|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 11, 2018 13:51:07 GMT 1
Palestine did not exist as a distinct entity before 1917. It did. The usual old canard to justify the Zionist annexing Palestine Huh? Before 1917 it was a province of Syria, which encompassed an area that Israel has never annexed, or shown any interest in doing so. "Palestine" is the name the Romans gave to their province, including what was called by everyone else, and had been for many centuries, the regions of Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. They called it that - together with a panoply of other propagandistic moves, including ethnic cleansing - as a conscious tactic to strip the Jewish identity from the region after the Jewish Revolt. There was such a region, a small strip of coastal land roughly commensurate with present-day Gaza, which was an ancient settlement of the Phoenicians (what "palestine" means), who were what today would broadly be called Syrian (or Lebanese, save that "Lebanese" still carries a now largely outdated - thanks to typical ethnic cleansing tactics - connotation of being largely Christian.) That is, the Romans were attempting to literally and cognitively erase the Jewish association with the area. The Ottomans, of course, having inherited that centuries-long Roman impress, had no interest in undoing that association of their province with the Arabs.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 11, 2018 14:56:33 GMT 1
You mean in 1948? Before then there were passports issued with "Palestine" on, and coins stamped with the word Palestine, after 1917.
Do you mean that they are properly part of Israel, but the Israeli government allows the inhabitants to administer them?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 11, 2018 15:03:02 GMT 1
You mean in 1948? Before then there were passports issued with "Palestine" on, and coins stamped with the word Palestine, after 1917. So what? It was the British Mandate, and then the UN Mandate. It wasn't a state. Nope. Google the Camp David agreement, the Oslo Accords, and the Gaza withdrawal. Israel did allow the inhabitants to administer them, indeed. The response was the intifada, and in Gaza - from which Israel withdrew completely - the accession of Hamas sworn to Israel's destruction, a constant rain of rockets, necessitating the wearisome imposition of a blockade.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 11, 2018 15:59:43 GMT 1
A "mandate" is a kind of approval, a declaration of authority. The document approving British authority over the country was entitled the "Mandate for Palestine".
Anyway, I don't see the exact relevance of whether Palestine and/or Israel existed in some past time, in considering the current situation.
I am trying to understand what you regard as the proper political status of the West Bank and Gaza. If you regard them as territories with which Israel has a right to do with what it wants, then please say so. Or perhaps you might say that "rights" have nothing to do with it and Israel has the power to do what it wants and that's all that matters (of course I could well be completely wrong in suggesting that).
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 11, 2018 16:09:03 GMT 1
Yes I am suggesting that they could have been killed deliberately. What evidence that the child's parents killed their baby?
You suggested that there is no evidence for the killing of unarmed civilians. I have pointed to 4 unarmed civilians who were killed.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 11, 2018 17:59:17 GMT 1
Huh? Before 1917 it was a province of Syria, Agreed. Alan said it never existed as an 'entity' - it did ... encompassed an area that Israel has never annexed, or shown any interest in doing so. Hmm - I wonder what the terrorist uprisng against the Arabs was all bout/ y'know, Dier yassim and all that? - I wonder what the illegal 'settlements' are all about? I wonder what 'eretz Israel is all about? "Palestine" is the name the Romans gave to their province, including what was called by everyone else, and had been for many centuries, the regions of Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. They called it that - together with a panoply of other propagandistic moves, including ethnic cleansing - as a conscious tactic to strip the Jewish identity from the region after the Jewish Revolt. There was such a region, a small strip of coastal land roughly commensurate with present-day Gaza, which was an ancient settlement of the Phoenicians (what "palestine" means), who were what today would broadly be called Syrian (or Lebanese, save that "Lebanese" still carries a now largely outdated - thanks to typical ethnic cleansing tactics - connotation of being largely Christian.) That is, the Romans were attempting to literally and cognitively erase the Jewish association with the area. The Ottomans, of course, having inherited that centuries-long Roman impress, had no interest in undoing that association of their province with the Arabs. Yes thank you, Nick - there certainly has been an entity called palestine since at least the romans- even before - look up 'Philistine'
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 11, 2018 18:11:58 GMT 1
A "mandate" is a kind of approval, a declaration of authority. The document approving British authority over the country was entitled the "Mandate for Palestine". Yeah - so? It refers to an area, not a state - a far larger area than anyone now means by "Palestine", incidentally. You were asking what Alan's point was. As I saw it, it was pointing out that the standard rhetoric of the Palestinian side - that all of "Palestine" is or was and should be again "their" land - is based on a groundless myth. It doesn't have one, obv. It doesn't have one solely because its people(s) can't get it together to ensure that they have political representatives with the modicum of sense enough to sign a peace agreement. Israel has offered them full statehood several times, going back to 1970. At Camp David they were offered everything that Fatah has now accepted (but Hamas still rejects, in face of the wishes of 90% of Palestinian people) - the Palestinian negotiators said they'd take the (fully documented) offer back to their leaders for discussion - and simply never returned. It's not a question of "rights" - the language you always insist on dressing the issue - it's a question of survival. All that matters, no - nobody would say that, or has ever said that, including Israel. What matters is that the two sides can live in peace. There's absolutely no point in making any sort of arrangement that would immediately lead to yet another conflict, aimed at or necessitated to prevent the destruction of Israel. Is there?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 11, 2018 18:19:45 GMT 1
Yes I am suggesting that they could have been killed deliberately. Propagandistic fantasy. You'd take a baby into a conflict zone, would you? Where the organisers of a protest are urging murder and the defenders against it are shooting people and launching tear-gas bombs? Well, bully for you! It's called collateral damage. That is - not intended, regrettable, but shit happens when you're trying to repel thousands of people intent on slitting the throats of the children you're charged to defend.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 11, 2018 18:35:21 GMT 1
Huh? Before 1917 it was a province of Syria, Agreed. Hi Nay - hope you're well, and have just been on holiday? An "entity"? Like a Satrap or a Rape or something? Well - broadly, the name refers to a region, at best. It had varying degrees of political organisation in the past, true - but not a State, and not according to any area that would be duplicated by anyone today or the future. The "uprising against the Arabs" was a necessary resistance to yet another attempt at slaughter. Look - we can argue our different perspectives on the historical background to the conflict for months on end, can we not? For what purpose? Not to say it wouldn't be interesting and informative, but to be blunt I simply don't have the time right now - getting the books out, endless googling of dubious wiki entries, all that. What matters, surely, is how this nuisance of a problem is finally going to get sorted? Sorry - I didn't mean to patronise anyone. Except maybe those who believe the Jews don't belong in the region, which I've heard plenty of times before on these boards. One that included Lebanon, Jordan, and large parts of Syria and Egypt. Shall we reinstitute Mercia, or the Danegeld?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 12, 2018 8:33:27 GMT 1
I think it was Alan who said that Palestine did not exist before 1917. We established that it had existence as an entity (Progenitor A's reply). I say again what I said earlier "I don't see the exact relevance of whether Palestine and/or Israel existed in some past time, in considering the current situation." You said:
The existence of the Palestine entity, in the past, is not mythical. People did live in the area designated as Palestine between the two world wars. Of course that in itself does NOT mean that ALL of Palestine should again be their land. But it clearly doesn't, in and of itself, rule out the existence of a state of Palestine.
So what you are saying is that the proper political status for the people living in those areas is to NOT have any political status. I regard that as an extreme position. I don't regard it as Israel's responsibility to "offer" statehood to Palestine any more than it is the Palestinians' responsibility to "offer" statehood to Israel. The people who live in those areas simply have a right to citizenship of their own state.
If we are to forget about "rights", what determines what is to happen, is it down to who is the strongest?
Given that we are not at peace now, I am interested in what changes you suggest that would bring about peace.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 12, 2018 10:29:29 GMT 1
The political map of Europe was redrawn a few times in the 20th century, and of North America before that. Who benefitted from the redrawing? Politicians. Who suffered? Everyone else. At some point, it behoves the ordinary citizen to get on with his own life and ignore all the posturing about statehood, nationhood, and other meaningless crap.
I have raised the challenge elsewhere: can anyone name a theocracy where life is preferable to a secular democracy?
One day, perhaps, the good citizens of Gaza will ignore the scum who benefit from (but don't engage in) conflict. Until then, they can expect the status quo to be enforced by their chosen enemy.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 12, 2018 10:57:02 GMT 1
No reason to disgree with those who want to end the state of Israel then?
What, in practical terms, does "ignore the scum" mean? If they carried that out, what changes, if any, would you expect to see in their relationship with Israel.
What about the people of the West Bank. What do you suggest they do?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 12, 2018 11:43:04 GMT 1
I think that the post-war settlement imposed by the Americans on Germany and Japan, together with an astonishing amount of aid to Western Europe and East Asia, established a firm peace which was the foundation of the huge rise in post-war prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 13, 2018 7:59:10 GMT 1
No reason to disgree with those who want to end the state of Israel then? Wise words from my old navigation instructor: "start from where you are, then you won't get lost before you take off". Does it really matter whether the mayor is Jewish or muslim? Not in Britain, so why anywhere else, a long as the dustbins get emptied? Try trading with your neighbours instead of fighting with them. I'm sure every Europhile would agree. See above. I live in a Conservative borough, and whilst I might grumble about the privatisation of public services, it's better that somebody cuts the grass rather than having teenagers throwing stones at the council office in the name of socialism.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 13, 2018 8:08:42 GMT 1
I think that the post-war settlement imposed by the Americans on Germany and Japan, together with an astonishing amount of aid to Western Europe and East Asia, established a firm peace which was the foundation of the huge rise in post-war prosperity. Strange ideas for a Europhile! We are supposed to believe that peace in Europe has been achieved by taking all the fish out of the North Sea and bankrupting Greece, or whatever else the EU has done for the benefit of humanity. Miserable old skeptics like me, however, point to the 50-year Allied occupation of Germany as a possible factor. Not to mention the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which may have altered the belligerent aspirations of a few Japanese.
|
|