Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/14/2009 5:43:36 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

2 posted on 04/14/2009 5:43:49 AM PDT by SJackson (Barack Obama went to Harvard and became an educated fool. Rep. Bobby Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
For example, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Gospels and the Koran all specifically testify to the connection between the Jewish people and its historic homeland.

Moreover, "Jerusalem" is not mentioned even once in the Koran (it is mentioned 632 times in the Bible). Makes a strong case for the removal of Muslim rights on the Temple Mount, and the mosques there as well.

3 posted on 04/14/2009 6:56:53 AM PDT by FreepShop1 (www.FreepShop.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson; Lando Lincoln; neverdem; dennisw; NonValueAdded; Alouette; .cnI redruM; Valin; ...
ALLEN Z. HERTZ :

... The 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference was concerned with the task of accommodating the political interests of the victorious Allied and associated powers with the claims to self-determination of well-known peoples which had long histories of national self-affirmation and bitter suffering under foreign oppression. Thus, considered were difficult and entangled issues touching the self-determination of such famous peoples as the Chinese, the Poles, the Germans, the Finns, the Letts, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Serbs, the Slovenes, the Croats, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Turks, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Arabs and the Jews. In this larger context, just one decision among many was creation of an entirely new country called "Palestine" as "a national home for the Jewish people."

THE international decision to establish "a national home for the Jewish people" was the sole rationale for the 1922 creation of Jewish national home in Palestine which, under the aegis of the League of Nations, was administered by the British until May 1948, when Israel declared independence. Decision-makers at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference knew that Palestine would initially lack a Jewish majority population. However, the international decision to create Palestine "as a national home for the Jewish people" was made not so much on the basis of local demographics, but in recognition of the Jewish people's aboriginal title and continuing links to the land around the Jordan River, as well as with regard to broader considerations of demography, history, politics and social justice that were both global and Middle Eastern. Thus, there was a conscious choice to refer - not just to the 85,000 Jews then living locally - but also to the past, present and future of 14 million Jews worldwide, including the 1 million Jews then living in the Near and Middle East.

Failure to create a Jewish national home in Palestine would have meant denying the Jewish people a share in the partition of the multiethnic Ottoman Empire, where Jews had lived for centuries, including some west of the Jordan River. Failure to create a Jewish national home in Palestine would also have meant that the Arab people would have received almost the whole of the Ottoman inheritance. That result would have been unacceptable to David Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and their peers, because they clearly understood that the claim to self-determination of the Jewish people was no less compelling than that of the Arab people.

The Paris decision-makers strongly believed that they had also done justice to the claims of the Arab people, whom they had freed from 400 years of Turkish rule and helped on the road to independence via the creation or recognition of several new Arab states on territory that had formerly been subject to the Ottoman sultan. Moreover, the decision to create Jewish national home in Palestine did not result in the displacement of any Arabs. To the contrary, from 1922 until 1948, the Arab population of Palestine almost tripled, while the Jewish population multiplied eight times. The later problem of Arab refugees (about 736,000) from Palestine and Jewish refugees (about 850,000) from Arab countries only emerged from May 1948, when local Arabs allied with several neighboring Arab states to launch a war to exterminate the Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. ...

... Such analysis does not deny the current existence of a distinct Palestinian Arab people; nor does it claim that such a Palestinian Arab people is without rights. Rather, the conclusion is that there are rights on all sides, and that there should be a peaceful process that respectfully reconciles the rights of the Palestinian Arab people with the prior rights of the Jewish people.


Interesting!
One of the better articles on the subject.

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.)

I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention.

You are welcome to browse the list of truly exceptional articles I pinged to lately. Updated on March 19, 2009.  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

4 posted on 04/14/2009 9:34:32 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

A silly argument for silly people.

This question is no different from any other, only more so: If you don’t like the answer, the ultimate court of appeal is force. It’s how every territorial dispute among peoples has been settled since God created the heavens and the earth.

Or haven’t Jews read the story of Joshua and the Israelites marching around the city of Jericho? See? They stole the land from the various Canaanite tribes! Just like the Persians later stole it from the Jews, and the British stole New England from the Indians, and the Germans stole Czechoslovakia, and the Chinese stole Tibet, and the Iraqis stole Kuwait, and the Russians stole Georgia, etc. ad infinitum.

Force (i.e. war) is merely another means of achieving political aims.

(Then again, so is crafting arguments for self-loathing Western intellectuals - like the piece above, for instance. And if the Jews and Arabs don’t like the answer they receive from the West, they’re free to appeal to the higher court of force and settle it in the time-honored way.)


5 posted on 04/14/2009 10:02:53 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson