Palestine history??

**penguinsfeet** · 19 Feb 10,, 01:17

Hi there,

I have two questions:-

Does anyone know of a concise web based history of Palestine and Israel, from early times to present day? I am looking for almost day to day or week to week really within reason. <edit> (yes, by concise, I guess I mean along the lines of a timeline of facts as apposed to a novel). I would also be interested in any really detailed books you may know of.

Second question.

Who is more in the wrong “down there” at the moment in your opinion?

Thanks in advance

Steve

**Shek** · 19 Feb 10,, 02:05

Originally Posted by penguinsfeet

Does anyone know of a concise web based history of Palestine and Israel, from early times to present day? I am looking for almost day to day or week to week really within reason.e

Steve,

Concise and day-to-day/week-to-week don't seem to fit in the same question. I'm not sure of any good web resources or books that would fit the bill of what you're looking for. Sorry.

As to who's more wrong, I'd say both. Israel pursued a counter-terror strategy from basically the get go of obtaining the territories, and as a result, helped Hamas, Fatah, and all the other virulent ideological driven groups to take root and build a base of support. So Israel's failure to pursue a more counterinsurgency driven strategy can pointed towards as one reason for the existence of these groups. That being said, these groups are terrorists, targeting civilians either specifically through their suicide attacks or generally through their use of indiscriminate rocket attacks, who perpetuate the cycle of poverty towards their own ends.

**bigross86** · 19 Feb 10,, 07:54

Both sides are in the wrong, but Israel is the lesser of the two. Despite being bigger and stronger, she has also reached out her hand in peace a lot more than the terrorist organizations.

**penguinsfeet** · 19 Feb 10,, 15:17

One of the main points I am looking for is, what was the key point in history which was the ignition point for the now 40/50/60/70 year old "struggle"?

Which point in time would you have to go back to for there to be a peaceful solution?

And what would have been a better solution?

**zraver** · 19 Feb 10,, 20:41

Originally Posted by penguinsfeet

One of the main points I am looking for is, what was the key point in history which was the ignition point for the now 40/50/60/70 year old "struggle"?

Which point in time would you have to go back to for there to be a peaceful solution?

And what would have been a better solution?

April 4-7, 1920 are the dates your looking for.

**dave lukins** · 19 Feb 10,, 23:34

Originally Posted by penguinsfeet

One of the main points I am looking for is, what was the key point in history which was the ignition point for the now 40/50/60/70 year old "struggle"?

Which point in time would you have to go back to for there to be a peaceful solution?

And what would have been a better solution?

Probably prior to the first Zionist Congress in 1896.

**bigross86** · 20 Feb 10,, 02:10

You can go back even earlier. The city of Petach Tikva has been around since 1878. The first waves of mass immigration were in 1881-2 and 1890-1. These immigrants came mainly from Eastern Europe, Russia, etc... and came with intent and purpose to purchase land and work it. They are probably the first ones to have suffered from modern Arab hostility.

There's a few hypothetical options for a better solution: The first one was Herzl's idea to settle the Jews in Uganda. To Herzl the location of the Jewish country itself was not as important as a country for all Jews. He was talked out of this idea by many ideologues who figured that the Jews belong in the ancestral Jewish home, Israel (Palestine at the time).

The second hypothetical situation: If the US had continued eastward and taken care of the USSR before the Cold War started, the Arab states would have had no backer for much of their antagonism. By the same token, the 1947 resolution allowing a Jewish state in Israel might not have passed without the support of the Soviet Bloc in the UN.

The third hypothetical situation, and by far the most logical but least practical: Take anyone who mentions that they are committing something in the name of God or one of his prophets, take him out back and shoot him. Once you lose all the religious nuts and fanatics, you'll very quickly come down to a core of very reasonable people who are willing to talk turkey.

**US_MiltCom** · 20 Feb 10,, 21:34

I vote number 3...

**Bigfella** · 21 Feb 10,, 02:17

Originally Posted by bigross86

The third hypothetical situation, and by far the most logical but least practical: Take anyone who mentions that they are committing something in the name of God or one of his prophets, take him out back and shoot him. Once you lose all the religious nuts and fanatics, you'll very quickly come down to a core of very reasonable people who are willing to talk turkey.

Ladies & Gentlemen, we have a winner!! I vote BigRoss for Israeli PM.

)

If God really had a stake in this she would just thunder, lightning & flood the fvckers she diasgreed with. It is the ultimate in human arrogance to assume that omnipitent metaphysical entities are relying on them to fulfill the divine will. Such people do indeed require the 'BigRoss' treatment.

**Aussiegunner** · 21 Feb 10,, 11:31

Originally Posted by bigross86

There's a few hypothetical options for a better solution: The first one was Herzl's idea to settle the Jews in Uganda. To Herzl the location of the Jewish country itself was not as important as a country for all Jews. He was talked out of this idea by many ideologues who figured that the Jews belong in the ancestral Jewish home, Israel (Palestine at the time).

I never bought into the idea of the Jews settling anywhere but in Israel/Palestine. They would have had no moral claim to anywhere else but would have faced the same problems with the locals .

I do think they had a moral claim to live in Israel/Palestine because of their spiritual and historical attachment to that land, and because they always said that they were coming back. I see it as analagous to the situation of the Australian aborigines, who are able to claim what is called native title over land that they can prove a tribal attachment to. It doesn't necessarily mean that they get exclusive use of Turkish or Arab landowners and Israel/Palestine should be a secular state with full democratic participation by all groups, rather than a Jewish state.

All that said and done, I know that such ideas are made much more difficult by the fact that they have to deal with a group of people so patently unreasonable as many Palestinian arabs have been, but those should have been the aims of the Jews. Instead there were too many who were committed to domination and it has lowered their moral standing.

BTW, I think you forgot a fourth hypothetical solution. The rest of the World (and Europe in particular) could have stopped practicing anti-semetic bigotry a lot earlier and could have allowed the Jews to participate in their societies as equals. Then there would have been no reason for Zionism in the first place.

**Bigfella** · 21 Feb 10,, 20:21

AG,

Just a quick one - had a jewish state been set up in Uganda, Madagascar or Tasmania it would have as much moral claim as Australia - perhaps more (at least someone would have invited them to set up a state). Our 'moral claim' is that we were the first Europeans who turned up in enough numbers to clear out the locals & establish a claim recognised by 'civilized' nations (i.e. those nations similarly capable of invading & settling far away lands). Ultimately 'moral' claims to nationhood take a distant back seat to the ability to take & hold land.

Israel certainly used 'moral' grounds to help obtain legal recognition, but the rest was about force - the ability to hold the land it occupies against the attempts of others to remove it. An Israeli state established in a European colony elsewhere would ultimately have succeeded or failed on the same grounds. The only difference is that it wouldn't have had the same historical/religious resonance,especially to very religious types.

**Aussiegunner** · 22 Feb 10,, 12:53

Originally Posted by Bigfella

AG,

Just a quick one - had a jewish state been set up in Uganda, Madagascar or Tasmania it would have as much moral claim as Australia - perhaps more (at least someone would have invited them to set up a state). Our 'moral claim' is that we were the first Europeans who turned up in enough numbers to clear out the locals & establish a claim recognised by 'civilized' nations (i.e. those nations similarly capable of invading & settling far away lands). Ultimately 'moral' claims to nationhood take a distant back seat to the ability to take & hold land.

Israel certainly used 'moral' grounds to help obtain legal recognition, but the rest was about force - the ability to hold the land it occupies against the attempts of others to remove it. An Israeli state established in a European colony elsewhere would ultimately have succeeded or failed on the same grounds. The only difference is that it wouldn't have had the same historical/religious resonance,especially to very religious types.

I think you underestimate how many people in the world give a high degree of significance to Israel/Palestine being the historical Jewish homeland, when supporting the moral right of the jews to live there if they wish. That includes me and I'm not at all religious, I support them simply upon the basis of an enduring cultural attachment to the place, just like I think that native title is a valid concept for the same reason. I can't see there being nearly the degree of sympathy they had negotiated with some imperialist power to steal land in a place of no historical significance to them.

That sympathy has translated into political support, especially from the United States, which may have tipped the scales in favour of Israel's survival. For example, I wonder if the US would have layed on the vital support during the Yom Kippur War, had it not had that reason to do so? I personally doubt it. Israel/Palestine may be in a strategic location but the US has been quite willing to be allied to Arab states and there is no reason to believe that they couldn't have done so with a Palestinian Arab dominated Israel/Palestine. There was significant anti imperialist sentiment in the US in the early to middle part of last centry and the US showed that it was quite willing to oppose the actions of their European imperialist allies, the British and French, when those actions became excessive against Egypt during the Suez crisis. I think that had that land not been so historically sigificant to the Jews, then the US would just have let them fight their own battle and lose.

**penguinsfeet** · 22 Feb 10,, 13:51

Is it fact true, that the Jews in Israel are as bad as people say?

Talking about a period from say 1850’ish to the present day, have they in fact “stolen” land that belonged to other people (Palestinians?)?

Is it not the case that many countries have in the past, aided, supported and wholly upheld the Jews in there “move” into the area?

In essence, is it just “wrong” that they are in what was Palestine?

**Stan187** · 22 Feb 10,, 15:48

Are you flame baiting?

**bigross86** · 22 Feb 10,, 15:49

Categorically and emphatically, Israel has not stolen even one inch of land. The Jews that started working the land at the end of the 19th century bought land off the Arabs, land that the Arabs were not interested in. Marshlands, swamplands, hilly terrain and land that was otherwise unsuitable for agriculture. Jews bought all this land and drained the marshes, dried out the swamps and made the land workable. After Israel declared independence in 1948 and was attacked, it captured more lands which it in turn annexed legally. In every war there is going to be a winner and a loser, in this case the bullies happened to be the ones who ended up losing. How much you want to bet that if the Arabs had in turn captured some of the land that was legally purchased by the Jews they wouldn't consider it stolen land?

Yes, many countries at one point or another did support the Jewish return to Israel. Some did it out of ideology, support of a democracy. Some did it out of support for the Jewish cause or guilt over what happened during WWII. Some, like the US, did it to counter Soviet influence in the area. Some, like the USSR, did it in the hopes of gaining another satellite in the Middle East. The Kibbutz movement in Israel is perhaps one of the very few examples of working Communism.

Your usage of the word "Palestine" in itself is the cause of much of the confusion. People think that because it was called Palestine, by definition the Arabs had to have been there first. In reality, Palestine was originally known as Provincia Judea, or the Kingdom of Judah. After the bar Kochba revolt in 2AD, the Romans changed its name to Syria Palaestina.

If you look at the Bible as a book of history, disregarding all the talk of God and miracles, etc. then you'll notice that of all the peoples and nations to contend the land, the Israelites/Jews are the only ones still around, and therefore the only ones with an original valid claim. If you can find me a Jebusite, Hittite, Canaanite, Amorite, Perizzite or Girgashite, you should call your local press immediately, since they've disappeared a few millenia ago, many of them by the Israelites themselves.

If you want the Jews to give back the land they've legally bought or conquered, then you must then apply that to every single country that had colonial aspirations, and every country that took land that wasn't theirs. Just a few examples, start with the most obvious ones: The USA and Canada will be dismantled and returned to the various Indian and Innuit tribes. Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam will be emancipated from the US and will no longer be subject to its laws. Bermuda, Gibraltar and the Virgin Islands will no longer belong to the UK. The list goes on.