So, Israel...

[Non sequitur]

The whole land is promised to every Jew,

Then why not just take it?

That was Lot,s argument, when there was trouble between their shepards.

So what did Abraham say?

And how did it go for Lot?

No idea.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yeah, but since the place was called Palestine, everyone there was Palestinian. This includes Jews. During the British Mandate, Arabs revolted against the British and Jewish terrorist groups did likewise, and increasingly the Arabs and Jews fought each other as well. The UN tried to broker the two state partition - one for Jews, one for Arabs. That fell apart, primarily due to the Arabs rejecting it. But the UK wanted out of the whole mess, and they weren't going to wait for a real solution, so they basically left, with nobody 'officially' in charge. Chaos naturally ensued. The Jewish state took over and Jewish partisans removed Arabs from many villages in what would have been the Arab partition. Arab countries nearby responded by attacking (as most of them had already indicated they would do, after the Palestinian Arabs rejected the partition deal).

And it has been tit for tat ever since.

More background:
Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia

Thanks.

I looks like a main problem part is the agreements and treaties, prior to that.

Do you see one as more "right" than the other?

 

[LoAmmi]

The history is really complicated. The real problem, right now, is that the leadership of both sides stay in power by continuing the conflict. So long as that remains true, there will be no peace.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Thanks.

I've heard that both sides have killed others on the opposing side.

Has Israel always been on the defense?
Did Palestine start killing first?
Where did Israel get the resources to make their own advanced tech? Themselves?
Is there an "owner" to the land being fought (over)?
Who physically had the land 1st, or were both sides always there?

I haven't read all the replies so I may be answering it already but since the beginning of time there have always been people fighting over or just to take out Israel. The war has never really stopped. Except now many muslim countries don't like Israel. One could really just say its a muslim vs jewish battle. Alot of the old stories in the bible just had groups with different names fighting what is essentially Israel. Now the countries all have names we all know.

Sorry if thats confusing, I'm bad at wording it all. Look at the Dome of the Rock thing. It was owned by Israel, but recently it was given back to the muslims to use as a place that they believe is holy. Obviously in the bible alot of these things were jewish property. Just as with the Gaza Strip, its more modern so to speak but they fight over it too. I could dare to say, and I say it cautiously, its more of a battle between the devil and God. The devil would love to wipe out Israel. And muslims hate the jews (and christians).

So as a christian obviously I would say its Israels land. It is where humanity started. Adam and Eve...etc. Its Gods land. Not the muslims, not pals...etc.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thanks.

Do you see one as more "right" than the other?

It is a terribly complex problem. On the whole, I think the Palestinians got the short end of the stick (regardless of who was 'more right'). At the same time, the historic calls for the complete destruction of Israel aren't very nice either. That stance is softening, so I see some possibility for a real two state solution to come about sometime.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure.

But it seems they made a deal, for helping the British fight the Ottomans, to give land to the Arabs.
"Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca"

A later agreement (between the UK and France) negated their agreement with the Arabs.

If James offered Bob something for help, then after James received the help he reneged on it, wouldn't you be in favor of Bob instead of James?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the "deal" you're referring to...

Can you give a link?

 

[Robban]

No idea.

That,s OK,
I wandered,

(talking to myself)

 

[Amazing Horse]

At my work, we keep getting old newsletters for someone that used to work there (long ago). Maybe they donated something, I dunno. The newsletter/envelope says something about helping Israel and the constant hardships and tragedies (the words used always sound worse than a PETA and Help the Children leaflet, combined).

Sounds weird, but everything I've heard since childhood on TV (parents didn't discuss it) is "Israel needs our help!", "We must support Israel!", etc.

I guess my brain young brain just took it at face value and never really thought about any history or logistics of them needing anything.

It dawned on me, when we received one... I don't really know that much about Israel (and the US). Couldn't even have an opinion about Israel.

Especially pro vs con, about the US position.

Normally I'd look things up, but I feel like it'd take a long while and starting so behind puts me at a severe handicap (given probable biases I would end up reading). Usually I could get a loose idea, like if I didn't know anything about evolution there's plenty of discussions about it, but I've not seen any CF threads

Anybody care to... elaborate...discuss...inform me about it?

EDIT: I am serious.

In short Iraq wants to nuke Israel , also a Palestine wants thier theritory back ( well it's not thiers ) and EU supports Palestine so there is big conflict , while USA supports Israel , and Iraq is supported by Russia.

 

[LoAmmi]

In short Iraq wants to nuke Israel , also a Palestine wants thier theritory back ( well it's not thiers ) and EU supports Palestine so there is big conflict , while USA supports Israel , and Iraq is supported by Russia.

I assume you mean Iran and not Iraq.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the "deal" you're referring to...

Can you give a link?

During [WWI], Britain had been a major sponsor of Arab nationalist thought and ideology, primarily as a weapon to use against the power of the Ottoman Empire. Although the Arab forces were promised a state that included much of the Arabian Peninsula and the Fertile Crescent the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France provided for the territorial division of much of that region between the two imperial powers.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the "deal" you're referring to...

Can you give a link?

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, essentialsaltes links it above, is the agreement that overlapped mid-to-after the deal with the Arabs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, essentialsaltes links it above, is the agreement that overlapped mid-to-after the deal with the Arabs.

After reading it...it appears to not only not be an official treaty (rather just some vague promises made in letters) and it would seem the Sharif failed to live up to his end.

I can certainly understand why this might bring enmity...but it's not exactly unexpected of the British at the time to make vague promises to help bring down the ottomans.

 

[Non sequitur]

After reading it...it appears to not only not be an official treaty (rather just some vague promises made in letters) and it would seem the Sharif failed to live up to his end.

I can certainly understand why this might bring enmity...but it's not exactly unexpected of the British at the time to make vague promises to help bring down the ottomans.

While their promises had caveats, they weren't vague.

Well, their army of ~70k men moved on Ottoman forces and severed a railway, which allowed the advancement into Palestine and Syria. That allowed the British to get Turkey to surrender.

So it seemed they did what they said they were going to do, and helped all along the way.

The only thing I could find about them not 'living up to their end' was one historical person saying that. I could not find any evidence in the letter they reference showing that. What supposedly was it?

It wasn't an official treaty, but promises made for help. Which they received.

1. Subject to the above modifications (Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo are excluded), Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca.
2. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability.

I guess if the lesson is don't trust the Brits... ok. But that is a bad argument for not supporting those they made those promises to.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It wasn't an official treaty, but promises made for help.

You can really only have a treaty between states. The whole point was that these people had no state. They were being promised one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

While their promises had caveats, they weren't vague.

Well, their army of ~70k men moved on Ottoman forces and severed a railway, which allowed the advancement into Palestine and Syria. That allowed the British to get Turkey to surrender.

So it seemed they did what they said they were going to do, and helped all along the way.

The only thing I could find about them not 'living up to their end' was one historical person saying that. I could not find any evidence in the letter they reference showing that. What supposedly was it?

It wasn't an official treaty, but promises made for help. Which they received.

1. Subject to the above modifications (Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo are excluded), Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca.
2. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability.

I guess if the lesson is don't trust the Brits... ok. But that is a bad argument for not supporting those they made those promises to.

I believe, specifically, the "limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca" were originally pretty clear...and then he attempted to expand his reach beyond those limits essentially voiding the promise.

I guess I could look it up again, but I think it was an expansion into either modern day Syria or Iraq.

 

[Non sequitur]

You can really only have a treaty between states. The whole point was that these people had no state. They were being promised one.

Agreed.

I still don't see why one wouldn't be in favor of those who were promised.

 

[Non sequitur]

I believe, specifically, the "limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca" were originally pretty clear...and then he attempted to expand his reach beyond those limits essentially voiding the promise.

I guess I could look it up again, but I think it was an expansion into either modern day Syria or Iraq.

The Sykes–Picot Agreement and Balfour Declaration occurred/around the time the Arabs helped the British turn the tide against the Ottoman Empire.

From what I could find, the British argued that some lands weren't purely Arab. However, those lands in question had already been claimed by their new allies, the French.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Sykes–Picot Agreement and Balfour Declaration occurred/around the time the Arabs helped the British turn the tide against the Ottoman Empire.

From what I could find, the British argued that some lands weren't purely Arab. However, those lands in question had already been claimed by their new allies, the French.

And?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Sykes–Picot Agreement and Balfour Declaration occurred/around the time the Arabs helped the British turn the tide against the Ottoman Empire.

From what I could find, the British argued that some lands weren't purely Arab. However, those lands in question had already been claimed by their new allies, the French.

Let me ask you something, non, when you looked into this, did you see why Saudi Arabia is called Saudi Arabia instead of some pan-arab-nationalist state that the Sharif of Mecca dreamed up?

 

[Non sequitur]

Let me ask you something, non, when you looked into this, did you see why Saudi Arabia is called Saudi Arabia instead of some pan-arab-nationalist state that the Sharif of Mecca dreamed up?

It came after the unification of the Hejaz and Nejd kingdoms and was named al-Mamlakah al-ʻArabīyah as-Suʻūdīyah, by Ibn Saud.