PDA

View Full Version : Palestinians/Formation of Israel



searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 08:00 PM
I have some questions for those of you who feel that Israel is occupying Palestinian land:

1. Why do feel Palestinians have claim to Israel?

2. Do you feel that Palestinians voluntarily fled Palestine or were driven out by Israeli force, during the formation of Israel?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Kidman
08-02-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I have some questions for those of you who feel that Israel is occupying Palestinian land:

1. Why do feel Palestinians have claim to Israel?

2. Do you feel that Palestinians voluntarily fled Palestine or were driven out by Israeli force, during the formation of Israel?
1. Anybody that was born in a terroritory has cliam to their land. Just as if any new Israeli is born in that land, then it is their land also... which leads to ur second question

2. Palestinians were driven out by Israeli force, kinda like the Indians here in america. Then they were given little pieces of land, and that is even ran and occupied by Israel. They have Israeli tanks circling the cities, give the Palestinians curfew, treat them like crap. They block the roads with these checkpoints that take forever to go through. On avg... going to another city that usually would take 45 mins. to drive would take a person 5 hours, because of all the checkpoints and inspections and BS the Israeli's put them through. If they give them their own land, at least let them govern it themselves.

Good questions tho... :) Take care,

Kidman
Reply

Zionazi_Dissent
08-02-2006, 08:11 PM
OMG....the same stupid questions over and over again.....

Why dont you do some research for a change? Lets start here
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-02-2006, 08:11 PM
Israel's enemies would like to portray Israel as a recent contaminant, an intruder among long-established countries with settled borders and governments. Reality is far different. Civilizations of the Middle East, including the Jews, were consecutively conquered by Persians, Romans, Arabs, Turks and then the Portuguese, French and English. The grip of English and French colonialism was only released after the world wars of the 20th century.


Why not return the Middle East to who really ran it? before... or accept that the Middle East have been occupied by many types of people and religions INCLUDING ISLAM.


Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection

Middle East 150 BC

Most of the countries of the Middle East are of quite recent origin. The borders of the modern countries in the Middle East reflect power politics of the European colonists and the turmoil of the post-colonial era far more than any ancient heritage. In many cases the current leaders are merely the victors in recent power struggles, after a series of changes, rather than the lineage of long established rulers. The government of Israel, established in its present form in 1948, is actually older than the governments of many of the Islamic countries, not to mention that Israel's government derives from the consent of the people of Israel, in stark contrast with the Islamic monarchies and dictatorships.

Quoting James Woolsey
:

Outside of Israel and Turkey, the Middle East essentially consists of no democracies. It has, rather, two types of governments -- pathological predators and vulnerable autocrats. This is not a good mix. Five of those states: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Libya sponsor and assist terrorism in one way or another; all five of those are working on weapons of mass destruction of one type or another. The Mideast presents a serious and massive problem of pathological predators next to vulnerable autocracies. [World War IV, Speech November 22, 2002]
There is a common history to much of the Middle East, as it was conquered in whole or part by far stronger outside forces -- e.g. Greece, Rome, Mongols, Crusaders, European colonialists -- and dominated from within the Middle East by the strongest powers -- e.g. Persia, Egypt, Arabs, Turks. For thousands of years armies swept across the lands, slaughtering and pillaging as they went, sometimes establishing new nations, sometimes stimulating cultural change, sometimes just moving on.

The net result of the millenia of conquests and migrations left Islamic, Arabic-speaking mixed peoples as the majority in all areas of the Middle East and beyond, erasing the prior history, peoples and borders. Even though Jews were most of the people of Judea before it was lost to the Romans and there was a substantial Jewish population in other regions as well, they were reduced to small minorities as the result of deliberate campaigns to shrink their numbers and not due to any natural balance.

But there is one big difference between Israel and all the other countries. While other languages and cultures largely disappeared, the Jewish people, culture, and Hebrew language survived and continued to assert their connection to their land, Eretz Yisrael. The Jews did not get the opportunity to regain their majority in their country until the 20th century due to expulsion, systematic persecution and slaughter by Romans, Muslims, Christians and other groups. Furthermore, in the 20th century, immigration by Jews wishing to live in the Jewish Homeland of the Mandate for Palestine was restricted until Israel was re-established in 1948. But, despite all, in an unprecedented achievement, Israel returned.

Country Histories

The following country histories are highly condensed from the incredibly rich fabric of the region. Right up to the present day, kingdoms and tribes rose and fell as they battled over who would dominate and how the region's resources would be divided. They succumbed to outside forces then rose up and threw them off. Borders were fluid, populations in motion, the rights of rulers in doubt, and alliances fleeting. As you look at the dates you find this pattern continuing right up to the end of the 20th century with treaties made and broken, invasions, coups, assassinations, mass murder, population transfers, and political and social turmoil far more common than stable government and peace between neighbors. The re-establishment of Israel in 1948 was one upheaval among many, not an isolated or special case. In this context, the re-establishment of Israel can be seen for what it is -- the culmination of historical forces restoring the Jewish people to their land in a region where such realignments are commonplace. The anomaly is the failure of the Arabs of the region to accept Israel and adjust to the change -- they have adjusted time and again to much larger changes.

The title of each country section below links to the page of the CIA Factbook for that country, including maps, geography and government information. Two key facts -- current form of government and the date established -- are set out separately at the beginning of each section. You can use the country menu, repeated at the beginning of each country section, to move around on this page.

Kingdom of Bahrain
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Monarchy, established in 1971

The Kingdom of Bahrain is a group of 33 islands located in the Arabian Gulf off the eastern shore of Saudi Arabia. In the eighteenth century, tribes from the interior of the Arabian peninsula increasingly began to move and settle in coastal areas with better economic opportunity, especially harvesting pearls from gulf oyster beds and trading them with India. The Al-Khalifa came from Kuwait where they had helped their relatives, the Al-Sabah, to establish power there. At first, the Al-Khalifa had settled on the northwestern coast of Qatar but in the early 1780's, they drove the Persians out of Bahrain and occupied the principal islands. From then until now, the Al-Khalifa have maintained their control of Bahrain.

Bahrain required protection from larger powers and so became a protectorate of Great Britain under a treaty in 1820, giving the English control over the external affairs, and exclusive rights on trade. In June 1932 oil was discovered in commercial quantities in Bahrain, the first discovery of oil on the Arabian side of the Gulf. In March of 1968, upon the withdrawal of the British from the Gulf region, Bahrain joined the nearby mainland British protectorates of Qatar and the Trucial States (now the United Arab Emirates), to form the Federation of Arab Emirates.

Iran claimed the islands in 1970 following a United Nations report that the inhabitants desired independence. In May 1970, Iran accepted the findings of a UN report finding that popular opinion overwhelmingly favored complete independence rather than union with Iran. On August 15, 1971 Bahrain´s full independence was proclaimed, a new treaty of friendship was signed with the UK, and Sheikh Isa took the title of Amir.

Click for country study of Bahrain

Arab Republic of Egypt
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Military dictatorship, established in 1952

Egypt is the most populous country of the Middle East and has had a leading role in wars and diplomacy involving Israel. For 600 years after the Arab conquest in 641, Egypt was part of the Arab caliphate, but was then seized by the Mamluks in 1250 and the Ottoman Turks in 1517. Napoleon occupied the country from 1798 until expelled in 1801 by Ottoman and British troops. In 1805 Muhammad Ali, an Albanian, was appointed Pasha of Egypt. Muhammad Ali coveted Syria and so in November 1831–July 1832 his son Ibrahim Pasha occupied Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. An Ottoman-Egyptian settlement (May 1833) granted Syria, the district of Adana, and Crete to Ibrahim in return for a yearly tribute.

The construction of the Suez Canal from 1859 to 1869 put Egypt deeply in debt to France and Britain leaving Egypt's financial affairs in the hands of a French-British commission. A nationalist revolt caused Britain to occupy the country in 1882. The British consolidated their control between 1883 and 1907; during World War I Great Britain declared Egypt a British protectorate. In 1922, the British government unilaterally terminated its protectorate and Egypt was recognized as an independent and sovereign state. Sultan Fuad, descendant of Muhammad Ali, issued a decree to form a new government, becoming King Faud I. However, Britain retained control of defense and communications.

In 1936, King Faud died and his 16-year-old son, Farouk, became King of Egypt under British guidance until 1952 when military officers deposed King Farouk in a coup. Gamal Abdul Nasser established a military dictatorship (with limited, controlled political activity) and was followed as Egypt's leader by military men Anwar Sadat (who signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and was assassinated thereafter), and Hosni Mubarak who rules today.

Click for country study of Egypt

Islamic Republic of Iran
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Theocratic dictatorship, established 1979

Iran (land of the Aryans), was referred to as Persia (Pars or Fars, for a province in southern Iran) by Europeans, following usage established by Greek historians. About 4,500 BC, Aryan/Sumerian people migrated into areas that are now Iran and northern Iraq.

After centuries of conquest and internal turmoil under a long series of monarchs, by 1907 Iran was divided into two spheres of influence under European powers, with the north controlled by Russia and the south/east by Britain. Persian Gulf oil was discovered in Iran first, and by 1911 the British Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), was producing oil there. After post-WW I chaos, in 1921, army officer Reza Khan staged a coup and later elevated himself to the title of Shah. Using the name Reza Shah Pahlavi, he led modernization of Iran and strengthened the authority of the central government. In 1935, the name of the country was officially made Iran.

In 1953, fearing a communist takeover and wanting more control over Iran's oil, British Intelligence and the CIA sponsored a coup to topple the government led by Prime Minister Mossadeq. The late 1970s were very unstable as Iranian society recoiled from the pace of rapid, forced modernization. The Shah's opponents united behind the exiled cleric Ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah was overthrown in 1979 by the Islamic Revolution and died in Egypt a year later. After 2,500 years of monarchy, Iran's government was changed to a theocratic republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The government of Ayatollah Khomeini was totalitarian and Islamic. Thousands of dissenters were executed as the new regime consolidated its power. Militants took over the US embassy in 1979, holding over sixty Americans hostage for over a year. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran in a war that continued for almost ten years and cost the lives of an estimated one million people. In 1989, Khomeini died and was succeeded by another Islamic cleric. Based on its conflict with Iraq, Iran supported the Gulf War by observing UN sanctions against Iraq and by grounding Iraqi planes that landed in Iran seeking to escape. In 1997 a relatively moderate government came to power, but Iran remains an Islamic, fundamentalist state, with deep divisions between the ruling clerics and more progressive members of Iranian society.

Click for country study of Iran

Republic of Iraq
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Military dictatorship, established 1979

Modern Iraq is in the area of Mesopotamia, land of the ancient Sumerians, site of the earliest civilizations of the Middle East in the watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Biblical peoples such as Babylonians, Hittites, Assyrians, and Chaldeans were associated with the area. In 1535 the Ottoman Turks, led by Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, conquered Baghdad. Ottoman rule continued until after World War I when Iraq became a British protectorate under a League of Nations mandate (like Palestine) with newly defined borders. The British installed the Arabian Hashimite Faisal as King in 1921, an arrangement that lasted until the 1958 military coup when the royal family was executed. By 1969 Saddam Hussein emerged as the undisputed leader.

The Arabian Hashimite Faisal was a transplant into Iraq and had no roots in the area to legitimize his rule. Sunni Arabs, who dominate the central region of Iraq and rule today under Saddam Hussein, account for little more than 15 percent of the Iraqi population. Ethnic Kurds, also Sunni Muslims, make up about 20 percent of Iraq's population, concentrated in the mountainous north where they hope to have their own Kurdistan nation. Nearly two-thirds of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims, populating the slums of Baghdad and the south of Iraq where they live impoverished lives under the dictatorship. Defiant Iraqi Shiite clerics have been murdered regularly by the Hussain regime. Iraq's last grand ayatollah, Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was murdered in 1999 with his two sons. Another powerful cleric, Hussain Bahr al-Uloom, died under mysterious circumstances in 2001.

In March-April 2003 an international coalition led by the United States and the United Kingdom entered Iraq and ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, releasing a joyous Iraqi population, happy to see the end of the oppressive Hussein dictatorship. Military rule by the victors is expected to be supplanted by a new, representative Iraqi government as soon as practical.

Click for country study of Iraq

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Monarchy, established by British, independent since 1946.

The region of present-day Jordan roughly corresponds to the Biblical lands of Ammon , Bashan , Edom , and Moab and was taken from more than three-quarters of the land of the British Mandate for Palestine.

The Egyptian Mamluks occupied the region and repelled the Mongol invasion of the 14th century but were eventually overthrown by the Ottoman Turks in 1517. The region that is now Jordan was governed along with modern-day Israel and Syria as a single administrative entity (called a vilayet) until after World War I. After the Turkish defeat in World War I, the territory became part of the short-lived Syrian kingdom of King Faisal I (later King of Iraq).

After the French forces expelled Faisal from Syria in 1920, the San Remo (Italy) Agreement was signed defining the disposition of territory from the defeated Ottoman Empire. Under a League of Nations Mandate, Britain was given control of a newly defined Palestine and Iraq based on borders drawn to protect British interests in the area, having little to do with how people were distributed or historical precedent. The Mandate for Palestine included the territory of present-day Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza. In 1922, a British White Paper separated 77% of the Mandate for Palestine, to establish Transjordan in the territory of the Mandate lying east of the Jordan River. Even though the whole Mandate was supposed to be for a Jewish homeland, Jews were forbidden to settle in Transjordan. The Hashamite Arab prince Abdullah (brother of Faisal), part of the family that lost power to Ibn Saud in Saudi Arabia, was installed as King of Transjordan by the British.

In March 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British Mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan, although Britain continued to maintain military facilities and supported the Arab Legion. On May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. During the 1948 War of Independence of Israel, Jordan's forces occupied about 2,278 sq. mi. (5,900 sq. km.) of Western Palestine, including East Jerusalem, confirmed by the armistice with Israel in April 1949. In April 1950, King Abdullah formally annexed the territory they called the "West Bank". At that point, Jordan occupied about 83% of the original Mandate for Palestine.

King Abdullah was assassinated in 1951 in Jerusalem by an extremist Palestinian Arab. The murdered king was succeeded by his eldest son, Talal ibn Abdullah, hitherto Crown Prince. However, in August 1952, because of Talal´s mental illness, the crown passed to his son Hussein ibn Talal, then 16 years of age who took power in May 1953 and ruled until his death in 1999.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994. The present ruler of Jordan is Hussein's son, King Abdullah II.

Click for country study of Jordan

State of Kuwait
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Monarchy, became independent in 1961

The city-state of Kuwait was founded in the 18th century by immigrants from the Arabian peninsula. Ruled by the Al Sabah family, one of the ten families that rule the Arab coast of the Persian Gulf. Under British protection and control until 1961, at which time the Shaykh changed his title to emir. After independence in 1961, Kuwait was immediately claimed by Iraq. Border disputes with Saudi Arabia continued until 1966. 27,000 foreign workers were expelled in 1985-86 after political and violent actions from Shi'i groups including an attempt on the emir's life.

In 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, annexing their territory. Among the very few countries siding with Iraq was the Palestine Liberation Organization. A US led coalition drove Iraq out, but the Iraqis caused major destruction of Kuwaiti infrastructure including setting fire to hundreds of oil wells. The emir returned in 1991 and expelled most Palestinians with serious violations of human rights. Oil revenues are the basis of the economy and the majority of Kuwaitis are employed by the government.

Click for country study of Kuwait

Lebanese Republic
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Parliamentary democracy, established in 1943, but fragile and currently dominated by Syria.

Lebanon is the historic home of the Phoenicians, Semitic traders whose maritime culture flourished there for more than 2,000 years until about 450 BC. For centuries Lebanon was under Egyptian rule, but was able to regain its independence by the beginning of the twelfth century BC. The Mamluk sultanate, which ruled Egypt and Syria for more than two centuries, was driven out by the Ottoman Turks in 1516 who then ruled the area until the end of World War I.

At the San Remo Conference held in Italy in April 1920, the Allies gave France a mandate over Greater Syria, a territory that includes Lebanon. The French carved the present borders of Lebanon out of coastal Syria and established a government balanced between the three ethnic groups that are significant in the country: the president was to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the Chamber of Deputies a Shia Muslim.

During World War II, in 1943, Lebanon revolted against France and became fully independent, developing into a major trade center, the "Paris of the Middle East". But dormant problems and tension remained because Christians controlled the most important government functions while the Muslims felt they were excluded from significant participation. The situation was worsened by the arrival of large number of Palestinian Arabs after the June 1967 Six Day War and after the Palestinian Arabs were thrown out of Jordan during "Black September" in 1970. The Lebanese Civil war erupted in 1975 between a Muslim leftist coalition and Christian right-wing militias and for more than 20 years Lebanon was the battleground for civil and international wars, was used as a base for terrorism against Israel and suffered retaliation in turn, and saw assassinations and other terrorist acts as the country deteriorated.

The long war killed over 150,000 Lebanese and ruined the country. Armed forces from the PLO, the Syrians, the Iranians, and the Israelis have fought in Lebanon while the UN has been an almost constant, if ineffective, presence. Today, Israel has withdrawn and Syria dominates Lebanon by their military presence while Hezbollah threatens Israel along their border. The Maronite Christians, a community established at the time of Christ, is rapidly shrinking under Islamic pressure. The country remains a pawn in the game of larger players.

Click for country study of Lebanon

Sultanate of Oman

Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Monarcy. Sultan seized power by coup in 1970

The port of Muscat in Oman was traditionally a center of the slave trade. Strategically sited at the mouth of the gulf, it was able to dominate the waters, ports and islands of the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The Portuguese captured Muscat in 1508 and held it for over 150 years; thereafter the Ottoman Turks controlled Musqat, as Oman was then called, until the sultanate was consolidated under Ahmed ibn Said of Yemen in 1744. In the early nineteenth century, the Sultan's efficient fleet, built with British help, enabled him to extend his empire from East Africa to the coast of present-day Pakistan. As this empire declined, owing in part to loss of the African lands that became Zanzibar, Britain's influence grew, and the Sultan signed a treaty in 1891 similar to those between Britain and the gulf amirates.

After World War II, Britain yielded many of its strategic responsibilities to the United States and by the 1960s they sought to terminate their treaties and leave the Persian Gulf, a withdrawal completed by 1971.

Four Sultans of the Al Said family, descendants of Ahmed ibn Said, have ruled Oman in the twentieth century. The current Sultan Qaboos staged a bloodless coup against his father in 1970. He then changed the name of the country from Musqat to Oman. In the 1970s, Oman had civil war when Marxist groups, supported by South Yemen, fought government forces. Border issues with Yemen were eventually settled. Sultan Qaboos was never married and has no successor.

Click for country study of Oman

State of Qatar

Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Monarchy, established: 1970
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the British negotiated treaties with the rulers of the tribes along the Arabian coast of the Persian Gulf, including the Al Thani in Qatar. The treaties, signed between 1820 and 1916, recognized the sovereignty of these rulers within certain borders under British protection and control. After World War II, Britain yielded many of its strategic responsibilities to the United States and by the 1960s they sought to terminate their treaties and leave the Persian Gulf.

For a while, the rulers of Bahrain, Qatar, and the Trucial Coast contemplated forming a federation after the British withdrawal, but not all could agree. In April 1970, Qatar declared itself an independent, Arab, Islamic state with Islamic law as its basic law. The country is tightly run by the amir and its economy is completely dependent on oil.

Click for country study of Qatar

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Monarchy, established 1932

In the sixth century, shortly before the birth of Muhammad, the city of Najran in what is now southwestern Saudi Arabia had a Christian church with a bishop, monks, priests, nuns, and lay clergy, and was ruled by a Jewish king. Jews were an important part not only of the Yemeni population to the south, but also of the oases communities in the Hijaz region. Muhammad began his preaching there, born in Mecca about 570 AD, but his rejection of polytheism that was the basis of the local economy put him at odds with tribal leaders. In 622 Muhammad and a group of followers accepted an invitation to settle in the town of Yathrib, later known as Medina (the city) because it was the center of Muhammad's activities. The move, or hijra (hegira), marks the beginning of the Islamic era and of Islam as a force in history.

After Muhammad's death, the next two caliphs (successors)--Umar, who succeeded in 634, and Uthman, who took power in 644--enjoyed the recognition of the entire Muslim community. When Ali finally succeeded to the caliphate in 656, Muawiyah, governor of Syria, rebelled in the name of the assassinated Uthman. After the ensuing civil war, Ali moved his capital to Iraq, where he was murdered shortly thereafter ending the line of the four "orthodox caliphates" and the period of a single caliph. Muawiyah proclaimed himself caliph from Damascus. The Shiat Ali refused to recognize him or his line, the Umayyad caliphs, and withdrew in the great schism of Islam to establish the dissident sect, known as the Shia, who supported the claims of Ali's line to the caliphate based on descent from the Prophet. The larger faction, the Sunnis, adhered to the position that the caliph must be elected, and over the centuries they have represented themselves as the orthodox branch.

By the time of Mohammed's death in 632, all of Arabia was Islamic and expansionist. After gaining control of Arabia and the Persian Gulf region, conquering armies swept out of the peninsula, spreading Islam far into North Africa and eastward and northward into Asia by the end of the eighth century.

In the early 16th century the Ottoman Empire tried to take Arabia but with limited success. About 1750 Muhammad bin Saud joined forces with an Islamic reformer, Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab, and, over the next 150 years, the fortunes of the Saud family rose and fell several times as Saudi rulers contended with Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and other Arabian families for control on the peninsula.

The modern Saudi state was founded by Ibn Saud (known in Arabia as King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud). In 1902, Ibn Saud recaptured Riyadh, the Al-Saud dynasty's ancestral capital, from the rival Al-Rashid family. Continuing his conquests, Ibn Saud subdued Al-Hasa, the rest of Nejd, and the Hijaz between 1913 and 1926. The displaced Hashimites were given kingdoms in Jordan and Iraq by the British to avoid further fighting. In 1932, after a series of internal struggles, the regions were unified as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By the end of the 1930s, Socal discovered enormous deposits of readily extractable oil in the Kingdom, the beginning of their enormous wealth. Loyalty of the disparate tribes was maintained by paying huge sums in return for recruits for an immense palace guard, the White Army, so-called because they wore traditional Arab dress rather than military uniforms.

In the 1950s Saudi Arabia under Saud struggled to find its place in the modern world, using its immense funds to sponsor Arab unity and on-again, off-again relations with Egypt and Western countries. Out of fear of Communist revolt in their Kingdom, the Saudis became firm allies of the United States while declining an arms offer and denying diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. Problems mounted and in 1958 Saud transferred power to his brother Faisal in an attempt to restore stability, but he faltered and another brother Talal formed a new government that broke down almost immediately. Talal departed for Cairo, taking several air force officers and their airplanes with him.

Civil war broke out in Yemen in September 1962, and Egyptian forces arrived to support the revolutionaries against the Saudis, who supported the overthrown royalist government. The Saudi monarchy was in jeopardy. Faisal returned to power and, as King from 1964 to 1975, made needed reforms and introduced modernization. Faisal made much progress on regional disputes, but at his death Saudi Arabia still possessed an unstable frontier. In August 1965, a final determination of boundaries was reached between Saudi Arabia and Jordan. In 1965 Saudi Arabia also agreed on border delineations with Qatar. The Continental Shelf Agreement with Iran in October 1968 established the separate rights of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf, and an agreement was reached to discourage foreign intervention there. The formation of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 1971 did not receive official recognition until the 1975 settlement of the long-standing Al Buraymi Oasis dispute. Egyptian and Saudi disagreements over Yemen were not resolved until the Khartoum Conference of August 1967.

In the aftermath of the June 1967 and October 1973 wars with Israel, Saudi Arabia used its tremendous economic power and role as protector of the Islamic faith to influence actions against Israel. At the Algiers Conference (November 1973), Saudi Arabia agreed with all the participants (except Jordan) to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people for negotiations with Israel. The next year, Jordan's King Hussein was promised $300 million a year for the next four years by Saudi Arabia to induce Jordan to join the PLO agreement.

When the price of crude oil was tripled in response to the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Saudi Arabia acquired vastly increased revenues but Faisal didn't live to see the results. He was assassinated on March 25, 1975 by a disgruntled nephew. Crown Prince Khalid immediately succeeded Faisal. Saudi foreign policy continued to include insistence on a hard line position on Israeli withdrawal from the territories and Palestinian Arab right of return, making it difficult for any other agreement to emerge. On March 26, 1979, as a result of the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty, Khalid broke relations with Egypt and led in seeking Arab economic sanctions against them.

On November 20, 1979 500 dissidents invaded and seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca claiming that the Al Saud family had lost its legitimacy through corruption, ostentation, and mindless imitation of the West. After two weeks of indecision over this massive affront, the dissidents were dislodged by military action. All the surviving males were eventually beheaded in the squares of four Saudi cities. But Shia disturbances in the Eastern Province showed popular support for the dissidents even though disturbances were quickly and harshly repressed. A program of reforms was adopted and massive sums were allocated to upgrade services in restive areas.

In the late 1970s Saudi Arabia involved itself in a host of regional problems including the problems of the Palestinian Arabs, civil war in Lebanon, the December 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the September 1980 Iraq attack on Iran, conflict between the two Yemens, a Shia attempted coup d'état in Bahrain in December 1981, the Syrian's Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union, the December 1980 Jordanian/Syrian confrontation, and tensions between Algeria and Morocco in May 1981. Crown Prince Faud's major effort in 1980 and 1981 was in devising some alternative to the despised Israel-Egypt treaty. Fahd (who succeeded Khalid upon his death in 1982) proposed his own peace plan to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, a plan that stressed the necessity for a comprehensive settlement including the creation of a Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Although the plan was endorsed by the PLO, dissident Palestinians, Libya, and Syria rejected it.

In 1989 King Fahd brought the entire Lebanese National Assembly, both Christian and Muslim deputies, to the Saudi resort city of At Taif to avoid military clashes and political violence preventing a meeting in Beruit. This intervention enabled the Lebanese to vote a plan for reform and to elect a new president. Relations with Egypt have been normalized, but relations with Iran have been poor since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979.

King Faud, who promoted the close Saudi friendship with the United States during the Cold War, is now frail and cannot function actively in Saudi affairs. The Kingdom is in the hands of Faud's half-brother and likely successor, Crown Prince Abdullah bin 'Abd Al-'Aziz. Abdullah will probably not be as close to the United States as his predecessors, a possible sign of future difficulties for the US in the region. Wahhabism, the reactionary Islamic sect, is sponsored by the Saudi government, making it difficult for the Saudis to join the US-led "War on Terrorism" or to explain why many Saudis -- including Osama bin Laden -- are very visible in terrorist organizations.

Click for country study of Saudi Arabia

Syrian Arab Republic

Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Dictatorship, established 1966

Syria has been inhabited at least since about 2500 BC based on traces of civilization at the city of Ebla, near the site of Aleppo today. About 2300 BC, Ebla was destroyed by the Akkadian dynasty of Sumer, followed over the next centuries by settlement and occupation by Assyrians, Hammurabi of Babylonia,and the Hittites, among other settlements. About 1200 BC, the Arameans established a kingdom and their principal city, Aram, located near today's Damascus. This kingdom was in turn brought down by the Assyrians, then Cyrus the Great of Persia, Alexander the Great, and the Seleucid empire during whose reign the name Syria was first used. In 64 BC, Selucid Syria became a Roman province under Pompey.

Until 395, Syria was a Roman province with its largest city in Antioch, now in Turkey. With the division of the Roman empire in 395, Syria became part of Byzantine, remaining under their rule until conquered by the Arabs in 636.

For a time, Damascus was the capital of the Arab Caliphate, but in 877 Syria was annexed by Egypt. From 1516 the Ottomans ruled Syria through pashas (including modern day Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, areas then considered Southern Syria), who governed with unlimited authority over the land under their control, although they were responsible ultimately to the Sublime Porte, the sultan's palace in Istanbul. The system was not particularly onerous to Syrians because the Turks respected Arabic as the language of the Quran and accepted the mantle of defenders of the faith. Damascus was made the major transit point for Mecca, and as such it acquired a holy character to Muslims because of the baraka (spiritual force or blessing) of the countless pilgrims who passed through on the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

The Syrian economy did not flourish under the Ottomans. At times attempts were made to rebuild the country, but on the whole Syria remained poor. The population decreased by nearly 30 percent, and hundreds of villages virtually disappeared into the desert. At the end of the eighteenth century only one-eighth of the villages formerly on the register of the Aleppo pashalik (domain of a pasha) were still inhabited. Only the area now known as Lebanon achieved economic progress, largely resulting from the relatively independent rule of the Druze amirs.

Western traders also brought missionaries, teachers, scientists, and tourists whose governments began to clamor for certain rights. The Druze uprising in the Syrian province of Lebanon in 1860 brought in the French. The revolt began in the north as a Maronite Christian peasant uprising against Christian landlords, but as the revolt moved south to areas where the landlords were Druzes, the Druzes massacred some 10,000 Maronites. French intervention led to expanded influence in the Lebanese part of Syria. The Egyptian occupation of Syria from 1831 to 1839 under the nominal authority of the sultan brought a centralized government, judicial reform, and regular taxation but the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909), sometimes known as Abdul Hamid the Damned, acquired a reputation as the most oppressive Ottoman sultan. Opponents died quickly; taxes became heavy. Abdul Hamid tried to earn the loyalty of his Muslim subjects by preaching pan-Islamic ideas and by completing the Hijaz Railway between Istanbul and Medina in 1908. However, the sultan's cruelty--coupled with that of his deputy in Acre, known in Syria as The Butcher--and increasing Western cultural influences set the stage for Arab nationalism.

At the San Remo Conference held in Italy in April 1920, the Allies gave France a mandate over Greater Syria, a territory that included Lebanon, in parallel to the British Mandates in Palestine and Iraq. The French sought to increase their strength by supporting and separating religious minorities and thereby weakening the Arab nationalist movement. Syria was divided into five semiautonomous areas- -the Jabal Druze, Aleppo, Latakia, Damascus, and Alexandretta (modern Iskenderun)--which accentuated religious differences and cultivated regional, as opposed to national pan-Arab sentiment. French rule was oppressive as Colonial administrators attempted to apply techniques of administration learned in North Africa to the more sophisticated Arabs of Syria. In 1926 Lebanon became an independent republic under French control.

Intermittent regional revolts against French rule led to some reforms, but it was not enough. In 1925 the Druze revolted and were joined by rebels in Aleppo, Damascus and other sectors. The French bombarded Damascus resulting in the death of 5,000 Syrians. The rebellion collapsed, but France moved toward limited independence for Syria with the 1928 formation of the National Bloc (Al Kutlah al Wataniyah), composed of various nationalist groups centered in Damascus. Elections of that year for a constituent assembly put the National Bloc in power, and a constitution was drafted. It provided for the reunification of Syria and ignored the authority of the French. In 1930 the French imposed the constitution minus articles that would have given Syria unified self-government.

Under the French, Syria became a refuge for persecuted groups from neighboring countries. Most of the Kurdish population arrived between 1924 and 1938, fleeing Kemalist rule in Turkey. The major immigration of Armenians occurred between 1925 and 1945 as a result of similar persecution. Assyrians, under attack in Iraq in 1933, settled in eastern Syria.

The capitulation of France to the Nazis in June 1940 brought a Vichy appointed high commissioner and a new cabinet headed by a wealthy landlord from an old Damascus family. Despite continued German military successes elsewhere, British and Free French forces supported by troops of the Transjordan Arab Legion defeated the Vichy forces in both Syria and Lebanon. Control then passed to Free French authorities under General Charles de Gaulle who promised eventual independence. During 1944 the Syrian government took over the functions of 14 administrative departments which had been under direct French control since 1920. In 1944 the Soviet Union and the United States granted Syria and Lebanon unconditional recognition as sovereign states; British recognition followed a year later.

France was adamant in its demand that its cultural, economic, and strategic interests be protected by treaty before agreeing to withdraw the Troupes Speciales du Levant. In May 1945, demonstrations occurred in Damascus, Homs, Hamah and Aleppo and, for the third time in 20 years, the French bombed and machine-gunned the capital city. A UN resolution in February 1946 called on France to evacuate and, by April 15, 1946, all French troops were gone from Syrian soil.

The departure of the French revealed a chaotic situation as leaders of Syrian subgroups pulled in many different directions. Most saw Syria as part of a larger Arab nation, but trade-minded Aleppines preferred Iraq and the Hashimites, as did some of the older leaders who had joined Faysal in 1918, while young, educated Damascenes rejected the Hashimites, who they felt were backed by the British. The cultural heritage of France and the American ideals of democracy induced many Syrians to look westward for friendship, but others favored the Soviet Union as the untainted friend of the Arab world.

Syria's first crisis as an independent country was the founding of Israel. In May 1948, Syrian troops invaded Israel in conjunction with other Arab armies. Syrian military failure against Israel and domestic failures in 1948 led to the first of many Syrian coups when the army took control on March 30, 1949. In a second coup in 1949, the prior leaders were executed and civilian rule returned. Through the 1950s and early 1960s there were frequent changes of government through coups, not constitutional process, and increasing violence in the streets and during purges of opponents. Finally, on February 23, 1966, another coup put the extremist wing of the Baath Party in power, run by a small and hitherto despised minority called the Alawites. The defeat by Israel in June 1967 discredited the radical socialist regime of Nasser's Egypt and the more radical elements of Baathist Syria, strengthening the moderates and the rightists, the catalyst for Hafiz al-Asad's ascent in Syria.

The Baath party consolidated under Assad who improved relations with the Soviet Union dramatically in 1971 and 1972. In April 1971 the short-lived Federation of Arab Republics was formed by Syria, Egypt, and Libya. In the October 1973 war with Israel, Syria regained some territory, a substantial boost to Syrian morale. During 1976, Syria provided troops to try to stabilize the situation in Lebanon, first unilaterally and later as part of the Lebanese-based peacekeeping Arab Deterrent Force (ADF). Syrian troops are still in Lebanon and Syria dominates the smaller country today.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s there were a number of religiously motivated violent attacks, many instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood and directed at Assad's regime, members of the ruling Baath Party, and members of the Alawi religious sect. The government blamed Iraq and disaffected Palestinians for these acts, and it retaliated by holding public hangings in September 1976 and June 1977. Violence did not diminish however and in 1981 a large-scale search operation resulted in the deaths of 200 to 300 people and the destruction of sections of Hamah and Aleppo. In February 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood ambushed government forces who were searching for dissidents in Hamah. Several thousand Syrian troops, supported by armor and artillery, moved into the city and crushed the insurgents during two weeks of bloodshed. When the fighting was over, an estimated 10,000 to 25,000 people lay dead, including about 1,000 soldiers. In addition, large sections of Hamah's old city were destroyed. Assad's supremacy in Syria became unassailable since no opposition was permitted and his control of the Baath Party and the military and security organizations was complete. All political activities were closely monitored by the party and a multiplicity of intelligence and security forces.

Syrian-Israeli relations were tense during the early 1980s. In December 1981, Israel formally annexed the Golan Heights; in June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and destroyed Syrian surface-to-air missiles deployed in the Biqa Valley as well about 79 Syrian MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft. In the early 1990s, Syria joined the coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait and the power shifts of the Gulf War led to Syria-Israel "peace talks". But discussions from 1991 to 1995 had no tangible results. Peace talks resumed in 1999, but made little progress over the issue of the Golan Heights, annexed by Israel but still claimed by Syria. Hafiz al-Asad died of a heart attack in June 2000, just after Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon. Bashar al-Asad followed his father in office, continuing support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups staged on Israel's border.

Click for country study of Syria

Republic of Turkey
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Constitutional with limitations, established 1983.

There was a thriving neolithic culture in Anatolia at least as early as the seventh millennium BC, including one of the world's oldest settlements at Konya Basin. Copper metallurgy began in the third millennium BC, and the use of bronze weapons and implements was widespread by 2000 BC. Colonies of Assyrian merchants settled in Anatolia during the copper age and provided metal for the military empires of Mesopotamia. After about 1500 BC, southern Anatolia developed as a center of iron production. The ancient city of Troy has been confirmed at a site in Anatolia.

Anatolia was at the crossroads of empires, dominated by the Persians under Cyrus the Great (546 BC), the Greeks under Alexander the Great (334 BC), and the Romans (130 BC). The Roman Empire held on through Byzantine times (6th century AD) including repelling sieges of Constantinople by Islamic Arabs. With the loss of Syria to Muslim conquest in the seventh century, Anatolia became the frontier of the empire. After the invasion of the Seljuk Turks (1071-1243) and the Crusades (1096-1204), in 1453 Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turk Mehmet The Conqueror, bringing an end to the Byzantine Empire. The city was renamed Istanbul, replacing Baghdad as the center of Sunni Islam.

By the end of the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent in 1566, the Ottoman Empire was a world power with most of the great cities of Islam--Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo, Tunis, and Baghdad--under the sultan's crescent flag. But the Ottoman Empire was soon in conflict with European rival powers, and the last thirty years of the sixteenth century saw the rapid onset of a decline in Ottoman power symbolized by the defeat of the Turkish fleet by the Spanish and Portuguese at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and by the serial bloody succession struggles in Istanbul. Ottoman recovery and expansion in the period 1656-1703 saw Crete and Lemnos taken from Venice, and large provinces in Ukraine taken temporarily from Poland and Russia. The failed siege of Vienna in 1683 was the peak of expansion for the Ottoman Empire.

During the eighteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was almost continuously at war with one or more of its enemies--Persia, Poland, Austria, and Russia. Problems mounted in the nineteenth century; in 1853 Tsar Nicholas I of Russia described the Ottoman Empire as "the sick man of Europe" with war and revolt a constant theme in Ottoman lands and unstable government the rule.

In 1907 Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk), organized the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), also known as the Young Turks. This group sought to create a homogeneous nation through greater government centralization under a constitution and parliamentary regime. In 1908 the CUP gained power, but was too weak to hold on. Foreign powers took advantage of the political instability in Istanbul to seize portions of the empire. Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately after the 1908 revolution, and Bulgaria proclaimed its complete independence. Italy declared war in 1911 and seized Libya. Having earlier formed a secret alliance, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria invaded Ottoman-held Macedonia and Thrace in October 1912. After a brief period of constitutional rule, the leadership of the CUP emerged as a military dictatorship with power concentrated in the hands of a triumvirate led by Enver Pasha. His pro-German sympathies put the Ottoman Empire on the losing side in World War I.

In four years of war (1914-1918), the Ottoman Empire mobilized about 2.8 million men, with about 325,000 killed in battle. In addition, more than 2 million civilians, including both Turks and Armenians, are believed to have died of war-related causes. The genocide by the Turkish government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire (carried out during World War I and resumed 1920-1923) caused the death of an estimated 1.5 million people. The British-led campaign on Gallipolli (begun on March 18, 1915) was a disastrous failure with 300,000 casualties.

The peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire was presented by the Allies in April 1920 at San Remo, Italy, and the terms were embodied in the August 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, then renegotiated and incorporated in the Treaty of Lausanne, concluded in July 1923. With this treaty, the Allies recognized the present-day territory of Turkey and denied Turkey's claim to the Mosul area in the east (in present-day Iraq) and Hatay, which included the Mediterranean port of Alexandretta (Iskenderun). The boundary with the newly created state of Iraq was settled by a League of Nations initiative in 1926, and Iskenderun was ceded in 1939 by France during its rule as mandatory power for Syria. On October 29, 1923, the Grand National Assembly proclaimed the Republic of Turkey. Atatürk was named its president and Ankara its capital, and the modern state of Turkey was born. Atatürk served until his death in 1938.

Turkey maintained an independent status during World War II, actually favoring the Allies by preventing the passage of Axis troops, ships, or aircraft through or over Turkey and its waters. In 1945, Turkey declared war on the Axis and thus became one of the fifty-one original members of the United Nations. Turkey took a pro-Western stance as the Cold War developed in the late 1940s. In 1950 Turkey joined NATO and sent troops to Korea. The Turkish government became gradually more democratic, until a military coup in 1960. A new constitution was drafted, the so-called Second Republic, and a new government formed, but dissatisfaction with ineffective government continued. After elections in 1969, acts of politically motivated violence and terrorism escalated in frequency and intensity, directed at both pro-Western policies and slow pace of reforms.

In 1974, after a Greek-inspired coup, Turkey sent troops to Cyprus to protect Turks in the long-running struggle between Greek and Turkish residents of the island. A population transfer separated the two groups, with Turkey protecting the Northern sector. Over 200,000 Greek Cypriots were transferred and over 5,000 were killed during the Turkish invasion. Thirty-seven percent of Cyprus remains under Turkish occupation, despite UN resolutions demanding Turkey's withdrawal.

In 1980 there was another coup, with the military taking control of the government, followed by transition back to a civilian regime in 1983 under pressure from European governments. In 1997-98, there were five attempts at forming coalition governments. The Islamist Welfare party was disbanded in 1998 on the grounds that it was engaged in fundamentalist activity. In 2001, the Islamic Virtue party (formed from the banned Welfare), Turkey's leading opposition party, was shut down for violating the secular principles of the Turkish constitution. Turkey's entry into the European Union has been held back by the challenges to its status as a democratic country.

Click for country study of Turkey

United Arab Emirates
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: Federation of shaikhdoms, established in 1971 and made permanent in 1996.

The tribally-organized Arabian Peninsula shaikhdoms along the southern coast of the Persian Gulf and the northwestern coast of the Gulf of Oman converted to Islam in the 7th century. For centuries it was embroiled in dynastic disputes. During the Middle Ages, much of the region was part of the kingdom of Hormuz, which controlled the entrance to, and most of the trade in, the Gulf. The Portuguese arrived in 1498 and Hormuz was taken in 1507. In 1622 the kingdom of Hormuz was absorbed into the Safavid kingdom. The Portuguese dominated trade until they were expelled from Hormuz by Shah Abbas in 1622, with the help of the British East India Company. The collapse of the Safavid dynasty in Iran in 1722 at the hands of the Afghan tribes and the collapse of the Yaariba dynasty of Oman in 1724 left a power vacuum in the area. Before British intervention in 1820 to protect the India trade, the area was notorious for its pirates and was called the Pirate Coast. Raiders based there harassed foreign shipping, although both European and Arab navies patrolled the area from the 17th century into the 19th century.

In 1853 and 1892, the "Trucial Shaikhdoms" signed treaties with the United Kingdom under which the shaikhdoms received the protection of the UK in exchange for exclusive concessions. After World War II Britain granted autonomy to the emirates. In 1955, the United Kingdom sided with Abu Dhabi in the latter's dispute with Saudi Arabia over the Buraimi Oasis and other territory to the south. A 1974 agreement between Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia would have settled the Abu Dhabi-Saudi border dispute; however, the agreement has yet to be ratified by the UAE Government and is not recognized by the Saudi Government. The border with Oman also remains officially unsettled, but the two governments agreed to delineate the border in May 1999.

In 1968, the UK announced its decision, reaffirmed in March 1971, to end the treaty relationships with the seven Trucial Shaikhdoms which had been, together with Bahrain and Qatar, under British protection. The nine attempted to form a union of Arab emirates, but by mid-1971 they were unable to agree on terms of union, even though the termination date of the British treaty relationship was the end of 1971. Bahrain became independent in August and Qatar in September 1971. When the British-Trucial Shaikhdoms treaty expired on December 1, 1971, they became fully independent. On December 2, 1971, six of them entered into a union called the United Arab Emirates. The seventh, Ras al-Khaimah, joined in early 1972. Border disputes among the emirates continued throughout the 1970s, and debate continues on the degree of integration of the individual shaikhdoms.

The United Arab Emirates participated with the international coalition against Iraq during the Gulf War (1991) and since then has expanded its international contacts and diplomatic relations. A dispute erupted with Saudi Arabia in 1999 over relations with Iran, a traditional enemy; while Saudi Arabia appeared willing to seek improved ties, the emirates still regarded Iran as hostile to their interests.

The UAE is governed under the constitution of 1971, which was made permanent in 1996.

Click for country study of United Arab Emirates

Republic of Yemen
Intro | Bahrain | Egypt | Iraq | Iran | Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Oman | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Syria | Turkey | UAE | Yemen

Current form of government: One party republic, established in 1990

Yemen, at the southwest tip of the Arabian Peninsula with the port of Aden at the entrance to the Red Sea, is the combination of two regions with distinct histories -- Northern Yemen and Southern Yemen. While the general history is shared with the other Gulf States, the development of N. Yemen and S. Yemen were separate. The two regions of Yemen often clashed as one tried to dominate the other.

In Northern Yemen the Ottoman Empire exercised nominal sovereignty from 1520 until after World War I (1918). In 1934, after a brief Saudi Arabian invasion and skirmishes with Great Britain based in Aden, Yemen's boundaries were fixed by treaty with Saudi Arabia and Great Britain although clashes on the Aden border continued. After World War II, dissatisfaction with the theocratic regime led to a revolt and assassination of Imam Yahya, the old leader. Crown Prince Ahmad drove out the insurgents and succeeded as imam, attempting to stay neutral between the Communist bloc and the West. From 1958 to 1961, Northern Yemen joined with the United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria) to form the United Arab States, a doomed paper alliance. From 1959 to 1967, Yemen was a battleground as successive governments failed to provide stability and internal groups sought support from outsiders including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In a November 1967 coup, the government was again overthrown, and a three-man republican council was formed. Between 1967 and 1972 frequent border clashes occurred between N. and S. Yemen until the 1972 merger of the two countries. However, by 1974 the agreement had not been implemented, and fighting resumed between the two states. Government turmoil in Northern Yemen continued, including assassinations and coups. In early 1979 border fighting with Southern Yemen erupted into a short full-scale war and another unification agreement.

In Southern Yemen, the British presence began in 1839, when the British East India Co. occupied Aden and began a series of concessions and purchases of land. Between 1886 and 1914, Britain signed a number of protectorate treaties with local rulers. In 1937 the area, which by then consisted of 24 sultanates, emirates, and sheikhdoms, was designated the Aden Protectorate and was divided into East Aden and West Aden. In 1959 six small states of the West Aden protectorate formed the Federation of the Emirates of the South, later enlarged to 10 members. Despite considerable opposition from its population, the Aden colony proper was made part of the federation in 1963. The expanded federation was then renamed the Federation of South Arabia.

Other tribal states joined the Federation, but nationalist groups in Aden remained opposed and began a terrorist campaign against the British. Although Britain had promised to withdraw from the region by 1968, the terrorists forced the collapse of the federation by taking control of the governments of all the component states. Britain accelerated its withdrawal, and Southern Yemen became independent in November 1967. In 1970 the country received a new constitution and was renamed the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, the Arab world's only Marxist state. Fighting with neighboring countries, including Northern Yemen, continued with government turmoil. In 1979, Southern Yemen signed a 20-year treaty with the Soviet Union, whose influence became predominant. Fighting with Northern Yemen again broke out in 1979. During the 1980s government instability continued with fighting, exile and killing of political opponents.

Under agreements made in 1989, the Unified Republic of Yemen was declared in May 1990. But ongoing power struggles between North and South led to full-scale civil war in 1994 with the northerners prevailing. Yemen was reunified under President Saleh. Afterward, Muslim extremists committed sporadic acts of violence in the south, and armed tribespeople from remote areas staged kidnappings of foreign tourists. In September 1999, in Yemen's first direct election, opposition candidates were not allowed to run and the government was charged with election fraud. President Saleh was returned to office. In 2000, a border treaty ended disputes with Saudi Arabia dating back to the 1930s.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Kidman
08-02-2006, 08:15 PM
seriously, i didn't read any of that, can you maybe just sum it up, you didn't see me copy and pasting the whole deal in Palestine and Israel.

Or, google for this movie called "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land"

It's a movie, you can find it online and watch it online for free... it will show you everything.

Kidman
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 08:23 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I have some questions for those of you who feel that Israel is occupying Palestinian land:

1. Why do feel Palestinians have claim to Israel?
They owned more than 90% of the land according to the mandate.


2. Do you feel that Palestinians voluntarily fled Palestine or were driven out by Israeli force, during the formation of Israel?
Both. Some left out due the psychological warfare while others were forcebly expelled. To name a few, the inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle, Qisariya, Zahrat al-Dumayri, Kirbat al-Sarkas, al-Ghabisiya, Danna, Najd, Zarnuqa, Jaba, Ein, Ghazal, Ijzim and many more.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-02-2006, 08:23 PM
It is simple just read this:

Israel's enemies would like to portray Israel as a recent contaminant, an intruder among long-established countries with settled borders and governments. Reality is far different. Civilizations of the Middle East, including the Jews, were consecutively conquered by Persians, Romans, Arabs, Turks and then the Portuguese, French and English. The grip of English and French colonialism was only released after the world wars of the 20th century.

All of these Islamic rules countries are knew.

I mean come on how old is Jordan?!?

Islam conquered a lot of countries from other Nations, they are occupying them as well right? Why don't they return the land....

Not only that but the Jewish people have been in Israel before Islam itself was created!!!!
Reply

sameer
08-02-2006, 08:27 PM
hmmm my country was originally inhabit by amerindians and caribs...... hundreds of years ago... do they have a right to come nad take my house?
how about ure home? does the indiginous ppl hundreds of years ago have a right to come and take over ure house and put u out?
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
It is simple just read this:

Israel's enemies would like to portray Israel as a recent contaminant, an intruder among long-established countries with settled borders and governments. Reality is far different. Civilizations of the Middle East, including the Jews, were consecutively conquered by Persians, Romans, Arabs, Turks and then the Portuguese, French and English. The grip of English and French colonialism was only released after the world wars of the 20th century.

All of these Islamic rules countries are knew.

I mean come on how old is Jordan?!?

Islam conquered a lot of countries from other Nations, they are occupying them as well right? Why don't they return the land....

Not only that but the Jewish people have been in Israel before Islam itself was created!!!!
ManchesterFolk presents some points which I haven't seen addressed. When one compares these points to the Palestinian "cause", it makes this palestinian cause seem less credible.
Reply

Kidman
08-02-2006, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
It is simple just read this:

Israel's enemies would like to portray Israel as a recent contaminant, an intruder among long-established countries with settled borders and governments. Reality is far different. Civilizations of the Middle East, including the Jews, were consecutively conquered by Persians, Romans, Arabs, Turks and then the Portuguese, French and English. The grip of English and French colonialism was only released after the world wars of the 20th century.

All of these Islamic rules countries are knew.

I mean come on how old is Jordan?!?

Islam conquered a lot of countries from other Nations, they are occupying them as well right? Why don't they return the land....

Not only that but the Jewish people have been in Israel before Islam itself was created!!!!
Depending on which country you are talking about, there are Islamic countries like Iran, who have Jews, Christians, and other religions living among them because it is their land also... and they give them rights and protection.

Are there people fighting over a specific Islamic country that you know about right now???

Israel consists of a majority of Jews that migrated from Britian... meaning they never lived on that land.

Kidman
Reply

sameer
08-02-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
It is simple just read this:

Israel's enemies would like to portray Israel as a recent contaminant, an intruder among long-established countries with settled borders and governments. Reality is far different. Civilizations of the Middle East, including the Jews, were consecutively conquered by Persians, Romans, Arabs, Turks and then the Portuguese, French and English. The grip of English and French colonialism was only released after the world wars of the 20th century.

All of these Islamic rules countries are knew.

I mean come on how old is Jordan?!?

Islam conquered a lot of countries from other Nations, they are occupying them as well right? Why don't they return the land....

Not only that but the Jewish people have been in Israel before Islam itself was created!!!!
hey my cousin, father , mother borther sister, great great grand father, son daughter cousin great great grand father wife, mother, neice, daughter ....owned where u live now.. so get out and give me my land.
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 08:32 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
They owned more than 90% of the land according to the mandate.

Wasn't this land owned largely by absentee landowners who were paid for the land?

Thanks
Reply

Kidman
08-02-2006, 08:32 PM
Jewdaism was on that land before Islam was invented. Then the majority of Jews coverted when Jesus (pbuh) came and was delivering the message of God... then the majority again converted when Muhammad (pbuh) came and delivered the message of God again since it was deviated.

So, the Jews that lived before Islam on that land would actually end up being Muslims, hmmmm..... Palestinians.

Kidman
Reply

lavikor201
08-02-2006, 08:35 PM
I'm a Mizrahi Jew! My family has always lived in israel! We lived here before Islam!
Over 1 Million Jews are Mizrahi who have always lived in Israel. Our numbers grow so fast because we each have like 6 kids.... either way it is my Land!

My family has lived in Israel and followed Judaism before your religion or your prophet were born! Do not tell me to leave MY LAND!
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 08:37 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Islam conquered a lot of countries from other Nations, they are occupying them as well right? Why don't they return the land....
It is ludicrous to equate Israel's capture of Palestine to the Islamic Empire's liberation of other nations. The tactics used by the Jewish terrorists prior to the creation of Israel is at best crimes against humanity. They have systematically massacred entire communities, forced the indigenous inhabitants to flee and unlawfully acquired land through propaganda and violence.


Not only that but the Jewish people have been in Israel before Islam itself was created!!!!
The descendants of the Canaanites are the Palestinians which makes them indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.
Reply

Zionazi_Dissent
08-02-2006, 08:37 PM
I'm a Mizrahi Jew! My family has always lived in israel! We lived here before Islam!
Over 1 Million Jews are Mizrahi who have always lived in Israel. Our numbers grow so fast because we each have like 6 kids.... either way it is my Land!

My family has lived in Israel and followed Judaism before your religion or your prophet were born! Do not tell me to leave MY LAND!
Your land, at the expense of innocent lives.

Israel will fight for as long as it exists. The Jewish greed for money and blood (to please Moses) is to blame.
Reply

Kidman
08-02-2006, 08:42 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
I'm a Mizrahi Jew! My family has always lived in israel! We lived here before Islam!
Over 1 Million Jews are Mizrahi who have always lived in Israel. Our numbers grow so fast because we each have like 6 kids.... either way it is my Land!

My family has lived in Israel and followed Judaism before your religion or your prophet were born! Do not tell me to leave MY LAND!
Woah buddy, nobody is telling you to leave, I was talking about the Jews who lived in other places that migrated there. If you lived there before then of course you have rights because it is your land as well.

When the prophet lived in Medina.. there were Jews and Christians who lived amongst him... he didn't kick them out or anything like that, (unless of course they were causing trouble to the land), but he let them live with the Muslims, and even protected them and since it was an islamic state, they had to follow some rules, but He also let them have rules that the muslims were to follow. All in all everyone was happy and lived peacefully. Usually, they would convert because they saw how honest and truthful the Prophet was and they would dialog with the Prophet about religion and they would be convinced that He, Muhammad, was the Prophet of God.

Kidman
Reply

lavikor201
08-02-2006, 08:45 PM
Islam was given an Arab State when the Jewish State was created. Greed was why the Arabs wanted all of the Land.

Even though it is proven Jewish life floruished in the Holy Land it was Jewish land until it was conquered. Therefore you could say the rightful owners of the land are the Jews.

Muslims have full rights in Israel.

There is a Muslim president of congress, Muslims can run for any office they chose. Actually Muslims have more freedoms in Israel than they would have in many strict Islamic countries.
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
Wasn't this land owned largely by absentee landowners who were paid for the land?
Not exactly. Under the Ottoman rule, landowners were required to inscribe their property in the land register in order to pay the nescessary tax(es). This was called the tabu law. However, some ignored the law and continue to operate under their cultural concept refered to as fedan which implies that villagers of a certain village own the land collectively and are shared equally.
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Islam was given an Arab State when the Jewish State was created. Greed was why the Arabs wanted all of the Land.
In 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. Scattered attacks on civilians of both sides soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 08:54 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Therefore you could say the rightful owners of the land are the Jews.
Historically inaccurate.

Muslims have full rights in Israel.
Israeli Arabs struggle to fit in
Arabs make up 20% of Israel's population. But many feel they are treated as second class citizens, and the sense of alienation is growing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2691357.stm

SECOND CLASS
Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/index.htm


Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Not exactly. Under the Ottoman rule, landowners were required to inscribe their property in the land register in order to pay the nescessary tax(es). This was called the tabu law. However, some ignored the law and continue to operate under their cultural concept refered to as fedan which implies that villagers of a certain village own the land collectively and are shared equally.
So the landowners neglected Ottoman law, which was seen as a forfeit of their land, since they weren't abiding by the law?

http://www.progress.org/land28.htm

In 1858 the Ottoman Authority introduced the law of tabu to establish rights of land ownership. Landowners were instructed to have their property inscribed in the land register. The tabu was resisted by the fellahin. They saw a threat to their community in registering their land for two main reasons: 1) the cultivated fields were classified as ardh ameriyeh (the land of the emirate) and were taxed, so owners of registered fertile land were forced to pay tax on it; 2) data from the land register were used by the Turkish Army for the purpose of the draft. Owners of registered lands were often drafted to fight with the Turkish Army in Russia.

If the landowners chose to ignore the laws, and didn't register their land, then it seems logical to me that they forfeited this land. Is there a a better explanation?
Reply

Zionazi_Dissent
08-02-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Islam was given an Arab State when the Jewish State was created. Greed was why the Arabs wanted all of the Land.
Goo-goo gah-gah?

Originally Posted by lavikor201
Muslims have full rights in Israel.

There is a Muslim president of congress, Muslims can run for any office they chose. Actually Muslims have more freedoms in Israel than they would have in many strict Islamic countries.
LOL, isnt it true you're a citizen of Israel you're simply Jewish?

Ever heard of Human Rights watch? You should check the status of your state.
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
So the landowners neglected Ottoman law, which was seen as a forfeit of their land, since they weren't abiding by the law?
That is incorrect. Some ignored the law which indicates no specific number. That article that you have posted also suggests that some have registered land that extended their actual land which would imply that the land that was not registered and belonged to the Palestinians was eventually registered by Palestinians who did not own the land.

PalestineRemembered has conducted a statistical page indicating the allocation of lands for every city/village.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Safad/index.html

Click on the cities/villages on the map.

Regards
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by Zionazi_Dissent
OMG....the same stupid questions over and over again.....

Why dont you do some research for a change? Lets start here
If you read my post you will find that I'm wishing to know the various reasons in which people base their opinions on the subject of the formation of Israel. I am capable of research, and do so on a regular basis. But I feel it is necessary to examine all sides of an issue before arriving at an opinion.

The beauty of a forum is that it allows us to examine multiple views, and makes us more empathetic toward other people.

Remarks such as:

[S]Someone's a dumbass. ^_^

Use Google, it's your best friend[/S]
are one of the unfortunate flaws of forums.

If you wish to share your views about this topic, I welcome your imput. Please direct insults or childish remarks to my PM. Otherwise I will ignore you. Thanks!:)
Reply

Geronimo
08-02-2006, 09:26 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
It is ludicrous to equate Israel's capture of Palestine to the Islamic Empire's liberation of other nations. The tactics used by the Jewish terrorists prior to the creation of Israel is at best crimes against humanity. They have systematically massacred entire communities, forced the indigenous inhabitants to flee and unlawfully acquired land through propaganda and violence.


[B]

The descendants of the Canaanites are the Palestinians which makes them indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.
They were actually Philistines, look it up in the bible. The Philistines are actually descendants of ancient greece.
Reply

Geronimo
08-02-2006, 09:27 PM
So when are muslims giving Pakistan back? Free Pakistan! Free Pakistan! Free Pakistan!
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 09:32 PM
Originally Posted by Geronimo
So when are muslims giving Pakistan back? Free Pakistan! Free Pakistan! Free Pakistan!
I can see your analogy. Wasn't the land of Pakistan obtained by means which were questionable to a lot of people?

Where do we draw the line?

What makes one allocation of land more significant than the other?
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Geronimo
They were actually Philistines, look it up in the bible. The Philistines are actually descendants of ancient greece.
The Philistines occupied Canaan in 12th century BCE and adopted the Canaanite culture.

Regards
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
That is incorrect. Some ignored the law which indicates no specific number. That article that you have posted also suggests that some have registered land that extended their actual land which would imply that the land that was not registered and belonged to the Palestinians was eventually registered by Palestinians who did not own the land.

PalestineRemembered has conducted a statistical page indicating the allocation of lands for every city/village.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Safad/index.html

Click on the cities/villages on the map.

Regards
Thanks for the link. It contains a lot of information. Getting back to what you said above, if palestinians who did not own the land, registered it, how is this valid? Am I misunderstanding you?
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
Thanks for the link. It contains a lot of information. Getting back to what you said above, if palestinians who did not own the land, registered it, how is this valid? Am I misunderstanding you?
I apologise for my lack of clarity. Some landowners failed to register their property for several reasons outlined in the previous posts and the link you cited. Their property would show up unregistered. Other landowners registered the unregistered property that did not belong to them under their own name which indicates that whilst some may not have registered their property under the Ottoman rule, others have secured that those properties are to be reconigzed as Palestinian properties.

Regards
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
I apologise for my lack of clarity. Some landowners failed to register their property for several reasons outlined in the previous posts and the link you cited. Their property would show up unregistered. Other landowners registered the unregistered property that did not belong to them under their own name which indicates that whilst some may not have registered their property under the Ottoman rule, others have secured that those properties are to be reconigzed as Palestinian properties.

Regards
I appreciate you mentioning the tabu and fedun laws. This is the first time I've heard of them. From what I've read so far, I personally don't feel that fedun law justifies the palestinian claim to land. Even if I am wrong, I'm thinking the misunderstanding of law by arabs and israeli's during the formation of Israel is enough for any reasonable person to understand why there's such indifference (by many people) toward the Palestinian claim. This is enough reason for me to conclude that the palestinians need to move on and find other homelands.
Reply

Zionazi_Dissent
08-02-2006, 09:59 PM
LOL, its pretty obvious you're biased to begin with.

Go to "Palestine" and see if anything causes you to change your mind.
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 10:04 PM
Originally Posted by Zionazi_Dissent
LOL, its pretty obvious you're biased to begin with.

Go to "Palestine" and see if anything causes you to change your mind.
I try to be unbiased but all of us are, without intention. :)

I agree that current treatment of Palestinians are often inhumane, and this sickens me. But I'm trying to focus on the root causes in an attempt to understand the various views.
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I appreciate you mentioning the tabu and fedun laws. This is the first time I've heard of them. From what I've read so far, I personally don't feel that fedun law justifies the palestinian claim to land. Even if I am wrong, I'm thinking the misunderstanding of law by arabs and israeli's during the formation of Israel is enough for any reasonable person to understand why there's such indifference (by many people) toward the Palestinian claim. This is enough reason for me to conclude that the palestinians need to move on and find other homelands.
Actually, there is no disputation regarding ownership of the majority of the lands and this is also attested by several Israeli historians. This is also the reason why the Zionists' aim was the acquisition of majority of the land land by buying it from the Palestinian owners. Fortunaly, it did not go higher than 7% of the total land.

As for finding 'other homelands'. That is unfortunately not easy as it sounds and in fact highly impossible. Palestinians recognize Israel and have on numerous occassions showed their good faith by accepting the two-state solution but it is Israel who has on numerous occassions rejected that solution.

Regards
Reply

Zionazi_Dissent
08-02-2006, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I agree that current treatment of Palestinians are often inhumane, and this sickens me. But I'm trying to focus on the root causes in an attempt to understand the various views.
No, you're trying to use "root causes" to justify Palestinian sufferring. You're just trying to prove that the Palestinians are causing their own suffering which is not only arrogant, its absolutely ignorant.
Reply

wilberhum
08-02-2006, 10:20 PM
You just have to love it.
It is ludicrous to equate Israel's capture of Palestine to the Islamic Empire's liberation of other nations.
Boy talk about bias.
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
You just have to love it.

Boy talk about bias.
Hello wilberhum

Yes bias indeed [sarcasm]. Hence why Edward Gibsons (best contempary historian) described the Islaamic conquests as one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe.

You are free to discuss this with me under a new topic instead of diverting from this topic. Drop me a pm so I can create one. If not, then leave the accussations aside.

Regards
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Actually, there is no disputation regarding ownership of the majority of the lands and this is also attested by several Israeli historians. This is also the reason why the Zionists' aim was the acquisition of land by buying it from the Palestinian owners. Fortunaly, it did not go higher than 7% of the total land.

I still don't understand why there's an issue since the land was bought. There may be problems with the zionist intention. But this just seems to me like a "good deal gone bad".

As for finding 'other homelands'. That is unfortunately not easy as it sounds and in fact highly impossible. Palestinians recognize Israel and have on numerous occassions showed their good faith by accepting the two-state solution but it is Israel has on numerous occassions rejected that solution.

Israel offered an arab state and it was rejected. Since then Israel has rejected a two-state solution. I think there's too much hate and emotion involved. There seems to be no end in sight!:heated: I wouldn't want to live in a refugee camp all my life. I think I'd want more for myself and future generations. I'd move on and find another homeland.
Regards
thanks again
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by Zionazi_Dissent
No, you're trying to use "root causes" to justify Palestinian sufferring. You're just trying to prove that the Palestinians are causing their own suffering which is not only arrogant, its absolutely ignorant.
sorry you feel that way:cry:
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I still don't understand why there's an issue since the land was bought. There may be problems with the zionist intention. But this just seems to me like a "good deal gone bad".
No, the Zionists aimed to acquire the majority of the land by buying it from the landholders but failed to reach their aim when the mandate was formed. The land bought was still under 8% of the total which would indicate that 92% of the original land mass belonged to the Palestinians.

Israel offered an arab state and it was rejected. Since then Israel has rejected a two-state solution.
Israel has never offered the Palestinians a viable state, in fact, Palestinians are working towards the acquisition of their own state, hence the two-state resolution which is the best solution thus far.

Regards


Reply

lavikor201
08-02-2006, 10:44 PM
Israel has never offered the Palestinians a viable state, in fact, Palestinians are working towards the acquisition of their own state, hence the two-state resolution which is the best solution thus far.
When the UN declared Israel a state, there was also an Arab State with it. The Arabs could not handle that any Jewish state was in the region. They attacked it, and were defeated.

Israel did not attack the Arab state after the UN resolution. Israel was the first attacked.
Reply

searchingsoul
08-02-2006, 10:44 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
No, the Zionists aimed to acquire the majority of the land by buying it from the landholders but failed to reach their aim when the mandate was formed. The land bought was still under 8% of the total which would indicate that 92% of the original land mass belonged to the Palestinians.



Israel has never offered the Palestinians a viable state, in fact, Palestinians are working towards the acquisition of their own state, hence the two-state resolution which is the best solution thus far.

Regards

I've read from various sources that the arabs were offered their own state during the formation of Israel, I think in 1947. Is this incorrect? Or is the key word, "viable"?
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
When the UN declared Israel a state, there was also an Arab State with it. The Arabs could not handle that any Jewish state was in the region. They attacked it, and were defeated. Israel did not attack the Arab state after the UN resolution. Israel was the first attacked.
Firstly, regarding the UN partition plan. It was an imposed solution for several reasons. The plan allocated 54% of the land to the Jewish settles whilst they consisted of one-third of the population and only owned less than 8% of the land. This is downright unjust. Prior to the plan, UN proposed two possible solutions, either an unfair two-state solution (which the Jewish settlers favoured) or a single state with proportional representation (which the Palestinians favoured).

Secondly, the Arab countries never invaded Israel that was known according to the partition plan. It was Israel that continued to trangress the allocated boundaries outlined in the plan. If the Arab armies had launched a war against Israel, they would have invaded the Jewish boundaries but did not. Not to mention the fact that Israel has ignored the truce by the UN security council and continued to expand its territories.

Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I've read from various sources that the arabs were offered their own state during the formation of Israel, I think in 1947. Is this incorrect? Or is the key word, "viable"?
Yes but an unfair proposal. Please refer to my previous reply. Remember that Israel did not offer it, rather it was UN Partition Plan.
Reply

sameer
08-02-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Islam was given an Arab State when the Jewish State was created. Greed was why the Arabs wanted all of the Land.

Even though it is proven Jewish life floruished in the Holy Land it was Jewish land until it was conquered. Therefore you could say the rightful owners of the land are the Jews.

Muslims have full rights in Israel.

There is a Muslim president of congress, Muslims can run for any office they chose. Actually Muslims have more freedoms in Israel than they would have in many strict Islamic countries.
You never answered my question on ure belief with regards to forming a state of Israeli before the coming of ure messiah?
Reply

wilberhum
08-02-2006, 11:17 PM
the Arab countries never invaded Israel known according to the partition plan. It was Israel that continued to trangress the allocated boundaries outlined in the plan
Never invaded. True, Attacked yes, and As I remember it was on there first day of independance. Long b4 trangressions.
Reply

kadafi
08-02-2006, 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Never invaded. True, Attacked yes, and As I remember it was on there first day of independance. Long b4 trangressions.
The Arab Armies attempted to stop Israeli's aggression against cities and villages that they occupied. The massacres commited while they went on a land-grabbing spree. If the Arab Armies had the intention to attack Israel, they would have never mobilized 20k troops which is relatively small for a combined army compared to Israel's 90/100k troops.
Reply

wilberhum
08-03-2006, 05:30 PM
The Arab Armies attempted to stop Israeli's aggression against cities and villages that they occupied
On the first day of independance?
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 05:33 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
The Arab Armies attempted to stop Israeli's aggression against cities and villages that they occupied. The massacres commited while they went on a land-grabbing spree. If the Arab Armies had the intention to attack Israel, they would have never mobilized 20k troops which is relatively small for a combined army compared to Israel's 90/100k troops.

Yeah it sounds like there goal was to try and liberate Arabs with this speech.

"Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases Allah, history, and religion. This saves your honor. Allah is with you."

Nothing about liberating.

Just a ten minute speech to pump up his soldiers and tell them to kill Jews.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Yeah it sounds like there goal was to try and liberate Arabs with this speech.

"Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases Allah, history, and religion. This saves your honor. Allah is with you."

Nothing about liberating.

Just a ten minute speech to pump up his soldiers and tell them to kill Jews.
This is again one of those circulated lies. The same fabrication which was believed by many Israelis that Arab leaders wanted to push Jewish people into the sea.

If you're going to slam me with quotes, at least be honest about your sources.

Regards
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 05:50 PM
This is again one of those circulated lies. The same fabrication which was believed by many Israelis that Arab leaders wanted to push Jewish people into the sea.
Do you want me to spend an hour looking for the speech audio. If you understand Arabic than you can hear it for yourself. The speaker pronounces the date ect...

Just ask me and i'll go look for the audio for you and you can listen to these 'lies' yourself.

Then probably come up with an excuse or condone the actions of the speaker.
Reply

Geronimo
08-03-2006, 05:53 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
This is again one of those circulated lies. The same fabrication which was believed by many Israelis that Arab leaders wanted to push Jewish people into the sea.

If you're going to slam me with quotes, at least be honest about your sources.

Regards
This is a quote right from Al-Husayni's memoirs. How about this one:

"Blessed is he who fights Jihad in the name of Allah, blessed is he who [goes on] raids in the name of Allah, blessed is he who dons a vest of explosives on himself or on his children and goes in to the depth of the Jews and says: Allahu Akbar, Blessed be Allah. Like the collapse of the building upon the heads of the Jews in their sinful dance-hall, I ask of Allah that we see the Knesset collapsing on the heads of the Jews."

-- Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi

Friday Sermon, Palestinian TV
June 8, 2001


"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'--Al-Husaini Memoirs
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by Geronimo
This is a quote right from Al-Husayni's memoirs. How about this one:

"Blessed is he who fights Jihad in the name of Allah, blessed is he who [goes on] raids in the name of Allah, blessed is he who dons a vest of explosives on himself or on his children and goes in to the depth of the Jews and says: Allahu Akbar, Blessed be Allah. Like the collapse of the building upon the heads of the Jews in their sinful dance-hall, I ask of Allah that we see the Knesset collapsing on the heads of the Jews."

-- Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi

Friday Sermon, Palestinian TV
June 8, 2001


"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'--Al-Husaini Memoirs
Geronimo, please spare me this translated excerpts. Considering that Israelis are known for misquoting and mistranslating Arabic excerpts, provide me with the original arabic quotes. This reminds me of MEMRI, the Israeli Organisation under the false pretext that they translate Middle East sermons and yet are known for mistranslating as witnessed by several newssources.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 06:24 PM
You still have not asked if you want the arabic audio of the speech...

Would you like it, if you do I will find time to search for it. I heard it once.

You won't be able to deny it, so maybe you should just not respond...
Reply

Geronimo
08-03-2006, 06:28 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
You still have not asked if you want the arabic audio of the speech...

Would you like it, if you do I will find time to search for it. I heard it once.

You won't be able to deny it, so maybe you should just not respond...
No need to search I know exactly where it is if he wants to hear it
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
You still have not asked if you want the arabic audio of the speech...

Would you like it, if you do I will find time to search for it. I heard it once.

You won't be able to deny it, so maybe you should just not respond...
ManchesterFolk, if you have the audio of al-Husseini proclaiming this speech, by all means post it. This should be interesting.

Regards
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 06:45 PM
The audio is not from al-husseini.

It is audio of a General speaking to tens of thousands of his troops before the invade Israel declaring that every jew must be slaughtered.

If you understand Arabic you will have no counter point because you will hear with your own ears.

I will look for the link to the audio since I have not heard it in 2 years.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
The audio is not from al-husseini.

It is audio of a General speaking to tens of thousands of his troops before the invade Israel declaring that every jew must be slaughtered.

If you understand Arabic you will have no counter point because you will hear with your own ears.

I will look for the link to the audio since I have not heard it in 2 years.
Interesting. You first posted quotations alleging that al-Husseini broadcasted a radio message calling for the extermination of the Jews, I then specifcally asked for these quotations in the Arabic text or speech to strengthen your claim, and now you claim that you do not have any authenthic texts related to al-Husseini making these claims. Since when did we shift to some other individual.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 07:20 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Interesting. You first posted quotations alleging that al-Husseini broadcasted a radio message calling for the extermination of the Jews, I then specifcally asked for these quotations in the Arabic text or speech to strengthen your claim, and now you claim that you do not have any authenthic texts related to al-Husseini making these claims. Since when did we shift to some other individual.

Oh really.

This was the Post I Made:

Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Yeah it sounds like there goal was to try and liberate Arabs with this speech.

"Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases Allah, history, and religion. This saves your honor. Allah is with you."

Nothing about liberating.

Just a ten minute speech to pump up his soldiers and tell them to kill Jews.
Where did I mention the Grand Mufti in this post?

This post was In response to you saying about how the Arab Armies went into to stop "Israeli agression" even though the Arabs started the agression with riots and attacks on Jews.

W
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk


Where did I mention the Grand Mufti in this post?

This post was In response to you saying about how the Arab Armies went into to stop "Israeli agression" even though the Arabs started the agression with riots and attacks on Jews.

W
Hello ManchesterFolk

Unfortunately, you have made another blunder.

The quote Kill [all] the Jews is attributed to the Mufti and hence why I explictly inquired about the evidence. The statement was not attributed to some 'Arab General' but rather to the Mufti.

Regards
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 07:30 PM
That quotes was said by one of the most powerful Arab Generals before they went into Israel.

he gave them the orders to 'kill the jews wherever you find them'

I showed you this quote in response to you saying that the Arab Nations sent men into to stop agression towards Arabs.

In reality they were sent in to kill Jews. Just like there nazi buddies did before them.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
That quotes was said by one of the most powerful Arab Generals before they went into Israel.

he gave them the orders to 'kill the jews wherever you find them'
Hello ManchesterFolk

It would be wise to verify your research before you keep spreading your misleading information.

That quote is attributed to the Mufti and is known as the so-called speech that he made in a radio broadcast in Berlin.

Regards
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 07:58 PM
I'm sorry that was the wrong quote.

The Quote that is said in the audio which I am looking for you right now is something like this:

"Kill every jew wherever they hide! Show them no mercy because they do not deserve any! Rid our land of the dirty Jew!"
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
I'm sorry that was the wrong quote.

The Quote that is said in the audio which I am looking for you right now is something like this:

"Kill every jew wherever they hide! Show them no mercy because they do not deserve any! Rid our land of the dirty Jew!"
And there you go, you have wrongly accussed Mufti of promoting genocide against the Jews. You have admitted your mistake which is correct.

The Mufti is an influental person who has done many good things for the Muslims in Palestine. Remember that Zionists influental leaders were known to promote genocide before the creation of Israel. This is evident in their writings.

Regards
Reply

ManchesterFolk
08-03-2006, 08:03 PM
And there you go, you have wrongly accussed Mufti of promoting genocide against the Jews. You have admitted your mistake which is correct.
Wrong. Mufti was still a Nazi/Jew hating bigot who wished to exterminate every Jew from the world.

The quote I presented was said by him. The audio I heard was said by a top general of arab forces though. So I presented you witht the wrong quote. Both were said, I just have only 1 on audio. I can probably get you the other since Mufti made many radio broadcasts.

The Mufti is still very guilty.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 08:15 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Wrong. Mufti was still a Nazi/Jew hating bigot who wished to exterminate every Jew from the world.
After giving you numerous warnings of trying to slander individuals without justification, you have been given the final warning.

One of the forum rule states:
16. No attacks against Islam in any form will be tolerated on this discussion board. This includes, but is not limited to attacks on the Qur'an, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his family and companions, or any other prophets in Islam, or Islamic scholars, past or present. While some may complain that there is "freedom of speech" please remember this is a privately owned discussion board which was created and is maintained to serve the purpose of promoting Islam. What is allowed in speech is determined by the Admin and not the member.
If you cannot defend your position intellectually without resorting to slander, then please, in the future, refrain from posting.

Regards
Reply

afriend
08-03-2006, 08:17 PM
1. They should both share the land.....and not be persucuted for doing so....It is Palestinian land in the first place...But Palestinians don't mind sharing...but they should get the larger half.....

2.In link with Q1, I feel that they had no choice but to flee to the refuge camps.....Israel thinks that just moving into someone's house and putting the residents in the backgarden shed is ok.....so if you want to do that in Israel, by all means ;) I mean......that's what they did........Admit that atleast....
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 08:17 PM


Proof of the Grand Mufti and the Nazi's collaboration to kill Jews.

Source: The Arab Higher Committee
Reply

afriend
08-03-2006, 08:22 PM
You can't use some half baked source to show that all muslims were for this terrible event that occured.....I expect more from you brother lavikor.....Yes...my brother.....
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 08:25 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
You can't use some half baked source to show that all muslims were for this terrible event that occured.....I expect more from you brother lavikor.....Yes...my brother.....
I'm not saying Muslims are guilty. I am saying that Mufti was guilty!

Just about all Muslims were innocent. But the Mufti was not.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 08:26 PM
Propagandic garbage from Israeli Websites are deleted unless you expound it by adding your independant thinking instead of going on a CAP spree.

If you want to discuss certain key topic, then please, offer your POV without copy-pasting articles upon articles from various biased sources. This is a discussion forum and not some sort of CAP forum.

Regards
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 08:29 PM
Here are my thoughts. I believe The Grand Mufti is responsible for killing many Jews. Muslims are pretty much innocent. But this mad man is not.

In this letter he asks Hungary to send the Jews to Poland where they are exterminated. 400,000 lives. It makes me very sad when someone tries to deny this sicko has blood on his hands.

I would like to debate anyone who thinks he is innocent.

here is the letter which is my source for why he is complicent in the killing of Jews in Europe. [/quote]
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 08:54 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Here are my thoughts. I believe The Grand Mufti is responsible for killing many Jews. Muslims are pretty much innocent. But this mad man is not.

In this letter he asks Hungary to send the Jews to Poland where they are exterminated. 400,000 lives. It makes me very sad when someone tries to deny this sicko has blood on his hands.

I would like to debate anyone who thinks he is innocent.

here is the letter which is my source for why he is complicent in the killing of Jews in Europe.
Lavikor201, you're still the victim of propaganda by only referring to the Pro-Israeli forces with their alleged "letters" from the Mufti.

Anyone who has read a decent objective books on the Palestinian conflict would know that al-Husseini collobrated with the Nazi Regime for the sole reason of stopping the Jewish immigration to his homeland. In addition, he created a voluntary guard to help secure the villagers from the Zionists onslaught where they were known for massacring whole villages. In fact, most Palestinians broke off and rebelled against the German forces by joining the French resistance.

Further, what seem Zionists fail to mention is that some Palestinians have given their lives to save the Jews by creating a Palestine Regiment where Jews and Muslims fought side by side against the forces of Hitler in Libya. There is also a overwhelming evidence that Palestinians were enlisted in the British Army to fight against the Nazi Forces.

Regards
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 09:00 PM
I never said all Muslims were Nazi's.

The Grand Mufti was a Nazi though.

He was granted audiances with Hitler and top SS officials, he recruited divisions for the SS to gas Jews in death camps.

He has the blood of many Jews on his hands.

To deny this is to deny history.

I have the scanned letters with his signatures ect...

You just have edited my posts because you call them 'propoganda' when in reality it is proof, and no more propoganda than the sites your present as your sources.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
I never said all Muslims were Nazi's.

The Grand Mufti was a Nazi though.

He was granted audiances with Hitler and top SS officials, he recruited divisions for the SS to gas Jews in death camps.

He has the blood of many Jews on his hands.

To deny this is to deny history.
Hello lavikor

Again unfound allegations. Al-Husseini attempted to call for Jihad but only few responded, however, his division as I previously explained was a voluntary guard to help secure the villagers from the Zionists onslaught.

I could list all the atrocities commited by the Zionist organisations prior to the exodus.

The massacres at Eilaboun, Ad-Dawayima, Jish, Safsaf, Majd al-Kurum, Hule, Saliha and Sasa and on.

As the Israeli journalist Benny Morris states:

The village, wrote Kaplan, had been held by Arab "irregulars" and was captured by the 89th Battalion (8th Brigade) without a fight. "The first (wave) of conquerors killed about 80 to 100 Arab men, women and children. The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead," wrote Kaplan. Kaplan's informant, who arrived immediately afterwards in the second wave, reported that the Arab men and women who remained were then closed off in the houses "without food and water." Sappers arrived to blow up the houses. "One commander ordereda sapper to put two old women in a certain house ... and to blow up the house with them. The sapper refused ... The commander then ordered his men to put in the old women and the evil deed was done. One soldier boasted that he had raped a woman and then shot her. One woman with anewborn baby in her arms was employed to clean the courtyard where the soldiers ate. She worked a day or two. In the end they shot her and her baby." The soldier-witness, according to Kaplan, said that "cultured officers ... had turned into base murderers and this not in the heat of battle ... but out of a system of expulsion and destruction. The less Arabs remained - the better. This principle is the motor for the expulsions and the atrocities."
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 09:13 PM
And I can talk about the Arab riots that killed many Jews on a holy day of ours Passover.

The first Arab riots of the Mandate period took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, in March 1920 ("Bloody Passover"). They were instigated by Arabs acting on unfounded rumors of Jewish actions against Arabs. The British military authorities did not intervene in the Arab attacks, while Vladimir Jabotinsky and other Jews were arrested for organizing a self-defense league. In April 1920, Joseph Trumpeldor and others were killed in the defense of Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee. These developments led to the founding of the Haganah on June 15, 1920.

Haj Amin al-Husseini emerged as one of the leaders of the 1920 Arab riots in Palestine and incited the masses to murder Jews and loot their homes. While only in his late twenties, he became the youngest ever Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921, supported by the British.

May 1921 brought new violence in Jaffa followed by large-scale attacks on Rehovot, Petah Tikva, and other Jewish areas. The death toll among the Jews was 47 with 140 wounded.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
And I can talk about the Arab riots that killed many Jews on a holy day of ours Passover.

So far, nothing is accomplished. I have entered the discussion to at come to understanding of why Israel has shunned neogations and failed to recognize the Palestine state and all I keep getting is CAP from one Israeli source and another. The lastest one being palestinefacts.org

http://www.whois-search.com/whois/palestinefacts.org

which belongs to the The Zionist Organization of America

It is like some people have never heard of objective research.

Nevertheless lavikor201, perhaps you could answer the following questions and we take it from there.

Why did the Israeli Governement fail to recognize the Palestine State whilst the Palestinians have recognized the Israeli state (and did not call for destruction) on numerous occasions.

Why has the Israeli goverment shunned the peace talks in Camp David while they were on the verge of coming to a solution.
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 09:46 PM
Why did the Israeli Governement fail to recognize the Palestine State whilst the Palestinians have recognized the Israeli state (and did not call for destruction) on numerous occasions.
Have you read the Hamas charter? Have you heard the leaders of Hamas?

They refuse to recongnize the state of Israel. Abbas tried to convince Hamas to, but they refused. No plan to recongnize Israel has been accepted by Hamas the main governing body of the Palestinian people.

Why has the Israeli goverment shunned the peace talks in Camp David while they were on the verge of coming to a solution.
Arafat would have never accepted any reasonable plan. There is no point in talking to someone who refuses to accept you and live side by side in peace with you.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Have you read the Hamas charter? Have you heard the leaders of Hamas?

They refuse to recongnize the state of Israel. Abbas tried to convince Hamas to, but they refused. No plan to recongnize Israel has been accepted by Hamas the main governing body of the Palestinian people.
Lavikor. I do not know whether you were alive during the Oslo Accords, but for those followed the Oslo Accords in 1988, the Palestine National Council recognized Israel and declared the independance of the Palestinian state. They have re-iterated that in 1991 (Madrid) and 1993. Can one state whether Israel has done the same for the Palestian state? And just so you know lavikor, Hamas was relatively small during those periods.


Arafat would have never accepted any reasonable plan. There is no point in talking to someone who refuses to accept you and live side by side in peace with you.
Reasonable plan? If you call the Camp David a reasonable plan, then you either haven't read it or you are extremely deluded that a plan like the Camp David could be called reasonable. Furthermore, whilst the plan has been rejected, negotiations were started.

Los Angeles Times:
"Amid signs that the two sides appear to be edging toward some sort of compromise on the emotional issue of Jerusalem, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators worked through the start of the Jewish Hanukkah holiday Thursday expressing a rare shared optimism."

[Source: Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2000. "Hopeful mood fuels talks on Mideast peace; Negotiations: Israelis, Palestinians work through Jewish holiday as signs surface of a compromise."]
New York times:

"Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials concluded nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, tonight by saying jointly that they have "never been closer to reaching" a final peace accord but lacked sufficient time to conclude one before the Israeli elections on Feb. 6..... At a joint news conference in Taba, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami of Israel called the two-way talks, from which the Americans were conspicuously absent, "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations in this phase of the peace process." He said the two sides hoped to pick up where they left off after the elections -- although his boss, Mr. Barak, is expected to lose."

Suddenly, the talks were broken off and Sharon after being elected never resumed it.
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 10:07 PM
Lavikor. I do not know whether you were alive during the Oslo Accords, but for those followed the Oslo Accords in 1988, the Palestine National Council recognized Israel and declared the independance of the Palestinian state. They have re-iterated that in 1991 (Madrid) and 1993. Can one state whether Israel has done the same for the Palestian state? And just so you know lavikor, Hamas was relatively small during those periods.
Hahahaha, yes I was alive. I will not say my age, but let us just say I am over 45. :-)

After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the PNC met in Gaza in April 1996 and voted 504 to 54 to void parts of the Palestinian National Covenant that denied Israel's right to exist, but the charter itself was not been formally changed or re-drafted.

In December 1998, the PNC met in Gaza at the insistence of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it a condition on the continuation of the peace process. In the presence of the US President Clinton, it reaffirmed again the annulling of the parts of the Covenant which denied Israel's right to exist, but it still did not formally change or re-draft the Covenant.



Reasonable plan? If you call the Camp David a reasonable plan, then you either haven't read it or you are extremely deluded that a plan like the Camp David could be called reasonable. Furthermore, whilst the plan has been rejected, negotiations were started.
93% of the territory captured during the six day war which began because of Arab agression was offered. I find that reasonable. If you don't your entitled to your own opinion I guess.
Reply

kadafi
08-03-2006, 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Hahahaha, yes I was alive. I will not say my age, but let us just say I am over 45. :-)

After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the PNC met in Gaza in April 1996 and voted 504 to 54 to void parts of the Palestinian National Covenant that denied Israel's right to exist, but the charter itself was not been formally changed or re-drafted.

In December 1998, the PNC met in Gaza at the insistence of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it a condition on the continuation of the peace process. In the presence of the US President Clinton, it reaffirmed again the annulling of the parts of the Covenant which denied Israel's right to exist, but it still did not formally change or re-draft the Covenant.

Hello lavikor.

In fact, during the Oslo Accords, in the Arafat-Rabin Letters, it explictly stated that it reconigzes Israel's right to exist in peace and security.

"...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments for this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant". (Letters of Mutual Recognition, September 9, 1993)
The letter itself is an agreement, the US and administration during those periods accepted it but it was Netanyahu who nullified the vote and intensified the conflict.



93% of the territory captured during the six day war which began because of Arab agression was offered. I find that reasonable. If you don't your entitled to your own opinion I guess.
Not exactly. Remember that the Palestinians agreed to 22% of the land while surrending the rest to Israelis.

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti writes
The first issue we have to examine is that of the generous territorial offer. It was said that Palestinians were offered eventual control of 95 - 96% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS). However, after analysis it becomes obvious that this is far from the reality. For example if the actual territory offered was calculated, it transpires that the Palestinians would have control of much less than the claimed percentages. This difference arises because Israel's "total" does not include Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley or settlements in its computations.

Furthermore, the discussion about 'this percent' versus 'that percent' does not address the main issues for the Palestinians. Most importantly, it ignores international law and the rights conferred upon the Palestinians, and effectively serves to push these legal frameworks aside. Without a commitment to these frameworks any settlement will be an Israeli dictated agreement.
http://www.mideastjournal.com/campda...barghouti.html
Based on the previous article:

The proposal would have meant:
* no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,
* no control of its external borders,
* limited control of its own water resources, and
* no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law.


In addition, the Barak plan would have :

* included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley;

* codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice;

* meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and

* required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community."
Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper described the offer using a metaphor:

"in a prison, the prisoners live in about 95% of the space, and the guards control 'only' about 5%. But this 5% includes all of the corridors between the cells, and therefore the guards control the entire prison. Thus it is with the Palestinian territories, which are being incorporated and at the same time isolated by Israel's policy of divide and control."
John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, concludes in his article in New York Times regarding the Camp David:

"it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty."

[Source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001]
Nigel Parry from EI has provided an analysis and what the map would look like if accepted:

Misrepresentation of Barak's offer at Camp David as "generous" and "unprecedented"
http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bi...view.cgi/4/518

Regards
Reply

lavikor201
08-03-2006, 10:44 PM
They still never formally redrafted or changed there covanent. Therefore no matter how many letters they wrote it was never oficially put into there covanent.
Reply

kadafi
08-04-2006, 10:31 AM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
They still never formally redrafted or changed there covanent. Therefore no matter how many letters they wrote it was never oficially put into there covanent.
And this is the same extreme evasive comment Netanyahu has used deterring Israel and the Palestinians from reaching a peace accord. Further, on the PLO site, it states:
In a letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat stated that those articles which denied Israel's right to exist or are inconsistent with the PLO's new commitments to Israel following their mutual reognition, were no longer valid (see Oslo peace process).

The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and adopted the following decision:

A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.
B. Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian Central Council.

The decision was adopted by a vote of: 504 in favor, 54 against, and 14 abstentions.

On January 1998, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to US President, Bill Clinton, outlining the implications of this decision in terms of the specific articles of the Charter that were nullified or amended as a result of that decision. In December 1998, both the PLO Executive Committee and the PLO Central Council reaffirmed this decision.
They have also explictly stated that the written amendment will be carried if Israel fulls at least a small percentage of its obligations which they miraculously did not. It would have been a political suicide if they had approved the written amendment and Israel would have gone back on its promises. They would have lost all the support of the international community and no support of ever implementing the two-state solution.

The main issue still stands that the Palestinians have repeatedly recognized Israel's right to exists within the 1967 borders and the last re-iteration was in the Camp David peace proposals if I recall correctly. The only existance that Israel so far has recognized is the PLO.

I would like to hear your reply on the Camp David proposal. Would you agree that Israel has blown the chance of ever finding a compromise based on the evidences.

Regards
Reply

michaelconvert
04-22-2007, 09:55 PM
The Zionist just have an inferiority complex. The Jews were persecuted for 5000 years and now some of them want to get back at the world. They know that without western powers supporting them they would have no power at all. Israel obviously cant stand on its own two feet without billions in US support. Israel has not right to steal Palestine’s land. They have ethnically cleansed so many cities it is ridiculous. This is the holocaust but worse because Palestine doesn’t have a big American guard dog helping it out.
Reply

Keltoi
04-22-2007, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by michaelconvert
The Zionist just have an inferiority complex. The Jews were persecuted for 5000 years and now some of them want to get back at the world. They know that without western powers supporting them they would have no power at all. Israel obviously cant stand on its own two feet without billions in US support. Israel has not right to steal Palestine’s land. They have ethnically cleansed so many cities it is ridiculous. This is the holocaust but worse because Palestine doesn’t have a big American guard dog helping it out.
Israel gets aid from the United States, although it isn't really as necessary as it once was. Israel managed to survive and beat the odds against the coalition of Arab countries that tried to destroy them. The U.S. didn't participate in a military way. I think you vastly underestimate Israel if you believe they owe their survival to American aid.
Reply

MTAFFI
04-23-2007, 02:30 PM
I paged through this discussion, and I see in several places people saying that the Palestinians were "driven" out of their land. I was under the impression that when the Jews arrived the people who were inhabiting the land started rioting, and trying to drive the Jews from the land. I also know that the people left the land voluntarily because they knew of the strike from the surrounding Arab nations that was to come. The Arab nations lost their battle with Israel, and the Israelis, in my opinion, inherited this land at this point. The people that everyone is calling Palestinians left their land voluntarily, they decided from the beginning that they didnt want to live with the Jews, had they not taken the action that they took they may still be living in the land and be living with Jews in peace. In my opinion, the "palestinians" put themselves in the position they are currently in. Palestine wasnt even a country before Israel was created, and the countries that Israel was created from fought Israel for the land and lost, plain and simple, therefore the land is now theirs.

**I would just like to add that I do not support many of the things that Israel or Palestine do to each other in the name of war, they are both equally unjust and brutal with their tactics.
Reply

Keltoi
04-23-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
I paged through this discussion, and I see in several places people saying that the Palestinians were "driven" out of their land. I was under the impression that when the Jews arrived the people who were inhabiting the land started rioting, and trying to drive the Jews from the land. I also know that the people left the land voluntarily because they knew of the strike from the surrounding Arab nations that was to come. The Arab nations lost their battle with Israel, and the Israelis, in my opinion, inherited this land at this point. The people that everyone is calling Palestinians left their land voluntarily, they decided from the beginning that they didnt want to live with the Jews, had they not taken the action that they took they may still be living in the land and be living with Jews in peace. In my opinion, the "palestinians" put themselves in the position they are currently in. Palestine wasnt even a country before Israel was created, and the countries that Israel was created from fought Israel for the land and lost, plain and simple, therefore the land is now theirs.

**I would just like to add that I do not support many of the things that Israel or Palestine do to each other in the name of war, they are both equally unjust and brutal with their tactics.
Absolutely. The fact that I believe much of the Palestinian suffering is due to their own leadership and the Arab nations that supposedly support them, doesn't mean that I throw full support to everything Israel has done or will do.
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
04-23-2007, 10:59 PM
I paged through this discussion, and I see in several places people saying that the Palestinians were "driven" out of their land.
No, they actually just decided to leave the land they were living for 1000's of years and go live in refugee camps.

I was under the impression that when the Jews arrived the people who were inhabiting the land started rioting, and trying to drive the Jews from the land.
Yep, those *******s(palestinians) saw jews coming and just started rioting all of the sudden, they just hated jews with no apparent reason, no wonder they started rioting.

I also know that the people left the land voluntarily because they knew of the strike from the surrounding Arab nations that was to come.
Correct, you KNOW that, that was the reason palestinians left their country decades before the strike, they knew it would come and started living, makes a lot of sense.

The Arab nations lost their battle with Israel, and the Israelis, in my opinion, inherited this land at this point.
Of course, if you win a battle for a country - it becomes yours. Iraq is now an american country, at this point they have inherited it.

The people that everyone is calling Palestinians left their land voluntarily, they decided from the beginning that they didnt want to live with the Jews
Exactomundo! The people that everyone calls palestinians(why on earth?), decided to live in refugee camps, rather than on their own land together with peace-loving jewish settlers. That just decided so right in the beginning, packed their bags and peacefully headed to refugee camps - true story!
Reply

Khan-Ghalgha
04-23-2007, 11:06 PM
had they not taken the action that they took they may still be living in the land and be living with Jews in peace.
had they not decided to live in refugee camps right in the beginning, they would've lived in their own homes, but, you know, the palestinians just chose refugee camps, odd folks those palestinians, those camps must be really nice to live in.

In my opinion, the "palestinians" put themselves in the position they are currently in. Palestine wasnt even a country before Israel was created, and the countries that Israel was created from fought Israel for the land and lost, plain and simple, therefore the land is now theirs.
Brilliant logic, yes folks it's that simple - you keep what you win!
Reply

Keltoi
04-24-2007, 03:13 AM
As someone of a Native American descent, I can say that is indeed true, you usually keep what you win.
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
04-24-2007, 03:43 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
As someone of a Native American descent, I can say that is indeed true, you usually keep what you win.
that's just plain disgusting, a country taking the lands of a noble people and then begins to demonise them through various mediums including hollywood doesn't deserve to call itself ''noble'' or ''just''

but that's just my opinion
Reply

Keltoi
04-24-2007, 05:56 AM
Originally Posted by AHMED_GUREY
that's just plain disgusting, a country taking the lands of a noble people and then begins to demonise them through various mediums including hollywood doesn't deserve to call itself ''noble'' or ''just''

but that's just my opinion
To be honest, Native Americans have been romanticized more than demonized, at least in the realm of movies and literature.
Reply

MTAFFI
04-24-2007, 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by Khan-Ghalgha
had they not decided to live in refugee camps right in the beginning, they would've lived in their own homes, but, you know, the palestinians just chose refugee camps, odd folks those palestinians, those camps must be really nice to live in.



Brilliant logic, yes folks it's that simple - you keep what you win!

I think you might need to read up on your history, especially when you refute nothing and use sarcasm to answer everything
Reply

King Solomon
04-24-2007, 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
To be honest, Native Americans have been romanticized more than demonized, at least in the realm of movies and literature.
This is true. The Blackfoot and Shawnee tribes were especially brutal not only to settlers but also against the Plain and Midwest Indians. They almost wiped out the Illini. They did have a lot of land taken for them but they also negotiated away a lot of land. Native Americans now recieve a lot of benefits from the US government.
Reply

King Solomon
04-24-2007, 05:58 PM
If I was an Israeli PM I would say we can talk about giving up Israel when muslims decide to give us Constantinople and give India back Pakistan.
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
04-24-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by King Solomon
If I was an Israeli PM I would say we can talk about giving up Israel when muslims decide to give us Constantinople
this medieval conquest predates all of todays modern states

and give India back Pakistan.
Both analogies are flawed both Indians and Greeks have a nation Palistinians deserve the same, Pakistan could be seen as a successor to the Mughal Empire hence why they can claim that this land is theirs (also majority of people living in Pakistan are muslims), Israel on the other hand can't make a historical claim like that

what i wish personally is that Israel returns to it's pre-war borders and stays there and Palistinians quest for statehood is answered by the International community with honesty

I feel the same for Kurdistan, Chechnya and other noble groups fighting for a a state where there people can live as first class citizens

Keltoi point taken!
Reply

King Solomon
04-24-2007, 08:49 PM
this medieval conquest predates all of todays modern states
You just contradicted this by bringing up 2...Greece and India

Both analogies are flawed both Indians and Greeks have a nation Palistinians deserve the same, Pakistan could be seen as a successor to the Mughal Empire hence why they can claim that this land is theirs (also majority of people living in Pakistan are muslims), Israel on the other hand can't make a historical claim like that
Yes they can. Jews have been on that land going back to Roman times. The historian Josephus is a Jew and he predates Islam itself.

what i wish personally is that Israel returns to it's pre-war borders and stays there and Palistinians quest for statehood is answered by the International community with honesty
That's the thing I think it's fair if Israel went back to 1967 borders but what do you consider an honest deal on Palestine? Give Israel Pre-67 borders, International governorship of Jeruselum, and dropping the right of return and I say that's a fair deal. I would warn though one suicide bomber or rocket land in Israel and you would be dealt with as a enemy state.
Reply

Philosopher
04-24-2007, 09:06 PM
King Solomon, are you also King David from this board?
Reply

Philosopher
04-24-2007, 09:07 PM
That's the thing I think it's fair if Israel went back to 1967 borders but what do you consider an honest deal on Palestine? Give Israel Pre-67 borders, International governorship of Jeruselum, and dropping the right of return and I say that's a fair deal. I would warn though one suicide bomber or rocket land in Israel and you would be dealt with as a enemy state.
Fair enough.
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
04-24-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by King Solomon
You just contradicted this by bringing up 2...Greece and India
Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire for 500 years, what my point was ''if it continued to be under occupation'' till today and they were treated as second class citizens and alot of injustice was done upon them then i would support them like i support Chechnya and i don't support chechnya just because there muslim no it's because their quest for statehood is just!

(ps Cyprus doesn't count since the other half is predominantly Turkish)


Yes they can. Jews have been on that land going back to Roman times. The historian Josephus is a Jew and he predates Islam itself.
and Canaan predates Rome and while there are Jewish groups today in Israel who are indigineous the majority that were allowed to migrate to Israel in the last 4 decades were not!


Originally Posted by Philosopher
Originally Posted by King Solomon
That's the thing I think it's fair if Israel went back to 1967 borders but what do you consider an honest deal on Palestine? Give Israel Pre-67 borders, International governorship of Jeruselum, and dropping the right of return and I say that's a fair deal. I would warn though one suicide bomber or rocket land in Israel and you would be dealt with as a enemy state.
Fair enough.
Indeed!
Reply

King Solomon
04-25-2007, 03:39 PM
and the Philistines (who are Grecian) predates the Caanites my point is what does it matter? Everyone can make claims to the land.
Reply

Chiteng
04-25-2007, 05:27 PM
As far as I know:

In 1948 the 'Grand Mufti of Jerusalem' issued an order that all Palestinians
evacuate the territories under dispute, under pain of death.

The 'idea' was that the civilians were hampering military operations.

However, the civilians that refused to leave, were liable to be killed
if discovered. Some indeed WERE.

That is a very unpleasant choice.
Reply

SATalha
04-25-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
It is simple just read this:

Israel's enemies would like to portray Israel as a recent contaminant, an intruder among long-established countries with settled borders and governments. Reality is far different. Civilizations of the Middle East, including the Jews, were consecutively conquered by Persians, Romans, Arabs, Turks and then the Portuguese, French and English. The grip of English and French colonialism was only released after the world wars of the 20th century.

All of these Islamic rules countries are knew.

I mean come on how old is Jordan?!?

Islam conquered a lot of countries from other Nations, they are occupying them as well right? Why don't they return the land....

Not only that but the Jewish people have been in Israel before Islam itself was created!!!!

Mate so where the Palestinians!
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
04-25-2007, 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by King Solomon
and the Philistines (who are Grecian) predates the Caanites
they invaded ''Canaan'' therefore it's a non sequitur to claim they pre-date it since most definitly the culture and language the Philistines adopted from the Canaanites didn't spring up the same morning of the invasion

Mizrahi Jews and Palistinians are the true descendants of the Ancient groups that lived in that region

therefore a two state solution is the best way to go!

my point is what does it matter? Everyone can make claims to the land.
see above!
Reply

skhalid
04-25-2007, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I have some questions for those of you who feel that Israel is occupying Palestinian land:

1. Why do feel Palestinians have claim to Israel?

2. Do you feel that Palestinians voluntarily fled Palestine or were driven out by Israeli force, during the formation of Israel?
If it is their land then even if someone enters there territory it will remain thier land..so what people call 'invaders' as in the people who moved there or migrated...that land is not theirs and so if they are told to leave then they will have to..no buts...I know it is rather sad for those who are born there to leave...where are they suppose to go?? If they don't have families else where..if they have made there living there...but I suppose nothing can be done about that nowadays!!!
CONFUSED????? well I ent finished yet lol
I think that many palestinians were forced to leave...:cry: sad really..but as I have said..if they have no where else to go...what are they suppose to do?? they will protest to remain there...although the one with the most power always win...most of the time anyways!!!:X
Reply

ManchesterFolk
04-25-2007, 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by AHMED_GUREY
they invaded ''Canaan'' therefore it's a non sequitur to claim they pre-date it since most definitly the culture and language the Philistines adopted from the Canaanites didn't spring up the same morning of the invasion

Mizrahi Jews and Palistinians are the true descendants of the Ancient groups that lived in that region

therefore a two state solution is the best way to go!



see above!
Actually,the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" are not related historically to the Philistines.The original Philistines were of Greek extraction,as is evidenced in their weapons of war(found on coinage), their pottery,jewelry,culture and,above all,language. They arrived in Israel,after first being repelled from Egypt.

They were called "Philistines", which derives from the Hebrew, meaning invader, thief, usurper, foreigner. They were destroyed mostly under king David, and disappeared from history. As for the arab linkage to the Philistines, after which was refuted time and time again by archaeology etc, IOdd that the arabs identify themselves as "Philistines"(foreigners).
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
04-25-2007, 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Actually,the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" are not related historically to the Philistines.The original Philistines were of Greek extraction,as is evidenced in their weapons of war(found on coinage), their pottery,jewelry,culture and,above all,language. They arrived in Israel,after first being repelled from Egypt.
the Philistines were a Indo-european people but the Canaanites were not and they spoke a semetic language, their culture was adopted after they were conquered by the Philistines therefore they don't pre-date the proto-Palistinians since they were there since 3000 BC and the invasion by the Philistines occurred in the second millenium BC
Reply

ManchesterFolk
04-25-2007, 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by AHMED_GUREY
the Philistines were a Indo-european people but the Canaanites were not and they spoke a semetic language, their culture was adopted after they were conquered by the Philistines therefore they don't pre-date the proto-Palistinians since they were there since 3000 BC and the invasion by the Philistines occurred in the second millenium BC
First it seems very odd to argue this, because so many lands different nations have conquered that if you really want to get into this game of returning what belongs to who you will never suceed. Muslims to have conquered kingdoms.

Anyway: Canaan itself was a "Bronze Age culture and country in what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and the southern portions of Syria and Lebanon; first occupied about 3300 BC, evidence shows occupation of the vicinity up to 550 BC, including a 300 year period of Egyptian rule." 3

Canaanites, in the Old Testament, original inhabitants of the land of Canaan. According to the Book of Judges, the Israelites, during the 2nd millennium BC or earlier, gradually subjugated the Canaanite cities. By the end of the reign of Solomon, king of Israel, the Canaanites had virtually been assimilated into the Hebrew people, among whom they appear to have exerted a reactionary religious influence.5

References
1. MSN encarta encyclopedia - http://encarta.msn.com/
2. http://www.encyclopedia.com
3. http://www.encyclopedia.com
4.http://www.encarta.msn.com
5. about.com - http://archaeology.about.com/science...def_canaan.htm
6.MSN encarta encyclopedia - http://encarta.msn.com/
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
04-25-2007, 09:32 PM
Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
First it seems very odd to argue this, because so many lands different nations have conquered that if you really want to get into this game of returning what belongs to who you will never suceed. Muslims to have conquered kingdoms.
If you had read my replies to King Solomon you would have processed my two cents and that was ''Israel should return to it's pre-war borders, evacuate the groups that are trying to illigally settle there and the International community should recognise Palistine as a sovereign state''
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-24-2014, 06:34 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2013, 03:05 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 12:58 PM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 04:35 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 05:30 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!