Israel: Whose land is it really ?

irrelevant
Irrelevant!

What matters most is when is peace or cessation of killing going to happen. Debating over whose land it is won't stop the atrocities from both sides.

Ragman is right but to answere your question, both. Both Islam and Jewdism have the same god yet differnt interpretations of him. the jews were dispersed over the times and after WWII were given by the UN Isreal were the Palastiens were already living. So the UN took the land and devided to give half to Ireal and half to Palestien with Jersualm on the border. Palestien wanted nothing to do with Isreal so the other half became Jordan.

So nobody is right, Jews say it was given to them by god, and Palestiens say by god and there were already living there. Its just to difficult for america to try and get involved.

Re: irrelevant


It is very relevant. It is the root of the whole problem. If you want to solve a problem you have to go to the root of it.

Said another way it is two religious extremist groups fighting over a piece of land that each think god bestowed to them. Is that a fair assessment of your position ?

OK-- Too bad Setanta's not here. Who had it before the Jews in Biblical times?

I got this from the other thread. I don't enough about history to question it.


WHO THE HELL OWNS ALL OF PALESTINE?
The Encyclopedia Britannica, "Palestine" is the source.
(all years are approximate).
Quote:
7800 BC:First building structures.
7000 BC:First Jerico fortifications.
2000 BC:First Canaanite Culture.

1400 BC:Eqypt conquers Palestine
1300 BC:First Israelite Culture.
1100 BC:First Philistine Culture (Philistra, evolved to the name Palestine).
Jews start ruling part of Palestine
1000 BC:Saul King of Israel (all Palestine except Philistra and Phoenicia).
950 BC:Solomon King of Israel.
721 BC:Israel Destroyed, but Judaea Continued.
516 BC:2nd Temple in Judaea.
333 BC:The Greek, Alexander the Great Conquers Palestine.
Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.
161 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion of Judaea to All Palestine Plus.
Jews start ruling Palestine.
135 BC:Maccabaen Maximum Expansion Ends.
40 BC:The Roman, Herod Conquers Palestine.
73 AD:Fall of Jerusalem and all resistance ceases.
Jews stop ruling part of Palestine.
638 AD:Arabs take Jerusalem.
Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.
1099 AD:Crusaders take Palestine.
Arabs stop ruling part of Palestine.
1187 AD:Saladin Takes Palestine.
1229 AD:Saladin/Crusader Treaty.
1244 AD:Turks Take Palestine.
1516 AD:Ottoman Empire Begins Governing Palestine.
1831 AD:Egypt Conquers Palestine.
1841 AD:Ottoman Empire Again Conquers Palestine.
1915 AD:British Ambassador Promises Palestine to Arabs.
1917 AD:British Foreign Minister Balfour Promises Palestine to Zionists.
1918 AD:Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine.
1918 AD:British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.
1920 AD:5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1921 AD:46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.
1929 AD:133 Jews killed 339 wounded.
1929 AD:116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.
1936,38,39 AD:329 Jews killed 857 wounded.
------------------3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded.
------------------135 Brits killed 386 wounded.
------------------110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.
1947 AD:UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State.
1948 AD:Civil war breaks out between Jews and Arabs.
1948 AD:State of Israel conquers part of Palestine.
Jews start ruling part of Palestine;
Arabs start ruling part of Palestine.

It appears to me it belongs to anybody strong enough to hold on to it.

Who occupied thousands of years ago isn't a factor in any modern territorial dispute resolution between states. Figuring out where borders should be is also pretty easy (just about the whole world agrees on what the borders should be, getting Israel to move towards it and Arab militants to stop giving Israel reasons to delay it is the hard part).

Currently the most sensible and legally supported definition of Israel's land has, as it's baseline the June 4th 1967 borders. It's substantially more land than allocated to the state of Israel in 1947 but the oft touted "facts on the ground" (euphemisms for settlement and annexation) are accepted as a fait accompli.

All recent territorial negotiations have centered on Israel returning to 1967 borders. The overwhelming majority of the world's states maintain this position (I don't know of any state that officially does not support Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders, and have not even heard Israel oppose it in principle on the record).

The biggest territorial dispute is over Jerusalem, which by law is to belong to neither state. Both parties claim this, with Israel proclaiming it her capital in 1950 and with the Palestinians desiring East Jerusalem as their eventual capital. Most states do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and hold their embassies in Tel Aviv (this includes the United States).

In addition to the Palestinians, Israel is involved in territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon over the Golan Heights (widely recognized as "occupied" by Israel and belonging primarily to Syria though Lebanon claims the Shebaa Farms portion of Golan) which Israel pseudo-annexed (in a law that extended Israeli rule over the land while avoiding the use of the word "annex") in 1981 (and which, by the way, Hezbollah claims as justification for its attacks on Israel).

Primary Sources in a simple timeline:

Initial Territorial definitions:

- 1947 UN GA Resolution 181 - Defines Jerusalem as an "International" city
- 1948 UN GA Resolution 194 - "Right of return" for Palestinian refugees established. This condition is largely seen to be unlikely to be part of a future settlement and has been replaced in accords in the 2000s with verbiage of a "just" settlement of this matter, which could come in the form of compensation in lieu of repatriation.

After the 6-day war:

- 1967, 1973 UN SC Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) - Legal documents that mandate Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. This is the most important legal definition of the territorial dispute.
- 1979 UN SC Resolution 446 - Determines Israeli settlement beyond it's 1967 borders as illegal annexation.

After the Yom Kippur War:

- 1981 Golan Heights Law - Ratified by the Israeli Knesset, effectively annexing the Golan Heights.


Modern attempts to resolve the disputes:

- 1988 - Yasser Arafat's Speech to the General Assembly - Accepts Resolutions 242 and 338 (read: 1967 borders as the baseline for agreement)
- 1992 Oslo Accords - Agreed to in principle by both sides and the closest that the sides have ever come to an comprehensive agreement.
- 2000 Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee (Mitchell report) - A US investigatory committee's evaluation of the causes and solutions to the 2000 conflicts, named after former U.S. Senator George Mitchell.
- 2001 GA Resolution ES-10/8 - UN endorsement of the Mitchell Report.
- 2002 UN SC Resolution 1397 - "two states, side-by-side". Around this time, Israel began to consider an eventual Palestinian state to be a "fait accompli" (as PM Sharon asserted).
- 2002 Saudi Plan - The most extensive overture by Arab nations to reach normalized relations with Israel. The Israeli government rejected this plan but it represents the Arab world's largest compromises for a settlement.
- 2003 "Quartet" Roadmap - Agreement in Principle that was supposed to establish a Palestinian state in 2005.
- 2003 Geneva Accord - Unofficial agreements between minority parties in the Israeli government and Palestinian moderates that were rejected by the Israeli government.
- 2004 GA Resolution ES-10/15 - Deems illegal the barrier Israel constructed during the beginning of their "unilateral disengagement" phase. The barrier meandered deep into Palestinian territory and the annexations of territory were deemed illegal.
- 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion - International Court of Justice deems illegal some elements of the Israeli barrier, and calls for compensation for Palestinian land that is taken or damaged in the creation of the barrier.

When I wrote this I knew there was some grey area on the claim that Israel accepts the 1967 borders.

This is more simplistic than it sounds, as Israel herself has long been divided between those who want peace and those who want land ("greater Israel"). Thing is, the expantionist line of thought has had ample representation in the Israeli government.

For example, in May of 2002 the ruling party in Israel Likud voted to "never" accept a Palestinian state. They did this in direct opposition to Likud member and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The hawkish Likud party held control of Israel for many years during this conflict. Though this particular vote by Likud was dismissed by the US and the world as Israel's internal "party politics" it represents a substantial portion of the territorial problem.

Note that due to this kind of difference of opinion, Sharon eventually broke from the Likud and formed a centrist Israeli party called Kadima (meaning "forward") over opposition to the 2004 disengagement plans.

I probably should have noted the 2004 disengagement plans, they represent a very different Sharon from the Sharon of the past. One who seemed hell bent on ending the conflict (for his legacy's sake say his detractors) and plotted an Israeli course of unilateral disengagement (which is good for the peace process) and unilateral definition of Israel's borders absent a Palestinian counterpart in negotiations (bad for the peace process).

Gone now is Sharon and Israel seems headed toward more militarism and away from territorial disengagment and up pops Hezbollah as yet another time Arab militants contribute to the delaying of the peace process and the dreams of moderate Arabs and moderate Israelis.

Figuring out the borders is pretty easy, getting both sides' hawks to simmer down at the same time isn't, especially since both hawk camps seem to actually prefer extended violent engagement.

This is why the sequentialist point of view toward the mid-east conflict offers a better chance of success than the parallelist point of view in my opinion.

"sequentialist"/"parallelist" point of view?



(Thanks for that, btw, a nice summary.)

CdK,

Do you think if Israelis agreed to 1967 borders that would make Arab militants happy enough to stop wanting to kill Jews ?

And thanks, that was a good summary.

Here are a few interesting facts regarding the subject:


1. The Muslims have remained the inhabitants of Palestine up until the present.

2. God had promised to give the Holy Land to the Children of Israel when they were following the straight path of God and the prophets were their guides. However, when they changed their attitude and rejected and disbelieved in God, this right was rescinded.

3. Muslims are more entitled to the heritage of the prophets of the Children of Israel. The call for Islam by Muslims is a continuation of the call by the previous prophets. The truth to which the prophets had devoted themselves to realize is the same truth that the Muslims are devoted to realizing.

4. The dominion of the Children of Israel had never, at any time, included the whole of Palestine as it is known in its current boundaries. The period of their domination with complete independence was so short in comparison with the history of Palestine. Even when they had two kingdoms, they were subordinates most of the time to other powers stronger than they were.

5. The self-rule that the Jews enjoyed after they had captured Babylonia was weak and restricted to the Jerusalem area and its suburbs. After that, they enjoyed a limited independence during the Maccabee epoch.

6. After their being dispersed throughout the world owing to their evil doing, the relation of the Jews with Palestine had discontinued, without interruption, for 1,900 years.

Finally, H.G. Wells said in his book, "Brief History of the Children of Israel's Experience in Palestine after the Babylonian Captivity", that "The life of Hebrews (in Palestine) was resembling the life of a man who insisted to settle in the middle of a crowded highway, so buses and trucks were continuously running over him … and from the start to the end, their (Kingdom) was just an emergency event in the history of Egypt, Syria, Assyria and Phoenicia, the history which was much greater than their history."

The well-known historian Gustav Lobon said about the Children of Israel when they settled in Palestine that "they did not borrow from the superior nations except for the meanest things of those civilizations, i.e., they did not borrow anything but infamies, harmful customs, debauchery and superstitions. They offered oblations to all Asian Gods. They offered more oblations to Ashtarout, B'al and Mouloukh than to the God of their own tribe, the frowning and spiteful Yahwa, in whom they had but every little trust."

He also said, "The Jews lived almost always in massive anarchy. Their history was just a story of abominations.… The history of the Jews from the aspect of civilization was null … (They) did not deserve to be considered among the civilized nations in any shape whatsoever". Gustav Lobon also said, "The Children of Israel remained, even under the reign of their kings, shedding and always embarked rashly in brutal fighting." He also said, "The psychological temper of the Jews always remained very close to the most primitive nations. The Jews were stubborn, were dupes and simpletons, were rude like beasts and acted like babies … You could not find a nation like the Jews who lacked the sense of artists."

You probably mean Gustave Le Bon, French psychologist and sociologist...

That land is MINE. Those fools thinking they can take my land....

I admire your get-in-there-and-work earthliness and willingness to participate.

Many of the brainwashed do not understand that Israel's stay in the land is conditional. Once they fail to keep those prescribed conditions and they increase in abominations then God demotes them in the same manner as Adam. They can resist, but it is futile. This is what is currently going on right know.

Adam Sandler? huh? What did he do?

The sequentialist point of view in the mid-east conflict prefers concessions that lead to concessions.

The parallelist point of view stipulates that each side take the actions on well-established (and bloody obvious) peace process in tandem or as fast as each side can.

An example of a moderate parallelist point of view on the mid-east conflict was the "Road Map".

An example of the sequentialist point of view is, well pretty much anytime each side is left up to its own way of handling things. They just take turns dictating to the other side what it would need to do in order to cease whatever idiocy they are up to.



No. I think that real Palestinian statehood, withdrawal to 1967 borders and cessation of attacks that harm its neighbours civillians would be enough to divest militants networks of the public and logistical support that enables them to act with the scope they currently do.

There will still be the nuts, hell even in a relatively comfortable nation like the US we have our militant terrorists now and then and in the mid-east they certainly won't disappear overnight.

But as long as each side isn't inordinately reactive (a ridiculously unlikely proposition on their own) I believe those items are a sufficient basis for an accord and I believe that militancy can be held in check long enough to see culture start to shift.

However, neither side will be agreeing to the non-agression portion of the treaty any time soon (it's hard enough for them to accept even "cease-fire") and the only thing that ever moves this process toward peace is sustained US involvement.

You confuse "facts" with religious nonsense and wishful thinking.