Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?

Here's a place to start.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html 1947


http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/zionism/mackay.htm 1920

 

<illegal/criminal> of course, it is the label that should be attached to the conquering Arabs of lore...
The Land is called the <LAND OF ISRAEL> in history and not as you say occupied... in a sense a People <Jews> occupy their own realm!

 

The Atlantic Monthly
July 1920

Zionist Aspirations in Palestine

by Anstruther Mackay

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/zionism/mackay.htm

You should undertake a serious course of study and then be honest.

 

I've yet to find anything approaching ' honesty ' in the Zionist narrative- except those ethnic cleansing speeches by early Zionists which pro-Zionists would rather we didn't see.

 

Lol, love that comment. "Imperialist lizards"!

Def gonna steal

 

Gilos if you removed yr blinkers , you'll learn that's exactly what the Zionist terrorists gangs - Lehi/Irgun/Palmach/Haganah etc. did to nomn-Jewish Palestinians , They stormed in - slayed - terrorised the largely defenceless Palesetinians - transform a non-Jewish majority population into a minority.
At Jaffa they drove defenceless Arabs into the sea. hundreds drowned





Watch listen and learn from Ilan Pappe (much the same from other non-Zionist sources)

[video=youtube;buhpHTGAlTE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buhpHTGAlTE[/video]


The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.


....

 

Royalty free. Enjoy.

 

You realize the Israelis conquered the west bank in 1967. You used the wrong word, but now I understand what you were saying.
I agree.

 

untrue. This is what you are in discussion with me about. It is what I left it is about the beginning

http://jfjfp.com/?p=46224

it may not have been a soverign state in the way Europe was but it was people who had lived together for thousands of years, whose history is there and whose forefathers worked the soil and built the buildings. The history is theirs....and of course it matters how many Jews there were when you are claiming it was a Jewish land. It was not. It was mainly Muslim but those Jews who lived part of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish community - many of whom had as little time for zionism as anyone else - some of whom were killed by zionists for this.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=46224

Most of what you answer has no resonance with what I posted. The British offered no Jewish state. They offered a Jewish homeland as they hoped by so doing to bring the US into WW1 and win it. It was not thought out. Here is what you don't understand. Regardless of borders this was people's homeland and had been for centuries. European jews had also been accepted when they came, often in retirement but it was not ever the homeland of European Jews. Now if you don't understand that you must be extremely closed off.

stop whining like a little baby. I accepted Israel unconditionally for 30 years. I do not however accept how Israel acts or tells lies and that is what you refuse to address.

how pathetic. A grandmother living in Scotland is going to make you stop having a peace agreement because she tells you to be honest. Now I know as a certainly you have zero interest in peace.

This is just more made up whining. I asked you to be honest, that is all. You always make things personal in order to avoid the issues. Have you read this yet http://jfjfp.com/?p=46224 because that is what you were answering me to but I see zero evidence of you having read it and addressing the issues.

 

Thanks Marlowe. Very informative:

"The peace process has been informed by the false assumption that there is a genuine Israeli desire to be content with 80 per cent of Palestine. This is false - a false assumption which created the false idea of a two-state solution which produced the fiasco which was called the Oslo process which informs the discourse about peace still today. It doesn't allow us to move forward because we are all hooked on this idea that there is a genuine Israeli wish to be part of the land of Palestine. As for the second question, how many Palestinians can be part of Palestine? The answer was also quite simple. If possible, not even one of them. If not possible, they should be a very insignificant minority. In the 1930s this was a very bold assumption because the Jews were only one-third of the population. Not only that, most of the Jews had just come to the land just a few years earlier. Imagine a group of immigrants who had just come to Canada three years ago and saying this is a beautiful land and we should have most of it and we don't like the indigenous people who live here so we should find the historical moment to get rid of them. If you understand that, you understand very well the history of Zionism."

 

Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?

Once a final peace agreement is made YES.

 

"In the 1930's when the Jews constituted a third of the population of Palestine, the Zionist leadership began to contemplate the fate of the Palestinian's on the land of Palestine.....My main assertion regarding this 1930s period, is that the basic guidlines that informed Zionist thought and strategy during that time are still with us in the 21st century. Not much has changed in the basic Zionist and later, Israeli thinking about the role and future of the Palestinians who lived for centuries on the land of Palestine before the arrival of the first Jewish settlers.

The Zionist leaders developed a two dimensional vision about the question of Palestine. One was the issue of space and geography and the other was the issue of demography or population. These two dimensions with regard to the Palestinians are still with us in the present political system in Israel: How much of the land of Palestine has to become Jewish so the early Zionist ideals and objectives can be realized? And how many Palestinians can stay within that space so as not to undermine the Zionist vision of having a safe Jewish haven on the land of Palestine?

Only from the 1930s were very precise answers given to these questions. Unfortunately, I don't think the answers in the 21st century are different from the answers given by the Zionist leaders in the 1930s. The answer to the first question regarding space, was that the Zionists should have as much of Palestine as possible, preferably the whole of it. By the 1930s the Jewish people had a really clear geopolitical cartography of Palestine - they were clear what they perceived the borders to be. This remains the situation today. So when Zionists drew imaginary borders on maps as to what they thought ought to be the Jewish state, they wanted the whole of Palestine. They were willing to be satisfied with less of it if necessary, but basically they were looking for historical opportunities to take it all. This hasn't changed."

 

I do not dispute that arabs citizens were forcibly evicted from the villages and those villages destroyed. I do have some issue with the extent of those forcibly removed vs those that voluntarily got outta dodge.

OTOH, I do not recall in anything I have read about Jaffa that either the voluntary or involuntary evacuation resulted in hundreds of drownings. do you have a link?

 

I'm glad you agree..

I only said they "conquered" additional lands but not the West Bank itself, so the word works under the definition I chose for it.

- - - Updated - - -

So it's completely up to Israel if they ever give the lands back, based on whatever terms they want to dictate.

Why is that fair?

 

Tell your friends Gilos and Bendor/ Talon , etc and the Jewish colonists (settlers) Ysrael Beiteinu - Avigdor Lieberman/ Naftali Bennet . etc.etc.
Let me know what they think - (wink)

IMO - I doubt whether Israel will be prepared to relinquish an inch of land - no matter what further concessions /guarantee they get from Palestinians . Jews want land more than they want peace..

 

I can't speak about drownings but only this year mass graves were found in Jaffa

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/mass-graves-jaffa-israel-palestine-1948_n_3385011.html

 

Come on, Canada might as well be part of the U.S. right now. I'm just sayin' make it official.

 

Your original sentence stated that Israel is continuing to conquer land. That is either just a lie or it is the misuse of the word conquered.

giant leap between "once a final peace agreement is made" and "whatever terms they want to dictate".

Perhaps you can point out to me the last peace treaty that ended both hostilities and a belligerent occupation that was "fair" to the loser? Just one in all the history of warfare would be appreciated.

 

"...: to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition ..."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer

Parts of land in the West Bank continue to get taken over by Israelis. Conquered, if you will.

Isn't it up to Israel whether or not they sign any agreement?

I never claimed one existed.

 

Plan Dalet

•On March 10, 1948, the Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion formally approved Plan Dalet (also known as Plan D), the blueprint for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The operational military orders of Plan Dalet specified which Palestinian population centers should be targeted and laid out in detail a plan for their forcible depopulation and destruction. It called for:

"Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

"Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

"Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state."


•As Benny Morris observed in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem: 1947-1949, Plan Dalet was "a strategic-ideological anchor and basis for expulsions by front, district, brigade and battalion commanders" providing "post facto, a formal, persuasive covering note to explain their actions."

•The Haganah began attacks under Plan Dalet at the beginning of April 1948. Expulsions now accelerated and became more systematic, marking a new phase in the conflict in which Zionist and then Israeli forces went on the offensive. According to Morris, "In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves."
•On April 9, members of the Irgun and Stern Gang attacked the village of Deir Yassin outside of Jerusalem, massacring approximately 100 men, women, and children. News of the massacre spread quickly, fueling panic and the mass flight of Palestinians. (See below for more on the massacre at Deir Yassin and other atrocities carried out against Palestinian civilians.)

•In late April, all but 4,000 of the 70,000 Arab inhabitants of the city of Haifa were expelled. The operation officer of the Haganah forces that conquered Haifa, Mordechai Maklef - who would later become chief of staff of the Israeli army - ordered his troops to "Kill any Arab you encounter; torch all inflammable objects, and force doors open with explosives." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 95) Crowds of Palestinians seeking safety in a marketplace near the port were deliberately shelled by Zionist forces, causing a panicked flight towards the waterfront as people rushed to evacuate by sea. Many drowned as overloaded boats sank attempting to shuttle people to safety. A witness recalled the terrible scene:

"Men stepped on their friends and women on their own children. The boats in the port were soon filled with living cargo. The overcrowding in them was horrible. Many turned over and sank with all their passengers." (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 96)


•Many of the attacks carried out by Zionist forces during this period - prior to Israel's declaration of independence and subsequent war with Arab states - were in areas outside of the borders of the Jewish state proposed in the UN Partition Plan. (See here for map of such operations carried out between April 1 and May 15)

===


Yes , we know Morris , typical of his ilk - later on did a partial flip-flop.

....

 

nothing.

considering the occupation is now 46 years old, it sure doesn't say much about the effectiveness of international law if in fact it is illegal.

apparently the correct term is Humpty-Demptyism. What a marvellous word, many thanks for introducing it to me.

you'll have to ask HFD since he is the one that apparently made up his own definition of conquer.

as for flagrant ciminality, what definition do you attribute to this accusation?

 

The doctrine is Dumptyism. It's founder was Humpty. The condition is known as ' Dumptied '

 

Yeah Webster did grant me some pretty cool powers didn't he!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer

 

It is impossible to "conquer" land already under occupation regardless of the semantic games you might wish to play.

Likewise the palestinians.

In which case, why should a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine been any different that any other in history?

 

quite some comprehension block you got there HFD.
or is it simply you can't bring yourself to admit to be wrong about anything even something as trivial as the incorrect use of a word that really did not alter the substance or intent of your original statement.