Skip to comments.Myths and Facts Online:A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Posted on 08/24/2002 4:42:48 PM PDT by zapiks44
And if you dismiss it as a "Zionist" organization, most of its sources are from the mainstream press (if you consider the NY Times and Washington Post "mainstream")
If you want to say Israel acquired the trans Jordan and gaza lands as a result of winning the war, that's good enough for me. But to argue who has the moral high ground in that one is, well, kinda like manifest destiny vs the injuns.
It tries to disguise the fact that Arabs have lived continuously in the land of Palestine - whether they called it that or not, whether it was an independent country or not - as the dominant culture for more than 1000 years. Whatever the faults of that culture - and we all know there are many - they preferred it to an imposed Zionist culture in which they would be the dhimmis. As early as 1891 they realized the nature of the coming conflict and tried to stem the massive Jewish immigration.
What we have is two incompatible cultures, each with good claims, fighting to control one small piece of land. It's a fight to the death - unless attitudes change far more than anyone believes possible.
Read Jabotinsky's writings, 1913-39, and Boris Shustaff (spelling?) who writes for Gamla (and others).
Read "Israel's roots" carefully. You'll see that the author says that most of the Arab inhabitants in 1882 had arrived within the previous 70 years, then quotes someone who says the population had been static for the previous 40 years, than another who says the ancestors of the Arab population had been there for a thousand years (the author doesn't seem to notice the possible contradictions).
More important, read Jabotinsky's (Zhabotinsky's) 1923 "Wall of Iron".
The injuns were never offered the land but refused it because they wanted the whole enchilada.
The arabs did; too bad for them.
The "occupied" territories are Israeli ad so are the settlements, now.
Losers in war don't get to "change their minds".
According to liberalarry, all the parts of history that he doesn't like...
Of course they do!!!
They get to run to the U.N. and cry about "collective punishment", that charge, somehow, makes them the victims instead of the people they tried to kill en masse...ya gotta love the liberal press 'cause they are always looking for 'the victim de joure.
Shusteff is the best and most knowledgeable modern writer on this subject that I've come across. This is his only article I have ready access to. Do a Google if you want to see more.
Strange, considering that the Falistin or "Philistines" of the Old Testament weren't even Arabs but were from the Greek Islands and the Aegean Sea.
Stranger still, considering that there is no Palestinian language, no history of Palestinian art, no distinct Palestinian culture. The Palestinians, for having such a *long* history, seem to lack any history at all.
And as far as "Palestine" itself, it was invented by Rome.
The Philistines, a sea people, seemed to have arrived in Canaan somewhere around 1200B.C. - almost 2000 years before the Arabs. So what?
There is no Arizona language, no New York language, no Georgia language. Does that mean Americans don't live there?
Your comments make me think you haven't understood anything I've said and certainly haven't understood Shusteff.
Why do you find this comment necessary? It totally demeans any posible legitimate argument you may have.
I have no arguement with that...might makes right.
I was speaking of the moral high ground that one side may have vs the other...as if that really matters.
It's an entirely appropriate reply to your self-important sarcasm.
It totally demeans any posible legitimate argument you may have
Now that's plain stupid. I would think that your interest in the subject is serious and not dependent upon your opinion of me. Thus you would make your own judgement about the value of the works or Shusteff and Zhabotinsky.
Especially the latter given that
a) He was responsible for Jewish entry into WWI on the side of the British and thus largely responsible for the Balfour Declaration
b) He created the Israeli army
c) He predicted the Holocaust and was largely responsible for saving whatever part of East European Jewry that was saved
Yes, and what was the land called before the Romans renamed it as an insult to Jews? It was called Israel. "Palestine" was the name given to Israel by Rome. Palestine, even as a Roman invention, had absolutely nothing to do with Arabs.
"There is no Arizona language, no New York language, no Georgia language. Does that mean Americans don't live there?"
Americans do live there, and since there isn't such a thing as the "Arizonian People" who lay claim to Arizona based upon some historical claim to the land, your analogy makes little sense. After all, Arizonians hardly make the claim that their history goes back 1000 years and that they have the right to Arizona based upon a *historical* claim to the land.
And the "Palestinians" don't have a historical claim to their land, either. Palestine was a Roman invention. There never has been a "Palestinian people," unless you happen to think that the ancient Filistin, who were a displaced tribe from the Aegean Sea, morphed into Arabs in the Middle Ages.
I find it strange indeed that you would try to make the arguments you do.
The 'Palestinians' supported the wrong side. They lost some property. The Arabs did it again in 1967. They lost more property.
Luckily for them, they gained much more property and wealth from the Jews of the Middle East, when they ran them out of their homes in the hundreds of thousands... and those Jews had ACTUALLY been there for thousands of years.
But no one cries for them, because they were resettled in Israel, by a sane, humane, moral, just, modern society.
The 'Palestinians' should be resettled as well, in the 99.99% of the Middle East still under the control of Arabs and Muslims.
Or they can just keep fighting for that little 0.01% they lost (and never had a right to have to begin with)... and risk losing the other 99.99% in a nuclear meltdown.
On this you're wrong. On everything else you're right.
From my - admittedly secular - view the Jews claimed their God gave them the land. Other peoples never accepted that claim since the Jewish God was not theirs.
History is ambiguous in its support. For a few centuries, between 1200 and 500 B.C. Jews controlled various parts of the Holy Land - usually small parts. From sometime after Cyrus until the Roman destruction the same situation again existed - but always as dependents of larger powers.
2000 years then passed in which the Jewish people had no state of their own although they continued to live in the Holy Land in varying - usually small - numbers.
If you feel that history gives the Jews a better claim than the Arabs that's fine with me - although I must point out that logically you then feel that native Americans have a much better claim to America than Americans of other ancestry.
My view is Zhabotinsky's. Both peoples have a very strong attachment to the land. Both have lived on it for a very long period of time. But the Jews need for it is greater, their determination stronger, their power superior.
As solmar_israel suggested (a la Gandhi) the only solution to this conflict - barring a truly drastic change in attitudes - is resettling, population transfer, ethnic cleansing. That means one of the two peoples must experience a great tragedy.
So now I'm stooopid.. and I have no opinion of you other than you seem unable to make a statement without some personal derogatory comment.
I've made many, many comments on this and other threads. The overwhelming majority contain no personal derogatory comment.
The Arabs today have no right to Israel.
Actions have consequences. Just as Germany lost ownership of much of the land in its possession before launching WWII, so have the wars by the Arabs nullified any historic right they may have had to the land.
Launching a war of extermination, and losing, have a price.
Additionally, they have no rights to the 'disputed territories' which weren't even theirs historically. They simply moved there in the course of the 1948 war.
In fact, Judea and Samaria is the cradle of Jewish civilization, and had a continuous Jewish presence until the 1920s.
It was then that the Arabs 'revolted' (ie. slaughtered Jews) and British ethnically cleansed much of the territories of its Jewish population (relocating them to Jerusalem and else where), under the pretense of avoiding further conflict.
Cities like Hebron (which the world considers occupied Palestinian land) have actually only been Arab since the late 1920s and until Israel liberated them in 1967. They became Arab again when Israel foolishly handed them over in the course of Oslo.
For 2000 years Jews yearned to return to Canaan/Palestine/Israel. It took the Christians of Spain 700 years to reconquer it. Peoples very often have a very strong attachment to "their" lands. Some wars never end.
Once again I recommend Zhabotinsky's "Wall of Iron". I'll post a link to it if I have the time.
That's bad and a real blow to my pride (no sarcasm). I thought I was able to express myself clearly.
I stand with Zhabotinsky and Shusteff. Tictoc in Post #28 understood the purpose of my posts and stated it better than I could - I am sad to say.
The settlements have been built on unoccupied portions of the west bank. They were wastelands that Israel has made to blossom.