Arafat should have taken the deal, but instead wanted a one state solution or rather a 'one state catastrophe' so they could drive out the Jews and have all the land for themselves.
Seems you are mistaken and don't actually know what you are taking about (wow ... that's a big surprise ...
not ...):
Arafat spent much of his life fighting against Israel in the name of Palestinian self-determination. Originally opposed to Israel's existence, he modified his position in 1988 when he accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242.
They tried it in 1948 ...
More evidence that you don't actually know what you are talking about.
Hostilities started in earnest in 1947 (not 1948) after a foreign body (the United Nations) proposed a partition plan called for the
theft of Palestinian land (at least
49% of the country) by giving the Jews
56% of the country, when, in fact, they only actually owned
7% of it, and only comprised
30% of the population.
Ain't necessarily a question of "wanting all the land" as much as it is a question of:
How much theft can you tolerate before you can no longer ignore it and you actually have to do something ?
You would do well to learn the actual facts of history if you really wanna play the game ...
'cause Ziobot™ hasbara ain't gonna get ya very far ...
As to "Israel's War of Independence" (more fallacy):
Israel’s “War of Independence” with the Arab States, like all Hasbara, fails the test of logic.
The Jewish State was offered a defined territory under UNGA res 181.
From the adoption of UNGA res 181 in Nov 1947, a state of civil war existed in Palestine.
Friday, 5 March 1948, the UNGA res 181 offer was accepted
“as binding” by the Jewish Agency in a statement to the UNSC
At midnight May 14th 1948 (ME time), the LoN Mandate for Palestine expired.
On May 15th
the Provisional Israeli Government proclaimed that at 00:01 the 15th May 1948 (ME time), Israel had effectively become an
“independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947?. The War of Independence ended the moment Israel became independent.
As of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), with Jewish/Israeli forces
outside the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, the civil war
became a war waged by the Independent State of Israel on what remained of Palestine. As such, the Arab Regional Powers had a
right and
duty, on notifying the UNSC (
UN Charter Art 51), to attempt to expel foreign forces from Palestine.
The war was fought in territories
“outside the State of Israel”. UNSC resolutions on the period call for “peace in Palestine”.
None call for ‘peace in Israel’ and
no UNSC resolutions condemn the Arab powers for invading Israel.
In 64 years, Israel has never withdrawn from or legally annexed any of the territory allotted for the Arab State.
But hey ... you just keep on mainlining that new and improved industrial-strength Ziocaine™ ...
and we'll see just how far it actually gets you ...
and again in 1967 and lost some land as a result.
More total ignorance ... Israel actually started the war in '67 ... as covered in an article in Foreign Policy Mag:
It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war
is not sustained by the documentary record.
The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later
conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war
had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.
In a meeting with Nasser, Johnson’s special envoy to the UAR, Robert B. Anderson, expressed U.S. puzzlement over why he had massed troops in the Sinai, to which Nasser replied, “
Whether you believe it or not, we were in fear of an attack from Israel. We had been informed that the Israelis were massing troops on the Syrian border with the idea of first attacking Syria, there they did not expect to meet great resistance, and then commence their attack on the UAR.” ...
Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and
warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.” ...
Additionally, the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was
defensive, stating that “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double
defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. ...
Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was
any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being
extremely slim. ...
Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official
who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war, and that
the only reason it hadn’t already struck was because of efforts by the Johnson administration to restrain both sides to prevent a violent conflict. ...
“Helms interpreted the remarks as suggesting
that Israel would attack very soon”, writes Robarge. He reported to Johnson “that Israel probably would
start a war within a few days.” ...
Furthermore, Israel's own leaders have readily admitted as much (that they started it) - Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, from a speech given circa 1982:
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a
speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was
a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had
a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches
do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us.
We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Additionally:
The current
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.,
Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “
Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence,
Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”
Finally:
Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israel's attack on Egypt in June '67 was not 'preemptive' - Foreign Policy Journal | Foreign Policy Journal
So you see Squirt, you are way, way out of your league here ...
and opining on matters you really know not what of ...
There is however a potential upside for you: If you pay close attention, you may actually get a little bit of an education ...
which, as evidenced by your statements, is something that you are in sore need of ...
That is what happens when you invade and try to annilate people and lose; you lose land.
ROTFLMAO ... you really didn't put much thought into that one did you ?
Are you familiar with the expression of
"hoisted by his own petard" ?
How about the paradigm of a
"double-edged sword" ?
Unilateral acquisition/annexation of territory through armed conflict is illegal under international law - and has been since 1933 ...
which is why Israel will ultimately lose if they wind up in an international court of jurisdiction ...
A number of officials of the last nation that tried it on a wholesale basis wound up in a place called Nuremberg ...
and having to answering questions about their bad behavior ...
Both of the above are what makes your statement utterly ironic because: ...
the international laws in question - the UN Charter, International Law, Geneva Conventions - came about in large part and were adopted because of what happened to Jewish folk under the Nazis ...
Quite factually, it is
Israel itself, which is in
jeopardy based on the irrefutable historical record ...
There could have been relative peace too,(if Arafat would have accepted deal) but instead we have back and forth violence that will never end.
There can always be "peace" ...
if a people are willing to give up their land, property, and inherent rights to an a foreign and alien power that is illegal occupying them ...
Any more "genius" you wanna share with us ?
LOL ... you wanna go with
hasbara ?
The problem you are going to have (which you are probably thoroughly unaware of) is that hasbara to a large extent, depends in the audience's ignorance - in this case that "audience" would be
you.
That is further complicated by a couple of factors: 1. you don't really know what it is
that you don't know ... 2. you haven't yet figured out that hasbara often depends on presenting things in an ...
ahem ... inaccurate (largely dishonest) manner by using selectivity, willful ignorance, and attempted perversion of the historical record ...
IOW, it is to large extent fallacious ... and for that reason is easily refuted by documented, historical facts.
Your first schooling and education in the above two points, should be the refutations to your false assertions above that I have provided.
Based on my past experience and observations of you personally, I don't expect that you will be a quick study or fast learner ...
however I am perfectly willing to be surprised ...
As to the steaming pile of hasbara crap that you linked, feel free to present any particular premise out it you care to, and we'll deal with it specifically.
As to "How did the Land of Israel Become Palestine ?" ...
Well ... we'll go with this one assertion for starters:
What Does "Palestine" Mean?
It has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.
Oh really ?
Now that's a rather odd statement don't you think ... in light of the following:
"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the 'independent nation' of Palestine than in that of the 'independent nation' of Syria.
For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are."
It is interesting to note he says "the '
independent nation' of Palestine", which indicates the intention of the Balfour declaration was not to have a separate Jewish 'state', but a homeland for Jewish folk IN Palestine, the peoples to be Palestinian citizens, under Palestinian Law. Where of course, under those circumstances, as citizens of Palestine, Jewish folk would have had the right to live anywhere in Palestine.
Historical facts Skippy ... they ain't on your side.
And of course there's this, from the League of Nations Mandate For Palestine, circa 1922:
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country
Article 2: The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Article 4: An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
Article 7: The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Here's some more for ya to chew on - the British White Paper circa 1922:
"It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change."
British White Paper from 1939:
His Majesty’s Government are unable at present to foresee the exact constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but their objective is self government, and they desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a way that the essential interests of each are shared.
Historical fact ...
really sucks don't it ? ...
Israel Vs Palestine “There Was Never A State Called Palestine” It’s Just More Stupid Israeli Propaganda
How many times have you heard
“Was there ever a state called Palestine?”? Or
“there were never a Palestinian people”?
Think about it. Prior to Israel being declared a state, there was never a State of Israel either. There was once a kingdom. However, for a far longer period of Jewish history in the region, from the Roman era until May 15th 1948,
Jews lived there as Palestinians.
Like the holey olde Hasbara mantra
“we made the deserts bloom” and what has been carefully
cherry picked from Mark Twain, whether there was or was not a Palestinian State or people, is completely irrelevant to the legal extent of Israel’s Internationally recognized sovereignty and Israel’s obligations under the
UN Charter, Chapt XI.
Like all the Hasbara attempts to justify the usurping of the Palestinians from their rightful territory, these mantras are simply ******** (rlent added clarification: male bovine feces)
From The Arabic and Middle Eastern Electronic Library at Yale:
By all means please feel free to continue tilting at windmills ... the more instructional aids you want to provide me with the better ...
of course, it will ultimately be at your expense ...
