A map of "Greater Israel"
HHW
HHW
> http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story1045.html
From the beginning, Zionists advocated a "Jewish State" not just in
Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights
as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's"
frontiers in detail as follows:
"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the
northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the
southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to
Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the
furthest edge of Transjordan" (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87)
Click here to view the "Greater Israel" map that was submitted by the
Zionists to the peace conference after WWI.
HHW
> On Mar 21, 9:44 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion advocated exclusively
Jewish labor (Avodah Ivrit) in Jewish businesses. He explained why a
Jewish laborer should earn a higher salary because:
"[he was] more intelligent and diligent" than the Arab. (Shabtai
Teveth, p. 12-13)
HHW
In an article published by Ben-Gurion in 1918, titled "The Rights of
the Jews and others in Palestine," he conceded that the Palestinian
Arabs have the same rights as Jews. He explained that Palestinians had
these rights since they had inhabited the land "for hundreds of
years". He stated in the article:
"Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure
the rights of the inhabitants." Ben-Gurion often returned to this
point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an
independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political.
(Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)
But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by
themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in
the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not
only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:
"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the
country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its
builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Palestinian] Arabs have no
right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to
the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The
[Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to
prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They
have a right only to that which they have created and to their
homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)
In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political
rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights at all, these rights
are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement
was written when the Palestinian people constituted 85% of Palestine's
population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!
As WWI was ending, Ben-Gurion went on to draw a map of the "Jewish
state" to be. This map clearly excluded Damascus (although it was part
of Biblical "Eretz Yisrael"), and limited the "Jewish state's" future
northern borders to 20 km south of the Syrian Capital. He rationalized
this decision as follows:
"It is unthinkable that the Jewish state, in our day and age, could
include the city of Damascus. . . . This is a large Arab city, and one
of the four centers of Islam. The Jewish community there is small. The
Arabs will never allow Damascus, their pride, to come under Jewish
control, and there can be no doubt that the English, even were it in
their power, would agree to such a thing." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 34)
If these are all sound reasons to exclude Damascus from being under
Jewish control, then what makes Zionists think that occupied Jerusalem
is any different? Although Damascus was never occupied by the
Christian Crusaders, Jerusalem was occupied and pillaged, and to
liberate it almost a million Muslim and Arab were martyred!
Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews
were when their "Promised Land" needed them during the Crusaders'
genocide!
HHW
A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in
1919 and after WWI ended, Ben-Gurion envisioned future Jewish and
Palestinian Arab relations as follows:
"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the
[Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution
to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests
of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine
cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree
to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no
need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa'
should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want
the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One
Palestine Complete, p. 116)
HHW
As the first popular response against the Balfour Declaration (in
which Britain promised the Zionists to turn Palestine to a "Jewish
National Home"), Palestinians organized their first commercial strike
in 1922. Ben-Gurion acknowledged privately that a Palestinian national
movement was evolving. He wrote in his diary:
"The success of the [Palestinian] Arabs in organizing the closure of
shops shows that we are dealing here with a national movement. For the
[Palestinian] Arabs, this is an important education step." (Shabtai
Teveth, p. 80)
Similarly in 1929, he also wrote of the Palestinian political national
movement:
"It's true that the Arab national movement has no positive content.
The leaders of the movement are unconcerned with betterment of the
people and provision of their essential needs. They do not aid the
fellah; to the contrary, the leaders suck his blood, and exploit the
popular awakening for private gain. But we err if we measure the
[Palestinian] Arabs and their movement by our standards. Every people
is worthy of its national movement. The obvious characteristic of a
political movement is that it knows how to mobilize the masses. From
this prospective there is no doubt that we are facing a political
movement, and we should not underestimate it."
"A national movement mobilizes masses, and that is the main thing. The
[Palestinian] Arab is not one of revival, and its moral value is
dubious. But in a political sense, this is a national
movement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 83)
HHW
From the start, Ben-Gurion wanted to segregate Arab and Jewish
societies in all sectors. For example, Jews in Palestine had their
separate economical, social, health, educational, media, and political
sectors that were opened to Jews only. The segregation of Palestine's
society was nurtured by the Zionists to make it easier to partition
the country when the "appropriate" time comes. In that regards, he
stated in the 1920s:
"The assets of the Jewish National Home must be created exclusively
through our own work, for only the product of the Hebrew labor can
serve as the national estate." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 66)
Similarly, he stated in the early 1920s:
"Without Hebrew labor there is no way to absorb the Jewish masses.
Without Hebrew labor, there will be no Jewish economy; without Hebrew
labor, there will be no [Jewish] homeland. And anyone who does
anything counter to the principle of Hebrew labor harms the most
precious asset we have for fulfilling Zionism." (One Palestine
Complete, p. 288)
HHW
According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the
Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population
should be dealt with. It stated:
"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist
'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the
borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the
urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be
expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their
resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)
HHW
When it was proposed that the Jews in Palestine organize an army and
seize power in November 1929, Ben-Gurion offered these objections,
first,
"The world will not permit the Jewish people to seize the state as a
spoil, by force." Second the Jewish people did not have the means to
do so. And third and most important, it would be immoral, and the Jews
of the world would never by this immoral cause. "We would then be
unable to awaken the necessary forces for building the country among
thousands of young people. We would not be able to secure necessary
means from the Jewish people, and the moral and the political
sustenance of the enlightened world. . . . Our conscience must be
clean . . . and so we must endorse the premise in relation to the
[Palestinian] Arabs: The [Palestinian] Arabs have full rights as
citizens of the country, but they do not have the right of ownership
over it." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 97)
HHW
In the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion met George Antonius (an advisor to al-
Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was one of the few Palestinians whom
Ben-Gurion had contacts with), and suggested that Palestinians should
help the Zionists to expand the borders of their future "Jewish state"
to include areas under French control, such as southern Lebanon and
the Golan Heights. In response, Mr. Antonius burst laughing and
answered:
"So, you propose that what England did not give you [as stated in the
Balfour Declaration), you will get from us." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 162)
According to Ben-Gurion, Antonius had complained about Zionists who
"want to bring to Palestine the largest number of Jews possible,
without taking [the Palestinian] Arabs into consideration at all. With
this type," said Antonius, "it is impossible to come to an
understanding. They want a 100% Jewish state, and the [Palestinian]
Arabs will remain in their shadow." By the end of their talk, Antonius
could, with reason, conclude that Ben-Gurion belonged precisely to
this category of Zionists. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)
HHW
Ethnic cleansing and destruction of 'Imwas, June 17, 1967
For the moment, let's assume that the Palestinian refugees were not
terrorized out of their homes, but left based on their free will. The
questions that many Palestinians ask:
Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and business?
Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?
Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country they
were born?
Let's us pose the question the other way around. For a very long time,
the Zionist movement encouraged Jews from Europe and the Middle East
to emigrate to Israel:
Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and business
in their respective countries?
Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes if they
choose to do so?
Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the countries
they were born?
The just and fair answer to all of these questions is a big fat no.
Nobody has the right to usurp the political and civil rights of
another citizen PERIOD, regardless of the circumstances.
Neither the Israeli Army boot camps, nor the Israeli schools dares to
disclose the truth to its subjects. The truth is most Palestinians
were terrorized out of their homes, farms, and businesses.
PalestineRemembered.com is fortunate to receive pictures portraying
the terror that came upon the Palestinian people, click here to
witness the ethnic cleansing and destruction of 'Imwas. It should be
noted that what happened to 'Imwas by the Israeli Army was a copycat
war crime to what already happened to other 450 Palestinian towns
during the 1948 war.
Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating
a "Jewish State" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of
Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic
Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was
impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth,
Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky,
and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only
solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after
year, the plan to cleanse Palestine away from its indigenous people
became known as the "transfer solution." David Ben-Gurion, the first
Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution"
as the following:
In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist
Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:
"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for
settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything
immoral in it." (Righteous Victims p. 144).
In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on
December 30, 1947:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than
520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with
the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the
time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost
40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a
stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be
viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population]
composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will
remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable
and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only
60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)
And on February 8th, 1948, Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai
Council:
"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem
Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One
hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it
has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab
neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I
do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in
Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . .
in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly
be great changes in the composition of the population in the
country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)
In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th,
1948:
"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war,
populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and
Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a
great change in the distribution of Arab population." (Expulsion Of
The Palestinians, p. 181)
In speech to the Jewish Agency on June 12, 1948, Ben-Gurion stated:
"I am for compulsory transfer; I don't see anything immoral in it."
For tactical reasons, he was against proposing it at the moment, but
"we have to state the principle of compulsory transfer without
insisting on its immediate implementation." (Simha Flapan, p. 103)
Click here for more "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) quotes from Zionist
leaders.
For the moment, assume that the above evidence is nothing but an Arab
propaganda. We ask the reader to contemplate what Yitzhak Rabin, one
of Israel's Prime Ministers, had written in his diary soon after the
occupation of Lydda and al-Ramla on July 10th-11th, 1948:
"After attacking Lydda [later called Lod] and then Ramla, .... What
would they do with the 50,000 civilians living in the two cities .....
Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution .... and during the
discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent,
as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave
[Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could
endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing
eastward.
Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the
population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out!
[garesh otem in Hebrew]. 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh
ring, .... Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions
we undertook". (Soldier Of Peace, p. 140-141 & Benny Morris, p. 207) .
Later, Rabin underlined the cruelty of the operation as mirrored in
the reaction of his soldiers. He stated during an interview (which is
still censored in Israeli publications to this day) with David Shipler
from the New York Times on October 22, 1979:
"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the
eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been
inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and
humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were
used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . .
Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . .
to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel
action." (Simha Flapan, p. 101)
Just before the 1948 war, the residents of the twin cities, Lydda and
al-Ramla, almost constituted 20% of the total urban population in
central Palestine, inclusive of Tel-Aviv. Currently, the former
residents and their descendents number at least a half a million, who
mostly live in deplorable refugee camps in and around Amman (Jordan)
and Ramallah (the occupied West Bank). According to Rabin, the
decision to ethnically cleanse the twin cities was an agonizing
decision, however, his guilty conscious did not stop him from placing
a similar order against three nearby villages ('Imwas, Yalu, and Bayt
Nuba ) 19 years later. The exodus from Lydda and al- Ramla was
portrayed firsthand by Ismail Shammout, the renowned Palestinians
artist from Lydda itself, click here to view his exodus gallery. To
learn more about the ethnic cleansing of Lydda and al-Ramla based on
declassified Israeli archives, we suggest clicking here as well .
In order to excuse themselves from any responsibility of war crimes,
Zionists have concocted a myth that Palestinians were ordered by their
leaders to abandon their homes. As it will be proven below, this
version of events was conclusively proven wrong based on Israeli
declassified documents. According to the Israeli historian Benny
Morris:
'In general, during the first months of the war until April 1948 the
Palestinian leadership struggled, if not very manfully, against the
exodus: "The AHC [Arab Higher Committee] decided .... to adopt
measures to weaken the exodus by imposing restrictions, penalties,
threats, propaganda in the press [and] on the radio .... [The AHC]
tried to obtain the help of neighboring countries in this
context ..... [The AHC] especially tried to prevent the flight of army-
age young males," according to IDF intelligence'. (Benny Morris, p.
60)
'Whatever the reasoning and attitude of the Arab states' leaders, I
have found no contemporary evidence to show that either the leaders of
the Arab states or the Mufti [Hajj Amin al-Husseini] ordered or
directly encouraged the mass exodus during April [1948]. It may be
worth noting that for decades the policy of the Palestinian Arab
leaders had been to hold fast to the soil of Palestine and to resist
the eviction and displacement of Arab communities'. (Benny Morris, p.
66)
'In Kafr Saba [early May 1948], the locals, under threat from Haganah
attack, wanted to leave, but were ordered to stay by the ALA [Arab
Liberation Army] garrison. According to Haganah sources, the ALA, with
the population of Ramallah about to take flight, blocked all roads
into the Triangle: "The Arab military leaders are trying to stem the
flood of refugees and taking stern and ruthless measures against
them." Arab radio broadcast, picked up by the Haganah, conveyed orders
from the ALA to all Arabs who had left their homes to "return within
three days. The commander of Ramallah assembled the mukhtars [official
leaders] from the area" and demanded they strengthen morale in the
their villages. The local ALA commanders turned back trucks which were
coming to take families out of Ramallah. .... Haganah intelligence on
May 6 reported that "Radio Jerusalem in its Arabic broadcast (14:00
hours, 5 May) and Damascus [Radio] (19:45 hours, 5 May) announced in
the name of the Supreme Headquarters: 'Every Arab must defend his home
and property .... Those who leave their places will be punished and
their homes will be destroyed.'. The announcement was signed by [Fawzi
al-]Qawukji.' (Benny Morris, p. 68-69)
Similarly, Simha Flapan (the Israeli writer and politician) stated
according to declassified Israeli document and to the November 6th,
1948 edition of the Israeli newspaper Davar:
". . . after April 1948, the flight acquired massive dimensions. Abd
al-Rahman Azzam Pasha, secretary general of the Arab League, and King
Abdullah both issued public calls to the Arabs not to leave their
homes. Fawzi al-Qawukji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army, was
give instructions to stop the flight by force and to requisition
transport for this purpose. The Arab government decided to allow entry
only to women and children and to send back all men of military age
(between eighteen and fifty). Mohammad Adib al-Umri, deputy director
of Ramallah broadcasting station, appealed to the Arabs to stop the
flight from Jenin, Tulkarm, and other towns in the Triangle that were
bombed by the Israelis. On May 10, Radio Jerusalem broadcasted orders
on its Arab program from Arab commanders and AHC to stop the mass
flight from Jerusalem and the vicinity." (Simha Flapan, p. 86-87)
Click here to view the original letter sent by the Arab Higher
Committee [AHC] on March 8, 1948 urging the Egyptian government to
deny entry for the Palestinian refugees unless in emergency
situations.
'The various National Committees issued bans on flight. The Ramle
National Committee set up pickets at the exits to the town to prevent
Arabs departing. The inhabitants of the villages east of Majdal (Beit
Daras, the Sawafirs, ..etc) were warned not to allow in with their
belongings. On 15 May [1948], Faiz Idris, AHC's "inspector for public
safety," issued ordered to militiamen to help the invading Arab armies
and to fight against " the Fifth column and the rumor-mongers, who are
causing the flight of the Arab population' (Benny Morris, p. 69)
'On 10-11 May [1948], the AHC [Arab Higher Committee] called on
officials, doctors, and engineers who had left the country to return
on 14-15 May, repeating the call, warned the the officials who did not
return would lose their " moral right to hold these administrative
jobs in the future." Arab governments began to bar entry to the
refugee -as happened, for example, on the Lebanese border in the
middle of May'. (Benny Morris, p. 69)
'The fall of Safad and the flight of its inhabitants shocked the
[Palestinian] Arab villagers of the Hula Valley, to the north. [Yegal]
Allon launched a psychological warfare campaign ("If you don't flee
immediately, you will all be slaughtered, your daughters will be
raped," are the like), and almost all the villagers fled to Lebanon
and Syria.' (Righteous Victims, p. 213)
According to a Jewish Agency's Arab section report from January 3,
1948, at the beginning of the flight:
"The Arab exodus from Palestine continues, mainly to the countries of
the West. Of late, the Arab Higher Executive has succeeded in imposing
close scrutiny on those leaving for Arab countries in the Middle
East." Prior to the declaration of the "Jewish state," the Arab
League's political committee, meeting in Sofar, Lebanon, recommended
that the Arab states " the doors to . . . women and children and old
people if events in Palestine make it necessary." (Simha Flapan, p.
85)
Farther proof of ethnic cleansing (as if more evidence is needed)
comes from Glubb Pasha, the British officer of the Jordanian army
during the 1948 war, was on the spot at the time and therefore was in
a position to know what is going on. He said:
"The story which Jewish publicity at first persuaded the world to
accept , that the [Palestinian] Arab refugees left voluntarily, is not
true. Voluntary emigrants do not leave their homes with only the
clothes they stand in. People who decided to leave house do not do so
in such a hurry that they lose other members of their family --
husband losing sight of his wife, or parents of their children. The
fact is that the majority left in panic flight, to escape massacre.
They were in fact helped on their way by the occasional massacres--not
of very many at a time, but just enough to keep them running." (Bitter
Harvest, p. 95)
As Moshe Sharett was ending his career in the mid-1950s, he came to
the conclusion that Israel cannot be ruled without deceit as if it's
essential for the Jewish state's survival. He wrote just before
resigning:
"I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our
generation without deceit and adventurism. These are historical facts
that cannot be altered. . . In the end, history will justify both the
stratagems and deceit and the acts of adventurism. All I know is that
I, Moshe Sharett, am not capable of them, and I am therefore unsuited
to lead this country" (Simha Flapan, p. 52-53). In other word, what
Moshe Sharett is saying that the "Jewish state" is incapable of
surviving without lying to its citizens and the rest of the world; in
fact it has been national security for the "Jewish state" to do so.
This form of carefully crafted deception and lies is known in Israel
by its Hebrew name: The art of Hasbarah.
Finally, it must be emphasized that Israel tried Adolf Eichmann for
atrocities committed as a Nazi leader, it included charges of forcible
expulsion (ethnic cleansing), which were classified as war crimes and
crimes against humanity. It's ironic how often Israelis and Zionists
are selective in the interpretation of war crimes against humanity in
a way that fits their political agenda.
Related Links
Zionist Quotes: "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing)
Zionist Quotes: LOOTING, Plunder, & Destruction
Listen to an interview with the former Israeli Foreign Minister
(Shlomo Ben-Ami) admitting that it is a concocted myth that
Palestinians willingly left their homes, farms and businesses during
the 1948 war (starting from minute 49:20).
Israeli textbook offers Palestinian view
Cleansing Jaffa: Detailed eyewitness account By Shukri Salameh
Ha'aretz Daily: Survival of the fittest, an interview with Benny Morris
HHW
When Yosef Weitz (a Jewish National Fund official) proposed solving
the Palestinian "refugees problem" by compensating the refugees for
their lost properties in the "Jewish state". According to Weitz, Ben-
Gurion responded as follows:
"In his opinion, time will cure all, and all will be
forgotten." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 31)
Ben H. Cramer
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97335868-a0b2-49e5...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
HHW
Reposted to correct a typo in the header.
Mirelle4Peace
> Thank you for this series of insightful articles, "H".
Indeed. Thank you, "H".
My husband and I read the series of articles this morning and found
them very informative.
Mirelle
>
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
HHW
And thanks to both of you and to Ben for the kind words.
Ben H. Cramer
Reposted to correct a typo in the header.
Hahahahahahaha.
We must be ever watchful for typos in headers, mustn't we.
Shoveari will debunk the entire article based on such carlessness.
dsha...@gmail.com
> By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion advocated exclusively
> Jewish labor (Avodah Ivrit) in Jewish businesses. He explained why a
> Jewish laborer should earn a higher salary because:
> "[he was] more intelligent and diligent" than the Arab. (Shabtai
> Teveth, p. 12-13)
The falsified quote, which HHW naturally fails to attribute, is from
Abu Shitta's Palliebull site. Teveth never quoted BG as stating that
Jewish laborers were "more intelligent and diligent" than Arab
laborers.
If HHW bothered to read the books he pretends to quote, he might know
that. But, instead, he prefers to foster the illusion that he's far
better read than he actually is.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
Another misquote pasted without attribution from the Abu Shitta site.
And the Palestinian people" NEVER "owned and operated over 97% of the
land. That is utter rot.
The actual quote:
'At least in theory, [Ben-Gurion] conferred on the Arabs
the same rights as Jews. The Arabs had such rights as
stemmed from history and their own industriousness.
And since they had inhabited the land "for hundreds of
years,"7 and had cultivated and built on it, their
right to continue to do so could not be doubted. In
an article devoted especially to this subject, entitled
"The Rights of Jews and Others in Palestine," he set
down this principle: "Palestine is not an empty country
...on no account must we injure the rights of its
inhabitants."8 Ben-Gurion often returned to this point,
emphasizing that the Arabs had "the full right" to an
independent economic, cultural, and communal life.9
'But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Arabs, themselves incapable
of developing the country, had no right to stand in the way
of the Jews. In 1918, he determined that rights sprang not
from the past but from the future,10 and in 1924 he declared:
"We do not recognize the right of Arabs to rule the country,
since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders."11
The Arabs were not entitled to control or prohibit this
constructive activity. In 1928 he pronounced that "the Arabs
have no right to close the country to us. What right do they
have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited"12; and in
1930, "The Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no
right to prevent the contruction of a power plant [by a
Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they
have created and to their own homes."13 The rights of the
Arabs were valid, then, only in their confined places of
residence. They could, of course, settle in the empty
expanses as well, but because of their economic underdevelopment,
it was obvious that they would not. In Ben-Gurion's mind,
they were incapable of it.'
Notes
7 We and Our Neighbours, 1931, p 151
8 Ibid, p 31. The item was first published in the Yiddisher
Kemfer, no 4, January 22, 1918
9 We and Our Neighbours, 1931, p 151
10 Ibid, p 33
11 Speech to railworkers, Haifa, Ha'aretz, January 19, 1925
12 We and Our Neighbors, 1931, p 151
13 Ibid, p 259
- Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From War
to Peace, pp 38-39
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> From the beginning, Zionists advocated a "Jewish State" not just in
> Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights
> as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's"
> frontiers in detail as follows:
More twaddle pasted by HHW without attribution from the Abu Shitta
site.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> Reposted to correct a typo in the header.
Better you should correct the bullshit in the Abu Shitta quote.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> As the first popular response against the Balfour Declaration (in
> which Britain promised the Zionists to turn Palestine to a "Jewish
> National Home"), Palestinians organized their first commercial strike
> in 1922.
The "first popular response against the Balfour Declaration" took
place not in 1922,
but in April 1921, when Arabs rioted and massacred Jews throughout
Palestine.
I've posted extensive quotes from Teveth's various books on Ben-
Gurion. It's beyond reasonable expectation for HHW to actually read
those books, in lieu of pasting falsified snippets from the Abu Shitta
site.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> From the start, Ben-Gurion wanted to segregate Arab and Jewish
> societies in all sectors.
He didn't, but don't let the facts get in the way of your pasting
twaddle from the Abu Shitta site.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the
> Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population
> should be dealt with.
Which, of course, HHW has never read, and therefore has no clue what
it states -- or doesn't.
> "[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist
> 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the
> borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the
> urban quarters
One always knows when an alleged quote is a load of balls by the
terminology.
Deborah
dsha...@yahoo.com
On Mar 21, 9:54 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
It seems rather presumptuous of HHW to attempt to provide any analysis
of some kind of "Israeli Ethnic Cleansing", when he has read nothing
more on the subject than one book by a communist propagandist, and a
few Palliebull websites.
Presumably, HHW's entire thread here is the latest of his long series
of sidedodges to avoid pointing to the exact provision of SCR 242
which requires Israel to, as HHW claims, "return land to the
Palestinians."
> Let's us pose the question the other way around.
Let us pose another question: what is the exact provision of SCR 242
which sets for the requirement that Israel "return land to the
Palestinians"?
Deborah
dsha...@yahoo.com
> And thanks to both of you and to Ben for the kind words.
How sad that the only accolades HHW can garner for his series of paste
jobs come from two of the biggest numbskulls on these NGs.
Deborah
Ben H. Cramer
"dsha...@gmail.com" <dsha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4c03388-eebb-4e3d...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 22, 5:38 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And thanks to both of you and to Ben for the kind words.
Fuck orf, slime. Back under your rock.
Ben H. Cramer
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83444bf8-3b99-4486...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25f728a4-8617-4a34...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bda281a8-f9a5-4f36...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 21, 9:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Fuck orf, lying slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4646118-090e-41ba...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e209580f-360c-49b1...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, lying slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49454d84-f005-4b94...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, lying slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e3b96f9-f35f-4485...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, lying slime.
HHW
The cite's not mine but there is a citation there, Deborah. The web
site I took it from IS Palestinian I am perfectly happy to say, but it
could be from Count Dracula's site and it would be more credible than
anything you ever, repeat, ever, say. You, for example, have already
fled from the discussion of 242 and 338 which I finally, after much
badgering by you, agreed to participate in. It turns out you had
absolutely nothing to say (!) and either didn't understand the law in
question or were being deceitful about it. Both are probably true but
the preponderance with the latter.
Your people need to get the Hell out of the West Bank, Deborah. They
need to do it yesterday. They need to quit pretending that the issue
is security when it is in fact ongoing theft contrary to 242 and 338.
And the Wall opinion. And various humanitarian legal standards. And
the law protecting children. And the law governing occupations. And
the law against various crimes against humanity such as ethnic
cleansing.
Frankly, you're not morally competent to debate any aspect of the
relevant law. That's because by and large the entire body of the law
is based more or less on commonly received standards of morality,
ethics and objectively fair procedure. That's a world in which you
have no place at all.
HHW
This is the site it comes from: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html
Feel free to run a search on Palestine Remembered for "Abu Shitta".
Nothing will come up.
The Palestine Remembered site is infinitely more credible than you.
> And the Palestinian people" NEVER "owned and operated over 97% of the
> land. That is utter rot.
You confuse the historical narrative with quotes from Ben-Gurion.
You're not competent to judge it.
Do you quibble over the number or over the general range it
represents. Whether it is off a few clicks is irrelevant. The
estimates vary a few percentage points and depend on the time in
question. The highest I've ever seen for Jewish ownership in 1948 is
six or seven precent. So, will you settle for ninety three or ninety
four percent Arab, both personal and as successors of the previous
Muslim regime? If not explain yourself.
There's enough there to damn him to Hell. And here you are presenting
it with your imprimatur. You're not only devious and abusive, you're
dumb as a post.
HHW
To the readers, the site is Palestine Remembered and its search engine
comes up with no hits for "Abu Shitta". It's a bit embarrassing to
admit that I even had to look, but it was necessary.
HHW
Give us an Abu Shitta cite. I'm working from Palestine Remembered.
HHW
But Deborah, they are simply copied and pasted from Palestine
Remembered, a very reputable site. It's one which you, personally,
should emulate. You could, perhaps, improve your scholarly ethics.
HHW
Palestine Remembered, Deborah. Who is Abu Shitta? Citations please?
HHW
You have no qualifications as to what "one" knows. You traffic in
misrepresentations.
>
> Deborah
Without question I trust the Palestine Remembered site on this
occasion. You certainly have posted no reason to the contrary. BTW the
Haganah history is apparently quite frank. You'll be relieved to know
that Pappe quotes it frequently. He also quotes formal Jewish Brigade
histories. Memorably, he quotes one regarding the ethnic cleansing of
Haifa. You will have quite a dilemma there. Dear me, which is lying,
Pappe or the Brigade historian?
HHW
I think this thread was begun with a map of Greater Palestine. It
follows the Ben-Gurion quotation which you have duplicitously snipped
so as to mislead the readers.
HHW
> On Mar 21, 9:54 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:54 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> It seems rather presumptuous of HHW to attempt to provide any analysis
> of some kind of "Israeli Ethnic Cleansing", when he has read nothing
> more on the subject than one book by a communist propagandist, and a
> few Palliebull websites.
Sigh, I've read Shlaim and quoted him here. I've read Pappe and quoted
him here. I've read Benny Morris about whom you once inadvisably
exclaimed something like: "Don't you just love Benny Morris?" That was
before you knew that he, like Pappe, is considered a "New Historian,"
i.e., a revisionist. I've quoted him here. I've read a wonderful book
about the first generation of Israelis and their leaders the name and
title of which escape me now and it's back in the library. I've read
George Shultz's autobiography and President Carter's book. I've read
hundreds articles by journalists and scholars about the Arab/Israeli
conflict over the years. I've read a couple of the older histories of
Israel (Sachar, perhaps). I've read Dayan's memoir. I've read M & Walt
and Pappe. I've followed the conflict for forty years in journalism
and scholarly journals such as Foreign Affairs, the latter of which
I've read consistently that whole time . I've even read Leon Uris.
This is by no means the totality of the reading. Your continuous
assertions that I've read nothing are simply another form of character
assassination which stems from your guttersnipe character. If you have
any claim to being a "real Jew" your tribe should be deeply ashamed.
And yet only Eli speaks up.
You've probably read a little yourself, Deborah, but with you the
moral deficit destroys its value. You will twist and misrepresent
anything. You lie at the drop of a hat: "Did not! she said." And what
happens? One TCross immediately proves you to be a liar, twice in one
small post. You can't be trusted on anything. I don't have the time or
inclination to follow you around pointing our your omissions and
commissions. You never contribute legitimately so in the long run
nothing you do matters. You're simply an embarrassment.
>
> Presumably, HHW's entire thread here is the latest of his long series
> of sidedodges to avoid pointing to the exact provision of SCR 242
> which requires Israel to, as HHW claims, "return land to the
> Palestinians."
That's exactly its *effect*. Had you the Ecuadorians in mind? But you
won't discuss it even though you demanded the thread which has now
become a disaster for you. I even put asterisks around the precise
phrases which force this result. I gave you more material than you
need. You don't even acknowledge that I've done it.
>
> > Let's us pose the question the other way around.
>
> Let us pose another question: what is the exact provision of SCR 242
> which sets for the requirement that Israel "return land to the
> Palestinians"?
The word is "phrases" and I have set them off with asterisks: like
this, *** in case you didn't know what asterisk meant. They come from
several sources.
No part of you is serious when it comes to a search for the truth of
any matter. You constantly think of how to twist and bullshit and
follow the road of hasbara. You should be ashamed of yourself but
you're too morally obtuse to understand why.
>
> Deborah
HHW
Selecting that which is worth pasting-in, Deborah, is an intellectual
art you don't display. The value of "paste jobs" as you so elegantly
put it is dependent on that skill. You have two problems when you
attempt it: one is that you display neither taste nor skill. The
other, even worse in the long run, is that you are on wrong side of
this war, the side of the oppressors, the ethnic cleansers and those
whose sacred narrative is essentially a lie which requires further
lies to support.
HHW
Again, I appreciate the kind words.
Ben H. Cramer
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2d781ded-2f73-4ff2...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I suspect an attack of the green-eyed monster here. She never receives
accolades from anyone.
Ben H. Cramer
It is an alien world to her.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Haha!
dsha...@gmail.com
> > Better you should correct the bullshit in the Abu Shitta quote.
On Mar 23, 2:18 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Give us an Abu Shitta cite. I'm working from Palestine Remembered.
Of course you are. Heaven forbid you should do anything productive,
like read a book or two.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > Another misquote pasted without attribution from the Abu Shitta site.
> This is the site it comes from:http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story63...
> Feel free to run a search on Palestine Remembered for "Abu Shitta".
> Nothing will come up.
Nothing is exactly what Abu Shitta produces.
> The Palestine Remembered site is infinitely more credible than you.
That's what you think. But then, you don't really think.
> > And the Palestinian people" NEVER "owned and operated over 97% of the
> > land. That is utter rot.
> You confuse the historical narrative with quotes from Ben-Gurion.
Twaddle.
> You're not competent to judge it.
I am infinitely more competent to judge it than a mindless, gutless
propaganda parrot like you.
> Do you quibble over the number or over the general range it
> represents. Whether it is off a few clicks is irrelevant. The
> estimates vary a few percentage points and depend on the time in
> question. The highest I've ever seen for Jewish ownership in 1948 is
> six or seven precent. So, will you settle for ninety three or ninety
> four percent Arab, both personal and as successors of the previous
> Muslim regime? If not explain yourself.
You are swallowing the fakery that the land which was NOT Jewish was
somehow all Muslim Arab. It was not. 16% was owned by absentee
landlords. 8% was owned by Arabs. The remainder were state lands.
Bullshit.
> And here you are presenting
> it with your imprimatur. You're not only devious and abusive, you're
> dumb as a post.
That still leaves me much brighter than you'll ever be. You can't even
answer the simple question as to which provision of SCR 242 requires
Israel to, as you claimed, return land to the Palestinians? And you
call ME dumb and dishonest, simply because you're an ignorant ass and
too lazy to rectify it?
Run along and play with Mirelle the Moron and Benzonah Creamer. You
can't handle anything else without flying into a childish tizzy fit.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > Abu Shitta's Palliebull site. Teveth never quoted BG as stating that
> > Jewish laborers were "more intelligent and diligent" than Arab
> > laborers.
> > If HHW bothered to read the books he pretends to quote, he might know
> > that. But, instead, he prefers to foster the illusion that he's far
> > better read than he actually is.
> > Deborah
On Mar 23, 1:34 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:> The cite's
not mine but there is a citation there, Deborah.
And it's bullshit, Hunter.
>The web
> site I took it from IS Palestinian
The PalestineRemembered site. You think I didn't recognize it?
>I am perfectly happy to say, but it
> could be from Count Dracula's site and it would be more credible than
> anything you ever, repeat, ever, say.
lol
>You, for example, have already
> fled from the discussion of 242 and 338 which I finally, after much
> badgering by you, agreed to participate in.
Do you ever tire of spewing bullshit? It's over ten months now that
I've been asking you to point to the provision of SCR 242 which
requires Israel, as you claim, to return land to the Palestinians.
That requires NO discussion. Just point to the provision: 1, 2, 3, or
4. Very simple.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the
> > > Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population
> > > should be dealt with.
> > Which, of course, HHW has never read, and therefore has no clue what
> > it states -- or doesn't.
> > > "[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist
> > > 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the
> > > borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the
> > > urban quarters
> > One always knows when an alleged quote is a load of balls by the
> > terminology.
On Mar 23, 2:29 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have no qualifications as to what "one" knows.
Er, yes, I do. I know the material. You don't, and you obviously have
no inclination to rectify your ignorance.
>You traffic in misrepresentations.
That is a load of balls, and you know it. You prefer to call facts
"misrepresentations" merely because you can't refute them.
> Without question I trust the Palestine Remembered site on this
> occasion.
I'm sure you do. Just as you trust Pappe's crappe.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > societies in all sectors.
> > He didn't, but don't let the facts get in the way of your pasting
> > twaddle from the Abu Shitta site.
> > Deborah
> Palestine Remembered, Deborah. Who is Abu Shitta? Citations please?
If you knew a fraction of what you THINK you know, you wouldn't have
to ask.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > which Britain promised the Zionists to turn Palestine to a "Jewish
> > > National Home"), Palestinians organized their first commercial strike
> > > in 1922.
> > The "first popular response against the Balfour Declaration" took
> > place not in 1922,
> > but in April 1921, when Arabs rioted and massacred Jews throughout
> > Palestine.
> > I've posted extensive quotes from Teveth's various books on Ben-
> > Gurion. It's beyond reasonable expectation for HHW to actually read
> > those books, in lieu of pasting falsified snippets from the Abu Shitta
> > site.
> > Deborah
On Mar 23, 2:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But Deborah, they are simply copied and pasted from Palestine
> Remembered, a very reputable site.
It isn't reputable, except to ignorant antisemites.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > jobs come from two of the biggest numbskulls on these NGs.
On Mar 23, 3:34 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Selecting that which is worth pasting-in, Deborah, is an intellectual
> art you don't display.
How about you exercise a little of your intellectual art, and point to
the provision of SCR 242 which requires Israel to, as you claim,
return land to the Palestinians.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > of some kind of "Israeli Ethnic Cleansing", when he has read nothing
> > more on the subject than one book by a communist propagandist, and a
> > few Palliebull websites.
On Mar 23, 3:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sigh, I've read Shlaim and quoted him here. I've read Pappe and quoted
> him here. I've read Benny Morris about whom you once inadvisably
> exclaimed something like: "Don't you just love Benny Morris?" That was
> before you knew that he, like Pappe, is considered a "New Historian,"
> i.e., a revisionist. I've quoted him here. I've read a wonderful book
> about the first generation of Israelis and their leaders the name and
> title of which escape me now and it's back in the library. I've read
> George Shultz's autobiography and President Carter's book. I've read
> hundreds articles by journalists and scholars about the Arab/Israeli
> conflict over the years. I've read a couple of the older histories of
> Israel (Sachar, perhaps). I've read Dayan's memoir. I've read M & Walt
> and Pappe. I've followed the conflict for forty years in journalism
> and scholarly journals such as Foreign Affairs, the latter of which
> I've read consistently that whole time . I've even read Leon Uris.
> This is by no means the totality of the reading.
It's a totality of twaddle, and more evidence of your need to lie.
> Your continuous
> assertions that I've read nothing are simply another form of character
> assassination
Your continual lies and evasions assassinate your own character, such
as that may be.
> You've probably read a little yourself, Deborah, but with you the
> moral deficit destroys its value. You will twist and misrepresent
> anything.
Add your lapses into childish insults when you've been caught lying.
> > Presumably, HHW's entire thread here is the latest of his long series
> > of sidedodges to avoid pointing to the exact provision of SCR 242
> > which requires Israel to, as HHW claims, "return land to the
> > Palestinians."
> That's exactly its *effect*. Had you the Ecuadorians in mind? But you
> won't discuss it even though you demanded the thread which has now
> become a disaster for you.
I never demanded anything of the sort, liar.
> I even put asterisks around the precise
> phrases which force this result. I gave you more material than you
> need. You don't even acknowledge that I've done it.
You did nothing but spend going on eleven months, and a lot of
bandwidth, evading the question put to you, because you haven't the
guts to answer it.
> > > Let's us pose the question the other way around.
> > Let us pose another question: what is the exact provision of SCR 242
> > which sets for the requirement that Israel "return land to the
> > Palestinians"?
> The word is "phrases" and I have set them off with asterisks: like
> this, *** in case you didn't know what asterisk meant. They come from
> several sources.
Don't patronize me, you spineless purveryor of secondhand twaddle.
Just point to the EXACT provision of 242 which requires Israel to, as
you claim, return land to the Palestinians. 1,2,3, or 4. Take your
pick, and stop your childish games.
Deborah
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3be9e08-9dc5-46da...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fddcb902-0584-4e03...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e16758c3-9dbe-4e65...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bedcf98d-8fa8-4077...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b076aaa-5808-4bb9...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
All you know, slime, is how to lie like a stinky yids.
Fuck orf, shit with legs.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbdb67d8-1436-4a60...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:931227d5-8e3d-455e...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:704cdf32-886b-444f...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime.
Ben H. Cramer
<dsha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47806abb-c606-4c79...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fuck orf, slime
dsha...@gmail.com
> From the beginning, Zionists advocated a "Jewish State" not just in
> Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights
> as well.
So?
While rival French and Arab claims for the governance of Syria still
awaited solution at the Paris Conference, there were no disagreements
in principle that Syria was to be allocated to France as a special
mandatory responsibility, that Iraq was to be awarded to Britain, and
that Palestine, too, now would become a British mandate. The Supreme
Council of the Peace conference formally validated this understanding
at San Remo on April 25, 1920. On the other hand, the one - non-
Turkish - Middle Eastern boundary issue that had yet to be settled
related to Palestine. Neither the British nor the Jews succeeded in
achieving precisely the configuration for the Holy Land they would
have chosen. On the basis of exhaustive geographic and geological
surveys, Weizmann and his Zionist colleagues asked the Supreme Council
for a Palestine bounded in the north by the slopes of the Lebanon
range, the headwaters of the Jordan, and the crest of Mount Hermon; in
the east by the Transjordan-Mesopotamian desert; and in the south by
the Gulf of Aqaba. The British for their part could only favor a
demand to enlarge and enrich their future mandate. Their general staff
continually stressed the importance of extending the frontiers of
Palestine northeastward to protect the rail routes from the
Mediterranean; while Balfour, in turn, supported Zionist claims to the
water resources of the upper Jordan and Litani rivers.
Yet the French were hardly prepared to accept these desiderata without
qualification. Rather, they endorsed the Lebanese contention that the
"historic and natural" frontiers of Greater Lebanon included the
sources of the Jordan. In a meeting with Lloyd George on March 20,
1919, Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon coldly turned down a British
appeal to revise the Sykes-Picot boundaries and argued instead that
the northern Galilee, with its network of Jewish settlements, must
remain within the Syrian enclave. It was a literalist interpretation
of the 1916 agreement that the British plainly could not accept, for
their troops even then were garrisoned throughout all of Galilee as
part of "Occupied Territory South." The impasse continued until
February 1920.
Then, at last, in response to Britain's withdrawal of support for
Feisal's demands in Syria, the new Millerand government accepted
essentially the current military boundaries in Palestine. Conversely,
the maximist frontiers requested by the Zionists, and until then
advocated by the British, simply were ignored. Lloyd George, no less
than his French counterpart, was prepared now to accept the status
quo. As London saw it, buffer protection of Egypt, including the use
of Haifa as a Mediterranean naval base, and the construction of a
railroad and pipeline from Iraq to the sea, probably could be met
within the existing Palestine borders. The Jews admittedly had been
useful in fulfilling these objectives, but the broadly projected
Zionist borders that would have guaranteed Palestine economic
viability were of secondary importance to the British. On December 4,
the two Allied prime ministers reached a final understanding on the
boundary issue.
The accord represented a painful setback for the Jews. To the north
and northeast, the country was deprived of its most important
potential water resources, including the Litani River, a key fount of
the Jordan, the spring arising from Mount Hermon, and the greater part
of the Yarmuk. The boundaries similarly ignored the historic entity of
Palestine -- "from Dan to Beersheba" -- as envisaged in the original
negotiations leading to the Balfour Declaration. Moreover, by failing
to approximate any natural geographic frontiers, the borders left the
country perennially exposed to armed invasion. This heritage of
economic and military vulnerability was to curse the Palestine
mandate, and later the entire Middle East, for decades to come.
H.M. Sachar, History of Israel Vol I, pp 116-117
> In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's"
> frontiers in detail as follows:
> "to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the
> northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus;
In 1918, Lance Corporal Ben-Gurion had no say in the matter. Moreover,
as B-G wrote later:
"There is no greater danger to political (and not only political)
thought than inertia, devotion to an existing structure of outmoded
thought. The world is never static, and certainly history is not.
Powers and factors and constellations renew themselves from time to
time, obliterating or fundamentally altering that which existed
before."
Ben-Gurion, 26 June 1937
BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, WWI ended almost a century ago. And
in case you need reminding, WWI was immediately followed by a pandemic
which killed some 100 millions worldwide. Another of those factors
which go toward "fundamentally altering that which existed before."
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion advocated exclusively
> Jewish labor (Avodah Ivrit) in Jewish businesses. He explained why a
> Jewish laborer should earn a higher salary because:
> "[he was] more intelligent and diligent" than the Arab. (Shabtai
> Teveth, p. 12-13)
By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion was still a schoolboy.
Before he left home, he saw the vicious pogroms of the tsarist regime
rip through his hometown, leaving friends and neighbours dead and
dying in their streets. Before he ever saw an Arab, he helped organize
defense groups against the Black Hundreds.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> From the start, Ben-Gurion wanted to segregate Arab and Jewish
> societies in all sectors.
Bullshit.
>For example, Jews in Palestine had their
> separate economical, social, health, educational, media, and political
> sectors that were opened to Jews only.
The result of the exclusion of Jews by the Muslims.
> The segregation of Palestine's
> society was nurtured by the Zionists to make it easier to partition
> the country when the "appropriate" time comes.
The "segregation of so-called 'Palestine's[SIC]' society" was there
from the 1st aliyah.
> In that regards, he stated in the 1920s:
> "The assets of the Jewish National Home must be created exclusively
> through our own work, for only the product of the Hebrew labor can
> serve as the national estate." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 66)
Hardly evidence of any "apartheid" sentiments, as the Abu Shitta site
claims.
> Similarly, he stated in the early 1920s:
> "Without Hebrew labor there is no way to absorb the Jewish masses.
> Without Hebrew labor, there will be no Jewish economy; without Hebrew
> labor, there will be no [Jewish] homeland. And anyone who does
> anything counter to the principle of Hebrew labor harms the most
> precious asset we have for fulfilling Zionism." (One Palestine
> Complete, p. 288)
What he meant was what A.D. Gordon meant.
But that was in the 1920s. He didn't entertain the same views
throughout his long life, of course.
His interest in the Arab question - as the Zionists termed Jewish-Arab
relations in Palestine - was of long standing, and his position on
this important issue went through several revisions...He rejected
Jabotinsky's teaching that the Jews would get Palestine only by force
of arms. In 1916, implicityly acknowledging the conflict, he had
written to himself, "It is possible to come to terms with the Arabs.
this is a matter of strategy for the Yishuv." But after the revolution
in Russia he began asserting that there was no conflict of interest
between Zionism and the Arabs, since labor Zionism's vocation was to
expedite the socialist revolution in the East. With the establishment
of socialism in the region the conflict would disappear as if it had
never been, since it had been created arbitrarily by the exploitative,
feudal Arab effendis and clerics, who sought only to benefit
themselves, fearing progress and the social and national liberation it
would bring.
A Jewish socialist republic could be established in Palestine that
would live in peace and harmony with its neighbors, the Arab socialist
republics...The Zionists, including Ben-Gurion, claimed that the
Disturbances of 1919 and the early 1920s - which constituted Arab
protest in blood and fire against the Balfour Declaration, the
Mandate, and Jewish immigration to Palestine - were no more than the
work of vandals and mobs incited by the effendis and clerics, who
feared Zionism as a liberating social movement that threatened their
class privileges, and had the encouragement and assistance of British
officials, who were also enemies of Zionism.
After the riots of Av 1929, Ben-Gurion's concept underwent another
transition. His class formula was laid aside and in its place arose a
new formula of mutual reconciliation. He acknowledged the existence of
the Arab national movement and, as he had not been formerly, was ready
to meet with its spokesmen, the representatives of the same effendis
and clerics whom he had once dismissed. He sought to convince them
that there was no conflict of interest and that the two nations,
Jewish and Arab, could live together in peace and harmony in the
framework of a plan he had created to establish a Federal Palestine; a
federation between a Jewish Palestine and its Arab neighbors, in which
the Arabs of Palestine, even if they became the minority in the Jewish
state, would not be a minority in the framework of the federation. In
this manner the Arab "fragment" living in Palestine would not be
oppressed since its national aspirations would be expressed within the
framework.
S. Teveth, Ben-Gurion, pp 457-458
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > And thanks to both of you and to Ben for the kind words.
> > How sad that the only accolades HHW can garner for his series of paste
> > jobs come from two of the biggest numbskulls on these NGs.
> > Deborah
On Mar 23, 2:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Again, I appreciate the kind words.
You take what you get, I suppose. And you get only what you take from
stupid websites. Why don't you actually bother reading some of those
books you claim to have read?
Unlike other JAE officials who dealt with the Arab question, Ben-
Gurion rejected political contacts with Arabs who favored Zionism for
financial gain and openly espoused contacts with Arab nationalists,
more precisely the heads of the pan-Arab movement. Since 1929 the star
of the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, had been rising in
the Arab community. The Jews held him responsible for the massacres
and atrocities against Jews in the 1929 Disturbances. By 1933 it was
clear that if anyone could claim to speak on behalf of Palestine's
Arabs it was he, and Ben-Gurion focused on this man.
As a first step toward the mufti, Ben-Gurion approached Musa Alami,
son of a wealthy and respected family and holder of a law degree from
Cambridge. Until the end of 1933 Alami had been Wauchope's personal
secretary, and from early 1934 he was assistant attorney general for
the Mandatory government. Ben-Gurion said he was in search of an "Arab
nationalist who cannot be bought with money or favors, but is not a
hater of Israel." In Alami he found such an Arab, one who possessed
other, no less important merits: his sister was married to Jamal al-
Husseini, cousin and confidant of the mufti, and his wife was the
daughter of exiled Syrian nationalist leader Ihsan al-Jabri. Together
with the Druse emir Shakib Arslan, one of the leaders of the Arab
revolt in Syria against France, Jabri headed the Syro-Palestinian
delegation to the League of Nations in Geneva. The two also published
a pan-Arab and pan-Islamic journal in French, La Nation arabe. Both
had ties to the mufti in Jerusalem. Ben-Gurion chose Alami not only
because of these family connections, but also because he regarded
Alami - mistakenly, it turned out - as "an Arab politician who does
not appear as such in public because he holds government office, but
who is the man behind Arab policy in Palestine." And Ben-Gurion
intended to open his talks with the Arabs quietly.
On March 20, 1934, Alami and Ben-Gurion met in Moshe Sharett's
apartment in Jerusalem. Opening his remarks with the accepted Zionist
claim that "we bring a blessing to the Arabs of Palestine, and they
have no good cause to oppose us," Ben-Gurion received a shattering
surprise. Musa Alami retorted, "I would prefer that the country remain
impoverished and barren for another hundred years, until we ourselves
are able to develop it on our own." Dauntless opponents had always
found favor with Ben-Gurion, and he was pleased at this reply. "I felt
that as an Arab patriot he was entitled to say what he said," wrote
Ben-Gurion in his memoirs. It is likely that he also expressed the
same sentiment directly to Alami at their first meeting, and a certain
chemistry developed between them. The first talk, like the ones that
followed, was frank and straightforward.
But their second meeting was delayed, for Alami served in the
prosecution in the Arlosoroff murder trial, which opened April 24, and
in the appeal that ended with Stavsky's acquittal on July 20. He then
fell ill and was bedridden, and Ben-Gurion did not meet with him again
for another five months. [...]
On June 15, while Musa Alami was still involved with the murder trial,
Ben-Gurion had met with the Lebanese Muslim leader Riyadh al-Sulh, and
on July 18 with the leader of the pan-Arab Istiqal party in Palestine,
Awni Abd al-Hadi. According to Ben-Gurion they, too, were well
disposed toward - and Abd al-Hadi enthusiastic about - the proposed
dialogue on his Federal Palestine scheme, in which the entry of four
to six million Jews into Palestine figured prominently.
At the end of July Ben-Gurion was invited to Government House in
Jerusalem. On this visit his friendship with Wauchope, whom he once
described as the best English teacher he had ever had, deepened.
Before dinner Ben-Gurion told him about his plan and the positive
response it had received from the Arabs...to his great surprise
Wauchope asked him to continue his talks with the Arabs.25
He did. On August 14 he went to see Alami at his home in Sharafat, and
visited him again on August 27, and 31. Alami and Hadi told Ben-Gurion
things he had never heard before. He got a firsthand account of Arab
fears and growing Arab pessimism. Although "a few are getting rich"
from the development Zionism brought about in Palestine, Hadi told
him, "the people are being dispossessed."*
These talks, Ben-Gurion believed, taught him to see Zionism and its
enterprise "through Arab eyes" and to empathize with the Arabs. Ben-
Gurion would later tell his JAE and Mapai colleagues that they saw
only the terrible distress of the Jewish people, with the sword of
Nazism dangling over their heads, but that he perceived the Arabs'
distress as well and could sense their fear of growing Jewish strength
in Palestine. He explained further that this fear was rooted in the
prejudice that Jews ruled the world, having unlimited financial means
at their disposal an omnipotent control over public opinion, the
press, Parliament, and the British government. He said he understood
how "the Arab fear" fueled the Arab national movement and its acts of
protest and terror.
From these talks the irreducible conflict of interest of Zionism and
the Arab national movement emerged very clearly, for the only solution
perceived by his interlocutors for their problems was an end to Jewish
immigration and land sales.* "Our final goal, Ben-Gurion told Hadi and
Alami, "is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine , on
both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community
numbering millions," whereas "the goal of the Arab nation is
independence, unity, and revival for all the Arab peoples in their
lands." The main question he posed in these talks was whether these
two objectives could be reconciled, and he believed they could. In
exchange for Arab recognition of the Jewish right to return to
Palestine, Ben-Gurion promised, speaking for the Jewish people, to
recognize "the right of the Arabs to remain on their land, while the
Yishuv is allowed to grow through the development of Palestine." The
Jews would use their "political influence, financial means, and moral
support to bring about the independence and unity of the Arab people,"
namely, an Arab federation.
What Arab countries were to join this federation? According to Alami,
three blocs had to be considered. The first was Syria and western
Palestine, the second, Iraq and Transjordan, and the third, Arabia -
the Hijaz, the Negev, and Yemen. Although Saudi Arabia was part of
this third area, Alami noted that there was no inclination on the part
of Syria or Palestine to unite with the kingdom of Ibn Saud. And
although the mufti and his followers did seek ties - in fact, unity -
with Syria, the latter, including Lebanon, was still under French
mandate, precluding such a union. In June Riyadh al-Sulh had remarked
that the Arabs saw "no possibility of Syria's uniting with the other
Arab countries except in the aftermath of another world war." For this
reason, Alami commented, it was still too early to speak of a general
federation, but only of one linking Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine,
all under British control. But Ben-Gurion could not accept this, since
he saw Transjordan as an integral part of Palestine. There could be
only a two-member federation consisting of Palestine (which, by
including Transjordan, would be much larger than Jewish Palestine was
at the that time) and the state of Iraq. If, however, the Jews were
guaranteed unlimited immigration and settlement in Transjordan, "we
would be prepared to discuss a special status, either temporary or
permanent, for Transjordan."
At the August 14 meeting Alami brought up the mufti, who was "the
decisive force" in Palestine, promising to pass on to him the content
of their talks and suggesting that Ben-Gurion meet with Haj Amin
himself - secretly, of course. Ben-Gurion got what he wanted and could
congratulate himself for choosing the right approach. Nevertheless, he
requested that this meeting be postponed until after he had conferred
with the JAE in London. Meanwhile the connection continued through
Alami, who kept his word and, in describing the Federal Palestine plan
to the mufti, also raised Ben-Gurion's question. Was it possible to
come to an understanding whereby the Arabs would agree to the
establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in exchange for Jewish
consent to this federation?
Teveth, Ben-Gurion, pp 460-461, 464-467
---------
[*NB: Both Alami and Hadi were prominent opponents to land sales to
Jews. Nevertheless:
Musa al-Alami sold lands to the JNF on which Kibbutz Tirat-
Zevi was founded in 1936, plus 1,600 dunams near Migdal, 1,700 dunams
in Hirbiya, 6,000 dunams in the southern Judean plain, and other lands
jointly owned with the Husaynis.
Awni Abd al-Hadi sold 2,000 dunams in the Jezre'el, the
lands of the village of Qumia, and a parcel of 6,000 dunams in Kafer-
Zar'in to the JNF. Both Hadi and his brother assisted the JNF in
assembling large tracts of land for purchase, while their father sold
lands on which moshava Karkur and Kefar-Pinnes were founded.]
Both Alami and Hadi were lawyers, of course.]
-------
See further:
S. Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestine Arabs: From Peace to War
D. Ben-Gurion, My Talks with Arab Leaders
Deborah
HHW
> On Mar 23, 2:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Another misquote pasted without attribution from the Abu Shitta site.
> > This is the site it comes from:http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story63...
> > Feel free to run a search on Palestine Remembered for "Abu Shitta".
> > Nothing will come up.
>
> Nothing is exactly what Abu Shitta produces.
Cute, but you lied. That it was obvious is irrelevant.
>
> > The Palestine Remembered site is infinitely more credible than you.
>
> That's what you think. But then, you don't really think.
Ah, but I've gotten you into this situation. The site has a
presumption of validity. You don't. Everyone know you're a liar.
> > > And the Palestinian people" NEVER "owned and operated over 97% of the
> > > land. That is utter rot.
> > You confuse the historical narrative with quotes from Ben-Gurion.
>
> Twaddle.
Anyone who goes to this part of the site will see that you lie again.
> > You're not competent to judge it.
>
> I am infinitely more competent to judge it than a mindless, gutless
> propaganda parrot like you.
Well, you either lied or you're not competent to judge it. Take your
pick.
> > Do you quibble over the number or over the general range it
> > represents. Whether it is off a few clicks is irrelevant. The
> > estimates vary a few percentage points and depend on the time in
> > question. The highest I've ever seen for Jewish ownership in 1948 is
> > six or seven precent. So, will you settle for ninety three or ninety
> > four percent Arab, both personal and as successors of the previous
> > Muslim regime? If not explain yourself.
>
> You are swallowing the fakery that the land which was NOT Jewish was
> somehow all Muslim Arab. It was not. 16% was owned by absentee
> landlords. 8% was owned by Arabs. The remainder were state lands.
Concentrate now. Optimistically this is at the outer limits of your
ability:
You conflate the *meaning* of private ownership and government
ownership. You also don't understand the concept of state sovereignty
which is not the same thing as title to land.
There was *no ownership continuity* from the Ottoman government to
Israel, none whatsoever, with one single exception, the former Ottoman
*public lands* lying within the parcel given Israel in the partition
of 1947. The partition did not give jews or Israel title to any
privately owned Arab land lying within the Israeli parcel, the
individual rights to which were protected in the partition documents.
Results of the Nakba;
A. As to the parcel Israeli received in the 1947 partition, she:
1. Expropriated illegally by force and violence and without
compensation almost all privately owned Arab land lying therein. This
was a violation of the terms of the partition which Israel had
accepted and absentee owner status was irrelevant.
2. As to publicly owned land in the Israeli parcel, she became the
successor in ownership to the Ottoman Empire.
3. As to her entire parcel she became the sovereign successor to the
Ottoman Empire with the right to form a government. Sovereignty and
ownership of land are distinct concepts.
B. As to the parcel the Palestinian Arabs were to receive in the 1947
partition, she:
1. Expropriated illegal by force and violence and without compensation
almost all privately owned Arab land lying therein.
2. Expropriated illegally by force and violence all publicly owned
land in the Arab parcel.
3. Failed to become the sovereign successor to the Ottoman empire and
was not entitled to form a sovereign government under international
law.
HHW
Citation, please.
>
> > And here you are presenting
> > it with your imprimatur. You're not only devious and abusive, you're
> > dumb as a post.
>
> That still leaves me much brighter than you'll ever be.
I'll take that to the bank, "you're dumb as a post" by your own
admission.
You can't even
> answer the simple question as to which provision of SCR 242 requires
> Israel to, as you claimed, return land to the Palestinians?
I answered definitively with three or four citations to authority. The
fact that you can't understand it or pretend not to is your problem.
There's a limit to which I suffer fools. They first have to be decent
human beings.
I do make an occasional mistake, but when you can show me to be
dishonest I want you immediately to do so.
HHW
Concentrate now. Here's the process:
First you look at the actual language of 242 and find my asterisks--
and my asterisks inserted into the texts of my other pasted-in
authorities. Got that? Ok.
Then you read the subsequent World Court decision. That's the
"Apartheid Wall" decision. Clear? Good.
Then you read the other sources I posted.
Then your mind is supposed to work logically to a conclusion as to
what 242 means. As there are no Ecuadorians or Inuit involved, the
land has to be given back to the Palestinians.
Not one single square centimeter of the West Bank or Gaza is titled in
Israel. She has no sovereignty over them whatever, none.
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > Feel free to run a search on Palestine Remembered for "Abu Shitta".
> > > Nothing will come up.
> > Nothing is exactly what Abu Shitta produces.
On Mar 24, 3:58 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cute, but you lied.
Not at all. I don't share your fondness for prevarication.
> > > The Palestine Remembered site is infinitely more credible than you.
> > That's what you think. But then, you don't really think.
> Ah, but I've gotten you into this situation. The site has a
> presumption of validity. You don't. Everyone know you're a liar.
Again, you project your own failings as evidenced in your record here.
Your assumption that because you are deceitful and dishonest, others
are the same, is as false as your waffling posts.
> > > > And the Palestinian people" NEVER "owned and operated over 97% of the
> > > > land. That is utter rot.
> > > You confuse the historical narrative with quotes from Ben-Gurion.
> > Twaddle.
> Anyone who goes to this part of the site will see that you lie again.
Again, you project your own dishonesty.
> > > You're not competent to judge it.
> > I am infinitely more competent to judge it than a mindless, gutless
> > propaganda parrot like you.
> Well, you either lied or you're not competent to judge it. Take your
> pick.
> > > Do you quibble over the number or over the general range it
> > > represents. Whether it is off a few clicks is irrelevant. The
> > > estimates vary a few percentage points and depend on the time in
> > > question. The highest I've ever seen for Jewish ownership in 1948 is
> > > six or seven precent. So, will you settle for ninety three or ninety
> > > four percent Arab, both personal and as successors of the previous
> > > Muslim regime? If not explain yourself.
> > You are swallowing the fakery that the land which was NOT Jewish was
> > somehow all Muslim Arab. It was not. 16% was owned by absentee
> > landlords. 8% was owned by Arabs. The remainder were state lands.
> Concentrate now. Optimistically this is at the outer limits of your
> ability:
> You conflate the *meaning* of private ownership and government
> ownership. You also don't understand the concept of state sovereignty
> which is not the same thing as title to land.
I understand you quite well, you gutless coward.
> There was *no ownership continuity* from the Ottoman government to
> Israel, none whatsoever, with one single exception, the former Ottoman
> *public lands* lying within the parcel given Israel in the partition
> of 1947.
<yawn>
If it isn't prevarication with you, it's mindless circumlocation, both
calculated to disguise the fact that you don't know your ass from your
elbow. But your disguise isn't all that good, and your posting record
exemplifies why people the world over have for millennia viewed inept
lawyers like you as thieves, whores, and bottom-feeding scum-suckers.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
That's pretty goddamn funny, coming from a liar like you.
> > > And here you are presenting
> > > it with your imprimatur. You're not only devious and abusive, you're
> > > dumb as a post.
> > That still leaves me much brighter than you'll ever be.
> I'll take that to the bank, "you're dumb as a post" by your own
> admission.
Now, now, Hunter, play fair. Try to stick to the subject, if you can,
without calling the other kiddies names, just because they happen to
know more than you.
> > You can't even
> > answer the simple question as to which provision of SCR 242 requires
> > Israel to, as you claimed, return land to the Palestinians?
> I answered definitively with three or four citations to authority.
You didn't. You swished your petticoats around it, as you've been
doing for over ten months now--in addition to posting a lot of
mindless blather.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > lol
On Mar 24, 4:12 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Concentrate now. Here's the process:
> First you look at the actual language of 242 and find my asterisks--
> and my asterisks inserted into the texts of my other pasted-in
> authorities. Got that?
I got your latest sidedodge, of course, and it's your usual bullshit.
Just point to the provision of SCR 242 which requires Israel, as you
claim, to return land to the Palestinians. That's simple enough, even
for you. Just point to the provision: 1, 2, 3, or 4. Which is it?
Deborah
HHW
Here's what you clipped:
Concentrate now. Optimistically this is at the outer limits of your
ability:
You conflate the *meaning* of private ownership and government
ownership. You also don't understand the concept of state sovereignty
which is not the same thing as title to land.
There was *no ownership continuity* from the Ottoman government to
Israel, none whatsoever, with one single exception, the former
Ottoman
*public lands* lying within the parcel given Israel in the partition
Stan Engel
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9955d285-470e-4176...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
No you didn't. You're lying blatantly. Which provision of SCR 242 requires
Israel to return land to the Palestinians?
> The
> fact that you can't understand it or pretend not to is your problem.
> There's a limit to which I suffer fools. They first have to be decent
> human beings.
The fact that you can't support your contention about 242 shows you to be a
liar.
>
> I do make an occasional mistake, but when you can show me to be
> dishonest I want you immediately to do so.
You lied when you claimed that 242 requires Israel to return land to the
Palestinians.
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.
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > I do make an occasional mistake, but when you can show me to be
> > dishonest I want you immediately to do so.
>
> You lied when you claimed that 242 requires Israel to return land to the
> Palestinians.
Stanley, where have you been? What a relief it is to talk to a civil
Zionist. Unfortunately, the World Court disagrees with you. Israel has
to withdraw and so I must ask you, who is waiting there to take the
land? If, however, you believe that Israeli withdrawal will mean that
again "Palestine is a land without a people," tell us just who these
phantasms covered with dust and blood have been all these years in the
occupied territories?
Where are your famed lawyers, Stanley? Why aren't they weighing in?
Why do they leave it to poor, foul Deborah to represent the Jewish
people of America? One of fifteen judges failed to support the
majority opinion in the Apartheid Wall case. He was Jewish. But he
wrote a "Declaration" instead of a dissenting opinion. Why do you
suppose that was? I believe it's because he's an honorable man.
> Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Inadmissibility, Stanley. Period. End of subject. That means not one
square centimeter. Tell the Israelis to get the Hell out of the West
Bank so that we can all have peace.
hille...@yahoo.com
> Selecting that which is worth pasting-in, Deborah, is an intellectual
> put it is dependent on that skill.
And, unlike Deborah, you don't have "that skill".
You don't know enough history to detect bullshit, e.g
you cut & paste opinions about 242 instead of reading
the resolution.
hille...@yahoo.com
> Sigh, I've read Shlaim and quoted him here.
> I've read Pappe and quoted him here.
So you read some "historians" who are better in
"selling it" than researching it. So what?
You failed to a stupid "sales pitch". It does not
mean that the "sales pitch" was smart, just that
you are stupid.
>I've read Benny Morris about whom you once inadvisably
> exclaimed something like: "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
Benny Morris is an interesting case.
He started as a "new historian", rewriting history. At some
point he realized that while he managed to discover some
details he missed the big historical process. When he
started to research the "why?" and not just the "what?"
he realized that in the given situation the Jews' actions
were minimal, especially when you compare it to
other ethnic conflicts, especially in the Middle East.
> That was
> before you knew that he, like Pappe, is considered a "New Historian,"
> i.e., a revisionist. I've quoted him here. I've read a wonderful book
> about the first generation of Israelis and their leaders the name and
> title of which escape me now and it's back in the library. I've read
> George Shultz's autobiography and President Carter's book. I've read
> hundreds articles by journalists and scholars about the Arab/Israeli
> conflict over the years. I've read a couple of the older histories of
> Israel (Sachar, perhaps). I've read Dayan's memoir. I've read M & Walt
There is a perfect term for you in Hebrew - "hamor noseh sfarim",
"a jackass carrying books". Assuming that you actually read all
that (a baseless assumption IMO), you showed no understanding.
You remained the same jackass.
hille...@yahoo.com
> There was *no ownership continuity* from the Ottoman government to
> Israel, none whatsoever, with one single exception, the former
> Ottoman
> *public lands* lying within the parcel given Israel in the partition
> of 1947.
And what you "missed" is that the majority of land in
Israel are those "public lands".
dsha...@gmail.com
> Here's what you clipped:
> Concentrate now. Optimistically this is at the outer limits of your
> ability:
It was mindless prevarication the first time you diddled it out, and
repeating it won't change it. Try another tack. Like reference to
actual facts.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > There was *no ownership continuity* from the Ottoman government to
> > Israel, none whatsoever, with one single exception, the former
> > Ottoman
> > *public lands* lying within the parcel given Israel in the partition
> > of 1947.
On Mar 25, 9:46 am, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> And what you "missed" is that the majority of land in
> Israel are those "public lands".
What HHW also misses, because he doesn't know what he's blithering, is
that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The reference to Ottoman
"public lands" shows that clearly.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > > I do make an occasional mistake, but when you can show me to be
> > > dishonest I want you immediately to do so.
> On Mar 25, 8:10 am, "Stan Engel" <Stan_en...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You lied when you claimed that 242 requires Israel to return land to the
> > Palestinians.
On Mar 25, 7:45 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stanley, where have you been? What a relief it is to talk to a civil
> Zionist.
What a pity the converse can't be stated.
>Unfortunately, the World Court disagrees with you. Israel has
> to withdraw
The nonbinding advisory opinion of the ICJ, issued in 2004, has no
bearing on the provisions of SCR 242 as it was issued in 1967.
>and so I must ask you, who is waiting there to take the
> land? If, however, you believe that Israeli withdrawal will mean that
> again "Palestine is a land without a people," tell us just who these
> phantasms covered with dust and blood have been all these years in the
> occupied territories?
Just tell us which provision of SCR 242 -- provision #1, provision #2,
provision #3, or provision #4 -- specifically requires Israel to
"return land to the Palestinians."
> Where are your famed lawyers, Stanley?
Where's your brain, Hooter?
> Inadmissibility, Stanley. Period. End of subject. That means not one
> square centimeter. Tell the Israelis to get the Hell out of the West
> Bank so that we can all have peace.
Translation from Watsonese: "Yes, I lied, as usual, and NO, I will not
admit that I lied, even though it's very clear that I lied."
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > Selecting that which is worth pasting-in, Deborah, is an intellectual
> > art you don't display. The value of "paste jobs" as you so elegantly
> > put it is dependent on that skill.
On Mar 25, 9:10 am, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> And, unlike Deborah, you don't have "that skill".
> You don't know enough history to detect bullshit, e.g
> you cut & paste opinions about 242 instead of reading
> the resolution.
He can hardly refer directly to the resolution. He lied about its
provisions, claimed they stated something they did not; he knows he
lied about it, but he's not man enough to admit it.
Deborah
dsha...@gmail.com
> > Sigh, I've read Shlaim and quoted him here.
> > I've read Pappe and quoted him here.
On Mar 25, 9:23 am, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So you read some "historians" who are better in
> "selling it" than researching it. So what?
> You failed to a stupid "sales pitch". It does not
> mean that the "sales pitch" was smart, just that
> you are stupid.
> >I've read Benny Morris
Correction: HHW means he has pasted an article or two which may, or
may not, contain a few snippets from one or another of Morris's works.
He has never, of course, read any of Benny's books. The same applies
to Teveth.
> >about whom you once inadvisably
> > exclaimed something like: "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
Another of HHW's, just as he lied when he castigated me for some
remark about Al Sharpton which I never made.
> Benny Morris is an interesting case.
> He started as a "new historian", rewriting history. At some
> point he realized that while he managed to discover some
> details he missed the big historical process. When he
> started to research the "why?" and not just the "what?"
> he realized that in the given situation the Jews' actions
> were minimal, especially when you compare it to
> other ethnic conflicts, especially in the Middle East.
> > That was
> > before you knew that he, like Pappe, is considered a "New Historian,"
> > i.e., a revisionist.
I've known Benny Morris was a so-called "New Historian" since the
early 1990s -- IOW, long before HHW ever heard of him.
> > I've quoted him here.
Correction: HHW has pasted articles which quote snippets from Benny's
works or from Benny's articles; the latter are chiefly contined to
Pappe's crying jags over Benny's criticisms.
HHW began posting more "quotes" from Morris only after he discovered
the Abu Shitta site.
> >I've read a wonderful book
> > about the first generation of Israelis and their leaders the name and
> > title of which escape me now and it's back in the library.
Uh huh.
> > I've read
> > George Shultz's autobiography and President Carter's book. I've read
> > hundreds articles by journalists and scholars about the Arab/Israeli
> > conflict over the years. I've read a couple of the older histories of
> > Israel (Sachar, perhaps). I've read Dayan's memoir. I've read M & Walt
> There is a perfect term for you in Hebrew - "hamor noseh sfarim",
> "a jackass carrying books".
Is there a term for "a jackass quoting books he's never read"? That
would fit HHW better.
> >Assuming that you actually read all
> that (a baseless assumption IMO), you showed no understanding.
> You remained the same jackass.
What, you didn't laugh at the list of books HHW claims to have read?
=======================
On Feb 11, 11:42 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hillel, the San Jose State undergraduate who has pretended to be a
> middle aged Israeli businessman in the computer engineering business
> posting from israel now has butchered my post so unconscionably that I
> have no choice but to paste a clean copy of it in here so that readers
> my scroll up to figure out what his scam is:
"Are you always this much of a clown when you get thumped?"
=======================
HHW is rather funny when he gets thumped. And he's gotten thumped
quite a bit, you know.
Deborah
HHW
The Resolution is a single page. Have you read it?
dsha...@yahoo.com
> > > Selecting that which is worth pasting-in, Deborah, is an intellectual
> > > art you don't display. The value of "paste jobs" as you so elegantly
> > > put it is dependent on that skill.
> On Mar 25, 10:10 am, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > And, unlike Deborah, you don't have "that skill".
> > You don't know enough history to detect bullshit, e.g
> > you cut & paste opinions about 242 instead of reading
> > the resolution.
On Mar 25, 6:00 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Resolution is a single page. Have you read it?
Have you? You can read a one-page resolution, can't you? You seem to
be having the very devil of a time point to the provision which
requires Israel to, as you claim, "return land to the Palestinians."
Hint: the ADVISORY - and NONBINDING - opinion of the IJC on Israel's
security barrier has no relation to which one of its four provisions
the 1967 resolution requires Israel to "return land to the
Palestinians." That should have been clear, even to you.
Deborah
HHW
What you missed is I acknowledge that as to public lands in her 1947
partition parcel, she is the legitimate owner. That's not the case,
however, for "public lands" in the rest of what we today call Israel
or in the West Bank and Gaza. In those areas, i.e., in the Arab
partition parcel and the West Bank and Gaza, there is no title from
the Ottoman Empire.
Here's a famed legal scholar's analysis which I accept as accurate:
The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law
Anthony D'Amato
Leighton Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law
This is an essay on the legal boundaries of the State of Israel. It is
based entirely on my understanding of international law. I have no
first-hand experience of the Middle East, and I speak entirely from
law books and the documentary record. I am not a Jew. I am not an
Arab. In trying to assess my internal biases, I must disclose that I
feel a huge debt to the cultural and intellectual enrichment flowing
to me from the contributions of Jews: in Broadway musicals (my
especial passion), movies, theatre, law, and the philosophy of
science. I have also been a steadfast supporter of the State of Israel
as it was established, and under the boundaries it was given, on May
15, 1948.
1. Palestine was a Mandate under Article 22 of the League of Nations
Covenant; in our parlance, a trust. The beneficiaries were the people
residing in Palestine. The Mandatory Power (trustee) was Great
Britain. Palestine was defined in Article 22 as one of those Mandates
that was "provisionally" recognized as an independent nation but
nevertheless needed on its road to statehood the "administrative
advice and assistance" of a Mandatory Power.
2. The League of Nations was dissolved in 1946. Its duties regarding
Mandates were assumed by the new United Nations that had been
established in 1945. The Palestinian Mandate, of course, remained
intact, just as a trust remains intact even though the supervising
judge or even the trustee may change.
3. Great Britain informed the UN of its intention to relinquish its
trusteeship. By then a great deal of common law regarding Mandates had
developed through the years of the League of Nations. Under that law,
Great Britain could not simply abandon its responsibilities to the
people of Palestine. It could only relinquish its trusteeship
responsibilities if it left the people of Palestine in a viable self-
governing position.
4. In consultation with the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations,
Great Britain argued that it could not leave Palestine as a unitary
self-governing state, but it could relinquish its trusteeship if the
territory were divided into two states, a Jewish State and an Arab
State. The question then turned to the allocation of Palestinian land
between the two new entities. Great Britain argued that the division
should not reflect the actual numbers of Jews and Palestinians living
in the territory because the Jews, as an ethnic/religious entity, had
a right to invite the surviving victims of the Holocaust to come and
live in the new Jewish State. As a result, the proposed "partition
plan" would give substantially more territory to the Jewish State than
was warranted by the number of Jews living in Palestine. (I might add
that I have always believed that the British decision was both morally
and legally justified.)
5. On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted the key
"partition" resolution, Resolution 181, ratifying the British
proposals. It also provided for an independent international mixed
status for the city of Palestine. In my opinion, this Resolution
constitutes the first, last, and only legally authorized demarkation
of the Israeli-Palestine borders. It was legally authoritative not
because it took the form of a UN Resolution, but solely because the UN
Resolution itself served as a ratification of the British proposal to
divide the Mandate and leave its governance to the people. In other
words, the alpha and omega of the legal power resided in Great Britain
as the trustee and not in the United Nations. As trustee, it had the
power to partition the territory if and only if that was the best way
to provide for its future self-government. The General Assembly did
not derive its legal powers directly from the Charter of the UN, but
rather as surrogate for the League of Nations as it devolved its
powers of mandate supervision to the UN and, through the UN, to the
General Assembly itself. Legal title to the land was not conferrred by
Resolution 181 alone but rather by Great Britain's acceptance of the
terms of Resolution 181. The State of Israel owes its entire legal
existence to the proper exercise by Great Britain of its League of
Nations' Mandatory Power over the territory of Palestine. It owes
nothing to the United Nations and, by the same token, cannot claim any
additional rights from the United Nations. Instead, as soon as
Resolution 181 was passed (and of course Great Britain voted in its
favor), the legal borders between Israel and Palestine were forever
fixed. Those borders henceforth could only be changed by one of two
processes: first, explicit agreement between Israel and the authorized
representatives of Palestine, and second, in the few cases of limited
disputed areas where the verbal description contained in Resolution
181 was ambiguous in terms of existing maps or surveys, by
international arbitration. The Security Council had and has no power
to change international borders.
6. Although Israel proclaimed itself as a state within six months of
Resolution 181, the Palestinians - for convoluted internal reasons
plus the land-grabbing ambitions of surrounding Arab states - did not
seriously entertain the idea of a State of Palestine for almost
another forty years. In any event, as is well known, neighboring Arab
states, proclaiming that the United Nations had sold out the
Palestinians, attacked Israel. To the world's astonishment, Israel not
only prevailed in the war, but beat back the Arab invaders and in the
process more than doubled the previously partitioned territory of
Israel. Israel then ousted the Palestinians who were living in the
conquered area, and they have ever since been remitted to conditions
of squalor in refugee camps that dot the Middle East.
7. The six-day war of 1967 further increased the size of Israel at the
expense of the Palestinians. In the direct aftermath of the war, the
Security Council of the United Nations, exercising its Chapter 7
powers under the UN Charter, passed Resolution 242 calling for the
withdrawal of Israeli forces "from territories of recent conflict" and
"achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem." Israel and the
U.S. interpreted the Resolution's call for "withdrawal from
territories," and not "the" territories, as a less than complete
withdrawal because the word "the" was not mentioned. The mild joke in
circulation at the time was that anyone opposed to the U.S.-Israeli
interpretation was "anti-semantic". Israel took the position that it
was therefore not legally required to withdraw from the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip that it had just conquered, and indeed that it could
erect Israeli settlements in those territories.
8. But semantics aside, in my view the Security Council simply does
not have the power to take land from A and give it to B, irrespective
of its undoubted legal power in the event of a threat or breach of the
peace to restore international peace and security. The sanctity of
international borders is a principle of international law that
antedates the Charter of the United Nations; in fact it goes back five
thousand years. No smaller nation would have supported the UN Charter
at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 if the draft Charter had given
to the five permanent menbers of the Security Council - the United
States, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, and China - the legal
power to change international frontiers. After all, the five permanent
members at the time had been wartime allies, and in concert they could
reshape the world at will if they had been given such an unprecedented
power. Morever, there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations
that even remotely hints of a power or entitlement in the Security
Council to change international borders. Even Resolution 242 only
calls for a withdrawal of forces, and makes no mention of a permanent
change in boundaries. As far as the Israeli settlements are concerned,
they are clearly illegal; an occupying power has no right to de facto
annexation of portions of the territory by population transfers.
9. Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 above is the undeniable
fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively
glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has
abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military
conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders
cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal,
and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go
so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it
does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot
be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and
counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN
resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed
after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and
Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution
181.
COMMENT: I find it remarkable that the recent Saudi proposal - to
normalize relations with Israel in return for its withdrawal to
pre-1967 boundaries - has not been accepted with enthusiasm by the
Israeli government. After all, it would legally transfer to Israel -
if my preceding analysis of the background international law is
correct - more than double the land allocated by the Partition
Resolution of 1947. It would also bring peace to these troubled
historic lands. But it appears that Prime Minister Sharon's mood
regarding the Palestinians is not "what have you done for me?" but
rather "what have you done for me lately?" His apparent inability to
take a longer-term moral and legal perspective on the situation is
deeply troubling. I fear for the continued viability of the Israelis,
entrapped as they are as a sliver of territory in a vast Islamic ocean
with their enemies' access to "suitcase" nuclear bombs increasing
daily. But apart from what Sharon may be thinking, it seems to me that
his strategic goals are inconsistent. He of course wants, and is
absolutely entitled to have, the physical security of the Israeli
people. But he also wants their ethnic/religious identity to be
preserved, irrespective of their individual marriage choices. These
two goals clash with each other when the question is raised of the
right of return of the Palestinian refugees. If Palestine were to
become a State, and if Arafat would have his way (as opposed to the
Islamic extremists in Palestine), the refugees would come back in a
tidal wave. This would, in Sharon's view, endanger Israeli identity
and uniqueness. So it seems that Sharon must be committed both to
avoiding peace and avoiding a settlement that would allow the
Palestinians to return. Rhetoric aside, what he appears to want,
unfortunately, is the peace process and not peace itself.
Anthony D'Amato is the Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern
University School of Law, where he teaches courses in international
law, international human rights, analytic jurisprudence, and justice.
Professor D'Amato was the first American lawyer to argue (and win) a
case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and he
has litigated a number of human rights cases around the world. He is
the author of over 20 books and over 110 articles.
April 8, 2002
HHW
You have referenced Ottoman public lands. You've done it without
analysis.
HHW
> > > "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > I do make an occasional mistake, but when you can show me to be
> > > > dishonest I want you immediately to do so.
> > On Mar 25, 8:10 am, "Stan Engel" <Stan_en...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You lied when you claimed that 242 requires Israel to return land to the
> > > Palestinians.
>
> On Mar 25, 7:45 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Stanley, where have you been? What a relief it is to talk to a civil
> > Zionist.
>
> What a pity the converse can't be stated.
See the Comment of Professor D'Amato at the end of his essay appended
below.
>
> >Unfortunately, the World Court disagrees with you. Israel has
> > to withdraw
>
> The nonbinding advisory opinion of the ICJ, issued in 2004, has no
> bearing on the provisions of SCR 242 as it was issued in 1967.
Fool, try to imagine the reverse sequence.
>
> >and so I must ask you, who is waiting there to take the
> > land? If, however, you believe that Israeli withdrawal will mean that
> > again "Palestine is a land without a people," tell us just who these
> > phantasms covered with dust and blood have been all these years in the
> > occupied territories?
>
> Just tell us which provision of SCR 242 -- provision #1, provision #2,
> provision #3, or provision #4 -- specifically requires Israel to
> "return land to the Palestinians."
Actually it's two provisions which read together permit no other
conclusion, the perambulatory "inadmissibility" line and the
withdrawal paragraph. Not one square centimeter, Deborah. Then that
logic is confirmed by the Court in 2004. You're an idiot to keep
convincing people to read them. That's why I'm still here.
>
> > Where are your famed lawyers, Stanley?
>
> Where's your brain, Hooter?
>
> > Inadmissibility, Stanley. Period. End of subject. That means not one
> > square centimeter. Tell the Israelis to get the Hell out of the West
> > Bank so that we can all have peace.
>
> Translation from Watsonese: "Yes, I lied, as usual, and NO, I will not
> admit that I lied, even though it's very clear that I lied."
Not quite, Deborah, the "inadmissibility" paragraph is in the preamble
to 242. I've posted it. People are looking it up too. It emphasizes
"the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..." The
quotation marks are there because it is a quotation. One does have to
wade through offal to take advantage of the opportunities you provide,
but what the Hell. Here's the definitive legal opinion about where
Israel's boundaries lie in international law:
HHW
> > > > I do make an occasional mistake, but when you can show me to be
> > > > dishonest I want you immediately to do so.
> > On Mar 25, 8:10 am, "Stan Engel" <Stan_en...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You lied when you claimed that 242 requires Israel to return land to the
> > > Palestinians.
>
> On Mar 25, 7:45 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Stanley, where have you been? What a relief it is to talk to a civil
> > Zionist.
>
> What a pity the converse can't be stated.
See the Comment of Professor D'Amato at the end of his essay appended
below.
>
> >Unfortunately, the World Court disagrees with you. Israel has
> > to withdraw
>
> The nonbinding advisory opinion of the ICJ, issued in 2004, has no
> bearing on the provisions of SCR 242 as it was issued in 1967.
Fool, try to imagine the reverse sequence.
>
> >and so I must ask you, who is waiting there to take the
> > land? If, however, you believe that Israeli withdrawal will mean that
> > again "Palestine is a land without a people," tell us just who these
> > phantasms covered with dust and blood have been all these years in the
> > occupied territories?
>
> Just tell us which provision of SCR 242 -- provision #1, provision #2,
> provision #3, or provision #4 -- specifically requires Israel to
> "return land to the Palestinians."
Actually it's two provisions which read together permit no other
conclusion, the perambulatory "inadmissibility" line and the
withdrawal paragraph. Not one square centimeter, Deborah. Then that
logic is confirmed by the Court in 2004. You're an idiot to keep
convincing people to read them. That's why I'm still here.
>
> > Where are your famed lawyers, Stanley?
>
> Where's your brain, Hooter?
>
> > Inadmissibility, Stanley. Period. End of subject. That means not one
> > square centimeter. Tell the Israelis to get the Hell out of the West
> > Bank so that we can all have peace.
>
> Translation from Watsonese: "Yes, I lied, as usual, and NO, I will not
> admit that I lied, even though it's very clear that I lied."
Not quite, Deborah, the "inadmissibility" paragraph is in the preamble
hille...@yahoo.com
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,
1. 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:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories
occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) 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;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through
international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and
political independence of every State in the area, through measures
including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. 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;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security
Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative
as soon as possible.
##########################################
BTW do you understand the difference between
"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories"
and
"Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from the territories"
Ben H. Cramer
<hille...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bce321d2-04b7-4a43...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 3:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sigh, I've read Shlaim and quoted him here.
>> I've read Pappe and quoted him here.
>
> So you read some "historians" who are better in
> "selling it" than researching it.
But nowhere nearly as effectively as you cunts have marketed your
Holocaust(tm) bullshit.
Ben H. Cramer
<hille...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0297dc1c-e7e3-46bd...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 3:34 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Selecting that which is worth pasting-in, Deborah, is an intellectual
>> art you don't display. The value of "paste jobs" as you so elegantly
>> put it is dependent on that skill.
>
BBBWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Shoveari's only skill is in screeching, lying and kevtching, Ikey.
Ben H. Cramer
"dsha...@gmail.com" <dsha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89c22def-f04e-42c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Mar 23, 3:34 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > Selecting that which is worth pasting-in, Deborah, is an intellectual
>> > > art you don't display. The value of "paste jobs" as you so elegantly
>> > > put it is dependent on that skill.
>
>> On Mar 25, 10:10 am, hillelg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > And, unlike Deborah, you don't have "that skill".
>> > You don't know enough history to detect bullshit, e.g
>> > you cut & paste opinions about 242 instead of reading
>> > the resolution.
>
> On Mar 25, 6:00 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Resolution is a single page. Have you read it?
>
> Have you? You can read a one-page resolution, can't you? You seem to
> be having the very devil of a time point to the provision which
> requires Israel to, as you claim, "return land to the Palestinians."
>
> Hint: the ADVISORY - and NONBINDING - opinion of the IJC on Israel's
> security barrier
What to you have to say about the NONBINDING UNGAR 181, slime?
Ben H. Cramer
"Stan Engel" <Stan_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47e8fc59$0$26042$8826...@free.teranews.com...
He did not lie, engelstein.