ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

The history -- who ruled Palestine?
Diversity Watch ^

Posted on Monday, April 08, 2002 12:52:26 PM by Oldeconomybuyer

3000BC -- Canaanites inhabit Palestine

1125BC -- Israelites conquer the Canaanites

1050BC -- Philistines conquer Israelites.

1000BC -- Under King David, Israelites conquer Philistines and establish the nation of Israel. After his son, King Solomon dies, Israel becomes divided: the north becoming Israel and the south becoming Judah.

722BC -- Israel falls to Assyria

586BC -- Babylon captures Judah -- This defeat resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of most of the Jews to Babylon -- the so-called Babylonian captivity.

539BC -- Under Cyrus the Great, the Persians conquered Babylonia. The Jews were allowed to return to Judaea, a district in Palestine.

333BC -- Alexander the Great captures Palestine. His successors -- the Egyptian Ptolemies and the Syrian Seleucids -- tried without success to force Greek culture and religion on the people.

141-63BC -- The Jews revolted and established an independent state. This lasted until Pompey the Great conquered Palestine for Rome and made it a province of the Roman Empire ruled by Jewish kings. Rome ruled Palestine for about 700 years.

638AD -- Palestine is invaded by Muslim Arab armies that capture Jerusalem. Thus begins 1300 years of Muslim presence in what becomes known as Filastin.

1517 -- The Mamelukes are defeated by the Ottomans, who rule Palestine for the next four hundred years -- until the winter of 1917-18.

1880s -- With the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, Jews begin to migrate to Palestine.

1917-18 -- The British takes Palestine from the Ottomans at the end of World War I.

1917 -- Britain creates Balfour Declaration that outlines conditions to create a "national home" for Jews in Palestine. With this declaration, Britain hoped to gain the support of the Jews for the Allied cause in World War I.

July 24 1922 -- The declaration was incorporated into the League of Nations mandate for Palestine. It outlines the terms under which Britain was given responsibility for temporary administration of the country. The mandate lasted from 1922-1948.

1935 -- Over 60,000 Jews come into Palestine.

1936 -- Because of a fear of Jewish domination, an Arab revolt broke out. This continues on and off until 1939.

1947 -- Britain declares the mandate unworkable and passes the problem over to the United Nations. Under David Ben-Gurion, the Jewish army fights against the Arab Palestinians and defeats them.

On May 14th 1948, the State of Israel is created. Because of this, five Arab states, in support of the Palestinians, attack the new state but are defeated. This is known as the first Arab-Israeli War. As a result of the war, 780,000 Palestinians became refugees.

1964 -- The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is founded as a political body representing the Palestinians.

1967 -- In another war between Israel and the Arabs (commonly known as the Six Days War), Israel gains control of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and other areas previously controlled by the Arabs.

1970 -- The PLO commandos fight with the Jordanian army. The PLO is expelled from the country and settles in Lebanon. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon is 1982 is conducted to disperse some 12,000 PLO members to Syria and other Arab countries.

1988 -- All territorial claims to the Israeli-held West Bank are ceded to the PLO by Jordanian King Hussein.
In December, the United States agrees for the first time to begin direct contact with the PLO.

1991 -- After the Gulf War, the Syrian-backed Lebanese army forced the PLO to retreat from its positions in southern Lebanon.

After decades of violence, conflict and disagreement, PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin meet in the United States on 13 September (1993) to witness the signing of a peace accord between the two groups. The plan stipulated Palestinian self-rule in Israeli-occupied areas, beginning with the Gaza Strip and Jericho.

In May 1994, Palestinian control and administration of these areas began. Israeli forces withdraw from Jericho and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian National Authority assumes control of the areas.

1995 -- Israeli Prime Minister Rabin is assassinated by an Israeli opposed to the peace accord.

1996 -- Binyamin Netanyahu wins the election. Arab leaders are upset by his ultra-conservative views. Netanyahu considerably slows down the peace process.

1998 -- Netanyahu and Arafat meet for peace negotiations at Aspen Institute's Wye River Conference Centre. On 23 October the peace deal is signed (the Wye Accord).
In December, 1998, as part of the Wye Accord, members of the Palestine National Council voted to remove clauses from the PLO's charter that call for the destruction of Israel.

May 1999 -- Israelis elect a new Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, to lead them in the peace process with the Palestinians and neighbouring states.

Sept 2000 -- Intense violence escalates. More than 400 people die in Israel in a matter of 14 weeks (380 Palestinians).

Canaan (Phoenician: כנענ, Kana'n, Hebrew: כנען , Arabic: كنعان) is an ancient term for a region encompassing modern-day Israel and Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, plus adjoining coastal lands and parts of Jordan, Syria and northeastern Egypt. In the Hebrew Bible, the "Land of Canaan" extends from Lebanon southward across Gaza to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan River Valley, thus including modern Israel and the Palestinian Territories. In far ancient times, the southern area included various ethnic groups. The Amarna Letters found in Ancient Egypt mention Canaan (Akkadian: Kinaḫḫu) in connection with Gaza and other cities along the Phoenician coast and into Upper Galilee. Many earlier Egyptian sources also make mention of numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na, just inside Asia.

Various Canaanite sites have been excavated by archaeologists. Canaanites spoke Canaanite languages, closely related to other West Semitic languages. Canaanites are mentioned in the Bible, Mesopotamian and Ancient Egyptian texts. Although the residents of ancient Ugarit in modern Syria do not seem to have considered themselves Canaanite, and did not speak a Canaanite language (but one that was closely related, the Ugaritic language), archaeologists have considered the site, which was rediscovered in 1928, as quintessentially Canaanite.[1] Much of the modern knowledge about the Canaanites stems from excavation in this area. Canaanite culture apparently developed in situ from the Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex, which in turn developed from a fusion of Harifian hunter gatherers with Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) farming cultures, practicing animal domestication, during the 6,200 BC climatic crisis.[2]

I'm not going to get into one of those hair-splitting discussions over semantics or insignificant details with you Free Duck.

I have expressed my opinion based on four+ millenia of recorded Jewish history and some understanding of the politics and UN debates that have ensued in the Twenthieth Century. You certainly may have solid ground to quarrel with my opinion or you may not.

My opinion is that if there were not a bunch of Arabs just itching to destroy them and/or drive them out, in fact attempting to do just that, Israel would be completely peaceful and accommodating with all the Arabs just as it is with those who have chosen to make peace with Israel. Until you can show, with any confidence, a different truth than that, I still believe I have the stronger argument.

Harifian has close connections with the late Mesolitic cultures of Fayyum and the Eastern Deserts of Egypt, whose tool assemblage resembles that of the Harifian.

Classical liberalism does not protest and in fact supports sufficient government to provide opportunity for an orderly and effective society. It rejects government as the vehicle by which either prosperity or effectiveness will come about however. Classical liberals are not anarchists or opposed to collective cooperation that is beneficial to all either. Classical liberals are jealous and protective of unalienable rights to all individual property--mind, body, personal possessions--so long as such are not used to infringe upon the rights of others.

It's certainly a disputed issue between Classical Liberals and social conservatives or nationalists, though.

Foxfyre wrote:

Classical liberalism does not protest and in fact supports sufficient government to provide opportunity for an orderly and effective society. It rejects government as the vehicle by which either prosperity or effectiveness will come about however. Classical liberals are not anarchists or opposed to collective cooperation that is beneficial to all either. Classical liberals are jealous and protective of unalienable rights to all individual property--mind, body, personal possessions--so long as such are not used to infringe upon the rights of others.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Arguably, the only objection to the concept of individuals moving freely between countries therefore would be that those individuals must have peaceful intentions. That's pretty close to the statement that Walter commented on that a country simply should let anybody in who wants to be there.

It's certainly a disputed issue between Classical Liberals and social conservatives or nationalists, though.

So, that leaves us at the same impasse we generally wind up in during these discussions.

More than peaceful intentions. They also must not intentionally or unintentionally infringe on the unalienable rights of others.

If their presence requires anything other than non interference by others, their presence is an intrusion that can be legitimately resisted.

By non interference I mean that unalienable rights are those that require nothing of anybody else other than their acceptance. Your unalienable rights do not interfere with my unalienable rights nor do my unalienable rights take away any of yours. Whatever cost there is to you is via your choice and consent and you are not involuntarily forced to incur any cost on my behalf.

Open borders in the USA, however, includes the fact that anybody who enters the country is entitled to the same protection, privileges, and services of everybody else whether or not they contribute anything to provide those services. Therefore every peson who avails himself/herself of free public services and entitlements without contributing fair compensation for them is making a de facto slave of those who do pay for those services and entitlements. That is not the only reason, but it is one compelling reason for the USA to control who is and is not in the country legally.

If Israel opens its borders, hostile Arabs will quickly outnumber and overwhelm the tiny Jewish population. And the Jews will just as quickly lose all their ability to defend themselves, make their own laws, and live in a society that was intentionally created to provide a haven for displaced Jews. So long as they live on land legally/ethically acquired, and as long as they leave eveybody else alone, the Jews have the unalienable right to form whatever society they choose to have.

And it can be argued that the land the attacking Arabs lost to the Jews could be just compensation to the Jews for the unprovoked and unjustifiable attacks. It can also be argued that the Jews should be able to expect peaceful neighbors on lands they turn to the Arabs or they should not be required to return the land.

Open borders in the USA means that anybody who enters the country is entitled to the same protection, privileges, and services of everybody else whether or not they contribute anything to provide those services. Therefore every peson who avails himself/herself of public services and entitlements is making a de facto slave of those who pay for those services and entitlements. That is not the only reason, but it is one compelling reason for the USA to control who is and is not in the country legally.

If Israel opens its borders, hostile Arabs will quickly outnumber and overwhelm the tiny Jewish population.

So far I don't believe anybody has presented any facts to dispute my facts from any sources more authoritative than mine. When they can or do, I will certainly look at them.

FreeDuck, we can't have a discussion if you can't read what I say. I have said again and again that I support a two-state solution. I said that again today. I have said again and again and again that the Palestinians should form their own state and take care of their own people and leave Israel alone. But it is also a fact that they have never before seriously attempted to form their own state. Show me where they have if I am wrong. One fact has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

You are ignoring the unalienable rights quotient in Classical Liberalism that does allow for self defense, intentional protection of one's unalienable rights.

Open borders become desirable only when the unalienable rights of the people are not threatened or compromised in the process.

Under classical liberalism, open borders would never be proposed to admit those who would interfere with or compromise the unalienable rights of the people.

The classical liberals who were our Founding Fathers had no problem at all tossing out the British who didn't embrace concepts of unalienable rights.