Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just out of curiosity, how many innocent casualties are worth 1 military casualty?

Roughly one.

Or, since you care so much about "those poor jewish bastards" (which indicates to me that you don't care about Israeli's so much as you care about Jews), how many Jews should be killed for each Palistinian?

None. It doesn't work that way.

They are. Your map displays a tremendous ignorance about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Starting right from the beginning.

No, it really doesn't. As the comparative military superpower in the region that beat all of it's neighbors simultaneously in a week it doesn't seem like it's defending against much at all. That its kills significantly more then it's lost while its territory has expanded dramatically further indicates that the pro Israel line of defense is an impressive lie. That it's been bulldozing homes outside of it's territory and setting up settlements for decades is further testament to that.

Honestly, unless you're going to point out some sort of secret history of conflict then you don't have a leg to stand on. You can believe that they are the defenders with all of your heart, but frankly the numbers tell a starkly different story.

biccat wrote:
I'm sure you believe you're making some incredibly clever point, but the rest of us aren't so sure.

Are you saying that you're not lying? Or are you admitting that you're lying?

Sorry.

I was agreeing with you.

As you so ably demonstrated.


Please don't call other posters liars BTW.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how many innocent casualties are worth 1 military casualty?

Roughly one.

Well, that's an unfortunate perspective.

ShumaGorath wrote:None. It doesn't work that way.

So 0 Jews for each Muslim. I find this doesn't work with your earlier comment lamenting the effectiveness of the Israeli military to deal with terrorists. Could you please elaborate?

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:Your map displays a tremendous ignorance about the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Starting right from the beginning.

No, it really doesn't.

Sure it does.

The British Mandate of Palestine (that is, 'Palistine before 1948') included Transjordan. The area west of the Jordan river was to be established as a Jewish homeland (without prejudicing existing occupants). Therefore, the first map is at least deceptive as it does not indicate that "Palestine" as originally conceived was to be a Jewish area.

The second, obviously, raises the issue that the Muslims in Palestine didn't accept the UN partition plan. Therefore, the partition plan remains solely a U.N. recommendation, not an actual enforcable agreement. The party with authority over the Mandate, Great Britain, refused to enforce the plan. Therefore, the second map is deceptive.

The third map (and second) ignores the fact that Jordan and Egypt held the West Bank and Gaza Strip and that these lands (part of "Historic Palestine") were actually occupied in 1949 by foreign nations.

As for the fourth, I'm not sure exactly what it is showing except to differentiate Jewish from Muslim settlements.

Obviously one problem throughout the maps is that the author attempts to claim all of Palestine as a Muslim (Arab) land and paints "Israel" as an occupying force. However, a contrary picture can be painted. Before 1947-8, Palestine/Israel had 0% local control. The UN Partition plan tried to split control. In 1949, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by a foreign nation. Only in 1967 was Palestine/Israel brought under a single government. Now 12% is attempting to split away and form their own country.

reds8n wrote:Please don't call other posters liars BTW.

I'll admit, I lolled.

Well, that's an unfortunate perspective.

Why?

So 0 Jews for each Muslim. I find this doesn't work with your earlier comment lamenting the effectiveness of the Israeli military to deal with terrorists. Could you please elaborate?

I'm drawing a conclusion about the intent and methodology of Israeli military efforts, not their efficacy. No one would think to dispute that Israelis are great at blowing people up. A helicopter is way better at it then an old soviet dumbfire rocket.

The British Mandate of Palestine (that is, 'Palistine before 1948') included Transjordan. The area west of the Jordan river was to be established as a Jewish homeland (without prejudicing existing occupants). Therefore, the first map is at least deceptive as it does not indicate that "Palestine" as originally conceived was to be a Jewish area.

As was originally conceived and what was implemented are quite different and they're prejudicing original occupants to a pretty high degree regardless.

The second, obviously, raises the issue that the Muslims in Palestine didn't accept the UN partition plan. Therefore, the partition plan remains solely a U.N. recommendation, not an actual enforcable agreement. The party with authority over the Mandate, Great Britain, refused to enforce the plan. Therefore, the second map is deceptive.

Insofar as the borders to Israel are fluid and unrecognized by virtually any party. Israel thinks they're bigger, the UN thinks they're smaller, Palestine thinks they're significantly smaller. No mapped document of the border line is official in en enforceable capacity beyond what the Israelis draw themselves (as they're the ones enforcing it) and most of the world takes issue with what isreal proclaims is its territory. The map could certainly be construed as deceptive, but by the logic you are putting forth any map would be. It's a disputed territory and it's hard to argue that the borders to Israel have not expanded significantly past their original line by most estimates or that by the british mandate that the Israelis have not prejudiced the occupants.

The third map (and second) ignores the fact that Jordan and Egypt held the West Bank and Gaza Strip and that these lands (part of "Historic Palestine") were actually occupied in 1949 by foreign nations.

That doesn't really dispute the point of the growing Israeli state.

As for the fourth, I'm not sure exactly what it is showing except to differentiate Jewish from Muslim settlements.

It's showing the effective Israeli borders as governed by the security wall, which ostensibly is to enforce a border which is often times a significant distance away from the wall. It's a physical object to denote what the israelis wish to be their borders (and which cuts through dozens of Palestinian towns, often times with the aim of driving the residents to flee or into poverty). The wall line is perhaps the most useful way to differentiate what constitutes Israeli 'territory' whether legitimate or not.

Obviously one problem throughout the maps is that the author attempts to claim all of Palestine as a Muslim (Arab) land and paints "Israel" as an occupying force. However, a contrary picture can be painted. Before 1947-8, Palestine/Israel had 0% local control. The UN Partition plan tried to split control. In 1949, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by a foreign nation. Only in 1967 was Palestine/Israel brought under a single government. Now 12% is attempting to split away and form their own country.

Does that make their concerns over the right to life or economic prosperity less legitimate? Does it make the gaza blockade or the settlement plans more legitimate?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well, that's an unfortunate perspective.

Why?

Because it means that civilians are legitimate targets of military force.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So 0 Jews for each Muslim. I find this doesn't work with your earlier comment lamenting the effectiveness of the Israeli military to deal with terrorists. Could you please elaborate?

I'm drawing a conclusion about the intent and methodology of Israeli military efforts, not their efficacy. No one would think to dispute that Israelis are great at blowing people up. A helicopter is way better at it then an old soviet dumbfire rocket.

I believe you meant "efficiency," not "efficacy." They're two different words. Efficacy is the capacity to produce an effect. Efficiency is how well it works.

I'm not picking on you specifically for grammar, the use of "efficacy" as a substitute for "efficiency" has gotten a lot of play recently, and frankly it s me off.

Sorry.

ShumaGorath wrote:The map could certainly be construed as deceptive, but by the logic you are putting forth any map would be. It's a disputed territory and it's hard to argue that the borders to Israel have not expanded significantly past their original line by most estimates or that by the british mandate that the Israelis have not prejudiced the occupants.

Well, like I said, Israel hasn't expanded beyond the British Mandate. And while there are legitimate disagreements on the borders between Israel and Palestine (which isn't actually a separate country), the overall perspective presented by the maps you showed was incorrect and misleading.

ShumaGorath wrote:That doesn't really dispute the point of the growing Israeli state.

Yes it does. If Israel lost land and retook it, then Israel isn't growing.

ShumaGorath wrote:Does that make their concerns over the right to life or economic prosperity less legitimate? Does it make the gaza blockade or the settlement plans more legitimate?

Irrelevant for this discussion. I addressed the validity of the maps, not the concerns of those Muslims living in Israel/Palestine.

Because it means that civilians are legitimate targets of military force.

So Hamas is now a legitimate military force? Or are we discussing the conduct of the Israeli military? Given that neither force is at 'war' since the last gaza offensive and given that one of the two sides doesn't possess a military at all it would appear that you're throwing some pretty loaded sentiments at me.

I believe you meant "efficiency," not "efficacy." They're two different words. Efficacy is the capacity to produce an effect. Efficiency is how well it works.

I'm not claiming the Israeli military is efficient. They're great at 'producing effects', but those effects are rarely their stated goals. The war in gaza hardly stamped out Hamas and was a PR disaster for Israel and the common response to a rocket or mortar attack is to airstrike and then secure the area, regardless of civilian presence. An efficient force wouldn't need to constantly exercise force beyond what is necessary as the Israeli military is known for.

Well, like I said, Israel hasn't expanded beyond the British Mandate. And while there are legitimate disagreements on the borders between Israel and Palestine (which isn't actually a separate country), the overall perspective presented by the maps you showed was incorrect and misleading.

Because you somehow got it into your head that the british mandate is legitimate at this point, or that it ever was something enforced beyond paper maps in the (very) early planning stages. The 1949 armistice agreement which attempted to draw the borders of israel look nothing like the modern state and it's as close to a starting border as it gets.

ShumaGorath wrote:
That doesn't really dispute the point of the growing Israeli state.

Yes it does. If Israel lost land and retook it, then Israel isn't growing.

To be fair Israel after the 1949 Armistice included neither the West Bank or Gaza, neither did the Palestinians. The areas were controlled by Jordan and Egypt respectively. There was little to no agitation for a Palestinian state while those areas were under foreign rule for nearly 20 years.
So Israel did acquire those areas and the Golan, as well as the Sinai. They held the Sinai for 11 years. Given that Israel gave up the Sinai willingly (it's really a worthless stretch of land but strategically important) it's hard to make the case that expansion is their only goal.
No one really makes much noise about the fact that the IDF forcibly removed the Jews living in Gaza. There's no great outcry for the displacement of those people or their rights. It probably has to do with the fact that it's ideologically inconvenient that the Knesset evicted Jews for Palestinians.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Because it means that civilians are legitimate targets of military force.

So Hamas is now a legitimate military force? Or are we discussing the conduct of the Israeli military? Given that neither force is at 'war' since the last gaza offensive and given that one of the two sides doesn't possess a military at all it would appear that you're throwing some pretty loaded sentiments at me.

My personal belief is that violence against military targets is legitimate in pursuit of a political or military goal (even if it's by ambush or surprise attack) while violence against civilians is not. So attacking the World Trade Center is terrorism while attacking the Pentagon is a military attack (note that using civilians as the means for the attack makes it terrorism).

ShumaGorath wrote:Because you somehow got it into your head that the british mandate is legitimate at this point, or that it ever was something enforced beyond paper maps in the (very) early planning stages. The 1949 armistice agreement which attempted to draw the borders of israel look nothing like the modern state and it's as close to a starting border as it gets.

Are you talking about the British Mandate or the U.N. Partition plan? If the British Mandate isn't legitimate, then Palestine belongs to the Ottomans. That also calls into question the validity of the states of Syria and Jordan.

I'm not sure if Turkey wants or has legal claim to these areas.

My personal belief is that violence against military targets is legitimate in pursuit of a political or military goal (even if it's by ambush or surprise attack) while violence against civilians is not. So attacking the World Trade Center is terrorism while attacking the Pentagon is a military attack (note that using civilians as the means for the attack makes it terrorism).

I stopped really drawing the line when we started arguing about what determined enemy combat status. We've just fought in three wars, two against a plain clothes non military insurgency and one fighting for such an insurgency. There is no difference any more and terrorism is no less legitimate now then it was when we were firebombing cities in japan. It's an awful thing, but it's not the sole purview of extremists like we're pretending and it's little different then any doctrine that tolerates collateral damage (such as Israels).

Are you talking about the British Mandate or the U.N. Partition plan? If the British Mandate isn't legitimate, then Palestine belongs to the Ottomans. That also calls into question the validity of the states of Syria and Jordan.

I'm not sure if Turkey wants or has legal claim to these areas.

One and then the other. The mandate specified the region, but it wasn't until the post war that it was utilized to create the state of Israel as we see it today and it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation. Israels borders have expanded by virtually every drawn map excluding the mandate ever produced.

Turkey has some pretty questionable (but existent) legal claims to a few areas in Israel, but I doubt they actually want them. It's not even close to worth the trouble.

AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Dry and crappy climate and no booze for you

erm...you know I never knew they made vodka in a can until I went to the sandbox. I won't condone disobeying the general orders but for some reason that one sticks...Vodka...in a can.

I've learned something, and that something is intriguing.

ShumaGorath wrote:I stopped really drawing the line when we started arguing about what determined enemy combat status.

And that's unfortunate.

ShumaGorath wrote:One and then the other. The mandate specified the region, but it wasn't until the post war that it was utilized to create the state of Israel as we see it today and it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation. Israels borders have expanded by virtually every drawn map excluding the mandate ever produced.

I'm not sure what your dispute with the Mandate is. Do you dispute the validity of the mandate or do you dispute how the British handled it? I'm pretty sure I could agree with the latter, but not the former.

Also, I'm not sure how much authority you should give to cartographers.

I'm not sure what your dispute with the Mandate is. Do you dispute the validity of the mandate or do you dispute how the British handled it? I'm pretty sure I could agree with the latter, but not the former.

The latter and it's handling and transition into the maps drawn up during the armistice. The mandates maps were drawn in the 20's.

Also, I'm not sure how much authority you should give to cartographers.

That shoots the mandate down pretty hard then, the British occupation in practice did very little to enforce the borders of occupied Palestine and as has been pointed out earlier Palestine pre Israel was just a border surrounding (and cutting through) a series of non aligned tribes.

That's why I was giving such weight to the border map that follows the wall earlier in the thread. It's a real thing. An enforced territory marker.

ShumaGorathquote wrote:

Are you talking about the British Mandate or the U.N. Partition plan? If the British Mandate isn't legitimate, then Palestine belongs to the Ottomans. That also calls into question the validity of the states of Syria and Jordan.

I'm not sure if Turkey wants or has legal claim to these areas.

One and then the other. The mandate specified the region, but it wasn't until the post war that it was utilized to create the state of Israel as we see it today and it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation. Israels borders have expanded by virtually every drawn map excluding the mandate ever produced.

The Mandate of Palestine was drafted voted and passed by the League of Nations, it's called the British Mandate because they were given the ruling authority just as France recieved the Mandate of Syria.
The original mandate looked like this

The 1922 mandate which is what is oft quoted looked like this

Part of the Golan Hieghts were ceded to Syria in 1923. In the 1922 Mandate the area for the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the Transjordan were referred to as Palestine. The Mandate did indeed draw the border of a new state, just as the madates of Syria, and Iraq did. Your argument that the mandate specified a region is ill founded, as is your understanding of when the Mandate was put into place and what it entailed, as it was entirely a post war affair meant to create new nations from the defeated Ottoman Empire. "exluding the mandate" exludes you from any reasonable conversation about Palestine as a region after WWI. So if you want to talk about the "Two State solution", there already is one. Arab Palestine (Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel).

Part of the Golan Hieghts were ceded to Syria in 1923. In the 1922 Mandate the area for the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the Transjordan were referred to as Palestine. The Mandate did indeed draw the border of a new state, just as the madates of Syria, and Iraq did. Your argument that the mandate specified a region is ill founded, as is your understanding of when the Mandate was put into place and what it entailed, as it was entirely a post war affair meant to create new nations from the defeated Ottoman Empire. "exluding the mandate" exludes you from any reasonable conversation about Palestine as a region after WWI. So if you want to talk about the "Two State solution", there already is one. Arab Palestine (Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel).

And next time we're discussing Americas borders lets just use the colonial maps! They're really relevant these days.



Now if we're going by their actual territory though the map is a lot less pretty. I know about the mandate, I've taken history classes before the wiki is nice and informative anyway. The partitioning of land nearly a century ago does not accurately reflect the nation building of a half century ago and has next to nothing to do with the border disputes today.

That you continue to act like the mandate is at all relevant to this conversation outside of setting an irrelevant historical context makes me question what the hell you're trying to prove here.

MAP FIGHT!!!!


Please don't attach non wargaming images directly to Dakka please. Use off site hosting , image tags etc etc Thanks.

The google wars have gone hot!

Is there more to say about this than they should just stop killing each other and settle down into a two state solution?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:MAP FIGHT!!!!

biccat wrote:
He's dumb because people think he's dumb.

Shocking, I know, that the way a person is perceived might have an impact on the labels people use to describe him.

I counter with....

http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/5085

biccat wrote:
I mean, I understand that people love to make gak up about President Bush, but to flat-out lie? I suppose it's not unexpected.

Bush's grades at Yale (2.35/4 as stated by his campaign) were well below the present average entry scores for Harvard Business School (3.5) with no student admitted with less than a 2.6 in 1997. Even if we allow for significant grade inflation, which is possible, it is still almost certain that Bush's grades were well below the average admitted GPA.

He didn't release his grades from Phillips (though the name alone would give him a significant leg up in terms of Ivy admissions), but his cumulative SAT of 1206 was ~200 points below Yale's admitted average of 1400 for the Freshman class of 1970. Granted, as I said, he likely was admitted to Yale as a result of being a Phillips graduate, and a legacy; though that doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of qualification (many people will see it that way, though).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Part of the Golan Hieghts were ceded to Syria in 1923. In the 1922 Mandate the area for the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the Transjordan were referred to as Palestine. The Mandate did indeed draw the border of a new state, just as the madates of Syria, and Iraq did. Your argument that the mandate specified a region is ill founded, as is your understanding of when the Mandate was put into place and what it entailed, as it was entirely a post war affair meant to create new nations from the defeated Ottoman Empire. "exluding the mandate" exludes you from any reasonable conversation about Palestine as a region after WWI. So if you want to talk about the "Two State solution", there already is one. Arab Palestine (Jordan) and Jewish Palestine (Israel).

Now if we're going by their actual territory though the map is a lot less pretty. I know about the mandate, I've taken history classes before the wiki is nice and informative anyway. The partitioning of land nearly a century ago does not accurately reflect the nation building of a half century ago and has next to nothing to do with the border disputes today.

Your history teacher failed you, or you failed him/her. I also doubt you had an in depth conversation about the creation of the state of Israel in any American education system below the college level. Since "the wiki is nice and informative" lets post text from the article you took your failed map link from.

Wikipedia wrote:The plan included a detailed description of the recommended boundaries for each proposed state.The plan also called for an economic union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency. The plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the Palestine Arab Higher Committee etc.), who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.

That you continue to act like the mandate is at all relevant to this conversation outside of setting an irrelevant historical context makes me question what the hell you're trying to prove here.

Are you sure you took history? Lets link your favorite article.

Wikipedia wrote:an independent state of Israel was declared "from the moment of the termination of the Mandate"

Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.

ShumaGorath wrote:The mandate specified the region it's maps were used primarily to designate the borders of surrounding states, not to draw the map of a new nation.

You posted factually inaccurate remarks about the mandate and I refuted them.

The Mandate for Palestine wrote: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

You can post factual information and continue a discussion or just continue to ignore the real world like you normally do.

Your history teacher failed you, or you failed him/her. I also doubt you had an in depth conversation about the creation of the state of Israel in any American education system below the college level. Since "the wiki is nice and informative" lets post text from the article you took your failed map link from.

I'm a graduate from two colleges, though I thank you for the insult. Don't you love these tit for tats? As for the map, its hell of a lot more accurate then the 90 year old mandate that you seem to still think is legitimate or observed. The partition plan is the closest thing the modern state of Israel ever had to an internationally recognized border, it was based roughly on the mandate and broke down almost immediately. What the hell are you arguing? That it doesn't exist? That it is somehow superseded by the original writ of the mandate? That Israels borders are rightfully fluid because of the nebulous nature of their initial founding?

Please clarify what you're blithering on about. I know you vehemently disagree about something, but you really need to clarify what that actually is.

Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.

The termination of the mandate sure doesn't sound like "it's continuing legitimacy as legal writ for the next 60 years".

After the Second World War ended, the United Kingdom announced its intention of recognizing Transjordan as a "fully independent state" on 17 January 1946, and this was welcomed unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 February 1946.[15] On 22 March 1946, the United Kingdom and Transjordan concluded a treaty of "friendship and alliance" [15]. On 18 April 1946 the final meeting of the League of Nations Assembly unanimously passed a resolution welcoming the termination of the mandated status of Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, "which have ... become independent members of the world community."[15] These developments were not welcomed by Zionist organizations. A Jewish Agency spokesman said that Transjordan was an integral part of Palestine, and that according to Article 80 of the UN Charter,[16] the Jewish people still had a secured interest in its territory.

In fact I'm pretty sure no one has cared about the mandate in a very long time.

You posted factually inaccurate remarks about the mandate and I refuted them.

No. I didn't. You just don't know the history as well as you think you do or you've taken a stance older then frazzled and just as confusing.

You can post factual information and continue a discussion or just continue to ignore the real world like you normally do.

The British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948,[119] However, early in 1948, the United Kingdom announced its firm intention to end its mandate in Palestine on 14 May. In response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition, stating that "unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means... unless emergency action is taken, there will be no public authority in Palestine on that date capable of preserving law and order. Violence and bloodshed will descend upon the Holy Land. Large-scale fighting among the people of that country will be the inevitable result."[120]

I think we all know what happened after that. Your history teacher apparently stopped assigning reading a few years before '48.

AustonT wrote:
Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.

Not quite. So I don't have to type out the explanation, here's a wiki quote:

A statement on "British Policy in Palestine," issued on 3 June 1922 by the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement included "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization

Your history teacher failed you

damn the unions. Need to get rid of bad teachers

We're good Shum so don't think you got me riled all up or anything like that. Seems someone getting testy?. Beside there's a Height requirement for that attempt and you don't make it

Jihadin wrote:

Your history teacher failed you

damn the unions. Need to get rid of bad teachers

We're good Shum so don't think you got me riled all up or anything like that. Seems someone getting testy?. Beside there's a Height requirement for that attempt and you don't make it

I don't understand why you're quoting him. Are you attributing that to me? Am I getting testy? Why am I short? What am I too short for?

This post has me all kinds of confused.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Not the UN resolution that the "Palestinians" you want to defend so much rejected, the Mandate that gave the entire area to the Jews who established the state of Israel.

Not quite. So I don't have to type out the explanation, here's a wiki quote:

A statement on "British Policy in Palestine," issued on 3 June 1922 by the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement included "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization

And an excellent one!
I have to ask the question: Have you ever read the Mandate of Palestine?

Its all the in the mind

Reading this thread is more fun than watching a COPs "Busted Hookers" marathon!

*Grabs Popcorn and pulls up a chair*

kronk wrote:Reading this thread is more fun than watching a COPs "Busted Hookers" marathon!

*Grabs Popcorn and pulls up a chair*

Mind if I have some?

*Hands kronk a soda*

I'm a graduate from two colleges, though I thank you for the insult.

This shall be sigged.
Proof that education doesn't equal intellect

As for the map, its hell of a lot more accurate then the 90 year old mandate that you seem to still think is legitimate or observed.

So your map that is three quarters the age, feth it lets use real numbers, that is 67 years old is relevant today but the Mandate map that is 89 years old is not.

The partition plan is the closest thing the modern state of Israel ever had to an internationally recognized border, it was based roughly on the mandate and broke down almost immediately.

More factually incorrect nonsense. The border with Jordan was formalized in 1994, with Egypt in 1979, Lebanon in 2000, and with Syria at the Purple line in 1967 The Golan hieghts remaining an occupied territory of Syria. All of those borders are internationally recognized.

No. I didn't. You just don't know the history as well as you think you do or you've taken a stance older then frazzled and just as confusing.

Its a shame those two college educations left you without the ability to find your way out of this confusion given the plethora of documentation related to the subject.