The cubs hold the record for the longest time without winning a World Series... Last time they won was never...
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 14 7:57 am
I saw the SF Giants lose to the Cardinals a few weeks back, that was a great afternoon (12pm start) game.
jdparnell1218
Jul 24, 14 8:20 am
On a side note, football will be back in 7 weeks.
gruen
Jul 24, 14 9:03 am
Anyone watch the America's Cup?
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 14 9:05 am
Jdparnell.... 7 weeks? good thing I have my Bills vs Dolphin tickets ready.
LITS4FormZ
Jul 24, 14 9:13 am
Just got my Jaguars season tickets. Gonna be a great year.
Wilma Buttfit
Jul 24, 14 9:38 am
The last time the Cubs won the world series, the Ottoman Empire still existed.
Miles Jaffe
Jul 24, 14 9:55 am
I prefer LFL.
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 10:09 am
that's true tint. the cubs did win the world series
at that time, the ottomon empire controlled the area of israel and the gaza strip. also, around this time was the "second aliyah" - a migration of jewish settlements (many from russia) into that area. this migration could be seen as the start of arab hostility towards jewish people in the region (as compared to the 1948 date often cited in these forums). also, they formed the first kibbutz the year after the cubs won the world series. at the time, after the removal of sultan abdul hamid, there seems to have been a bigger push for turkish nationalization rather than 'palestinian' nationalization.
pro football sucks compared to college. 37 days. go big red!
Non Sequitur
Jul 24, 14 11:23 am
Quondam, wrong forum post. This one is for making fun of silly garbage like the original boycott one. I wonder if there is a LFL in Israel at the moment.
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 11:40 am
i'm pretty sure the state of palestine you're talking about is what was established by the british mandate in 1922. is that correct? or are you referring to a different state of palestine?
the cubs had gone over a decade without a wold series win by that point.
perhaps you're referring to the ottomon palestine (which i believe was referred to as syria rather than palestine? you might need to look that up for me, as i'm not actually certain) as the state existed when the cubs won the world series? that isn't really the same as the british palestinian state that was eradicated in 1948 is it?
so you're asking why the british mandate that was established at the end of WW1 was changed at the end of WW2? the easy answer would be that it changed for the same reason it was created. because of the war, right?
of course the real answer isn't that easy. there were arab revolts against british rule. britian got involved in WW2. limitations on jewish immigration were established to appease the arabs who were revolting, since britian had to focus it's attention elsewhere. when a bunch of displaced jewish people had nowhere to go due to events during WW2, those limitations became somewhere inconvenient.
but even that isn't really a comprehensive view of the complexity of the situation.
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 11:43 am
curtkram, how exactly can the "second Aliyah" be seen as "the start of arab hostility toward jewish people in the region?"
there have always been jewish people and arab people and muslim people in the region. there have probably been a lot of christians in the region starting around the start of that religion as well.
'the start of arab hostility' implies that was roughly the time when those groups lived together in a less than peacable way. i would suggest it was generally around that time that they cooperated less and fought more. the 1948 deal is certainly not when the fighting started.
CD.Arch
Jul 24, 14 1:21 pm
HE ASKED ABOUT THE CUBS, DAMNIT!!!
gwharton
Jul 24, 14 1:22 pm
I am boycotting the boycott of this thread.
Miles Jaffe
Jul 24, 14 1:25 pm
The Ottoman Empire had oil wrestling. I wonder if belly dancers had a league?
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 1:26 pm
Trying to obscure the proper residency and right of Palestinians in belonging, staying and owning their own lands and having a regional identity the equivalent to any other indigenous one anywhere else in the word by squishing them out of proprietarial exsitence between two colonialisms -which the Arabs, with the exception of some corrupt traitors, fought against- in order to just shows that these individuals place more importance and credibility on finding any means possible in order to argue Palestinians out of their rights to defend their existence on their lands, and consequently out of their lands, out of their indentity.....all in order to render Palestine as a country without people (not true) for a people without a country. And all this nonsense in order to clean the evidence of blood on the violating arm of the zionist terrorists:
It was within these various terrorist and paramilitary organizations that Plan D was formed among several Zionist leaders, most notably, David Ben-Gurion, to plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Throughout the 1940s, the planning stages of the village files went through many revisions, and encapsulated Plans A through D. In the planning stages during 1940, as one member of the data collection team, Moshe Pasternak, later recalled:
We had to study the structure of the Arab village. This means the structure and how best to attack it. In the military schools, I had been taught how to attack a modern European city, not a primitive village in the Near East. We could not compare it [an Arab village] to a Polish, or an Austrian one. The Arab village, unlike the European ones, was built topographically on hills. That meant we had to find out how best to approach the village from above or enter it from below. We had to train our "Arabists" [the Orientalists who operated a network of collaborators] how best to work with informants.[12]
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 1:54 pm
If Jews were already living in the region, why did Palestine have to be eradicated?
i don't understand what state of palestine you're referring to. it can't be the semantics that concern you?
the region wasn't under "palestinian" rule before 1948. it was british rule. the empire on which the sun never sets and all that. after 1948 the UN kicked the british out and established an arab and a jewish state. i don't think we can really say how those two government were established though, because the day after the UN plan was signed they started killing each other.
i don't understand what you're asking. tell me more about the palestinian state that was lost. did you think that there were no jews living in the area before 1948? did palestinians have their own government under the british mandate (and if so, was it a monarchy/democracy/?)?
i'm truly sorry to hear about what your family faced at the end of WW2. the only way to win a war is to avoid it. we should be resolved to find a path to peace and reconcilliation, rather than saying the palestinians should be given free rights to attack israel. both sides are to blame in this conflict.
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 2:04 pm
let me help you tam. there never was a british empire. the whole idea of english speaking people in europe is a jewish conspiracy to eliminate the palestinian people. the cubs actually won the world series in 2003, but because of steve bartman (an israeli agent) and a large media conspiracy, the israelis were able to hide the actual outcome and replace it with a fabrication of their making favoring the florida marlins. this follows the more well know 'curse of the billy goat' when billy sianis, israeli operative obsessed with eliminating the palestinian state and cubs fan, was ejected from wriggly field in 1945.
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 3:11 pm
quondam,
in 1948, the british rule was kicked out and the UN resolution was attempted but mostly failed.
what happened was war broke out. as i understand it, the arab population formed alliances with neighboring countries and struck first right? in the context of palestine being eradicated, i think i could take that two ways. the first would be a population shift that, after 1948, strongly favored the jewish people. you can correct me if that didn't happen. this was in large part due to 1948 palestinian exodus, where over 700,000 palestinians fled (often forcibly). from a war standpoint, it would seem to me israel was establishing a safe border for themselves, though i think tammuz said this had something to do with an alien conspiracy or something. along with that, there were channels to smuggle in jewish WWII refugees, and shortly thereafter the treaty that banned jewish immigration ended, so while the palestinian population was cut drastically, i believe the jewish population was increasing.
the other way you could say palestine was eradicated was that it lost it's ability to govern itself. the british lost control, and thus the arab's lost british protection, when the UN took over. The reason the british lost control was largely due to the arab uprisings and their fight for independence, wasn't it? the UN took over after WWII because that's what the UN does. i think with hindsight most people would agree the UN made some very bad decisions. even with that hindsight though, i don't think it would have been fair then, and it's not fair now, to say let the arabs have everything and kill off the jews (you're not saying that of course).
i don't think it would be fair for isma'il raji al-faruqi to decide the israelis have to live under his sharia law. i understand his perspective on zionism and all that, and i don't disagree with him. i'm not prepared to say i know how best to move forward in the current situation, except to say that i think peace and reconciliation has to be at the center of any proposal. without that, there's no point. the palestinians will attack again, the israelis will escalate the conflict and bomb them again. saying it's ok for the palestinians to launch rockets into israel because they're little and cute will not resolve the problem.
surely we can agree that the palestine before 1922 was noticeably different than the palestine after?
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 4:04 pm
I could agree with your perspective on that quondam, but as another way of viewing it, couldn't you say there was a war and israeli's won?
the jewish people that were in the area would not have had the ability to live there had they not gone to war and removed the palestinian population that was trying to get rid of them. due in large part to decisions made by the palestinians, they were put in a position where either the jewish people get israel, or the palestinians would get their state, but both couldn't happen.
the UN at the time proposed a 2-state solution (with indefensible amoeba-like borders that were probably created by a 2nd year architecture student or patrik schumacher) where both sides could live in peace and govern themselves. however, the arabs and palestinians rejected that proposal and chose war instead, right? today, over 50 years later, people are still discussing whether they prefer a 1-state or 2-state solution while the war between the palestinians and israelis continues on. the only solution imho is to start with peace and reconciliation. without that, there is no solution.
anonitect
Jul 24, 14 4:25 pm
damnit.
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 4:41 pm
i am avoiding the zionism/law issue.
is the idea that the israelis would have attacked the palestinians if the palestinians didn't attack first due to colonial expansionism? there are things that are very harsh to palestinian people in israel right now including east jerusalem and especially the settlements in the west bank. i hope someday there will be a way to make that right, but again the solution is going to have to start with peace and reconcilliation. the current situation is coming from a history of busses getting blown up in public markets and olympians being assassinated. i'm not making any sort of assumption on who is right or wrong, but there were events in the past that effect how things work today.
those things hadn't happened yet when the UN proposed the 2-state solution in 1947/8. so the arabs went to war on the assumption that israel would feel the need to conquer the entire area? that was a high cost for an assumption. the risk of trying to live in peace would have better imho. i wasn't there though; that was decades before i was born. i might think, as someone who doesn't have access to much other than the internet, but maybe the arabs were trying to claim all of the land so the jewish people wouldn't be able to create their own autonomous government?
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 5:01 pm
"though i think tammuz said this had something to do with an alien conspiracy or something. "
When did I mention "alien" or "conspiracy"? That Zionism existed as a colonial project is indisputable. And if you read my previous posts wherein I had pointed out the crucial link with Christian Zionism, we could have been criticizing or supporting that.
Lloyd George set up a War Policy Committee (himself, Curzon, Milner, Law and Smuts, with Maurice Hankey as secretary) to discuss strategy, which held 16 meetings over the next six weeks. At the very first meeting (11 June) , Lloyd George played a critical role in Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour‘s famous Declaration in favour of ”the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. It is here that his strong Christian Zionist background came into to play, although this is disputed. Tom Segev, in his significant book, (based on new material ),One Palestine Complete,[12]argues that it was Lloyd George himself, not the Zionists not the imperial planners who were responsible for the Declaration. Avi Shlaim writes:
In his memoirs, written some 20 years after the event, Lloyd George explained his support for the Zionist government during the First world War as an alliance with a hugely influential political organization whose goodwill was worth paying for….Lloyd George’s support, Segev argues, was based not on British interests but on ignorance and prejudice. In his own way Lloyd George despised the Jews, but he also feared them and he proceeded on the basis of an absurdly inflated notion of the Zionists’ power and influence. [13]
Segev concludes that the Balfour Declaration
Was the product of neither military not diplomatic interests but of prejudice, faith and sleight of hand. The men who sired it were Christian and Zionist and, in many cases, anti-Semitic. They believed the Jews controlled the world.[14]
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 5:08 pm
"the current situation is coming from a history of busses getting blown up in public markets and olympians being assassinated. "
No, it goes back to massacres committed by the incoming Zionists who had a project already to displace the palestinians. It goes back to stealing PAlestinian lands and properties. Nothing at all, nothing explains this except for a consistent policy of displacement, calculated, willed from the very beginning to the end by a superior external force - by virtue of being armed by the Brits then Americans-
"i am avoiding the zionism/law issue"
And thats the problem. You're not confronting the origin and backbone of the problem.
CD.Arch
Jul 24, 14 5:11 pm
Are you gonna show us that picture again or do you have anything else?
anonitect
Jul 24, 14 5:17 pm
King of Sweden in a Bunny Hat!
Let's argue about Zaha or something. There must be other places on the internet to debate the Middle East.
For the record: I am firmly in the anti-Hadid camp.
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 5:21 pm
Quondam,
although I have no qualm with your approach in regards to the above, I think that also the main point is net being breached in terms of the very core of this problem from the onset.
There were Palestinian jews, as there were Palestinian christian as there were Palestinian moslems. The issue is not over the protection of jews or lack thereof - firstly, define which Jews? Are we talking about the historically resident Jews? Or are we talking about an orchestrated outflux of Russian then European Jews who took over other people's lands?
My point is this, and I hope you accept it with all due respect: There is no need to defend the Palestinian Muslims in citing that there was a good intention towards the Jews (in fact, as noted, communities have been living side by side for a long long time prior to this - and not just in Palestine but in many other countries). Why should one go on the defensive, possibly preempting an attack based on a typically western obsession with "anti-semitism" (when, in fact, Palestinians are semites), when the issue was never religion to begin with, but rather colonialism, the handing over of the Palestine colony to Zionists.
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 5:25 pm
And on this note, and for those who are not able to perceive the difference between a Zionist and a jewish person, let alone an anti-Zionist and an anti-Semite, you do well to read this
If the colonization of Palestine has been characterized by a series of depredations, we should take a moment to examine the attitude of the Zionist movement not only toward its Palestinian victims (to which we shall return), but toward the Jews themselves.
Herzl himself wrote of the Jews in the following fashion: “I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to ’combat’ anti-Semitism.” The youth organization of the Zionists, Hashomer Hatzair (young Guard) published the following: “A Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligations, knows no order nor discipline.” “The Jewish people,” wrote Jabotinsky in the same vein, “is a very bad people; its neighbors hate it and rightly so ... its only salvation lies in a general immigration to the land of Israel.” The founders of Zionism despaired of combatting anti-Semitism and, paradoxically, regarded the anti-Semites themselves as allies, because of a shared desire to remove the Jews from the countries in which they lived. Step by step, they assimilated the values of Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism, as the Zionist movement came to regard the anti-Semites themselves as their most reliable sponsors and protectors.
Theodor Herzl approached none other than Count Von Plehve, the author of the worst pogroms in Russia – the pogroms of Kishinev with the following proposition: “Help me to reach the land [Palestine] sooner and the revolt [against Czarist rule] will end.” Von Plehve agreed, and he undertook to finance the Zionist movement. He was later to complain to Herzl: “The Jews have been joining the revolutionary parties. We were sympathetic to your Zionist movement as long as it worked toward emigration. You don’t have to justify the movement to me. You are preaching to a convert.” Herzl and Weizmann offered to help guarantee Czarist interests in Palestine and to rid Eastern Europe and Russia of those “noxious and subversive Anarcho-Bolshevik Jews”.
As we have noted, the same appeal was made by the Zionists to the Sultan of Turkey, the Kaiser in Germany, to French imperialism and to the British Raj.
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 5:47 pm
Same source:
In the territory which came under Israeli occupation after Partition there were approximately 950,000 Palestinian Arabs. They inhabited nearly 500 villages and all the major cities, which included Tiberias, Safed, Nazareth, Shafa Amr, Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Lydda, Ramle, Jerusalem, Majdal (Ashqelon), Isdud (Ashdod) and Beersheba.
After less than six months only 138,000 people remained. (Figures vary from 130,000 to 165,000.)The great majority of Palestinians were killed, forcibly expelled or fled in panic before slaughtering bands of Israeli army units.
Having thus eliminated most of the Palestinian inhabitants from the land of Palestine, the Israeli government undertook the systematic destruction of their homes and possessions. Nearly 400 villages and towns were razed to the ground during 1948 and 1949. More followed in the 1950s.
Moshe Dayan, former Chief of Staff and Minister of Defense, was uninhibited in his summary of the nature of Zionist colonization before students at the Israel Institute of Technology (The Techniyon):
We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. Instead of Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You do not even know the names of these villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages do not exist.
Nahalal was established in place of Mahalul, Gevat in place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kafr Yehoushu’a in the place of Tel Shamam. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village. [64]
curtkram
Jul 24, 14 5:53 pm
i came to this thread because tammuz wasn't here. he spreads like a virus
1917, ottomon
1946, british
did the palestinians own canada too?
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 6:04 pm
Firstly curkram, I have as much right to be here as you. But its to be expected that you have zero courtesy.
So, curtkram, you only understand proper ownership and belonging of land in terms of colonial rule and not in term of having lived on the land since time primordial?
Furthermore, the Ottoman and indeed British colonization did not rely on substitution of the indigenous residents. This had no impact over the ownership of their lands (indeed, many many Palestinians still have their copies of right of ownership to their properties as well as the keys to their no-longer existing front doors).
chatter of clouds
Jul 24, 14 6:14 pm
Quondam, i was referring to this:
"This clearly states that Jews would be subject to their own laws and their own courts, and in turn, any offense to the Jewish court would also be an offense to the Islamic state. What exactly is so unfair about that?"
Actually, I tried to edit the word "approach" to "content" but I was already too late to edit. I think that the issue is and was never about Jewish rights (I'm talking about Palestinian jews), in their homecountry. Indeed, the Palestinians, like the Lebanese, had a rich urban life that was gravitating towards relatively secular civility and it was a fertile period for pan-Arabism. Palestine was ready to be independent and would have been inclusive of all its elements. But, still, the real topic here is the influx of outsiders (whatever their religion, irrespective of whether their rights were guaranteed - because as colonial outsiders, they didn't and shouldnt have rights) who terrorized, expelled a huge percentage of the Palestinian population (whatever their religion) and oppressed and continue to oppress the remaining.
Non Sequitur
Jul 25, 14 8:01 am
TAMMUZ, this was our thread long before you arrived. Depart from our lands! I have well trained gerbils aimed square to your front door.
Curt, nice one, Palestine owning Canada gave me quite the chuckle.
roroba
Jul 26, 14 2:36 pm
TAMMUZ, your comments are written with almost feverish speed and desperation. There is such thing as politics and then there is something else, maybe deeper, maybe tinged with a sense of loss in your life. Your earlier posts (not related to middle eastern affairs) in which you muse about your career, your sadness and depression and your attitudes about the field of architecture in general point to this lack of something missing in your life. maybe when you come to terms with this you will find something else to obsess about.
So, how about them Cubs?
IT TASTES LIKE BURNING!!!!11!
The cubs hold the record for the longest time without winning a World Series... Last time they won was never...
I saw the SF Giants lose to the Cardinals a few weeks back, that was a great afternoon (12pm start) game.
On a side note, football will be back in 7 weeks.
Anyone watch the America's Cup?
Jdparnell.... 7 weeks? good thing I have my Bills vs Dolphin tickets ready.
Just got my Jaguars season tickets. Gonna be a great year.
The last time the Cubs won the world series, the Ottoman Empire still existed.
I prefer LFL.
that's true tint. the cubs did win the world series
at that time, the ottomon empire controlled the area of israel and the gaza strip. also, around this time was the "second aliyah" - a migration of jewish settlements (many from russia) into that area. this migration could be seen as the start of arab hostility towards jewish people in the region (as compared to the 1948 date often cited in these forums). also, they formed the first kibbutz the year after the cubs won the world series. at the time, after the removal of sultan abdul hamid, there seems to have been a bigger push for turkish nationalization rather than 'palestinian' nationalization.
pro football sucks compared to college. 37 days. go big red!
Quondam, wrong forum post. This one is for making fun of silly garbage like the original boycott one. I wonder if there is a LFL in Israel at the moment.
i'm pretty sure the state of palestine you're talking about is what was established by the british mandate in 1922. is that correct? or are you referring to a different state of palestine?
the cubs had gone over a decade without a wold series win by that point.
perhaps you're referring to the ottomon palestine (which i believe was referred to as syria rather than palestine? you might need to look that up for me, as i'm not actually certain) as the state existed when the cubs won the world series? that isn't really the same as the british palestinian state that was eradicated in 1948 is it?
so you're asking why the british mandate that was established at the end of WW1 was changed at the end of WW2? the easy answer would be that it changed for the same reason it was created. because of the war, right?
of course the real answer isn't that easy. there were arab revolts against british rule. britian got involved in WW2. limitations on jewish immigration were established to appease the arabs who were revolting, since britian had to focus it's attention elsewhere. when a bunch of displaced jewish people had nowhere to go due to events during WW2, those limitations became somewhere inconvenient.
i suppose you could read more about the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
and then maybe read about the subsequent war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
but even that isn't really a comprehensive view of the complexity of the situation.
curtkram, how exactly can the "second Aliyah" be seen as "the start of arab hostility toward jewish people in the region?"
there have always been jewish people and arab people and muslim people in the region. there have probably been a lot of christians in the region starting around the start of that religion as well.
'the start of arab hostility' implies that was roughly the time when those groups lived together in a less than peacable way. i would suggest it was generally around that time that they cooperated less and fought more. the 1948 deal is certainly not when the fighting started.
HE ASKED ABOUT THE CUBS, DAMNIT!!!
I am boycotting the boycott of this thread.
The Ottoman Empire had oil wrestling. I wonder if belly dancers had a league?
Trying to obscure the proper residency and right of Palestinians in belonging, staying and owning their own lands and having a regional identity the equivalent to any other indigenous one anywhere else in the word by squishing them out of proprietarial exsitence between two colonialisms -which the Arabs, with the exception of some corrupt traitors, fought against- in order to just shows that these individuals place more importance and credibility on finding any means possible in order to argue Palestinians out of their rights to defend their existence on their lands, and consequently out of their lands, out of their indentity.....all in order to render Palestine as a country without people (not true) for a people without a country. And all this nonsense in order to clean the evidence of blood on the violating arm of the zionist terrorists:
Organized Terror and Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine
It was within these various terrorist and paramilitary organizations that Plan D was formed among several Zionist leaders, most notably, David Ben-Gurion, to plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Throughout the 1940s, the planning stages of the village files went through many revisions, and encapsulated Plans A through D. In the planning stages during 1940, as one member of the data collection team, Moshe Pasternak, later recalled:
We had to study the structure of the Arab village. This means the structure and how best to attack it. In the military schools, I had been taught how to attack a modern European city, not a primitive village in the Near East. We could not compare it [an Arab village] to a Polish, or an Austrian one. The Arab village, unlike the European ones, was built topographically on hills. That meant we had to find out how best to approach the village from above or enter it from below. We had to train our "Arabists" [the Orientalists who operated a network of collaborators] how best to work with informants.[12]
If Jews were already living in the region, why did Palestine have to be eradicated?
i don't understand what state of palestine you're referring to. it can't be the semantics that concern you?
the region wasn't under "palestinian" rule before 1948. it was british rule. the empire on which the sun never sets and all that. after 1948 the UN kicked the british out and established an arab and a jewish state. i don't think we can really say how those two government were established though, because the day after the UN plan was signed they started killing each other.
i don't understand what you're asking. tell me more about the palestinian state that was lost. did you think that there were no jews living in the area before 1948? did palestinians have their own government under the british mandate (and if so, was it a monarchy/democracy/?)?
i'm truly sorry to hear about what your family faced at the end of WW2. the only way to win a war is to avoid it. we should be resolved to find a path to peace and reconcilliation, rather than saying the palestinians should be given free rights to attack israel. both sides are to blame in this conflict.
let me help you tam. there never was a british empire. the whole idea of english speaking people in europe is a jewish conspiracy to eliminate the palestinian people. the cubs actually won the world series in 2003, but because of steve bartman (an israeli agent) and a large media conspiracy, the israelis were able to hide the actual outcome and replace it with a fabrication of their making favoring the florida marlins. this follows the more well know 'curse of the billy goat' when billy sianis, israeli operative obsessed with eliminating the palestinian state and cubs fan, was ejected from wriggly field in 1945.
quondam,
in 1948, the british rule was kicked out and the UN resolution was attempted but mostly failed.
what happened was war broke out. as i understand it, the arab population formed alliances with neighboring countries and struck first right? in the context of palestine being eradicated, i think i could take that two ways. the first would be a population shift that, after 1948, strongly favored the jewish people. you can correct me if that didn't happen. this was in large part due to 1948 palestinian exodus, where over 700,000 palestinians fled (often forcibly). from a war standpoint, it would seem to me israel was establishing a safe border for themselves, though i think tammuz said this had something to do with an alien conspiracy or something. along with that, there were channels to smuggle in jewish WWII refugees, and shortly thereafter the treaty that banned jewish immigration ended, so while the palestinian population was cut drastically, i believe the jewish population was increasing.
the other way you could say palestine was eradicated was that it lost it's ability to govern itself. the british lost control, and thus the arab's lost british protection, when the UN took over. The reason the british lost control was largely due to the arab uprisings and their fight for independence, wasn't it? the UN took over after WWII because that's what the UN does. i think with hindsight most people would agree the UN made some very bad decisions. even with that hindsight though, i don't think it would have been fair then, and it's not fair now, to say let the arabs have everything and kill off the jews (you're not saying that of course).
i don't think it would be fair for isma'il raji al-faruqi to decide the israelis have to live under his sharia law. i understand his perspective on zionism and all that, and i don't disagree with him. i'm not prepared to say i know how best to move forward in the current situation, except to say that i think peace and reconciliation has to be at the center of any proposal. without that, there's no point. the palestinians will attack again, the israelis will escalate the conflict and bomb them again. saying it's ok for the palestinians to launch rockets into israel because they're little and cute will not resolve the problem.
surely we can agree that the palestine before 1922 was noticeably different than the palestine after?
I could agree with your perspective on that quondam, but as another way of viewing it, couldn't you say there was a war and israeli's won?
the jewish people that were in the area would not have had the ability to live there had they not gone to war and removed the palestinian population that was trying to get rid of them. due in large part to decisions made by the palestinians, they were put in a position where either the jewish people get israel, or the palestinians would get their state, but both couldn't happen.
the UN at the time proposed a 2-state solution (with indefensible amoeba-like borders that were probably created by a 2nd year architecture student or patrik schumacher) where both sides could live in peace and govern themselves. however, the arabs and palestinians rejected that proposal and chose war instead, right? today, over 50 years later, people are still discussing whether they prefer a 1-state or 2-state solution while the war between the palestinians and israelis continues on. the only solution imho is to start with peace and reconciliation. without that, there is no solution.
damnit.
i am avoiding the zionism/law issue.
is the idea that the israelis would have attacked the palestinians if the palestinians didn't attack first due to colonial expansionism? there are things that are very harsh to palestinian people in israel right now including east jerusalem and especially the settlements in the west bank. i hope someday there will be a way to make that right, but again the solution is going to have to start with peace and reconcilliation. the current situation is coming from a history of busses getting blown up in public markets and olympians being assassinated. i'm not making any sort of assumption on who is right or wrong, but there were events in the past that effect how things work today.
those things hadn't happened yet when the UN proposed the 2-state solution in 1947/8. so the arabs went to war on the assumption that israel would feel the need to conquer the entire area? that was a high cost for an assumption. the risk of trying to live in peace would have better imho. i wasn't there though; that was decades before i was born. i might think, as someone who doesn't have access to much other than the internet, but maybe the arabs were trying to claim all of the land so the jewish people wouldn't be able to create their own autonomous government?
"though i think tammuz said this had something to do with an alien conspiracy or something. "
When did I mention "alien" or "conspiracy"? That Zionism existed as a colonial project is indisputable. And if you read my previous posts wherein I had pointed out the crucial link with Christian Zionism, we could have been criticizing or supporting that.
The Balfour Declaration
Lloyd George set up a War Policy Committee (himself, Curzon, Milner, Law and Smuts, with Maurice Hankey as secretary) to discuss strategy, which held 16 meetings over the next six weeks. At the very first meeting (11 June) , Lloyd George played a critical role in Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour‘s famous Declaration in favour of ”the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. It is here that his strong Christian Zionist background came into to play, although this is disputed. Tom Segev, in his significant book, (based on new material ),One Palestine Complete,[12]argues that it was Lloyd George himself, not the Zionists not the imperial planners who were responsible for the Declaration. Avi Shlaim writes:
In his memoirs, written some 20 years after the event, Lloyd George explained his support for the Zionist government during the First world War as an alliance with a hugely influential political organization whose goodwill was worth paying for….Lloyd George’s support, Segev argues, was based not on British interests but on ignorance and prejudice. In his own way Lloyd George despised the Jews, but he also feared them and he proceeded on the basis of an absurdly inflated notion of the Zionists’ power and influence. [13]
Segev concludes that the Balfour Declaration
Was the product of neither military not diplomatic interests but of prejudice, faith and sleight of hand. The men who sired it were Christian and Zionist and, in many cases, anti-Semitic. They believed the Jews controlled the world.[14]
"the current situation is coming from a history of busses getting blown up in public markets and olympians being assassinated. "
No, it goes back to massacres committed by the incoming Zionists who had a project already to displace the palestinians. It goes back to stealing PAlestinian lands and properties. Nothing at all, nothing explains this except for a consistent policy of displacement, calculated, willed from the very beginning to the end by a superior external force - by virtue of being armed by the Brits then Americans-
"i am avoiding the zionism/law issue"
And thats the problem. You're not confronting the origin and backbone of the problem.
Are you gonna show us that picture again or do you have anything else?
King of Sweden in a Bunny Hat!
Let's argue about Zaha or something. There must be other places on the internet to debate the Middle East.
For the record: I am firmly in the anti-Hadid camp.
Quondam,
although I have no qualm with your approach in regards to the above, I think that also the main point is net being breached in terms of the very core of this problem from the onset.
There were Palestinian jews, as there were Palestinian christian as there were Palestinian moslems. The issue is not over the protection of jews or lack thereof - firstly, define which Jews? Are we talking about the historically resident Jews? Or are we talking about an orchestrated outflux of Russian then European Jews who took over other people's lands?
My point is this, and I hope you accept it with all due respect: There is no need to defend the Palestinian Muslims in citing that there was a good intention towards the Jews (in fact, as noted, communities have been living side by side for a long long time prior to this - and not just in Palestine but in many other countries). Why should one go on the defensive, possibly preempting an attack based on a typically western obsession with "anti-semitism" (when, in fact, Palestinians are semites), when the issue was never religion to begin with, but rather colonialism, the handing over of the Palestine colony to Zionists.
And on this note, and for those who are not able to perceive the difference between a Zionist and a jewish person, let alone an anti-Zionist and an anti-Semite, you do well to read this
At least the intro:
Zionism and the Jews
5. Seizure of the Land | 7. Myth of Security
If the colonization of Palestine has been characterized by a series of depredations, we should take a moment to examine the attitude of the Zionist movement not only toward its Palestinian victims (to which we shall return), but toward the Jews themselves.
Herzl himself wrote of the Jews in the following fashion: “I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to ’combat’ anti-Semitism.” The youth organization of the Zionists, Hashomer Hatzair (young Guard) published the following: “A Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligations, knows no order nor discipline.” “The Jewish people,” wrote Jabotinsky in the same vein, “is a very bad people; its neighbors hate it and rightly so ... its only salvation lies in a general immigration to the land of Israel.” The founders of Zionism despaired of combatting anti-Semitism and, paradoxically, regarded the anti-Semites themselves as allies, because of a shared desire to remove the Jews from the countries in which they lived. Step by step, they assimilated the values of Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism, as the Zionist movement came to regard the anti-Semites themselves as their most reliable sponsors and protectors.
Theodor Herzl approached none other than Count Von Plehve, the author of the worst pogroms in Russia – the pogroms of Kishinev with the following proposition: “Help me to reach the land [Palestine] sooner and the revolt [against Czarist rule] will end.” Von Plehve agreed, and he undertook to finance the Zionist movement. He was later to complain to Herzl: “The Jews have been joining the revolutionary parties. We were sympathetic to your Zionist movement as long as it worked toward emigration. You don’t have to justify the movement to me. You are preaching to a convert.” Herzl and Weizmann offered to help guarantee Czarist interests in Palestine and to rid Eastern Europe and Russia of those “noxious and subversive Anarcho-Bolshevik Jews”.
As we have noted, the same appeal was made by the Zionists to the Sultan of Turkey, the Kaiser in Germany, to French imperialism and to the British Raj.
Same source:
In the territory which came under Israeli occupation after Partition there were approximately 950,000 Palestinian Arabs. They inhabited nearly 500 villages and all the major cities, which included Tiberias, Safed, Nazareth, Shafa Amr, Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Lydda, Ramle, Jerusalem, Majdal (Ashqelon), Isdud (Ashdod) and Beersheba.
After less than six months only 138,000 people remained. (Figures vary from 130,000 to 165,000.)The great majority of Palestinians were killed, forcibly expelled or fled in panic before slaughtering bands of Israeli army units.
Having thus eliminated most of the Palestinian inhabitants from the land of Palestine, the Israeli government undertook the systematic destruction of their homes and possessions. Nearly 400 villages and towns were razed to the ground during 1948 and 1949. More followed in the 1950s.
Moshe Dayan, former Chief of Staff and Minister of Defense, was uninhibited in his summary of the nature of Zionist colonization before students at the Israel Institute of Technology (The Techniyon):
We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. Instead of Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You do not even know the names of these villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages do not exist.
Nahalal was established in place of Mahalul, Gevat in place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kafr Yehoushu’a in the place of Tel Shamam. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village. [64]
i came to this thread because tammuz wasn't here. he spreads like a virus
1917, ottomon
1946, british
did the palestinians own canada too?
Firstly curkram, I have as much right to be here as you. But its to be expected that you have zero courtesy.
So, curtkram, you only understand proper ownership and belonging of land in terms of colonial rule and not in term of having lived on the land since time primordial?
Furthermore, the Ottoman and indeed British colonization did not rely on substitution of the indigenous residents. This had no impact over the ownership of their lands (indeed, many many Palestinians still have their copies of right of ownership to their properties as well as the keys to their no-longer existing front doors).
Quondam, i was referring to this:
"This clearly states that Jews would be subject to their own laws and their own courts, and in turn, any offense to the Jewish court would also be an offense to the Islamic state. What exactly is so unfair about that?"
Actually, I tried to edit the word "approach" to "content" but I was already too late to edit. I think that the issue is and was never about Jewish rights (I'm talking about Palestinian jews), in their homecountry. Indeed, the Palestinians, like the Lebanese, had a rich urban life that was gravitating towards relatively secular civility and it was a fertile period for pan-Arabism. Palestine was ready to be independent and would have been inclusive of all its elements. But, still, the real topic here is the influx of outsiders (whatever their religion, irrespective of whether their rights were guaranteed - because as colonial outsiders, they didn't and shouldnt have rights) who terrorized, expelled a huge percentage of the Palestinian population (whatever their religion) and oppressed and continue to oppress the remaining.
TAMMUZ, this was our thread long before you arrived. Depart from our lands! I have well trained gerbils aimed square to your front door.
Curt, nice one, Palestine owning Canada gave me quite the chuckle.
TAMMUZ, your comments are written with almost feverish speed and desperation. There is such thing as politics and then there is something else, maybe deeper, maybe tinged with a sense of loss in your life. Your earlier posts (not related to middle eastern affairs) in which you muse about your career, your sadness and depression and your attitudes about the field of architecture in general point to this lack of something missing in your life. maybe when you come to terms with this you will find something else to obsess about.