,began replacing imaginary green lines on a map.Update to 1991 the population of Israel was close to 5 million people...82% Jewish,18% Arab/Sunni Muslim,Christian,or Druze.I retired that year...and untill recently tried harder to forget what I know,of the tensions in Palestine.To quote Ghandi,in part (TY Stefan) "what difference does it make to the dead" ex

[David Lyle Segal]

Quote: Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal

The Arabs of Palestine had their day in court at Paris in 1919. On July 2, 1919, they presented their opposition to Jewish immigration to the King-Crane Commission, which had been appointed to investigate the matter:

“We oppose the pretensions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country; we do not acknowledge their title but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view.”

BBT> This is excellent stuff, David. I'm glad you posted it.

Always happy to help out, BBT.

BBT> It's sad, heartbreaking. Way back in 1919, the Arab Muslims in Palestine and Syria accurately predicted the holocaust that the foreign Zionist invaders would bring to the Arab Palestinian homeland. The Arabs living in Palestine and surrounding regions accurately perceived the Zionist invaders as a "grave peril to our people from the national, economical and political points of view."

What ‘holocaust’ are you talking about, BBT? What “invaders”? You’re so quick on the draw with graphic imagery, but your word pictures are nothing but lies. In 1919, the Jewish immigrants were unarmed, law-abiding and peaceable. They offered no violence, no holocaust. They continued for the next 17 years to obey the law and to refrain from violence, even in the teeth of Arab mobs continually whipped up by Arab leaders to wipe them out, until the 1936 Arab Revolt’s widespread war and the British Mandatory’s ineffectiveness left them no choice but self-defense. If there was a ‘holocaust’ in the offing, it was Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s plan for the Jews; the Arabs were NEVER in any danger at all.

BBT> The Arabs pleaded with the British and the Allies NOT to allow further demographic invasion of Palestine by foreign Zionist invaders intent on carving a Jewish state out of the heart of the Arab Palestinian homeland. Unfortunately the Allies ignored the will of the indigenous Arab majority in favor of the foreign Zionist invaders.

Ah, yes, the dreaded “foreign Zionist invaders’. What could be more horrifying? Get a life. Better yet, get a book.

BBT> As you pointed out: Quote: Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
The following April, the San Remo Conference decided not to follow these recommendations and instead charged the British Mandatory authorities, “… while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced…”, with the responsibility to “… facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and … encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency … close settlement by Jews on the land, and to “…facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine”.

BBT> Thank you for providing this supporting material to prove the truth of one of the arguments I made in Post #53:

Foreign colonial powers assisted the Zionists in their demographic invasion of Arab Palestine. It's ironic that you tried so hard to come up with facts to disprove my argument, but instead you ended up proving that it's true.

What is dismaying, BBT, is that your ideology (“foreign colonial powers”, “demographic invasion”, Good Grief) keeps you from taking in the information that which you read.

I’m not afraid of the facts as they actually unfolded (in fact, your unfamiliarity with the facts I brought is very telling about your study of the subject). Your problem is that you can’t muster the imagination to see the facts in their actual circumstances. You stop at the push for Jews to immigrate to Palestine. To you, that’s the crime. The Jews are coming! Who would think? What else do you need?

David Segal

[Betty Blowtorch]

The King-Crane Commission... recognized the likelihood of
a violent response, should the Balfour Declaration [British
support of Zionism] be made part of the Allies’ plans:

“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact
that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense
and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by
the commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be
carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally
thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers
would be required even to initiate the program.”
This is great stuff, David. Very revealing indeed.

It reveals that, as early as 1919, British officers in Palestine
could see that the Zionist program was not just an innocent
immigration of foreign Jews wanting to peacefully assimilate
with the existing Arab population.

The Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state on Arab turf,
and the British officers could see there would be big trouble
between the Zionists and the Arabs.

The British officers believed that the Zionist program could
be carried out only by force of arms -- a force of at least
50,000 soldiers would be required.

There was no way in hell that the Zionists could expect to
create a Jewish state in Arab Palestine without ultimately
having to take it by force of arms.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8779/israelitankdesertdj3.jpg

The British officers were accurate in their prediction that
the Zionists would have to muster a force of 50,000 men.
In fact the Zionists raised an army of 45,000 soldiers to
establish and defend the state of Israel by force of arms
in 1948-1949.

All of your so-called "innocent, law-abiding immigration"
was just the prelude to the inevitable military showdown
between the Zionists and the Arabs.

The early "innocent, law-abiding" phase of Zionism was
the gradual buildup of the Jewish population in Palestine
to the point where the Jews had sufficient numbers and
strength to establish and defend their Jewish state.

As early as 1919, the British officers could see that the
only way the Zionist program could ultimately achieve
its goal of a Jewish state was by force of arms.

I know you like to blame those bad old Arabs because
they didn't let the Zionists take Palestine without a fight,
but the Zionists are the ones who invaded Arab turf.
The Arabs didn't invade Jewish turf.

The "peaceful, innocent" phase of Zionism is inextricably
linked to the aggressive, militaristic aspect of Zionism.
They're two sides of the same coin.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2642/israelisoldierstankpovma6.jpg
Zionism

[Betty Blowtorch]

What is dismaying, BBT, is that your ideology
(“foreign colonial powers”, “demographic invasion”, Good Grief)
keeps you from taking in the information that which you read.
I have no difficulty taking in the information "that which"
I read. In fact, I couldn't help noticing that you made a
grammatical error by using "that" and "which" together
when you should just use one or the other.


See how observant I am? http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3166/avatarhaydenbulletxj1.jpg


So don't fret, David, I'm taking in the information
"that which" you write. I just wish you would do
the same. It seems like you read what I write and
come up with your own creative interpretations.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/710/dogshit5jq4.jpg


As for the question of ideology, let's be honest:
between the two of us, you're clearly the ideologue.

I'm not Muslim, Jewish or Christian. I bring no religious
or ethnic bias to this debate.

You're a Jewish lawyer who strongly advocates Zionism
and the Zionist state of Israel.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9030/palestiniansisraelisoldce2.jpg

I grew up believing the mainstream American view
that the Israelis are heroic underdogs who survived
and prospered despite overwhelming opposition from
belligerent Arab neighbors.

But then I read some books on the Arab-Israeli issue
written from the Palestinian point of view. Now I see
Israel for what it really is: an aggressive, nationalistic,
militaristic, high-security fortress armed to the teeth
with high-tech weapons of war, including an arsenal
of hundreds of nuclear warheads.

I see Zionism as extremely dangerous and ambitious.
I see the Palestinians as victims.

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/2381/palestinianvictims5zp1.jpg

[David Lyle Segal]

BBT> This is great stuff, David. Very revealing indeed. It reveals that, as early as 1919, British officers in Palestine could see that the Zionist program was not just an innocent immigration of foreign Jews wanting to peacefully assimilate with the existing Arab population. The Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state on Arab turf, and the British officers could see there would be big trouble between the Zionists and the Arabs.

The British officers believed that the Zionist program could be carried out only by force of arms -- a force of at least 50,000 soldiers would be required. There was no way in hell that the Zionists could expect to create a Jewish state in Arab Palestine without ultimately having to take it by force of arms.


Yes, that was certainly the advice of the British military officers who spoke with the King-Crane people at the time. I’m surprised that you aren’t intimately familiar with the report, BBT, given your cloak of authority on Middle East subjects.

I’m not surprised, however, that you are brazenly feeding off my work, given how much you have so egregiously misplaced reliance on it. It’s apparent from your misconstructions that you know absolutely nothing more about the King-Crane investigation and report than that which I fed to you, much less about the political circumstances of the end of the war and the operations of the Paris Peace Conference.

Political decisions were neither the British military officers’ nor King-Crane’s to make. Those who were authorized to actually make the decision believed differently. They relied on the assurances of Arab leaders like Emir Feisal that a Jewish state was entirely acceptable. In his letter to Felix Frankfurter, he wrote (March 13, 1919):

“We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

In fact, he could have very well had you in mind when he continued:

“People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for co-operation of the Arabs and Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital out of what they call our differences.

I can’t imagine anyone in shorter pants than you on this subject. It’s far more complex than even King-Crane would have you believe, but here you’ve gone off on a frolic of your own without any understanding of the times, the people, or the resources available to them at the time. What a parasite on my work you’ve become! They didn’t know the future, BBT; you’re so blinded by it that you are prepared to pretend that you can go back to 1919 and overrule their decisions. Grow up.

Feisal, who was “Mr Arab” at the time, closed on an nquestionably optimistic note about the ultimate outcome:

“I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of civilised peoples of the world. “

Feisal's advice carried the day at Paris and at San Remo. King-Crane and the British officers didn't have the gravitas to overcome it.

BBT> The British officers were accurate in their prediction that the Zionists would have to muster a force of 50,000 men. In fact the Zionists raised an army of 45,000 soldiers to establish and defend the state of Israel by force of arms in 1948-1949. All of your so-called "innocent, law-abiding immigration" was just the prelude to the inevitable military showdown between the Zionists and the Arabs.

G-d bless you, BBT. If you weren't here, I'd have to invent an ignoramus of your station, just so I could make the case for Jews living without having to beg for their lives.

The only thing that made the 1948 war inevitable was the inadmissible refusal of the Arabs to grant the Jews the right of self-determination in the part of Palestine where Jews were in the majority. Your image of ’45,000 soldiers’ would be hilarious to anyone who is familiar with the history if it weren’t so ignorant. 1948 was a defensive war, with Jews staving off annihilation, not out conquering Arab lands for expansion. For you to argue otherwise is simply ignorantly gullible, if not consciously dishonest.

The Jewish forces were brilliantly led by a tiny cadre of men who had served in the Allied armies in WWI and WWII. Even so, there were terrible defeats, one of them the destruction of three attempts to take the fort at Latrun, in which a friend of mine took part.

Most of the ‘soldiers’ (like two of my friends) were nothing more than refugees from the DP camps, untrained in war, poorly armed and even reduced to hand-language because they didn’t know enough Hebrew to communicate with their leaders. Their artillery, tanks, warplanes, mortars, and other large-calibre weaponry ranged from a distant second to nonexistent in comparison with the same array fielded by the Arab Legion, the Arab Liberation Army and the Egyptian Army who were determined to ‘throw the Jews into the sea’. In fact, the Jews’ sole advantages over the Arab invaders were their interior lines of communication and their determination not to let the Arabs ‘finish the job that Hitler started’.

BBT> The early "innocent, law-abiding" phase of Zionism was the gradual buildup of the Jewish population in Palestine to the point where the Jews had sufficient numbers and strength to establish and defend their Jewish state. As early as 1919, the British officers could see that the only way the Zionist program could ultimately achieve its goal of a Jewish state was by force of arms.

Don’t be an ass on purpose, BBT. The British officers you are so entranced by weren’t talking about Jewish “force of arms” at all. The idea of Jews with guns was ridiculous. They were talking about the needs of the British Mandate in carrying out the San Remo resolution.

BBT> I know you like to blame those bad old Arabs because they didn't let the Zionists take Palestine without a fight, but the Zionists are the ones who invaded Arab turf. The Arabs didn't invade Jewish turf. The "peaceful, innocent" phase of Zionism is inextricably linked to the aggressive, militaristic aspect of Zionism. They're two sides of the same coin.

If you had a coin, BBT, you couldn't fit it into the slot. The only thing ‘inextricable’ is your miserable song-and-dance. The Zionists didn’t resort to arms in self-defense until the Arab attacks proved to be more than the British could (or were willing to) contain. That was almost 20 years after the San Remo decision. It’s clear that you have somehow come to assume that Palestine ‘belonged’ so unquestionably to the Arabs living there in 1919. You couldn’t be more wrong.

The Arabs of Palestine owned nothing more than the right to be heard at the Paris talks. After all, they were the defeated minions of the Ottoman Empire, not an oppressed minority whom the Allies had determined to liberate from Turkish oppression. Wake the fuck up, BBT. Their right to be heard was respected. They appeared and testified. And enough of them said that they supported the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine that that view carried the day when the Allies decided the question.

I might be able to understand how you can be so narcissistic as to think that you can ignore the views of those who not only lived at the time, but had the authority and responsibility to make the decisions on Palestine’s disposition, but I have no reason to grant you more respect than you have earned so far.

Why don’t you leave off feeding so greedily from the material that I posted and start doing your own research? Are you really that afraid that your Revealed Truth of an ideology will be confused by the facts?

David Segal

[Bill Cosby]

This is an Internet guide to help you study the Palestinian side of the crisis. The Pro-Israel side has a great influence over the mainstream information we receive in America this is less true on the Internet. The Internet can bring you right to the horse’s mouth. This Internet guide is designed to help people get information from the Palestinian perspective. Because of the economic and political strangle hold the Israelis have over the Palestinian establishment most of the information is from people and groups outside of Palestine.

This Internet guide will help you get to the pro Palestinian think tanks, government and private intuitions, publications and actives. Where one get their information is as important as the information. Unfortunately when the government or establishment tells a lie or mistruth it becomes a fact for the time being. This is a big part of the problems in the Middle East today. Rarely is the truth heard over the lies. Although this is a Pro Palestinian Guide the goal is to get closer to the true understanding of the problems.

PLO Negotiations Affairs Department – The Internet can bring information right from the horse’s mouth.
http://www.nad-plo.org/index.php

For the latest news about what is going on in Palestine from the United Nations perspective this is a good site.
http://www.un.org/unrwa/english.html

The Israeli Information Center For Human Rights in the Occupied Territories – The Israelis who want justices for the Palestinian people.
B’Tselem
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

American Task Force on Palestine – This is probably the United States strongest Pro-Palestinian group.
http://www.americantaskforce.org/

Reports from Rafah Palestine – This site has great pictures capturing the suffering and destruction of the Palestinian society.
http://rafah.virtualactivism.net/about/messages1.htm

The Middle East Network Information Center – Many good links to the Pro-Palestinian side.
http://menic.utexas.edu/Government/Politics/Israel_Palestinian_Conflict/

If American Knew – This site contains many good charts and up to date information about the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

MIFTAH The Palestinian Initiative for Promotion of Global Dialog & Democracy –This site contains many good links to other Pro-Palestinian sites.
http://www.miftah.org/Index.cfm


Pro-Israel Side
National Action Committee Political Action Committee – This site show how well organized and entrench the Pro-Israeli side is in American politics.
http://www.nacpac.org/

One must know their adversary before they can understand the answers to the problems. This guide is created so you can get too the other side of the story that you cannot get in the mainstream American media.

http://peacereform.blogspot.com/

Will you be updating your opinions here any time soon???

[David Lyle Segal]

\quote Will you be updating your opinions here any time soon??? \unquote

Being as you are responding to a message almost five years old, what's you hurry?

[Bill Cosby]

http://mindlessones.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cartoon-symbol.jpg

Well not even bat man can match a quick response like that, once that beacon is sent..........lol

We are having an early DCJ new years eve bash.......

Global stopped by, glad you made it.......... It has been a long time.........:thumbsup:

[Vilifier of Zombies]

BBT> This is great stuff, David. Very revealing indeed. It reveals that, as early as 1919, British officers in Palestine could see that the Zionist program was not just an innocent immigration of foreign Jews wanting to peacefully assimilate with the existing Arab population. The Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state on Arab turf, and the British officers could see there would be big trouble between the Zionists and the Arabs.

The British officers believed that the Zionist program could be carried out only by force of arms -- a force of at least 50,000 soldiers would be required. There was no way in hell that the Zionists could expect to create a Jewish state in Arab Palestine without ultimately having to take it by force of arms.


Yes, that was certainly the advice of the British military officers who spoke with the King-Crane people at the time. I’m surprised that you aren’t intimately familiar with the report, BBT, given your cloak of authority on Middle East subjects.

I’m not surprised, however, that you are brazenly feeding off my work, given how much you have so egregiously misplaced reliance on it. It’s apparent from your misconstructions that you know absolutely nothing more about the King-Crane investigation and report than that which I fed to you, much less about the political circumstances of the end of the war and the operations of the Paris Peace Conference.

Political decisions were neither the British military officers’ nor King-Crane’s to make. Those who were authorized to actually make the decision believed differently. They relied on the assurances of Arab leaders like Emir Feisal that a Jewish state was entirely acceptable. In his letter to Felix Frankfurter, he wrote (March 13, 1919):

“We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

In fact, he could have very well had you in mind when he continued:

“People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for co-operation of the Arabs and Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital out of what they call our differences.

I can’t imagine anyone in shorter pants than you on this subject. It’s far more complex than even King-Crane would have you believe, but here you’ve gone off on a frolic of your own without any understanding of the times, the people, or the resources available to them at the time. What a parasite on my work you’ve become! They didn’t know the future, BBT; you’re so blinded by it that you are prepared to pretend that you can go back to 1919 and overrule their decisions. Grow up.

Feisal, who was “Mr Arab” at the time, closed on an nquestionably optimistic note about the ultimate outcome:

“I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of civilised peoples of the world. “

Feisal's advice carried the day at Paris and at San Remo. King-Crane and the British officers didn't have the gravitas to overcome it.

BBT> The British officers were accurate in their prediction that the Zionists would have to muster a force of 50,000 men. In fact the Zionists raised an army of 45,000 soldiers to establish and defend the state of Israel by force of arms in 1948-1949. All of your so-called "innocent, law-abiding immigration" was just the prelude to the inevitable military showdown between the Zionists and the Arabs.

G-d bless you, BBT. If you weren't here, I'd have to invent an ignoramus of your station, just so I could make the case for Jews living without having to beg for their lives.

The only thing that made the 1948 war inevitable was the inadmissible refusal of the Arabs to grant the Jews the right of self-determination in the part of Palestine where Jews were in the majority. Your image of ’45,000 soldiers’ would be hilarious to anyone who is familiar with the history if it weren’t so ignorant. 1948 was a defensive war, with Jews staving off annihilation, not out conquering Arab lands for expansion. For you to argue otherwise is simply ignorantly gullible, if not consciously dishonest.

The Jewish forces were brilliantly led by a tiny cadre of men who had served in the Allied armies in WWI and WWII. Even so, there were terrible defeats, one of them the destruction of three attempts to take the fort at Latrun, in which a friend of mine took part.

Most of the ‘soldiers’ (like two of my friends) were nothing more than refugees from the DP camps, untrained in war, poorly armed and even reduced to hand-language because they didn’t know enough Hebrew to communicate with their leaders. Their artillery, tanks, warplanes, mortars, and other large-calibre weaponry ranged from a distant second to nonexistent in comparison with the same array fielded by the Arab Legion, the Arab Liberation Army and the Egyptian Army who were determined to ‘throw the Jews into the sea’. In fact, the Jews’ sole advantages over the Arab invaders were their interior lines of communication and their determination not to let the Arabs ‘finish the job that Hitler started’.

BBT> The early "innocent, law-abiding" phase of Zionism was the gradual buildup of the Jewish population in Palestine to the point where the Jews had sufficient numbers and strength to establish and defend their Jewish state. As early as 1919, the British officers could see that the only way the Zionist program could ultimately achieve its goal of a Jewish state was by force of arms.

Don’t be an ass on purpose, BBT. The British officers you are so entranced by weren’t talking about Jewish “force of arms” at all. The idea of Jews with guns was ridiculous. They were talking about the needs of the British Mandate in carrying out the San Remo resolution.

BBT> I know you like to blame those bad old Arabs because they didn't let the Zionists take Palestine without a fight, but the Zionists are the ones who invaded Arab turf. The Arabs didn't invade Jewish turf. The "peaceful, innocent" phase of Zionism is inextricably linked to the aggressive, militaristic aspect of Zionism. They're two sides of the same coin.

If you had a coin, BBT, you couldn't fit it into the slot. The only thing ‘inextricable’ is your miserable song-and-dance. The Zionists didn’t resort to arms in self-defense until the Arab attacks proved to be more than the British could (or were willing to) contain. That was almost 20 years after the San Remo decision. It’s clear that you have somehow come to assume that Palestine ‘belonged’ so unquestionably to the Arabs living there in 1919. You couldn’t be more wrong.

The Arabs of Palestine owned nothing more than the right to be heard at the Paris talks. After all, they were the defeated minions of the Ottoman Empire, not an oppressed minority whom the Allies had determined to liberate from Turkish oppression. Wake the fuck up, BBT. Their right to be heard was respected. They appeared and testified. And enough of them said that they supported the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine that that view carried the day when the Allies decided the question.

I might be able to understand how you can be so narcissistic as to think that you can ignore the views of those who not only lived at the time, but had the authority and responsibility to make the decisions on Palestine’s disposition, but I have no reason to grant you more respect than you have earned so far.

Why don’t you leave off feeding so greedily from the material that I posted and start doing your own research? Are you really that afraid that your Revealed Truth of an ideology will be confused by the facts?

David Segal

No reply since 2006...you should start posting here more often, the current crop of tinfoil hat Jew angst Jew World Order posters strap on their tinfoil hats good and tight, you won't see any of the snapback tinfoil hats quacks of yesteryear, no sir, no way, no how...

[Bill Cosby]

Funny how this thread has had 11,000+ views & yet most ppl posting here now are not interested in talkin about it???

[David Lyle Segal]

[q]Funny how this thread has had 11,000+ views & yet most ppl posting here now are not interested in talkin about it???[\q]

Given your reliance on the websites, it's no wonder. For example,

"PLO Negotiations Affairs Department – The Internet can bring information right from the horse’s mouth. http://www.nad-plo.org/index.php"

certainly gives the PLO's position, but each of their position starts from a false premise. For example, under Borders, the PLO states

[q] Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. [\q]

which is simply historically and legally untrue.

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

CB> Funny how this thread has had 11,000+ views & yet most ppl posting here now are not interested in talkin about it???

Given your reliance on the websites, it's no wonder. For example,

"PLO Negotiations Affairs Department – The Internet can bring information right from the horse’s mouth. http://www.nad-plo.org/index.php"

certainly gives the PLO's position, but their positions start from false premises. For example, under Borders, the PLO states

Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip

which is simply historically and legally untrue.

David Segal

[Bill Cosby]

& who exactly should be the determiner of the legality???

[David Lyle Segal]

& who exactly should be the determiner of the legality???

Neither you nor I are competent to do more than debate it, Bill. The ultimate decision is above both of our paygrades. Nevertheless, there's no reason not to explore the question. Since Israel is making no claims in regard to the Gaza Strip, the discussion should be about the West Bank. What makes the 1949 armistice line (negotiated between Israel and Transjordan) the Palestians' future state's legal border?

David Segal

[Global Crier]

Will you be updating your opinions here any time soon??? Reply to Bill Cosby

Wow over a 11,000 hit. How do you explain this? I totally missed this one. I sorry, I missed David Lyle Segal inter-action on this thread. Thanks for bring back this thread for a second life. Happy New year David

[Bill Cosby]

Reply to Bill Cosby

Wow over a 11,000 hit. How do you explain this? I totally missed this one. I sorry, I missed David Lyle Segal inter-action on this thread. Thanks for bring back this thread for a second life. Happy New year David

That was why I thought I would bring it out of obscurity for a up to date look.......

While there have been many minor events/changes it would seem the premise/problem still remains...........

[Global Crier]

Neither you nor I are competent to do more than debate it, Bill. The ultimate decision is above both of our paygrades. Nevertheless, there's no reason not to explore the question. Since Israel is making no claims in regard to the Gaza Strip, the discussion should be about the West Bank. What makes the 1949 armistice line (negotiated between Israel and Transjordan) the Palestians' future state's legal border?

David Segal

To Bill Cosby & David Lyle Segal

I took the liberty to start a new thread starting with a post David S. made. I am hoping we can raise the level of dissuasion to be informative and focus while staying on topic. Here is the link; http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=27256
Let the debate begin here David

[Bill Cosby]

cool thnx