|
Edited on Mon Jun-21-04 12:33 AM by Aidoneus
This won't be as thorough as I could muster up on a good day, as I just don't have the attention span for this stuff anymore.. but I'll see what I can do with what you have given me to work with here:--
The land of Israel was giving to the Israeli's by International treaties.
None of them are legitimate and binding. It was taken through the military force of invaders, and nothing but.
1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement at the end of WW1 gave the parts of the Ottoman Empire to Great Britan, the area encompased today's Jordan, Israel and the West Bank. The area was dubbed Palestine after the Roman name for Philistine, which was the name given to the land as a reminder to the Jews in Roman times that they were inferior.
The Neocrusaders who so generously bestowed this agreement upon themselves had no actual right to do so. If, as you wrongly suggest, it was dubbed "Palestine" after the S-P agreement (1916), then explain the Arab nationalist political newspaper Filastin, founded in the Arab city of Jaffa in 1911, referring to its readers in some variation of Filastiniyyun ("Palestinians" in English)..
2. Palestine was not an established country, no government, no laws. Palestinians just lived in that area. Britain split up the area in 1923, giving Palestinians 75 percent of the area, and the Jews 25 percent.
Again without any legitimacy in doing so. The Zionist forces in Europe wanted the whole thing, and some of them much more than that even, but the British occupation forces instead decided to bestow the East Bank area over to their Hashemi puppet clan after they got their asses thrown out of the Hijaz (a similar puppet dictatorship was established over British-occupied Iraq) by another set of British agents, the al-Sauds. On the side:--they were very busy beavers at the time, promising so much that wasn't there's to so many..
Palestinians, contrary to what you allege, did and do have a distinct culture and lifestyle, with a nationalist current pre-dating the collapse of the Uthmani Khilafah and occupation of their lands by British and Zionist invaders.
3. U.N. Resolution 181 in 1947, an International Treaty, split up the 25 percent of the land that was considered the Jewish part, into another palestinian state, and a jewish state. On May 14, 1948, 12.5 percent of the original land that was Great Britan's to due what it pleased, declared themselves a self-governing nation, and started to build their nation on the land they were given by the UN, and only the land they were given.
UN General Assembly Resolution 181, a non-binding advisorial resolution. If UN General Assembly resolutions are relevant now, there's a whole mighty stack of them that the Zionist regime has thumbed its nose at for decades if you want to bring them up (I guess the UN is only useful when it rubberstamps your agenda, and is irrelevant all other times?). Partition was an awful idea then and now, for several reasons (the demographics, for example, or the morality but such is subjective and murky). Long before a single Arab state's army had set foot inside Palestine, Zionist paramilitary forces were carrying out ethnic cleansing operations across the whole length of Palestine. The war launched as a result of popular pressure to prevent the entire usurpation and colonization of Palestine could thus be seen in a defensive light.
I may take on the whole of #4 when I have more time to do so. This thread will probably be shut down by then anyway. :shrug:
There most certainly were expulsions and Palestinians that fled from the cleansing operations. Even the most fascist and pro-ethnic cleansing of contemporary Zionist historians, Benny Morris for example, admits this quite openly as both having existed and, from his view, having been necessary and right. Over 400 cities and villages in western Palestine were occupied and destroyed by the advancing Zionist forces, hundreds of thousands terrorized and expelled, and there is nothing that should obscure this fact.
5. Israel did not start the war of 1967. They stroke first...
Ya know, that's kind of the definition of "starting the war"..
...but it is common military knowledge, and Egypt's own confirmation, that Israel only struck because Egypt Jordan and Syria were going to.
This is a blatent lie. There is no such confirmation and it is not common military knowledge. Even the Zionist leaders themselves, Begin and Rabin for example, state exactly the opposite. Nasser had been bound by his Soviet patrons against anything of the sort. There were some pretenses they had engaged in, but only as a demonstration in support of their Syrian allies. The most elite units of the Egyptian armed forces were fighting the Saudi regime in the Yemen.
In the months before the formal war broke out, there were several rounds of 'tension' between the Zionist armed forces and Syria in the Jawlani. As Moshe Dayan himself admits in his post-mortum published memoirs, the settlers in the region made a game of quite deliberately provoking the Syrians on the border just to spark something big, so they could seize the farmlands nearby.
The three nations on the frontlines were bound by mutual defense treaties. As usual, each had their own interests at the front and this quite clumsily effected the coordination in the war. As in the previous wars it had more or less started ('56, for example), the Zionist regime was able to maintain unity and discipline in the face of the struggle while operating on interior lines (a big advantage in any fight), while the Arab states remained divided and hostile amongst themselves.
...Israel fought a defensive war, finally throwing back the invaders and defending a line that including now Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Sinai.
You say before that a blatently aggressive series of acts is not necessarily starting a war, then that invading and occupying the neighboring lands is "defensive". I would have to know what dictionary you are using, so that I may avoid misleading myself in the same fashion.
Don't feel like tackling the rest of this at the moment. Maybe later. To feel strongly about something does not guarantee accuracy, as you so well display.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
