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.

AustonT wrote:
I have to ask the question: Have you ever read the Mandate of Palestine?

Its been a few years, but yes.

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

Oh noooooooooo

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 mandate map isn't relevant because it's not relevant. It's not recognized by anyone anywhere outside of your chair as the current boundaries of the state of Israel. It hasn't been for roughly 67 years. I still don't understand what you're arguing or what you're trying to say I'm incorrect on.

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.

The border with Jordan and Egypt follow very closely along the partition plan, the border with Syria is contested and has changed three times in half a century. What are you arguing?

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.

And it's a shame you've yet to actually make a point in two pages of arguing. Get to one. this is growing tiresome and the shifting sands you're surfing around on are making me sleepy. So now you don't care about the mandate? Why did you bring it up so many times? Their borders are now determined by conflict resolutions? Well it's good that you're getting on the boat three pages too late. Find a point and say it.

the wiki is nice and informative anyway.

No its not. The articles relating to the Palestine-Israeli conflict on Wiki are horrible and have been the subject of more edit wars than any other article on the site as the two hyper-political sides bicker back and forth over who's evil-er.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The mandate map isn't relevant because it's not relevant. It's not recognized by anyone anywhere outside of your chair as the current boundaries of the state of Israel. It hasn't been for roughly 67 years. I still don't understand what you're arguing or what you're trying to say I'm incorrect on.

The Mandate was in effect for 26 years, The UN partition plan was never in effect. If we want to talk about relvance you citing an resolution unrecognized by either party seems irrelevant. So while the Mandate hasnt been in effect for 67 years the Partition Plan never was, I guess that make it irrelevant.

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.

The border with Jordan and Egypt follow very closely along the partition plan, the border with Syria is contested and has changed three times in half a century. What are you arguing?

ROFL. What are YOU arguing? Or do you even know? The Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace treaties established the borders with respect to the Mandate. Remeber that Mandate no one has recognized for 67 years but has been cited in treaties in 1979 and 1994?

And it's a shame you've yet to actually make a point in two pages of arguing. Get to one. this is growing tiresome and the shifting sands you're surfing around on are making me sleepy. So now you don't care about the mandate? Why did you bring it up so many times? Their borders are now determined by conflict resolutions? Well it's good that you're getting on the boat three pages too late. Find a point and say it.

I don't have to make a point, as I am on the counter-point side of this discussion. These shifting sands seem to be made of of that strange, almost etheral, collection of internationally recognized documents readily available to you and anyone else before you vomit up your factually incorrect nonsense. Having failed to fact check your statements I have tirelessly corrected and cited references for you.
/scoffs
Conflict resolutions. They are called treaties. Treaties often contain mutual agreements on borders (Article II of the '79 treaty and Article III of the '94 treaty).
You're right it has been two pages, you have yet to produce a factual argument. Good Luck.

The Mandate was in effect for 26 years, The UN partition plan was never in effect. If we want to talk about relvance you citing an resolution unrecognized by either party seems irrelevant. So while the Mandate hasnt been in effect for 67 years the Partition Plan never was, I guess that make it irrelevant.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was created by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181.[1]

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. Passage of the resolution required a two-thirds majority of the valid votes (i.e. not counting abstaining and absent members).

The majority of the Jewish groups, and the Jewish Agency subsequently announced their acceptance of the proposed Jewish State, and by implication the proposed international zone, and Arab State. However, it had been stipulated that the implementation of the plan did not make the establishment of one state or territory dependent on the establishment of the others.[25]

The plan went into effect in the following 60 years about as much as the mandate or any other form of border delineation. Most of it had to be decided via conflict along the proposed border lines, and most of those border lines stuck. It's no less legitimate then the mandate which ceased to exist at about the same time as the Israeli state since the partition was meant to replace it. This is the problem here, neither of these law sets are particularly powerful in the modern day but you're sitting here screaming in my ear about the superiority of the older and the irrelevance of the younger despite both of them being fairly irrelevant and one being the effective sequel to the other.

ROFL. What are YOU arguing? Or do you even know?

At this point I have no idea, you've just been yelling at me without really telling me why.

The Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace treaties established the borders with respect to the Mandate. Remeber that Mandate no one has recognized for 67 years but has been cited in treaties in 1979 and 1994?

No, they were signed with respect to established and UN recognized borders laid out in the partition plan which is based very roughly on a heavily modified redrawing of the mandate. The mandate is in there. It's still important historically. Its just not what this gaks based on any more.

I don't have to make a point, as I am on the counter-point side of this discussion.

So previously you didn't have to debate in good faith and now you don't even have to have a point. Are you just here to yell at pinkos?

These shifting sands seem to be made of of that strange, almost etheral, collection of internationally recognized documents readily available to you and anyone else before you vomit up your factually incorrect nonsense.

Yes. Clearly. Events between 1936 and 1948 are a myth. They dissapeared when the time wizard stole our calenders.

Having failed to fact check your statements I have tirelessly corrected and cited references for you.

Not really. You've been blowing past what I've been citing and you've been restating the same crap over and over again. You do that. A lot.

Conflict resolutions. They are called treaties. Treaties often contain mutual agreements on borders (Article II of the '79 treaty and Article III of the '94 treaty).
You're right it has been two pages, you have yet to produce a factual argument. Good Luck.

So their borders are based on the treaties based on the partition plan based on the mandate, so they are all based directly on the mandate (despite it being null and void well before those conflicts) and I am wrong about everything. Got it. Cool. I'm going to use that logical fallacy train at the next station and see how you react to it. I doubt you'll react well.

Chowderhead wrote:

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*

Careful! I've read what he puts in his popcorn.....

ShumaGorath wrote:No, they were signed with respect to established and UN recognized borders laid out in the partition plan which is based very roughly on a heavily modified redrawing of the mandate. The mandate is in there. It's still important historically. Its just not what this gaks based on any more.

From the Jordanian Goverment website

The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty wrote:The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

From the Israeli MFA

Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty wrote:The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II

No mention whatsoever of UN resolution 181 or the boundries contained within. Probably has to do with the fact that UN 181 was a non-binding reccomendation, the Mandate remaining the only binding (one might say "mandatory") agreement in place until 14 May 1948

ShumaGorath wrote:Not really. You've been blowing past what I've been citing and you've been restating the same crap over and over again. You do that. A lot.

"The same crap" happen to be binding internationally recognized Mandates and treaties, matters of public record. You cited WIKIPEDIA, which is all well and good for a quick surface reference, but holds no water against specific primary sources.
Heres your source from wikipedia

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was created by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181

Heres an excerpt from the preamble of UN 181

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below

UN 181 was a recommendation that included an appeal to the parties to follow the resolution. Had you taken the time to look at the actual resolution you would find that several of the belligerent parties voted against the resolution specifically Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.Those are just the nieghbors, the whole Arab League voted agasint UN 181, and since the Arab League pact established Palestine as a member in its inaugeration you can discard any furthur mention of the 1947 partition plan in support of the people we know refer to as Palestinans, as the PLO also originated in the Arab League. They didnt want it then you dont get to claim it for them now, it's an inconvienant truth. Its...irrelevant.

ShumaGorath wrote:So their borders are based on the treaties based on the partition plan based on the mandate, so they are all based directly on the mandate (despite it being null and void well before those conflicts) and I am wrong about everything. Got it. Cool. I'm going to use that logical fallacy train at the next station and see how you react to it. I doubt you'll react well.

Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above. The only thing you've been right about is the Iraeli embargo on oranges. Bravo.

No mention whatsoever of UN resolution 181 or the boundries contained within. Probably has to do with the fact that UN 181 was a non-binding reccomendation, the Mandate remaining the only binding (one might say "mandatory") agreement in place until 14 May 1948

The mandate was suspended in 1946 in transjordan and syria and in 1948 in palestine (it was suspended directly because of the partition plan). The mandate was neither binding nor mandatory in 1948. Jordan also signed the armistice with Israel in 49. The reason egypts and transjordans borders reflect the mandate is because they already did and because the partition plan was to partition the state of Palestine between arabs and jews, not adjust it's borders with the pre established nations surrounding it (which were spun off as previously mentioned). The partition is what established israeli and palestinian zones of control, not the mandate. I don't understand what you're arguing.

Are you trying to establish that the mandate is currently a legitimate legal law set that is enforced? Are you trying to establish that the partition plan never did anything? I never said that the mandate wasn't important historically, in fact I've said it was twice. I stated that it didn't reflect the creation of the modern state of israel and that it didn't reflect the creation of israeli and Palestinian governed territories in the region. It didn't.

UN 181 was a recommendation that included an appeal to the parties to follow the resolution. Had you taken the time to look at the actual resolution you would find that several of the belligerent parties voted against the resolution specifically Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.Those are just the nieghbors, the whole Arab League voted agasint UN 181, and since the Arab League pact established Palestine as a member in its inaugeration you can discard any furthur mention of the 1947 partition plan in support of the people we know refer to as Palestinans, as the PLO also originated in the Arab League. They didnt want it then you dont get to claim it for them now, it's an inconvienant truth. Its...irrelevant.

Actually, the wikipedia had all that under the section of arab reactions to the law. I quoted bits from it earlier. The thing of it is that it doesn't matter if they recognized it. Hell, they had a war about it (more then once). The mandate was becoming unenforceable as the British empire was pulling back from the region, the partition plan was designed to provide a framework for the seperation between jewish and palestinian communities. Its something the mandate didn't do and the resolution is still there and oft referenced as a point of origin for the territorial disputes between the two peoples.

Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above. The only thing you've been right about is the Iraeli embargo on oranges. Bravo.

The partition plan is the territorial line used during most of the formation of Israel. Hardline elements within the early Israeli ruling body wanted the mandate borders that included transjordan and the arab league unanimously refused to recognize the partition plan. The founding of the jewish state still used the partition plans borders with the caveat of willful expansion of the jewish state in the aftermath of the war. The reason their actual modern borders are a nearly exact duplicate of the partition borders (excepting the current Palestinian governed territories) and look nothing like the original mandate is because the state was established within those borders, whether their neighbors were legally bound by them or not.

As for modern mention of the partition plan, the Palestinians seem to like to talk about it a lot in modern times (primarily because it was one of the few internationally recognized pieces of legislation that gave them borders).

AustonT wrote:
Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above.

Israel's borders are based on the Mandate to some extent, but the partition plan is far from irrelevant. As I noted earlier, Israel itself does not claim the West Bank or Gaza. It also explicitly violates Mandatory Borders with its claim to the Golan Heights.

More to the point, the reason that the Partition Plan is not mentioned in the peace treaties you've brought up is that doing so would entail taking an active position on the Palestinian issue, or one of the relevant countries laying claim to part of the OT, which is not necessarily material to a non-aggression pact.

. posted early

AustonT wrote:. posted early

This is a placeholder for something that's going to hurt my self esteem isn't it?

ShumaGorath wrote:The mandate was suspended in 1946 in transjordan and syria

voted and approved at the final meeting of the League of Nations ending and not suspending the mandate as a nation was formed in each case.

and in 1948 in palestine (it was suspended directly because of the partition plan). The mandate was neither binding nor mandatory in 1948.

this contains two incorrect statements at least one of which I have already corrected for you before.
1. The mandate was not suspended because of the partition plan the partition plan was a reaction to the announcement by Britain of it's intent to end the Mandate by 1 August 1948. Let's talk chronology. On 7 FEB 1947 Britain announced it's intention to end the Mandate no later than 1 AUG 1948. On 15 MAY1947 the UN Special Committee on Palestine was formed. The committee delivered it's report on 31 AUG 1947, the plan was voted on 29 NOV 1947. 8 months after the announcement from the Foreign Office. The mandate's termination was not related to the partition plan. You could say the plan was created specifically because of the impending termination of the mandate, but not the other way around
2. The Mandate remained in effect and binding until 14 MAY 1948 as announced in SEP 1947, again before the vote on UN 181 even occurred and just to reenforce the point that the partition plan is and was not a legitimate binding international document: from your favorite!

Wikipedia wrote:It is important to note that the UN General Assembly is only granted the power to make recommendations, therefore, UNGAR 181 was not legally binding.

Jordan also signed the armistice with Israel in 49. The reason egypts and transjordans borders reflect the mandate is because they already did and because the partition plan was to partition the state of Palestine between arabs and jews, not adjust it's borders with the pre established nations surrounding it (which were spun off as previously mentioned). The partition is what established israeli and palestinian zones of control, not the mandate. I don't understand what you're arguing.

You had a valid point and then you lost it again by referring to the partition plan. For the last time and I'll even use caps THE PARTITION PLAN IS NOT, HAS NOT,AND WILL NEVER BE BINDING. It is a historical document that falls into the realm of "good idea" but not "legal document" The reason the Mandate instead of say the 49 Armistice is mentioned is partly because the borders of Transjordan were solidified based on the 22 Mandate that split the original Mandate and partly because the last level document establishing borders was the 22 Mandate. The 49 Armistice specifically stated it did not determine permanent borders. The 67 Armistice had become the de jure borders but were hotly contested so the Mandate supplemented by the 67 Armistice were used as the basis for the Egypt and Jordan treaties. Pack up your partition plan and dont bring it back to a discussion about Israels borders in the region.

Are you trying to establish that the mandate is currently a legitimate legal law set that is enforced?

No the treaties are the legitimate legal set that is enforced when discussing the subject of borders, which unless you decided to chang horse midstream was the core issue.

Are you trying to establish that the partition plan never did anything?

I don't have to establish that, it's a fact.

I never said that the mandate wasn't important historically, in fact I've said it was twice. I stated that it didn't reflect the creation of the modern state of israel and that it didn't reflect the creation of israeli and Palestinian governed territories in the region. It didn't.

We were discussing borders, I specifically took issue with the statement that the 49 armistice was the closest thing to legal border Israel had. In the creation of the State of Israel you have a factual point in invoking the partition plan but not excluding the mandate. Both are referenced in the Declaration of Independance, and both are included in the declaratory clause; historically speaking its important to note that the Declaration was basically from the Jews TO the UN. 40 years later when it became apparent that the Palestinains would not be able to take "Palestine" the Modern state of Israel they appealed to the UN for statehood and were granted it on the same basis for which Israel had.

ShumaGorath wrote:

UN 181 was a recommendation that included an appeal to the parties to follow the resolution. Had you taken the time to look at the actual resolution you would find that several of the belligerent parties voted against the resolution specifically Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.Those are just the nieghbors, the whole Arab League voted agasint UN 181, and since the Arab League pact established Palestine as a member in its inaugeration you can discard any furthur mention of the 1947 partition plan in support of the people we know refer to as Palestinans, as the PLO also originated in the Arab League. They didnt want it then you dont get to claim it for them now, it's an inconvienant truth. Its...irrelevant.

Actually, the wikipedia had all that under the section of arab reactions to the law. I quoted bits from it earlier. The thing of it is that it doesn't matter if they recognized it. Hell, they had a war about it (more then once). The mandate was becoming unenforceable as the British empire was pulling back from the region, the partition plan was designed to provide a framework for the seperation between jewish and palestinian communities. Its something the mandate didn't do and the resolution is still there and oft referenced as a point of origin for the territorial disputes between the two peoples.

The Arab reaction was total rejection, it's documented. It does matter that they rejectd it as much as it matter they had a war over it, they lost. If I offer you say 75% stock in a company to which I will take 25% in the startup negotiations and you tell me to go pound sand. I build a multibillion dollar wholly and privatly owned business and 40, or even 20 years later you return to demand your 75%, its my turn to tell you to pound sand. The "Palestinians" had an oppourtunity to create an Arab state in 1948, they got greedy and found thier hand caught in the bear trap. Any claim of legitmacy after that is questionable at best, it's an unwise position to support. Had the Palestinians created an Arab state in 1948 and been conquered we'd have a different kettle of fish, they didn't.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above. The only thing you've been right about is the Iraeli embargo on oranges. Bravo.

The partition plan is the territorial line used during most of the formation of Israel. Hardline elements within the early Israeli ruling body wanted the mandate borders that included transjordan and the arab league unanimously refused to recognize the partition plan. The founding of the jewish state still used the partition plans borders with the caveat of willful expansion of the jewish state in the aftermath of the war. The reason their actual modern borders are a nearly exact duplicate of the partition borders (excepting the current Palestinian governed territories) and look nothing like the original mandate is because the state was established within those borders, whether their neighbors were legally bound by them or not.

The discussion on the parition plan is all used up.

ShumaGorath wrote:As for modern mention of the partition plan, the Palestinians seem to like to talk about it a lot in modern times (primarily because it was one of the few internationally recognized pieces of legislation that gave them borders).

See "business" above.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Thier borders are based on the Mandate, which clearly remained important in the region long after it expired, as recently as 1994, no mention is made of the partition plan as noted above.

Israel's borders are based on the Mandate to some extent, but the partition plan is far from irrelevant. As I noted earlier, Israel itself does not claim the West Bank or Gaza. It also explicitly violates Mandatory Borders with its claim to the Golan Heights.

It's claim to the Golan Hieghts is based on offensive military operations that the UN is not allowed to recognize, although "technically" it has a legitimate claim to the hieghts based on the 1920 Palestinain mandate, making that argument is a fools errand.

More to the point, the reason that the Partition Plan is not mentioned in the peace treaties you've brought up is that doing so would entail taking an active position on the Palestinian issue, or one of the relevant countries laying claim to part of the OT, which is not necessarily material to a non-aggression pact.

My self esteeeeeem! Look at that text wall! I'll use this as a placeholder and respond to you later.

And all done on my phone . Shuma if your self esteem is that fragile you wouldn't post on Dakka let alone the OT

AustonT wrote:And all done on my phone . Shuma if your self esteem is that fragile you wouldn't post on Dakka let alone the OT

That is a hell of a phone.

I do about 90% of my posting by phone, that's why It takes so long.

AustonT wrote:
It's claim to the Golan Hieghts is based on offensive military operations that the UN is not allowed to recognize, although "technically" it has a legitimate claim to the hieghts based on the 1920 Palestinain mandate, making that argument is a fools errand.

Do you mean San Remo? If so, my reading of the final division between the British and French mandates, and therefore Israel and Syria, left the majority of what Israel claims of the Golan Heights to Syria.

But yes, you're right, Israel's claim to the Golan is military, my point is that the original Mandate is not inviolate, even for the Israeli state.

AustonT wrote:
All of the signatories of the Arab League took on the formal responsibility to assist Palestine in achieving statehood, so one would think they would take every oppourtunity to reenforce the only document supporting that fact. Unfortunatly thier names being clearly signed in the "against" voting block and their expensive and growing losses to an ever increasingly powerful Israel made it political and possibly even military suicide to demand recognition of the plans borders.

They likely would have if, as you say, they were not so poorly positioned with respect to Israel. However, if the issue of focus were a nonaggression pact, and not Palestinian sovereignty, then there would be no reason to do so; which neatly explains the actions of the Arab states.

AustonT wrote:
I'm thinking of Egypt here specifically, they also recieved the Sinai back so for them the Mandate boundires were advantagous. Truth be told both governments were more than happy to be shut of any real responsibility to enforce a resolution of the Palestinian Question by arms, and therby safe from further Israeli agression.

Sure, but my point is that in the absence of an Israeli claim to Gaza and the West Bank to consider either a part of Israel is misleading. They are not Israeli, not are they Egyptian or Jordanian. They're either stateless, or Palestinian.

@dogma no quotes today I'll answer in order.
Sort of the San Remo conference set up ALL the mandates but they were individually passed. When the Palestinian Mandate was passed it included the Golan Heights. Technically the British violated the mandate by trading the Golan for oil rights in Mosul circa 1923.
Certainly the Mandate is not inviolate, but it is defiantly more applicable than the UN Partition Plan.

2. Nothing to add

This is going to run more to opinion than open fact:
I think Israel in the 70's was more concerned with solidifying their borders and raising children than any concern about or for the Palestinians. So in the 67 war they took and held the two areas as much to say ,"this is ours, feth off" and establish the Mandate borders to the international (read non Arab) community. The fact they now had to deal with an even larger Arab Muslim community that did not identify themselves as Israeli as a consequence. The truth is the Jews didn't WANT to deal with the Palestinians, they just couldn't trust Egypt or Jordan to control them, or indeed to protect Judaism in East Jerusalem.
I might have gone on a tangent here.
They are "technically" no longer stateless as the UN recognized their statehood in 1988. What they lack is true autonomy. I think Israel has proven they would rather be shut of the Palestinians as a group, the 2005 forced relocation of Gaza Jews. Had the Gaza Palestinians remained peaceful I have little doubt Israeli embargoes would have lessened, they did not. And the 2008 Gaza war was the result.
I would love to see nonviolent Palestinian autonomy in the Gaza at least.

AustonT wrote:
Sort of the San Remo conference set up ALL the mandates but they were individually passed. When the Palestinian Mandate was passed it included the Golan Heights. Technically the British violated the mandate by trading the Golan for oil rights in Mosul circa 1923.

It included part of the Golan Heights, but the majority of it had been ceded to France in the Franco-British boundary agreement of 1920, and the ensuing commission to establish borders. The Mandate itself is not particularly specific regarding where the line is drawn, that was left to the French and British to decide, so it wasn't really a violation.

AustonT wrote:
Certainly the Mandate is not inviolate, but it is defiantly more applicable than the UN Partition Plan.

Concerning the territorial claims of Jordan and Egypt, that's true. Its also true regarding what Israel may claim as territory (excepting the Golan), but it isn't particularly relevant to the Palestinian issue.

That being said, the Partition Plan is a proposed solution to the issue in question, and not necessarily a strong claim to territory for Palestinians. Truthfully, it wouldn't even be a bad solution were it not for the attempt to unify Gaza and the West Bank as a single nation, which is misguided on a number of levels.

AustonT wrote:
The truth is the Jews didn't WANT to deal with the Palestinians, they just couldn't trust Egypt or Jordan to control them, or indeed to protect Judaism in East Jerusalem.

I agree with that.

AustonT wrote:
They are "technically" no longer stateless as the UN recognized their statehood in 1988. What they lack is true autonomy. I think Israel has proven they would rather be shut of the Palestinians as a group, the 2005 forced relocation of Gaza Jews. Had the Gaza Palestinians remained peaceful I have little doubt Israeli embargoes would have lessened, they did not. And the 2008 Gaza war was the result.
I would love to see nonviolent Palestinian autonomy in the Gaza at least.

Ultimately its one of those chicken-and-egg scenarios where neither side necessarily has any incentive to back down due to the absence of trust. I think one way of creating that trust would be ending Israeli settlement in the WB, and giving that region full autonomy as an independent state that didn't include Gaza, but that's unlikely to occur.

Wow, I read all 7 pages and have taken away a few things from this discussion.


#1 With all the Dubya talk, no one mentioned Dick Chaney. As to the iraqi conflict, just follow the money, Who made the most money in Iraq...Chaney/halibertion. Blackwater (aka XE) have also made a bundle over there. All this money made from oil and most of the iraqi's are living in sqular, but they have freedom right....right...


#2 THEY HAVE VODKIA IN A CAN!!!! Those arabs are light years ahead of us

And when I was debunking the premise of the title of this thread pages ago I missed the most obvious thing of all, the idea that this failed money hole that's destroyed our economy and countless lives was a "won war". I guess someone tuned out completely after that "Mission Accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier in San Diego Bay years ago. Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.

BrassScorpion wrote:And when I was debunking the premise of the title of this thread pages ago I missed the most obvious thing of all, the idea that this failed money hole that's destroyed our economy and countless lives was a "won war". I guess someone tuned out completely after that "Mission Accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier in San Diego Bay years ago. Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.

Attempting to debunk...

And, what came after "Mission Accomplished" included fighting, but it wasn't a war. The war ended when the Iraqi military ceased to exist.

Best,

Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.

So have you been there?

BrassScorpion wrote: Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.

I'm sure this is based on your personal experiance.
I'm also sure it was Bush et al who encouraged units of the Iraqi police to kidnap,torture, and murder thier neighbors. It was probably Bush et al that invaded Kuwait, leading to international embargoes and causing the Iraqi infrastructure to crumble after 1991. I can keep goning. They certainly didn't help but the level of violence between 2006 and 2010 is markedly different, but I'm sure the lack of nightly shootings and mortar attacks and the slackening of helicopter assaults was probably missed over the sound of your xbox.

AustonT wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote: Thanks to Bush and Cheney and their cohort Rumsfeld Iraq is a totally broken country with barely functioning infrastructure in much of it and with a daily level of violence still that no one in the US would consider acceptable in any city in this country.

I'm sure this is based on your personal experiance.
I'm also sure it was Bush et al who encouraged units of the Iraqi police to kidnap,torture, and murder thier neighbors. It was probably Bush et al that invaded Kuwait, leading to international embargoes and causing the Iraqi infrastructure to crumble after 1991. I can keep goning. They certainly didn't help but the level of violence between 2006 and 2010 is markedly different, but I'm sure the lack of nightly shootings and mortar attacks and the slackening of helicopter assaults was probably missed over the sound of your xbox.

You have to admit regardless of political views it's an awesome painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then this.

AustonT wrote:You have to admit regardless of political views it's an awesome painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And then this.

Excellent.

The Bush one was better.. The Obama chracature was too.. I dunno.. big chinned and cartoony looking.

mattyrm wrote: The Bush one was better.. The Obama chracature was too.. I dunno.. big chinned and cartoony looking.

They would of done better by doing the entire piece in the style and not adapting realism with caricature.

I'm not sure why the Statue of Liberty is wearing an Obama sticker in the second one...