To this day, I still encounter many people who believe that the mid-east conflict is about terrorism and security, or about religious animosity but who don't realize the territorial aspect of the dispute.
The first image is prior to the creation of Israel, and the second image was the planned partition of the land between Jews and Palestinians. The third image, is the 1967 borders that have been the basis of negotiation since, and the last image includes portions of the West Bank and Gaza that are currently under Israeli control.
The most relevant changes in my opinion are between image number 2 and image number 3. In the 2nd, you can see that Jerusalem is not part of Israel (according to the partition plan it was supposed to be neutral despite being in the middle of Palestinian territory). In the 3rd you see that Israeli territory has stretched over to engulf Jerusalem and carved its way through Palestinian territory to secure the historic city.
Israel has every right to defend herself, and a great deal of blame should be put on Palestinian extremists who have given Israel all the excuses needed to prevent Palestinian statehood, but it's foolish not to recognize the extremist element of Israeli society that also rejects the Palestinian's right to exist (see the Likud party's resolution to never allow a Palestinian state) and that has opposed every de-escalation of this conflict. It's foolish not to recognize that the Palestinian people have been under a blockade that constitutes an act of war for most of the last 50 years. And it's foolish to ignore that there are extremist Israeli settlers systemically settling the best Palestinian land that they can.
As long as there is conflict these extremists who reject a two-state solution can continue to redraw their borders. They even objected to the Israeli security wall because they feared it would become a limit to Israeli territory that they wanted to keep appropriating from Palestinians.
This element of Israeli society deserves to be recognized for their consistent efforts to prolong and escalate this conflict. "Greater Israel" advocates deny the Palestinians' right to exist just as the extremists in Palestine deny the right of Israel to exist.
[+9] - McTag - 08/10/2014 As long as it gave you some pleasure.
[+7] - cicerone imposter - 08/04/2014To oralboy et al, pointing out genocide by the Zionists is vile because they see 'anti-Semitism' as something more vile than killing other humans. Strange values to say the least.
[+6] - Walter Hinteler - 05/22/2014Really not a great, only the age. But what has it to do with what is reported here? I mean, even the Israeli army admitted ... Are you cut of from news?
[+6] - McTag - 08/14/2014 [quote]The days are long past when people like you could hurt Jews by stirring up a lynch mob. [/quote] There are so many faults with that short sentence that I don't know where to start.
[+6] - McTag - 08/14/2014 For these opinions, there is a British expression you may not be familiar with: stark staring bonkers. It fits you well, and means you are as mad as a box of frogs.
[+6] - McTag - 08/07/2015 "Settlers" are Palestinians? Some clarification needed.
i am shocked. i've never seen these maps before.
I'm always surprised that anyone is still surprised to see it mapped out. Here's a simple overview of how this came about (takes a while to load).
Israel has also systematic ignored and/or violated the terms of General Assembly Resolution 181 which allowed for the creation of the state of Israel in 1947. Click here to read the United Nations plan for the partition of Palestine.
In addition to RG's maps, there is a map which i once found which was drawn before the 1947 partition of Palestine, and which outlines the territory which Zionists thought they should get to recreate their "traditional homeland. I think i found it at the Jewish Virtual Library, which can hardly be said to be an anti-Israeli source. I'll go see if i can find it again.
The significance of the other map to which i referred is that it was drawn by Zionists, before 1947, and shows that they thought they were entitled to march their borders into southern Lebanon and virtually to the gates of Damascus and Amman. As i have time, i will continue to search for that map.
* Jewish nationalism is as legitimate as the nationalist movement of any other people.
The point is, Zionists have had this plan for a hell of a lot longer than Israel has existed.
That's a great illustration. I remember looking for maps of the settlements to make a point a couple of years ago. If I had had this set of maps it would have made point much clearer.
No matter how you look at it or any other map…a person should be able to feel empathy for the Jews who feel that Jews have a right to a homeland.
If I were a Jew, I suspect I would be an ardent Zionist.
That being said, however, if I were a Palestinian or an Arab…I suspect I would be furious with what has happened and be trying with all my might to rid the area of Israel.
If ever there were a “no win” situation…the notion of Israel being carved out of the Arabian Peninsula idea is such a circumstance.
In another thread dealing with the Middle East, I mentioned that Jews, Arabs, and Muslims had lived in relative harmony in that area of hundreds upon hundreds of years…until the state of Israel came into existence. Then all hell broke loose"hatreds flared; attacks came; retaliations were made; recriminations"and chaos descended on Zion.
Upon further reflection, I probably should have moved the beginning of the chaos back to the early 20th century when the Zionist movement earnestly began. The disharmony increased as mere talk of a Jewish state began.
It will never work out. The people over there, Jew and non-Jew alike, will live their lives in chaos and hate and attack and retaliation…and their children and the children of those children…and the children of those children will also.
Unless the obvious solution is accepted.
Not a one state or two states solution…but a no state solution.
International control of the region.
The Jews can still have their homeland…only somewhere else--preferably in the United States where its integrity can be guaranteed.
And the right of any Jew who wants to live in that area must be guaranteed and protected by whatever International body is mandated to control the area.
BUT NO STATES CAN BE ALLOWED TO EXIST IN THE AREA COVERED BY THAT MAP!
Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvellous potency.
" More than 70% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as 'Transjordan'."
Many Palestineans may already be living in their state. Somehow it went to the Hashemite family? To me it sounds like the Brits were trying to do some strange horse trading with their spoils from WWI?
Certainly Palestinians may have lived in Jordan. And Beduins, and Jordanians.
And in the 19th century the Ottomans settled Circassian, Caucasian, and other refugees there.
During World War I the Arabs joined the British against the Ottomans. In a revolt of 1916, in which they were assisted by Colonel T.E. Lawrence, the Arabs severed the Hejaz Railway. In July 1917 the army of Prince Fayṣal ibn Husayn (of the Hāshimite [or Hashemite] dynasty) captured Al-ʿAqabah, and by October 1918 Amman and Damascus were in Allied hands. In 1920 the Conference of San Remo in Italy created two mandates; one, over Palestine, was given to Great Britain, and the other, over Syria, went to France. This act effectively separated the area now occupied by Israel and Jordan from that of Syria. In November 1920 ʿAbdullāh, Fayṣal’s brother, arrived in Maʿān (then part of the Hejaz) with 2,000 armed supporters intent on gathering together tribes to attack the French, who had forced Fayṣal to relinquish his newly founded kingdom in Syria. By April 1921, however, the British had decided that ʿAbdullāh would take over as ruler of what then became known as Transjordan.
So the Brits gave all of Transjordan to one family, and the Jews were given a booby prize. Sounds like a transaction from a nation of shopkeepers.
Is there some knowledge that should be gleaned from this map by Rabbi Black?
Many prominent Israelis have said that if they were Palestinians they'd be terrorists. I may dig up some examples but they are surprising because it's not just Israeli doves who say this, some of the most hawkish Israelis say the same.
I think this has less chances of being realized (much less working) than a two-state solution.
Finally, some common sense on this issue.
I think this (no state rather than one or two state solution) has less chances of being realized (much less working) than a two-state solution.
I agree that it has less chance of being realized...but I disagree completely that is has less chance of working.
The two state solution, in my opinion, has NO CHANCE of working--so even if the no state solution has no chance, they are even...not with any one being "less."
....there is absolutely no reason to suspect that there will be anything even remotedly resembling peace in that area.
I dispise and despair of that being the case...but I cannot think of a surer bet than that it is the case.