Should All Occupied Territories Be Given Back?

Events of 1948
During December 1947 the Mayor of Jaffa, Yussuf Haykal, tried to negotiate a truce with the
advancing Haganah and Jewish leader, David Ben Gurion. However, such a scenario formed no part
of the plans of the Zionists. No interest was shown. And so it was that on 4th January 1948 the Stern
Gang, an off-shoot of the Irgun, parked a lorry bomb in central Jaffa. The resultant blast destroyed
the old Turkish Government House, the Central Police station and a corner of Barclay’s Bank. This
resulted in the death of up to 30 people. With Government House having premises used as a social
welfare society for feeding children and the destitute, many of the dead and around 100 injured
were children.
As if to prove there was not much difference between the Irgun and the “regular” Haganah, on 14th
March the latter blew up 15 houses in the Abu Kebir Quarter, resulting in the death of ‘about 20
Arabs.’ The demolition squad then moved on to the Manieh Quarter and blew up a further 4 houses.
Under the auspices of Operation Chametz the Haganah’s role was to lay siege to, and isolate, Jaffa
by seizing surrounding villages.
The Irgun tactic was one of indiscriminate and massive shelling of the residential, commercial
section and centre of Jaffa in order to provoke large scale civilian panic leading to mass evacuation
to safety – by land and sea.
Their principal weapons were two 3inch mortars stolen from the British army and, commencing at
dawn, 24th April, bombarded Jaffa “without respite” for three days with a total of 20 tons of high
explosives aimed at the heart of the town. This was accompanied by the entry of 3 000 terrorists,
drawn from around Palestine for this well planned operation, into Jaffa - which, it should be
remembered, had been earmarked under the UN partition resolution as part of the proposed Arab
state. Reporters were refused access by the Zionist forces as the Irgun, male and female, advanced
from house to house using grenades and anti-tank bazookas.
On the evening of the 28th the Irgun launched their second assault of the day. Row by row, blocks of
houses were blown up creating fear and terror amongst the civilian population.
General Murray observed
I saw a scene which I never thought to see in my life. It was the sight
of the whole population of Jaffa pouring out on to the road carrying
in their hands whatever they could pick up. . . . . as fast as their legs
could carry them. It was a case of sheer terror.
The Palestinian Catastrophe Michael Palumbo (p.87)

--
And the Zionist gunmen and snipers took full advantage of the targets presented by the panic stricken, defenceless fleeing population of Jaffa. “Those bullets went through the bodies of people
standing by the sea shore”. Recalled 12 year old Iris Shammout. Many people drowned as they clamoured to get into boats ready to evacuate them to a waiting Greek steamship. Babies fell overboard with mothers trying to save them.
Another young child would have witnessed this “liberation” of his homeland by the Zionist colonisers. Eleven year old Sabri al-Banna, although he did not realize it at the time, said his final farewell to his homeland, to the citrus plantations and export business owned by his family, his home and whole way of life.

Years later, under the nom de guerre of Abu Nidal, he was to adopt the terrorist mindset of those who forced him from his home and use this against his perceived enemies.
Eventually the British Government, the mandatory power in Palestine with a remit to govern and protect the population, was forced into action with troops and tanks stationed in the town and Spitfires flying over Irgun positions. However, during this onslaught, the role of British troops was reduced to that of an escort to the terror stricken population out of Jaffa in their effort to reach
relative safety.
By the 30th April Jaffa was completely cut off from the interior, under siege, with the sea the only
outlet. Over the next two weeks a further 15 000 people evacuated Jaffa, by sea, to relative safety.
By the 9th May the picture painted of Jaffa – once the Bride of the Sea – was one of abject desolation. A few score vessels taking refugees to destinations unknown. A few hundred Jaffa residents could be seen wandering about dazed, confused and impoverished. At this point it was estimated that up to 3 000 remained, all on the verge of starvation.
Jaffa formally surrendered on 13th May 1948. On this day the British forces quit Jaffa.The town was subject to looting. One estimate gave the death total amongst Jaffa’s residents at 1 300.



http://www.easi-piesi.org/pics/Jaffa - more than just an orange.pdf

 

I'm just justifying my correct choice in words. YOU are the one who decided to accuse me of improper word choice, so don't accuse me of playing the semantics game as though you aren't.. You started the semantics quibbling; I merely just owned you in it.

Why not? Why not try being fair for a change? We're always advancing in our morality.

When did that war happen? The sixties? These people in Palestine now didn't start that war. They were born into what they live in right now.

So then, you do realize that Israel can choose if, when, and under what terms they sign a peace deal. So it IS up to them whether or not they relinquish their conquered lands. So what I'm saying is right. You know what's not likewise with the Palestinians? They can't abuse the same stalling tactic to sit on occupied lands indefinitely.

 

The definition I cited was there in the dictionary. That definition justifies what I said. You claimed I made up the definition but I didn't. Stop playing games please.

You claimed I made up the definition, instead of explaining why kicking someone off the land doesn't count as conquering the land.

 

The UN's initial partition plan was impractical and the historical cities such as Bethlehem and Jericho cannot be handed over the the Palestinians from an Israeli point of view. Israel also needs to control the border area in the eastern half of the occupied territory to deter an Arab invasion from Jordan. But the EU ban on funding to Israeli institutions in the West Bank and east Jerusalem will pressure Israel to come to a workable compromise with the PA on the issue in the upcoming peace talks mediated by the US. Israel needs to withdraw from the majority of the West Bank but it may keep some major settlement blocks coloured yellow on the map while evacuating many others.

 

Yes, it is unfortunate some countries refuse to go by International law. It would be a much safer world if we all did. However as you say this is a very long time and obviously other methods must now be used like BDS and the EU's new directive.

There has never been a situation like this in history. Colonialisation previously has either been about using the people of the country to gain it's labour and resources or about annihilating it's people in order to replace them.

South Africa is an example of the first, the US and Australia the 2nd. Israel certainly wants to replace the indigenous population but this has been made more difficult for her due to them being surrounded by arabs and the time in history when news travels fast and genocide not looked on favourably. Other methods are needed which take longer - 46 years and counting.

She is now intending on having a referendum among her own people on a peace agreement. I think that is a first as well.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=46339

 

I suppose we ought to be grateful for such small mercies (sarcasm). It's your sanguine reluctance towards Israeli culpability more generally by way of policy - as outlined by Pappe above - which is so indicative of many of your posts that I find extremely disturbing and creepy. It's a bit like having to trawl through the posts of Nazi apologists.

 

no, you are compounding your incorrect choice of words and its rather amusing.

Please explain to me how an land that is already occupied can be conquered by the occupier again? There is no continuing Israeli "conquering" going on, which was part of your original statement.

Why not? While not original, it is an interesting question that has been asked on any number of occasions. It always seems to be asked by the losers and/or their supporters. Never by the winners.

And yes, the occupation has gone on for decades. and those of both sides who fought that 67 war are now retired or dead.
The Palestinians in 67 didn't start the war either. It was the Isareli's preemption of the palestinian's supposed patron and "protector of all things arab" Nassar that started the shooting.

Another interesting interpretation.
In this regard both sides must pick and choose the terms they require and which they can live with to sign a deal, that is why its called an agreement.

Lets forget about the total intransigence of the palestinians to make any kind of deal until Oslo. then lets forget about the fact that the palestinians have "non=negotiable demands" that they know will be immediately rejected by the Israelis. then let's try to forget that the Israelis also have "non-negotiable" demands that the palestinians competely reject.

Now what do you do in a scenerio like that? You sit down, you negotiate and along the way you make any number of hard choices to create a series of compromises and trade-offs that enable the process to move forward. Both sides are going to have to sacrifice some of their more dearly held positions. But nobody is under the illusion that the Israelis do not have the upper hand. Occupiers generally do.

OTOH, the chances of a Likud led coaltion making the necessary compromises and trade-offs to reach a deal are about as good as the chances of Hamas making the necessary compromises and trade offs. IOW - ZERO.

 

Yes! All nations, including the United States, should give back all their occupied territories.

The United States should give back the Southern states which it conquered and has occupied since the Civil War. Yankee conquerors should give the rebels back their land ... with reparations.

 

They were offered them were they? I thought it was simply the first Intifada which got people thinking maybe they had some needs. In those days all the thinking was not slanted towards Israel, you know. Oslo was just a way of Israel getting the Palestinians controlled while Israel with stealth got about more replacement of the indigenous people's lands and rights.

At Oslo in 1993 Palestinians agreed to accept only 22% of their historic homeland and let Israel have the other 78%. That was a massive offer. It has never come to pass. It was clearly not enough.

I am surprised you have not mentioned Barak's 'Generous Offer'.

Barak proposed 69 settlement blocks occupied by 85% of settlers would be annexed to Israel. Palestinians would need to relinquish another 10 of their 22%. In addition the settlements intruded into Palestinian lands making travel within a contiguous state very difficult.

2. Israel was to maintain control of Palestine while she sorted out her other settlements which according to Gush Shalon would likely never happen. Palestinian sovereignty with Israel control – you're having a laugh. The areas Israel would maintain control of amounted to another 10% of the Palestinians 22% of their historic homeland.

3. The remaining areas although appearing to be contiguous would in fact be broken up by Israeli bypass Roads and checkpoints.

The Palestinians were to be left with 17.5% of their historic homeland to navigate tortuously about. They were also expected to relinquish control of the land most needed for trade and tourism and for the absorption of refugees.

Uri Avnery

Taba agreements. The map was presented in Jan 2001 a few weeks before Israeli elections the most important difference was the withdrawal of the Israel control areas.

The Palestinians accepted them as a basis of negotiations although the settlements looked stranger and less justifiable than ever. But by this time Barak was a political corpse and he did not dare show his plans to the Israeli public.

Source Uri Avnery
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html

Go to downloads, choose 'a flash demonstration of Barak's generous offer.

Have you not heard the Israeli's saying they will never get such a 'good' offer again? You know that this is simply about replacing the indigenous population. Israel has no motive to want anything else. She expands, the Palestinian space decreases and as you pointed out gleefully in another post no one can stop her. The powerful destroy the weak in your thinking.

I am glad of the new EU directive. It can easily be expanded if necessary. I hope this is a sign that Europe will use everything lawful to stop Israel's illegal stealing of Palestinian land and not only that but Palestinian land that she was entrusted to look after at Oslo. 62% of that 22% of the Palestinians historic homeland which Israel has been busy demolishing Palestinian houses on and getting them to leave. That is Israel's intention. The Palestinians can live in little Bantustans having limited access to vital resources like water and roads and electricity. I guess the idea is to warehouse them. It is a slower more stealthy replacement of the indigenous people than was done in the US and Australia and it is all the more despicable because it could never have been done without the help of the country which used to be thought of as free and democratic and yet this very same country has stood by for 46 years approving a situation which removes human and civil rights from people without blinking an eye - The United States - history will look poorly on her time of Imperialism.

Meanwhile the rest of the world will continue to work for some justice for the Palestinians in their historic homeland. Israel will never know peace and harmony with her neighbours but it is time she started looking in the mirror and asking why.

 

I think you read a little too much into my reply. It simply means that once peace has been reached they need to return the land.

Because both sides have endured enough hence peace is a fair thing to desire.

They have before when peace has been reached so I have no reason to believe different in this case.

 

without the Zionist intent on taking over the Palestinian historic land, ME Jews would have had no troubles which would required a new home. There is also evidence that Zionists themselves encouraged this. Right from the beginning they were talking about the transfer of the people - the Jews from the ME and the Palestinians to Arab lands.

I hope by now you have read the information Margo left http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

At that time they already had 600,000 Jews and it is deceitful to call them refugees. Even if they came as refugees they were there to stay. If they had been simply refugees they would have stayed somewhere like Cyprus. If they were simply refugees, they would have had choice where to go. If they were simply refugees the US and other Western countries which had not been involved in the holocaust would have opened their doors to them rather than allowing only a token level in.

Jews wanted their own state in Palestine. Unfortunately the moderates lost and the aggressive ones who did not give a humanitarian toss for the Palestinians won. The moderate became afraid to speak. Those who won acted in a way described as nazi in the British archives. The rest of what I said above comes from there also.

600,000 Jews was getting near making the Palestinians outnumbered in their own historic homeland and not only that but they were open about wanting to take it over. No people would accept that. None.

I accept that Jews were treated badly by the US and by Europe who were at the time very antisemetic and who did not want to open their countries to Jews even after the holocaust. I accept that this put people who before the holocaust would never have thought of doing this in a tricky situation.

What I don't accept is your inability to look at what you did to the Palestinians. To European Imperialism it made no matter. They thought of you both as backward and were glad to be rid of you.

The Zionists made it hard for Jews to choose other sanctuary, even to leave I was readying today and also Europe and the US did not offer massive immigration opportunities which would have solved the problem straight away. The US was always heads up preferred to Palestine for Jews to immigrate to.

So, I know the situation was difficult but that does not excuse what has happened and what continues to happen. You could begin by understanding things from the Palestinians side because it was their historic country you have taken over. As you drool among the architecture, it was likely their ancestors which built it.

Find out why the arabs said 'no' to the partician plan

http://jfjfp.com/?p=46224

Peace will only come when Israel recognises what she has done and makes amends. By not recognising it she continues to live in a false reality and as such continues to harm and can never know peace.

and if you think that why the hell are you yourself not allowing all the Palestinian refugees back tout de suite.

Instead Palestinians have hardly any freedom of movement in the tiny bits of their homeland they still have and even trying to visit a friend can result in checkpoint stops. If you put just half the amount of your demands you believe people should give someone just because they are a jew, onto arabs, you might begin making a step forward. To me it is criminal that the people have been kept caged like animals, having their land destroyed or taken away and without civil and human rights of self determination. There is an old saying, 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' Just imagine how you would feel if you were an arab and this was your historic homeland and people were taking out on you what others had done to them - because that basically is what has happened.

Only when Israel is able to be honest about what she has done will peace be possible. Is peace not worth it to you? Does it hurt too much to look at?

 

Really? I guess that is why the Israelis agreed to the establishment of an actual Palestinian government, with autonomous palestinian areas, to the return of their mortal enemy Arafat, to the opportunity for the palestinians to begin building the institutions and infrastructure of a state. I guess it was one of those counter intutitive strategies - giving the palestinians MORE rights and MORE control.

I didnt mention it because it didn't get more than a nanosecond of serious consideration and Barak was already political toast. Meaning that it was an irrelevant offer of which we have seen all kinds over the years.

As someone with detailed knowledge, can you remind me of how many draft peace proposals the Palestinians put forward for Israeli consideration?

Yes I have heard some Israelis say that. So what? I have also heard some Palestinians scream death to israel , death to jews. Should that be also be taken as a serious policy statement

No doubt at all that the settlement program is land theft. No doubt that the annexation of east jerusalem was land theft and the indifference of the Israeli government to the status of arabs living there is disgusting.

The arabs and the palestinians have made serious blunders thru the decades, when their primary focus was to reverse al-nakba. Their single minded perspective saw them lose the opportunity for peace many times. Their humiliated intransigence in 67 prevented them from getting back the conquered territories, even tho the Israeli government EXPECTED that they would have to be returned. (granted the US failed to forward the offer of return of land for peace, but history can be quixotic). The three noes merely opened the door for the neo-zionist who, being no fools, stepped right in.

Sadat did manage to get back the Sinai and have the settlements there removed even tho he lost the yom kippur so badly, but the price was a peace agreement and his life.


[qutoe]I am glad of the new EU directive. It can easily be expanded if necessary. I hope this is a sign that Europe will use everything lawful to stop Israel's illegal stealing of Palestinian land and not only that but Palestinian land that she was entrusted to look after at Oslo. 62% of that 22% of the Palestinians historic homeland which Israel has been busy demolishing Palestinian houses on and getting them to leave. That is Israel's intention. The Palestinians can live in little Bantustans having limited access to vital resources like water and roads and electricity. I guess the idea is to warehouse them. It is a slower more stealthy replacement of the indigenous people than was done in the US and Australia and it is all the more despicable because it could never have been done without the help of the country which used to be thought of as free and democratic and yet this very same country has stood by for 46 years approving a situation which removes human and civil rights from people without blinking an eye - The United States - history will look poorly on her time of Imperialism.[/quote]

Your mischaracterizations are nothing short of tedious propaganda. How about stepping back for a moment.
The EU directive is a mole hill of little practical effect, but nonetheless a positive statement. I fear that the ONLY ways to stop settlement expansion is for the Palestinians to come to the table and negotiate a peace, or for the Israelis to vote in a centerist or leftist coalition. It nearly did, but Kadima was unable to form a coalition and that left the door open for bibi and his gang to take over. (really Avigdor Liebermann as foreign minister???!!)

I am always dismayed when pro-palestinians ignore how the occupation came about and why it has continued for as long as it has. This one sided "Israeli's are evil ethinic cleaners" never takes into account that the palestinians crap smells just as bad.

As you seem to know so much,perhap you can answer a question about the palestinians in general. Why is it that they are a pariah in Tunisa, Egypt, libya and Lebannon.
In lebannon, for instance, they actually live in bantustans, unable to own property or do certain jobs or vote or have any of the rights of citizens despite the vast majority of them being born there.

When will the palestinians start working on obtaining some justice for themselves in their "historic homeland"?
As for the rest of the world, I hope they can do a better job than their arab cousins have done for them so far.
And even when (not if) a peace agreement results in the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel will not know peace and harmony with many of her neighbours. I believe it is rooted in the Islamic concept of the ummah and dar al salaam - "once muslim land, always muslim land" and its corrollory "once muslim, always muslim or dead".

 

Considering their respective charters state pretty much just that I would answer that question with a 'yep.'

 

be as outraged or as creeped out as you feel comfortable with.

I have not problem with Israeli culpability. I am not sure how one can be sanguinely reluctant, but never the less, I do not dispute facts and appear considerably more pragmatic than you.

Wasn't the entire civil war and war of independence(al nakba) fought over land? did either side want the other on "their" land?
We know both sides planned to "push" the other side out of the way - the jews into the sea, the arabs across the jordan (more or less)

I'm not sure what more you expect? Excoriation all things Israeli like most of the anti=zionists around here?

BTW - your cheap shot about nazi apologists is a churlish bush league bait attempt.
But then again I suppose I am not surprised since many rabid anti-zionist attempt offense and insult with stupid attempts and associating zionism with nazis and fascism, with epithets such as zionazis.

I suggest we reserve such cheapshots for those that particularly deserve them.

 

the plo charter has removed the "liberation of all of historic palestine" and I actually believe that Fatah and pals have put away that pipe dream.

Of course the Hamas covenant remains intact, and operative, despite islamist apologists insisting that Hamas has "moved on".

 

Incorrect. There are currently 14 territories occupied and administered by the United States. They are:

* American Samoa
* Baker Island
* Guam
* Howland Island
* Jarvis Island
* Johnston Atoll
* Kingman Reef
* Midway Islands
* Navassa Island
* Northern Mariana Islands
* Palmyra Atoll
* Puerto Rico
* Virgin Islands
* Wake Island

 

you just destroyed the palestinians position on their own historically unique multi-generational refugees.

 

Nope. Still remains however, they say they intend on changing it but just have not gotten around to it. Arafat said he was going to change it but never did.

 

There is a letter that specifically refers to the renunciation of the clause and the recognition of Israel. It was to serve and an official addendum until such time that a plennary session of th ePLO was called to modify the original document.
NOt quite as good, but equally binding.

 

Not good at all. They outright voted against changing it.

[video=youtube;WQVMJ1zS6fQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WQVMJ1zS6fQ[/video]

More

 

These self-aggrandizing dabbles with sarcasm ought to be rooted in truth if they're intended as anything other than being disagreeable for its own sake. Arafat FORCED concessions by means of violent resistance. What was offered was laughable- and many Israelis died as a result.

 

You mean were murdered and massacred in a genocidal neo terrorist way by the Palestinian Al Qaeda of Palestine Jihadists.

 

No, I mean they were killed as a result of Israel's perpetuation of an illegal occupation, an occupation characterised by the murder of Palestinians in their own country. Complaining about the subsequent killing of Israelis in theirs seems a tad churlish

 

How exactly in your warped mind do you explain that. Because Europe only accepted a token number of Jews after WW2 you believe that people who by International law have been allowed the right to return to their historic land, people who left because they were being forced to and slaughtered and raped, who left with the keys to their homes in their pockets and have remained refugees since, do not deserve recognition for who they are and where they belong. It is one of the necessities for peace - but I am sure you know that. That would why you would reject it.

With you're warped interpretations and attempts to show yourself as superior by bullying over nit points, you are starting to look pathetic.

 

Dumptyism has predictable side effects, yes.