Bush calls for the end of Israeli 'occupation' of Arab Lands

G-Man · 01-10-08, 11:49 AM

I might be mistaken but I think this is the first time I have ever heard Bush use language such as this. Its a shame that he waits until he's on the way out until he can see reason over religion.

Question is if we now regard it as 'occupied' land who exactly believes that it somehow belongs to Israel?

Here's the link.

FOXNews.com - Bush Predicts Mideast Peace Treaty Before He Leaves White House - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

donsutherland1 · 01-10-08, 11:00 PM

In my opinion, President Bush's reference to Israeli "occupation" was not helpful. It is historically inaccurate, it could prejudice negotiations, and its expression in Jerusalem is not respectful to the President's hosts.

Israel did not conquer the West Bank in a bid for more territory. In the 1967 War that was launched to break Egypt's illegal blockade of Israel in the international waters of the Strait of Tiran--after great Israeli restraint and a lack of effective leadership on the international front--Jordan launched an attack on Israel, even as Israel urged Jordan to stay out of the war. Only after Jordan began seizing territory in Jerusalem did Israel commence military operations against Jordan. It was in consequence of that act of self-defence that Israel gained control of the West Bank.

Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban's speech before the UN Security Council on June 6, 1967 summed up the situation as it had evolved:

An army, greater than any force ever assembled it, history in Sinai, had massed against Israel's southern frontier. Egypt had dismissed the United Nations forces which symbolized the international interest in the maintenance of peace in our region. Nasser had provocatively brought five infantry divisions and two armored divisions up to our very gates; 80,000 men and 900 tanks were poised to move.

A special striking force, comprising an armored division with at least 200 tanks, was concentrated against Eflat at the Negev's southern tip. Here was a clear design to cut the southern Negev off from the main body of our State. For Egypt had openly proclaimed that Eflat did not form part of Israel and had predicted that Israel itself would soon expire. The proclamation was empty; the prediction now lies in ruin. While the main brunt of the hostile threat was focussed on the southern front, an alarming plan of encirclement was under way. With Egypt's initiative and guidance, Israel was already being strangled in its maritime approaches to the whole eastern half of the world. For sixteen years, Israel had been illicitly denied passage in the Suez Canal, despite the Security Council's decision of 1 September 1951 [resolution 95 (1951)]. And now the creative enterprise of ten patient years which had opened an international route across the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba had been suddenly and arbitrarily choked. Israel was and is breathing with only a single lung.

Jordan had been intimidated, against its better interest, into joining a defense pact. It is not a defense pact at all: it is an aggressive pact, of which I saw the consequences with my own eyes yesterday in the shells falling upon institutions of health and culture in the City of Jerusalem. Every house and street in Jerusalem now came into the range of fire as a result of Jordan's adherence to this pact; so also did the crowded and pathetically narrow coastal strip in which so much of Israel's life and population is concentrated.

Iraqi troops reinforced Jordanian units in area immediately facing vital and vulnerable Israel communication centers. Expeditionary forces from Algeria and Kuwait had reached Egyptian territory. Nearly all the Egyptian forces which had been attempting the conquest of the Yemen had been transferred to the coming assault upon Israel. Syrian units, including artillery, overlooked the Israel villages in the Jordan Valley. Terrorist troops came regularly into our territory to kill, plunder and set off explosions; the most recent occasion was five days ago.

In short, there was peril for Israel wherever it looked. Its manpower had been hastily mobilized. Its economy and commerce were beating with feeble pulses. Its streets were dark and empty. There was an apocalyptic air of approaching peril. And Israel faced this danger alone.

Following the 1956 war, Israel withdrew fully from territories it captured. The international community had pledged that Egypt's interference with the passage of shipping through the Strait of Tiran would not be repeated. A UN observer force was put in place. Yet, in May 1967, the international community refused to uphold its commitments when Egypt again blockaded those international waters. The UN withdrew its observer force when Egypt demanded such a move. Israel had withdrawn and the promises of the international community proved worthless.

Israel would be prudent to retain the lands it captured in response to the 1967 Arab aggression as bargaining leverage. To throw away its gains, which were achieved at significant sacrifice, would be reckless.

Peace will require compromise on all sides, including border adjustments. Israel recognizes this, and I fully expect that Israel will give the greatest consideration to any reasonable peace proposal that has the possibility of meeting its core needs. At the same time, the Palestinians will also need to compromise. They cannot reasonably expect that Israel should capitulate to their maximum demands. Moreover, their demand that Israel should be required to admit Palestinian refugees and their descendants within its own borders is a non-starter. Such a demand would only threaten Israel's viability as a Jewish state, a founding purpose of Israel's re-establishment and the United Nations' original intent in designing its partition plan. In short, the terms of peace cannot ever require the demise of another state. The refugee demand would do just that by transforming Israel into a Jewish minority state (in effect, another Arab state).

In the end, President Bush's unfortunate language has the potential to damage the peace process, not facilitate it. It can only bolster Palestinian intransigence by promoting the perception that Israel is "occupying" Palestinian land. The proper perspective is that Israel and the Palestinians would be negotiating over what land would flow to the Palestinians in exchange for reciprocal Palestinian commitments. Before that happens, the status of the land that would be subject to the negotiations should not be prejudiced.

G-Man · 01-11-08, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

[left]

In my opinion, President Bush's reference to Israeli "occupation" was not helpful. It is historically inaccurate, it could prejudice negotiations, and its expression in Jerusalem is not respectful to the President's hosts.

And if Israel had lost the war would you accept the position that there is no Israel or would you (and others) regard it as occupied and seek its re-instatement and the removal of its occupiers?

Quote:

Israel would be prudent to retain the lands it captured in response to the 1967 Arab aggression as bargaining leverage. To throw away its gains, which were achieved at significant sacrifice, would be reckless.

You would regard the giving up of this land in order to obtain peace as 'reckless' or am I reading that wrong?

Quote:

At the same time, the Palestinians will also need to compromise. They cannot reasonably expect that Israel should capitulate to their maximum demands.

Their maximum demand as I see it would be the removal of a false state created by international bodies without the approval of the persons who actually lived on the lands effected.

However everyone has to be realistic and I don't see this as a possibility. A demand that Israel should remove from land which is Internationally recognized as Palestine does not seem unreasonable to me.

Quote:

Moreover, their demand that Israel should be required to admit Palestinian refugees and their descendants within its own borders is a non-starter. Such a demand would only threaten Israel's viability as a Jewish state, a founding purpose of Israel's re-establishment and the United Nations' original intent in designing its partition plan.

I would have thought that if you wanted a Jewish state it would not have made sense to 'create' it in an area which had a Jewish minority? Unless religious/racial discrimination and religious cleansing was intended.

Quote:

In short, the terms of peace cannot ever require the demise of another state.

But it can somehow require the creation of a new false state?
Perhaps the solution should have been based on the Lebanon model from which various groups seem able to live in harmony. No doubt if they tried to split that country up the fighting would commence immediately.

Quote:

The refugee demand would do just that by transforming Israel into a Jewish minority state (in effect, another Arab state).

Which it was before and should still be now. Just because the people who used to live there before and now want to come back happen to be Arabs that should not effect their right to do so. Like I said, if you wanted a Jewish majority state you should really have created one in an area which actually had a Jewish majority.

Quote:

In the end, President Bush's unfortunate language has the potential to damage the peace process, not facilitate it.

IMO the acknowledgement of the reality is necessary in order to find a path to peace. Basing your ideas upon false premises will not lead to a solution.

Quote:

It can only bolster Palestinian intransigence by promoting the perception that Israel is "occupying" Palestinian land.

Its a reality not a perception.

Quote:

The proper perspective is that Israel and the Palestinians would be negotiating over what land would flow to the Palestinians in exchange for reciprocal Palestinian commitments. Before that happens, the status of the land that would be subject to the negotiations should not be prejudiced.

IMO Israel should give back what does not belong to it and then the international community (not the Israelis by themselves) should take action against the Palestines if they do not cease hostility towards Israel. By taking a multi-national stance against Palestine in this event I believe Israels interests will be far better protected than by the current situation.

donsutherland1 · 01-11-08, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

And if Israel had lost the war would you accept the position that there is no Israel or would you (and others) regard it as occupied and seek its re-instatement and the removal of its occupiers?

I would have supported such assistance from the U.S. as would be necessary to prevent that from happening in the first place or to restore Israel's sovereignty.

If the UN's response to such wars as that in 1948 and its indifference to Egypt's blockade of Israel in the international waters of the Strait of Tiran in 1967 are representative, the UN would probably have done absolutely nothing had Israel been defeated. When the Trans-Jordanian Army seized East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the UN made no calls whatsoever for their withdrawal from that area.

Abba Eban wrote of the situation in Jerusalem as follows:

There remained Jerusalem, to which the United Nations in November 1947 had promised “peace, order, security, wellbeing and constructive measure for development.” None of these gifts had come from the UN. Instead, the city was abandoned to savage war. The Jewish Quarter in the Old City was under siege and doomed to fall. In the city outside the walls, the Jewish population, cut off from the coast by intervening Arab armies, was subjected not only to bombardment by Transjordanian guns, but also to the prospect of starvation and thirst. The alleged interest of the world community in the city’s welfare had not been expressed in any serious effort to secure a truce. Indeed, since the absence of fighting in Jerusalem would have released Jewish forces for other sectors, the UN simply allowed the fighting to proceed rather than confer a “military advantage” on the Jews...

Thus on May 14 the United Nations had its ultimate chance of taking charge in Jerusalem. The opportunity was deliberately cast away. Guatemala, Australia and the United States successively proposed resolutions which would have put a United Nations flag in Jerusalem under varying degrees of responsibility. All of them were rejected. It was not a passive default, but an active relinquishing of responsibility in a critical hour. Israel would never forget the lesson.

Quote:

You would regard the giving up of this land in order to obtain peace as 'reckless' or am I reading that wrong?

I accept the principle under which Israel would grant the Palestinians land in exchange for peace, security commitments, etc. To resolve the issue will require reciprocity and compromise over boundaries by both parties so that the permanent borders would be secure and recognized. Performance would matter far more than promises.

What I do not accept is the notion that Israel needs to make unilateral concessions without a need for reciprocity from the Palestinians nor that the Palestinians are automatically entitled to all the land within the pre-1967 war boundaries. Those boundaries were temporary and never intended to be permanent as per the 1949 Armistice agreements (one of which I'll quote later).

Quote:

Their maximum demand as I see it would be the removal of a false state created by international bodies without the approval of the persons who actually lived on the lands effected.

There is no basis to the myth of Israel's being a "false state." The UN was dealing with how to bring sovereignty to territory held by Britain. It was not dividing a sovereign state. It accommodated the core needs of both peoples.

If Israel is a "false state," then any Palestinian state would also be a "false state."

Quote:

I would have thought that if you wanted a Jewish state it would not have made sense to 'create' it in an area which had a Jewish minority?

The boundaries set forth for the Jewish state in the UN partition plan had a Jewish majority within them.

Quote:

But it can somehow require the creation of a new false state?
Perhaps the solution should have been based on the Lebanon model from which various groups seem able to live in harmony. No doubt if they tried to split that country up the fighting would commence immediately.

If the two peoples had an alignment of interests and aspirations and were co-existing in peace and friendship within the British Mandate, such an approach might have been feasible. Cantonization and other single-state solutions were not feasible, because both peoples had a fundamental clash of interests, irreconcilable aspirations, and were engaged in an intensifying conflict. Both the Peel Commission and later UNSCOP concluded that partition was the only feasible route.

Quote:

Which it was before and should still be now. Just because the people who used to live there before and now want to come back happen to be Arabs that should not effect their right to do so.

Jewish immigration was legal beginning in 1906 under the Ottoman Empire and later under the British Mandate. In 1918, the Emir Feisal, the Arab leader, even encouraged such immigration. There notion of applying ex post facto judgment against legal Jewish immigrants is both contrary to legal norms and offensive.

Palestinian refugees and their descendants will have a chance to settle in a new Palestinian state.

Quote:

Its a reality not a perception.

The boundaries concerning the West Bank were temporary armistice lines. They served solely a military purpose They were not permanent, agreed-upon borders. They did not alter the claims of the parties. The text made this clear, as it noted:

It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations...

The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

In sum, the claims of the parties were to be resolved in the future through negotiation. Whether or not they chose to embrace the armistice lines as permanent borders would have to result from negotiations. It is some of this territory for which the final status had not been resolved that Israel gained after Jordan attacked Israel in 1967. As had been stipulated in the 1949 Armistice Agreement, negotiations will ultimately resolve the fate of that land.

Monk-Eye · 01-11-08, 08:13 AM

"Bass Ackwards"

The religion of arabism did not specify arab land boundaries (unlike judaism), that has been the crux of its stupidity from the beginning, and its continued fault of agression.

WTF is arab land other than expansionist territory they are capable of losing by the same rules by which it was acquired?

Saudia arabia is entitled to a government under arabism.
No other realm of land qualifies.

Arabs need to vacate non-arab land and take its genetic religion with it!

G-Man · 01-11-08, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

[left]

I would have supported such assistance from the U.S. as would be necessary to prevent that from happening in the first place or to restore Israel's sovereignty.

And if Israel lost would you regard the territory seized during the war as 'disputed' as opposed to occupied? Would you also accept the postition that the Arab armies should not be forced to hand back what they had taken but instead can negotiate with Israeli representatives to hand back a fraction of what they took and only if they are given guarantees that Israel will forget about the past and accept what they are offered now?

I can't see any of the above being acceptable to you yet you seem to expect the Palestines to agree to this.

Quote:

If the UN's response to such wars as that in 1948 and its indifference to Egypt's blockade of Israel in the international waters of the Strait of Tiran in 1967 are representative, the UN would probably have done absolutely nothing had Israel been defeated.

As far as I can see the UN has done absolutely nothing about Israel winning so why expect it to do anything if you lost.

Quote:

Thus on May 14 the United Nations had its ultimate chance of taking charge in Jerusalem. The opportunity was deliberately cast away. Guatemala, Australia and the United States successively proposed resolutions which would have put a United Nations flag in Jerusalem under varying degrees of responsibility. All of them were rejected. It was not a passive default, but an active relinquishing of responsibility in a critical hour. Israel would never forget the lesson.

A whole wave of resolutions regarding the Middle East have been rejected, mostly by the US using its veto.

Quote:

I accept the principle under which Israel would grant the Palestinians land in exchange for peace, security commitments, etc. To resolve the issue will require reciprocity and compromise over boundaries by both parties so that the permanent borders would be secure and recognized. Performance would matter far more than promises.

This is correct. Land for peace is the only solution I can see but Israel is building further into the occupied territories every day. I don't think it intends to give up any land.

Quote:

What I do not accept is the notion that Israel needs to make unilateral concessions without a need for reciprocity from the Palestinians nor that the Palestinians are automatically entitled to all the land within the pre-1967 war boundaries. Those boundaries were temporary and never intended to be permanent as per the 1949 Armistice agreements (one of which I'll quote later).

I do not regard the giving back of something that does not belong to you as a unilateral concession - it should be a requirement forced upon Israel.

Quote:

There is no basis to the myth of Israel's being a "false state." The UN was dealing with how to bring sovereignty to territory held by Britain. It was not dividing a sovereign state. It accommodated the core needs of both peoples.

If Israel is a "false state," then any Palestinian state would also be a "false state."

It is a false state in that it was not created by the people of the land or even in the best interests of the people of the land. It was 'created' by persons living in far away lands who in all honestly had absolutely nothing to do with the people who lived there. I can think of no other state which has been created this away and I doubt there will ever be another.

As far as I know before the 'split' people were known as Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Arabs etc so the notion that there was not a Palestine, or indeed that people did not refer to themselves as Palestinian is incorrect.

Quote:

The boundaries set forth for the Jewish state in the UN partition plan had a Jewish majority within them.

If you have a link to the demographics of the region at this time I would be grateful for it as I can't find one.! TY!

Quote:

If the two peoples had an alignment of interests and aspirations and were co-existing in peace and friendship within the British Mandate, such an approach might have been feasible. Cantonization and other single-state solutions were not feasible, because both peoples had a fundamental clash of interests, irreconcilable aspirations, and were engaged in an intensifying conflict. Both the Peel Commission and later UNSCOP concluded that partition was the only feasible route.

By referring to people as Arabs or Jews you are asking for trouble. Religion is a focal point for violence all over the word. Rather the people should have been referred to as Palestinians and the region should not have been split.

It was the proposed partition and the ensuing race for territory etc that has led to all the problems. Exactly why does the Jewish race believe it should have a land of its own? Why can't it mix with everyone else? And this cuts both ways btw - why can't the Arabs live with everyone else?

If someone came up with the idea of splitting i.e the US into US Arabs and US Jews do you think this would help with religious integration. People are people, racial/religious discrimination is bad however you wish to view it.

Quote:

Palestinian refugees and their descendants will have a chance to settle in a new Palestinian state.

So Israel is created over their head, they are forced out of their homes and you support the notion that they are not allowed back purely on the basis that they are Palestinian? Surely that is some sort of racial/religious discrimination.

Volker · 01-11-08, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

This is correct. Land for peace is the only solution I can see but Israel is building further into the occupied territories every day. I don't think it intends to give up any land.

Israel gave back Gaza. This was a land for peace approach. There is one group within Gaza to rule. Meanwhile they can control all the other groups in Gaza. Rockets are fired to Israel almost daily. No one of who governs in Gaza actually seems to care to stop it. Land for peace maybe would work with the Israelis, but it obviously does not work with the Palestinians.

donsutherland1 · 01-11-08, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

And if Israel lost would you regard the territory seized during the war as 'disputed' as opposed to occupied? Would you also accept the postition that the Arab armies should not be forced to hand back what they had taken but instead can negotiate with Israeli representatives to hand back a fraction of what they took and only if they are given guarantees that Israel will forget about the past and accept what they are offered now?

Elimination of Israel would have constituted the elimination of a fully sovereign state. There would be no dispute whatsoever that a sovereign state had been eliminated.

The circumstances are anything but the hypothetical situation you describe.

In 1948, the Arabs initiated aggression aimed at that purpose. They lost. Even after losing, they insisted that the UN dismantle Israel! In 1949, armistice lines were created to separate the military forces of the various sides. Negotiation was intended to resolve final borders.

In 1956, Egypt interfered with the free passage of shipping in the Strait of Tiran and also the Suez Canal. Israel, Britain, and France launched military operations against this aggression. Upon international guarantees that Egypt would no longer be permitted to block shipping in international waters. That guarantee proved worthless when Egypt again blockaded the Strait of Tiran in 1967.

After much patience, Israel had little choice but to break the illegal blockade on its own. Jordan and Syria attacked Israel even after Israel had repeatedly made clear that it would not engage in military action against those countries if they stayed out of the war.

In 1973, the Arabs again attacked Israel.

The Arabs were the aggressors in each of these situations. Israel acted in self-defense.

Quote:

I can't see any of the above being acceptable to you yet you seem to expect the Palestines to agree to this.

There was no sovereign Palestinian state. That is a crucial detail.

Quote:

A whole wave of resolutions regarding the Middle East have been rejected, mostly by the US using its veto.

Those were unbalanced resolutions. For example, a host of such resolutions introduced by such countries as Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union in 1967 sought to condemn Israel for the war, demand unconditional Israeli withdrawal, and make no mention nor take any concrete steps to address the illegal Egyptian blockade that constituted the act of aggression responsible for the war. Punishing the victim of aggression while rewarding the aggressors would have been inappropriate. I believe U.S. vetoes of those resolutions were exactly the right thing to do.

Quote:

This is correct. Land for peace is the only solution I can see but Israel is building further into the occupied territories every day. I don't think it intends to give up any land.

That expectation has proved incorrect in the past. For example, upon reaching a peace agreement with Egypt, Israel withdrew completely from the Sinai Peninsula. Moreover, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted President Clinton's December 2000 bridging proposal that would have given the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, and all of East Jerusalem except for the Western Wall.

Quote:

I do not regard the giving back of something that does not belong to you as a unilateral concession - it should be a requirement forced upon Israel.

Unilateral concessions in pursuit of good faith have historically proved disappointing in achieving their intended purposes. They have only undermined negotiating leverage and produced perceptions of weakness that led the other party to harden its positions. Israel's complete disengagement from the Gaza Strip is a good case in point.

Reciprocity should be key to any agreements. That way, each party has something to gain, and each party has something to lose if it fails to uphold its obligations.

Quote:

As far as I know before the 'split' people were known as Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Arabs etc so the notion that there was not a Palestine, or indeed that people did not refer to themselves as Palestinian is incorrect.

Palestine referred to a region. It did not refer to a sovereign nation. There never has been a sovereign state called Palestine.

Quote:

If you have a link to the demographics of the region at this time I would be grateful for it as I can't find one.! TY!

You can find UNSCOP's proposal (which includes demographic figures) on the Mideastweb.org website.

The table is listed below:

Quote:

By referring to people as Arabs or Jews you are asking for trouble. Religion is a focal point for violence all over the word. Rather the people should have been referred to as Palestinians and the region should not have been split.

The references are how the two peoples defined themselves.

Quote:

It was the proposed partition and the ensuing race for territory etc that has led to all the problems. Exactly why does the Jewish race believe it should have a land of its own? Why can't it mix with everyone else? And this cuts both ways btw - why can't the Arabs live with everyone else?

Both peoples had irreconcilable differences in their interests and aspirations. A unitary state solution was not practical. One has seen similar irreconcilable differences in numerous past ethnic conflicts. Why can't those in Bosnia live in a greater Serbia? Why can't the Kosovars live in Serbia? Why can't the Turkish and Greek Cypriots live in a single unified state? Why couldn't South Asia's Hindus and Muslims live in a single state?

In general, attempting a "one-size fits all" approach to foreign policy is not practical. There are differences and nuances that need to be considered. Attempting to put one ethnic group under the domination of a historic rival is a recipe for a bloodbath. It doesn't work. At the time of partition, the Palestine region was facing intensifying conflict between its two peoples. The partition plan offered the best prospect of avoiding an all-out bloodbath.

Quote:

If someone came up with the idea of splitting i.e the US into US Arabs and US Jews do you think this would help with religious integration. People are people, racial/religious discrimination is bad however you wish to view it.

The circumstances in the U.S. are entirely different from those that prevailed in the Palestine region leading up to the UN's partition plan.

Quote:

So Israel is created over their head, they are forced out of their homes and you support the notion that they are not allowed back purely on the basis that they are Palestinian? Surely that is some sort of racial/religious discrimination.

The UN partition plan allowed for the creation of both an Arab and Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees and their descendants will be able to return to the historic region, but within the borders of a Palestinian state. Compensation would be provided in exchange for limiting the portion of the region to which the refugees and their descendants could relocate. Attempting to use the demographic situation as a backdoor mechanism for eliminating Israel would be counter to the UN's original intent.

donsutherland1 · 01-11-08, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Israel gave back Gaza. This was a land for peace approach. There is one group within Gaza to rule. Meanwhile they can control all the other groups in Gaza. Rockets are fired to Israel almost daily. No one of who governs in Gaza actually seems to care to stop it. Land for peace maybe would work with the Israelis, but it obviously does not work with the Palestinians.

Good point, Volker.

On this matter, we agree. Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip. Neverthless, Palestinian terrorists continued to fire rockets into Israel. The firing of rockets continues to this day. "Resistance," as Hamas defines it, has nothing to do with Israeli possession of either the West Bank or formerly of the Gaza Strip. It is entirely about Israel's existence.

The Hamas Charter makes this clear in declaring:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgment Day...

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion.

Monk-Eye · 01-11-08, 11:30 AM

"Miss Application"

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

And if Israel lost would you regard the territory seized during the war as 'disputed' as opposed to occupied? Would you also accept the postition that the Arab armies should not be forced to hand back what they had taken but instead can negotiate with Israeli representatives to hand back a fraction of what they took .....

Arab racial land expansionism continues even today, do you propose stopping or even reversing it?

Pervasivley, the expansionism also includes the misapplication of arabism onto non-arabs.

Arabism is the genetic religion of arabs, intended for the preservation of the arab genetic lineage - stemming from ishmael patriarchy of abraham.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

So Israel is created over their head, they are forced out of their homes and you support the notion that they are not allowed back purely on the basis that they are Palestinian? Surely that is some sort of racial/religious discrimination.

Israelism and Arabism are genetic religions.

Arabism acknowledges the torah of musa which specified the land boundaries for the government and practice of the genetic religion isaelism; therefore, however the world decides to treat either one of these peoples is irrelevant to whether arabism is committing blasphemy by subverting that establishment.

Arabism was not intended as government for non-arabs, and it egregiously did not delegate boundaries for its "promised land" to the point of subverting its own god.