quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well now we can see the problem! That map is clearly very different from the first map isn't it? The first map shows all of 'Biblical' Israel as one territory. The map above shows the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights as being sepate territories from Israel (altho there is no key so what status they are designated is unclear) The second map (which is hard to make out) seems to show the border the same as the first map, but with Oslo Areas A and B (ruled by, or partly by the PA) but there are no borders around the West Bank, Gaza or the Golan Heights... So basically, you've found three maps and every single one of them shows three different sets of borders...

actually the biblical Israel looked like this
and I believe the correct map is the last one.

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by ronk actually the biblical Israel looked like this

Not according to Israel Finklestein!!!

quote:

and I believe the correct map is the last one.

That appears to be the 'Green Line' map (agreed after the 1949 war) but that suggests the Golan Heights are not part of Israel. But Israel does claim the Golan Heights which suggests that map would be wrong. Also, compare that map with this one (link) which is the planned route of the separation wall. Looks to me like the future palestinian state is just gonna be the beige sections of that map (if Israel gets its way) That is why there are no official borders for Israel. If Israel said "these are our borders" then that would defacto recognise the Palestinian state. Israel has not agree as to what the border of the Palestinian state will be, therefore, Israel cannot say what Israel's borders are either

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley a) seemingly justifies a policy of attack and conquere, something I'm sure you (and US/Israeli foreign policy) would disagree with (eg Saddam)

Right, so you are telling me that recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital will prove that:
When all the 5 Arab armies attacking a pathetic nation that is not even a day old and that when somehow that pathetic nation is able to pave a highway through to a beseiged Jerusalem, under which it was given partial jurisdiction by a UN Security Council Resolution - and liberate it and establish its capital there and then 20 years later when 3 of those very same nations decide to obliterate that pathetic nation and it triumphs over them all the while increase the borders of its capital to secure lines.

And then when later those very nations sign peace deals recongizing the borders of Israel where they lay, that this would in some perverted way allow someone to misconcieve this as ... justifiying a policy of aggressive expansionism?!

Not recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is the very justificaiton of supporting a policy of "attack and conquer".

quote:

b) applies to the Palestinians as well

To this I retort:
1) Do they claim ALL of Jerusalem or just the East?
2) They don't project soverignty over Jerusalem.

quote:

c) is only by default until a Palestinian state is established

Right, but in any other circumstance a non-national entity claiming soverignty over a capital would be unimaginable and incomprehensible.
I can't think of another case where any group is claiming soverignty of any other capital in this world....

I mean if you were to say "Scottish people demand the control over West London" you'd laugh! Or "Kurds demand a capital in Northern Baghdad", you'd be like "yea right". "Taiwan asks China for a capital in South Beijing as part of a deal to bring peace between the two nations"... right...

Yet somehow "Pissed off Jordanians and Egyptians ask Israel for a capital in East Jerusalem" is acceptable. Messed up world we live in.

quote:

d) no-one said it does!

No, but someone was implying it

quote:

No, it doesn't! Thats my whole point!

Right, it doesn't give them the right to it. They aren't entitled to it. But it does give them a case/cause for that right. Israel has both the case and the right.

quote:

Well I think I have successfully avoided actually saying that

I noticed, you were just trying to rouse up the crowd... bad bad brit.

quote:

To cut a long story short - fuck knows what should happen with Jerusalem!

Here's an idea: Let the Jews keep it all. They really, really want it badly. They've had it for 50 years now almost. They let everybody of all faiths worship and don't interfere with religion. They've lost countless lives defending it. And they darn well earned it after the Arabs launched war after war after war agains them. At minimum, let them keep it as a trophy of victory to deter all those who believe you can be the aggressor and lose and not be worse off for it.



Oh Georegy and I don't know what you are babbling about but there were three Kings (Saul, David, Solomon) of a unified Israel before there was a civil war and it broke into two kingdoms which reunited about a 100 years or so later.

The archaelogical record can attest to this and it makes pretty good sense in the historical record too.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Right, so you are telling me that recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital will prove that: When all the 5 Arab armies attacking a pathetic nation that is not even a day old and that when somehow that pathetic nation is able to pave a highway through to a beseiged Jerusalem, under which it was given partial jurisdiction by a UN Security Council Resolution - and liberate it and establish its capital there and then 20 years later when 3 of those very same nations decide to obliterate that pathetic nation and it triumphs over them all the while increase the borders of its capital to secure lines. And then when later those very nations sign peace deals recongizing the borders of Israel where they lay, that this would in some perverted way allow someone to misconcieve this as ... justifiying a policy of aggressive expansionism?! Not recongizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is the very justificaiton of supporting a policy of "attack and conquer".

Bloody hell have you considered stopping for breathe inbetween sentences?!?!

Israel had no right under international law to extend sovereignty over Jerusalem. Whatever the circumstances were that led to Israel's control over Jerusalem, it does not escape the fact that Israel invaded a sovereign nation and annexed it, whether that was justified or not. To say that Israel has a right to Jerusalem cos they occupy it is an invalid argument as that would mean that any country wishing to extend its borders can simply invade and annex

quote:

To this I retort: 1) Do they claim ALL of Jerusalem or just the East? 2) They don't project soverignty over Jerusalem.

They claim that Israel has no right in East Jerusalem (but are against partition) As for them not projecting sovereignty over East Jerusalem I'm not sure what that has got to do with anything as they dont project sovereignty over anywhere!

quote:

Right, but in any other circumstance a non-national entity claiming soverignty over a capital would be unimaginable and incomprehensible. I can't think of another case where any group is claiming soverignty of any other capital in this world.... I mean if you were to say "Scottish people demand the control over West London" you'd laugh! Or "Kurds demand a capital in Northern Baghdad", you'd be like "yea right". "Taiwan asks China for a capital in South Beijing as part of a deal to bring peace between the two nations"... right... Yet somehow "Pissed off Jordanians and Egyptians ask Israel for a capital in East Jerusalem" is acceptable. Messed up world we live in.

Try "pissed off Palestinians". And you analogy is completely irrelevant (and I suspect you know that)

quote:

Right, it doesn't give them the right to it. They aren't entitled to it. But it does give them a case/cause for that right. Israel has both the case and the right.

The Palestinians have as much right and arguably a much better case to claim Jerusalem as the Israelis.

quote:

Oh Georegy and I don't know what you are babbling about but there were three Kings (Saul, David, Solomon) of a unified Israel before there was a civil war and it broke into two kingdoms which reunited about a 100 years or so later. The archaelogical record can attest to this and it makes pretty good sense in the historical record too.

Israel Finklestein, Israel Finklestein! Ha!

Would you believe it he's actually a zionist! Not a "self-hating Jew"!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Bloody hell have you considered stopping for breathe inbetween sentences?!?!

It was made on emphasis.

quote:

Israel had no right under international law to extend sovereignty over Jerusalem.

quote:

Whatever the circumstances were that led to Israel's control over Jerusalem, it does not escape the fact

I see, so circumstances don't matter what so ever in any decission we make then huh? Interesting... You right! Who needs context. Context is just well too much stuff....

quote:

that Israel invaded a sovereign nation and annexed it,

Which sovereign nation did Israel invade and annex exactly? and when?

quote:

To say that Israel has a right to Jerusalem cos they occupy it is an invalid argument as that would mean that any country wishing to extend its borders can simply invade and annex

No its sorta like saying that the British had the "right" to Virgina in North America back in 1675 because they occupied and controled it whereas the Spanish did not... and guess what happen, several years later it became a colony of the empire with no dispute.

quote:

Try "pissed off Palestinians". And you analogy is completely irrelevant (and I suspect you know that)

Pissed off 1948 Jordanians and Egyptians = pissed off 2005 Palestinians

Analogy simply points to the fact that this really an oddity. There is no comperable situation to this not only in all the world, but dare I say even all the world's history...

quote:

The Palestinians have as much right and arguably a much better case to claim Jerusalem as the Israelis.

Wanna try making that case?


The Israeli case is pretty simple:
13 March 1948 Jerusalem under British soverignty through their mandate on Palestine.
14 March 1948 British Soverignty over Palestine ends.
14 March 1948 Palestine land has no soverignty.
14 March 1948 State of Israel declares soverignty over certain parts of Palestine.
15 March 1948 War between new State of Israel and Arab neighbors.
1 Apr 1948 (I believe) State of Israel controls western Jerusalem and road to Tel-Aviv.

11 August 1949 (end of fighting) - UN passed Security Council Resultion 73 which basically states that the cease fire lines will be the recongized status quo till the sides can come to a final peace settlement. Earlier and future resolutiosn echo the same thing.

i.e.: 1 Sep 1951 UNSC 93 states "Recalling further that in its resolution 89 (1950) of 17 November 1950 it reminded the States concerned that the Armistice Agreements to which they were parties contemplated "the return of permanent peace in Palestine", and, therefore, urged them and the other States in the area to take all such steps as would lead to the settlement of the issues between them" src: http://www.mideastweb.org/sc95.htm

sometime 1978 Israel signs peace with Egypt making those borders firm. Egypt does not mention the Jerusalem 'problem'
sometime 1992 Israel signs peace with Jordan.
Jordan does not mention the Jerusalem 'problem'
sometime 1993 Israel signs peace with Palestinians.
Palestians do not specifically mention the Jerusalem 'problem' but decide to work for a solution to outstanding problems in peaceful negotations.

quote:

Israel Finklestein, Israel Finklestein! Ha! Would you believe it he's actually a zionist! Not a "self-hating Jew"!

Ahh your new lover, of course.

How could I have forgotten?!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why is Jerusalem special for the Jews? Why is Jerusalem special for the Christians? The answer to your question is the same answer for these two questions...

no its not the same answer....

Jerualem (zion) is mentioned hundredes of times in the Bible. Thousands of years jews who were scattered around the world prayed each day about jerusalem (jews pray from a book so there is no proof needed). Archeological avidance from 3000+ years cleraly shows that Jerusalem was the center of the ancient "Israeli Kingdom". Jerusalem was and always will be the one center for the jewish people - religoius or not.

however, jeruslam wasnt even mentioned in the Koran.

___________________

Best Album Ever:
* Infected Mushroom - B.P.Empire

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I see, so circumstances don't matter what so ever in any decission we make then huh? Interesting... You right! Who needs context. Context is just well too much stuff....

I was talking about the principle

quote:

Which sovereign nation did Israel invade and annex exactly? and when?

Ok no sovereign nation, but it was territory not given to Israel (Jerusalem) which was invaded and annexed (The Golan Heights were part of Syria but were talking about Jerusalem)

quote:

No its sorta like saying that the British had the "right" to Virgina in North America back in 1675 because they occupied and controled it whereas the Spanish did not... and guess what happen, several years later it became a colony of the empire with no dispute.

Its exactly like saying that and it is still worng (altho I'm not aware of UN international law stating so at the time!!) Actually, maybe you think that Britain should still be incharge of Israel? After all, we conquered it and made it part of our empire, so perhaps we should still be the rightful rulers?

quote:

Analogy simply points to the fact that this really an oddity. There is no comperable situation to this not only in all the world, but dare I say even all the world's history...

That was what I was thinking so why did you make the analogy?!

quote:

Wanna try making that case?

Nope! I'm not gonna make a case for either side to have sole sovereignty over the city cos I dont think one side should have sole sovereignty over the city. The Paletinians (or whatever you wanna call them pre-67) have lived there as long as the Jews have, and Jerusalem was never given to Israel by the UN (so if I were to make a case it'd be on those lines)

quote:

Ahh your new lover, of course. How could I have forgotten?!

Yea! I'm about to introduce him to floster in just a few minutes!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Its exactly like saying that and it is still worng (altho I'm not aware of UN international law stating so at the time!!) Actually, maybe you think that Britain should still be incharge of Israel? After all, we conquered it and made it part of our empire, so perhaps we should still be the rightful rulers?

actually it was Britain who wanted to get the hell out of there because of the terror acts from the palestinian's side. in '47 the british gave up, and in 14.5.48 they left Israel with the end of their mandate.
now stfu

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok no sovereign nation, but it was territory not given to Israel (Jerusalem) which was invaded and annexed (The Golan Heights were part of Syria but were talking about Jerusalem)

HEY! hey! HEY! Don't you try and bring Syria into this



Now a note: none of the terrirotry that Israel "occupies"/"sits on" now today (or anytime for that matter since 1948) was "given to it". It was all "taken"/"claimed". What makes the fact that Tel-Aviv is recongized Israeli territory (afterall the bulk of embassies are there) whereas Jerusalem is not?

What is the case against Jerusalem that can not be made against Tel-Aviv?

There was a General Assembly Resolution indicated a possible boundary for a Jewish state in Palestine but it was a) never passed by the Security Council b) never came to fruitition because of civil/indepedence war.

quote:

Its exactly like saying that and it is still worng (altho I'm not aware of UN international law stating so at the time!!)

Who needed the UN back then when you have the pope?!

quote:

Actually, maybe you think that Britain should still be incharge of Israel? After all, we conquered it and made it part of our empire, so perhaps we should still be the rightful rulers?

Well I differ then you as I like to think in context:
Britian recieved soverignty over Israel from the League of Nations under the implicit condition that they would create a Jewish homeland in the mandate. The British then chose to give the bulk of Palestine away and eventually by leaving, create a Jewish homeland.

Had the British chose not to leave they still a) would of had to create a independent Jewish homeland. b) Could be in control of Jordan, Iraq, Saudia, etc. today. You still Brits you could of had all the oil in the world. No wonder you guys are so bitter

quote:

That was what I was thinking so why did you make the analogy?!

It points out that there seems to be an "exception" to the "Rule" here. I don't know what the "rule" is, but it gets a person to question why indeed is this case so special? Maybe it is just clear cut and obvious.

[quote[Nope! I'm not gonna make a case for either side to have sole sovereignty over the city cos I dont think one side should have sole sovereignty over the city.[/quote]

Pansy

quote:

Yea! I'm about to introduce him to floster in just a few minutes!!!

Can't wait to see the fireworks.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by ronk actually it was Britain who wanted to get the hell out of there because of the terror acts from the palestinian's side.

Er...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus HEY! hey! HEY! Don't you try and bring Syria into this Now a note: none of the terrirotry that Israel "occupies"/"sits on" now today (or anytime for that matter since 1948) was "given to it". It was all "taken"/"claimed". What makes the fact that Tel-Aviv is recongized Israeli territory (afterall the bulk of embassies are there) whereas Jerusalem is not? What is the case against Jerusalem that can not be made against Tel-Aviv? There was a General Assembly Resolution indicated a possible boundary for a Jewish state in Palestine but it was a) never passed by the Security Council b) never came to fruitition because of civil/indepedence war.

I'm talking about the UN Partition plan that was passed in 1947 (that gives Israel tel-Aviv but not Jerusalem)