What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Astronuc]

. . . what maters is that the Israeli's and the Palestinians come to an agreement that both do accept.

Agreed. Is that possible?

 

[Yonoz]

Here's a famous one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre" . It was quite a brutal massacre, the severly traumatised and tortured survivors abandoned what had been their home in a peaceful coexistence with their neighbours for centuries.
Here's how Human Rights Watch describes it:

On August 23 1929, amid anti-Jewish riots in much of Palestine, sixty-seven Jewish residents of Hebron were brutally murdered by Palestinian Arabs, with some of the victims being raped, tortured, or mutilated. Other Palestinian Arabs sheltered their Jewish neighbours; today the Zionist Archives preserve a list of 435 Jews who found a safe haven in twenty-eight Palestinian Arab homes in Hebron during the carnage. Jewish residents left Hebron in the years following the 1929 massacre, and for today's Israeli settlers in Hebron it remains a potent symbol: in November 2000, a large sign could be seen near the Palestinian market next to the Avraham Avino settlement in central Hebron: "This market was built on Jewish property, stolen by Arabs, after the 1929 massacre."

 

[Anttech]

I'm sure they were, but they nonetheless took some part in the attempt to destroy Israel, and as such they cannot be allowed to return. Had they not been a threat they would have stayed like the countless Israeli Arab communities. Had their leadership chosen to accept the Partition Plan, they would not even have had to make that choice. They chose all out war, and they bore the consequences of defeat.

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it. Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

 

[Evo]

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it. Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

What about the redistribution of land after WWI as a result of the Treaty of Versaille?

 

[Yonoz]

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it.

First of all, you did bomb the **** out of the country, cut it up, and, well, serving half of it to Stalin is not so much better than throwing them to the lions. But I don't blame you - they did really bad things. Except, what was done to Germany was not in punishment for all those bad things --- it was simply done to serve every victorious leadership's interest. Europe's lucky America thought what was good for Europe was good for them and carried out the Marshal Plan.
I think it's quite acceptable not to allow people who have fought to destroy a country right back into the country, en masse.

Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

No but there were enough attempts to reach a peaceful settlement, and they all failed. Seeing this, a UN committee drew a Partition Plan which was accepted by the General Assembly. The Jewish Leadership fully accepted this plan and declared independence in full accordance with it. It's mentioned right there on our Scroll of Independence. This new State was attacked the very next day, from both within and out. With the exception of Deir Yassin, no expulsions are recorded - at least, not ones that have no serious doubts about their authenticity. It is relatively agreed that Arab Leaders called villagers to leave their homes until the Arab armies capture them, we certainly won't find any supporting evidence that will satisfy you so you don't even have to ask.

 

[Astronuc]

Nice... I suppose after the last great war in Europe we should have just thrown the germans to the lions, cut up there country and given it to the allies, because hey they started it. Come on quite the right wing rhetoric. They were not happy with the plan the Zionist had in stall for them, it was UNFAIR... Should they have just bowed and said, "yes master"

Umm, after WWI, eastern parts of Germany (E. Prussia) were merged into Poland, which had lost land to the Soviet Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Weimar_Republic_.281919_.E2.80.93_1933.29


After WWII, Germany was partitioned! East Germany was under Russian occupation, and West Germany was partitioned among US, France and UK, but eventually the Germans were given political control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Division_and_reunification_.281945_.E2.80.93_1990.29

 

[Yonoz]

BTW post-war Germany was not at all similar to wartime Germany. The German public confronted a very bitter, hard to swallow truth. In some sense, they underwent a national catharsis. Today Germany is a flagship welfare state with a unique, truly selfless foreign policy.
The newly-defined Palestinian people were manipulated by the Arab states in the occupied territories (occupied by the Arab states, in violation of the UN resolution).

 

[Anttech]

The war I was referring to was ww2 (the 'last' great war). German was annexed I know this, however the people were not 'removed' were they? Why not attempted to look at the point I am trying to make, rather than look for holes in the content? If that is where we are at with this thread I am out!..

 

[Bystander]

How about something even more recent? SE Asia --- people were definitely "removed" from Cambodia, ejected, or forced to leave Laos and the former S. Vietnam. Where's your sense of outrage on those events?

 

[Yonoz]

The war I was referring to was ww2 (the 'last' great war). German was annexed I know this, however the people were not 'removed' were they?

Well, putting up a wall through the capital and preventing passage between two parts of what was a single country, overnight, without a warning, is very much like removing people. Some people were simply trapped on the wrong side of the border and could not pass. Families were split. Both halves of the capital city were now in a new country, with many dying while trying to cross.
I remember watching the news that night [EDIT]the wall fell[/EDIT]. I did not grasp the historical magnitude and could not help but feel the bittersweetness of it all.

Why not attempted to look at the point I am trying to make, rather than look for holes in the content? If that is where we are at with this thread I am out!..

I apologize if I've been offensive in some way.

 

[Anttech]

How about something even more recent? SE Asia --- people were definitely "removed" from Cambodia, ejected, or forced to leave Laos and the former S. Vietnam. Where's your sense of outrage on those events?

Last time I looked this thread was regarding Iran and Israel and ME problems. Not Cambodia, do you want to start another thread so you can vent your rage regarding that? If so I would be happy to contribute.

Yonzo, don't worry you haven't offened me... And I hope I have offended you either

 

[Bystander]

Last time I looked this thread was regarding Iran and Israel and ME problems. Not Cambodia, do you want to start another thread so you can vent your rage regarding that? If so I would be happy to contribute.

Nor, is it about Germany --- the OP has to do with Ahmadinejad, "period," not a gunnysack full of whines about the "Palestinian Problem."

All wars have losers --- some have winners --- it's something to think about before starting a war --- the Palestinians joined the Arabs in starting a war in 1948 --- they lost. That's that.

The Iranians appear to be preparing to start a war today --- how does the rest of the world handle the situation?

 

[Anttech]

Nor, is it about Germany --- the OP has to do with Ahmadinejad, "period," not a gunnysack full of whines about the "Palestinian Problem."

Do you always insult everyone?

 

[Yonoz]

The Iranians appear to be preparing to start a war today --- how does the rest of the world handle the situation?

As von Clausewitz said:

War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4078254699358348828" kyleb linked to.

 

[kyleb]

You're right -- if people have a right to their land, then they have that right whether or not they believe it.
"Strong Jewish majority" my foot. Go play around with https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html and compare the homogeneity of Israel's populace with other nations. (I thought to try Greece, Lebanon, Germany, and Iran. France, Italy, and Denmark too, but it doesn't have statistics for them)

You sound like you're accusing Israelis of something -- why not say it instead of hint around it?

You are most certiantly acucsing me of something here; please, have out with it.

Beyond that, of couse you have the right to believe in your land; again, it is the ideology by which it conteues to be annexed which much of the world takes issue with. Also, by 'a strong majorty' I am talking about the intentions of the Zionist movement to have a Jewish democarcy, not the current demographics. However, at just over 80% they line up quite well with that often spoken intent. Why are you bring up the Factbook though, surely you are aware of that intent?

The question is whether what Iran sees as acceptable is totally unacceptable to Israel? What right does Iran have to attack Israel by proxy? Why does the Iranian puppet head of state keep yapping about how much he hates Israel? And is it a good idea to let him become nuclear-capable?

Again, Iran has plainly stated that they will accept what the Palestine accepts; so what is acceptable to both Israel and Palestine is what Iran needs to accept Israel. Understanding that and making it happen the only thing that is going to move us towards the peace you are asking for in the rest of your questions.

Zionism is a belief. There's a Zionist movement, the members of which, surprise-surprise - are Zionists. You're describing the Zionist movement as some sort of cult or clandestine organisation. There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist - why, I even think it's a good thing.

Such things are matters of perspective, as is also exemplified in my Sovietism example.

Well there was some violence as back as the first Aliyah in the last two decades of the 19th century, but the first true battle was the one in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Hai" .

I'm sure they were, but they nonetheless took some part in the attempt to destroy Israel, and as such they cannot be allowed to return. Had they not been a threat they would have stayed like the countless Israeli Arab communities. Had their leadership chosen to accept the Partition Plan, they would not even have had to make that choice. They chose all out war, and they bore the consequences of defeat.

They chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel, and they resisted being driven out. The choice to create a democracy of strong Jewish majority in a region which was predominately owned and populated by non-Jewish people was the choice for war.

Agreed. Is that possible?

Good question, and I'll defer to a man who has far more experience in this situation than any of us here:

Q: So what's the solution?

Avnery: The solution is perfectly clear. All parts of the conflict have been amply debated and discussed. Many plans have been put on the table--hundreds. And everybody knows by now exactly the parameters of a peace solution. We at Gush Shalom have published a draft text of a peace agreement, and I am fairly certain that when peace comes about, it will be more or less on these lines.

The solution is this: There will be a state of Palestine in all of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Green Line, the border that existed before 1967, will come into being again. Jerusalem will be the shared capital--East Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine, West Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. All settlements must be evacuated. The security must be arranged for both people, and there must be a moral solution and a practical solution.

On these lines, there will be peace. And if you ask me, they could make peace in one week. The trouble is that both people find it very difficult to come to this point. And when I say both people, I don't want to establish a symmetrical situation. There is no symmetry here; there are occupiers, and the occupied. And as the occupier, we have the responsibility to lead this process. This is what I, as an Israeli patriot, tell my own people.

I highly recommend reading the whole interview.

 

[Yonoz]

You are most certiantly acucsing me of something here; please, have out with it.

Beyond that, of couse you have the right to believe in your land; again, it is the ideology by which it conteues to be annexed which much of the world takes issue with. By a strong majorty I am talking about the intentions of the zionist movement to have a Jewish democarcy rather than the current demographics. However, at just over 80% they line up quite well with that often spoken intent. Why are you bring up the Factbook though, surely you are aware of that intent?

That is no different than any other country's immigration policy. Come on, do you think Australia shouldn't have been full of Asians by now? And Europe by Africans. Every nation wants to perpetuate its existence. It is in Israel's demographic interests to withdraw from the occupied territories and reach an agreement with the Palestinians.

Again, Iran has plainly stated that they will accept what the Palestine accepts; so what is acceptable to both Israel and Palestine is what Iran needs to accept Israel.

That is not the question. The question is whether or not there is solution that both Iran and Israel can agree upon? And currently the answer is "no".

Understanding that and making it happen the only thing that is going to move us towards the peace you are asking for the rest of your questions.

O&S. Opinion and Speculation.

Such things are matters of perspective, as is also exemplified in my Sovietism example.

Well I think if you want to grasp the concept of Zionism the best way to do it is to look at it from a Zionist's perspective.

They chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel, and they resisted being driven out. The choice to create a democracy of strong Jewish majority in a region which was predominately owned and populated buy non-Jewish people was the choice for war.

TRANSFERRED? Do you know what that means?! Are you accusing the Zionist movement of planning a crime against humanity in 1920? Get your facts straight.

Good question, and I'll defer to a man who has far more experience in this situation than any of us here:
I highly recommend reading the whole interview.

Avnery's a good man and I completely agree with what you quoted. Unfortunately this is not never-never-land and such a final solution can only be implemented when both sides trust each other. It is up to the negotiators to start contructing a progressive solution, and that requires that both sides actually meet to discuss it.

 

[Astronuc]

kyleb, thanks for that link. Interesting interview!

Avnery . . . I am against violence on both sides. But I understand people who believe that without violence they will not achieve anything at all. It is our responsibility as the stronger party, as the occupying power, to convince the Palestinians that they can achieve their basic national aims, their just national aspirations, without violence. Unfortunately, the behavior of the Sharon administration, and before this of the Barak administration, has shown the Palestinians the opposite: namely, that they will achieve nothing without violence.

Q: According to the United States and Israel, it is the Palestinians--more specifically, Arafat--who must take the initiative in ending the "cycle of violence." Edward Said once said: "Since when does a militarily occupied people have responsibility for a peace movement?" Is it the responsibility of the Palestinians to end the violence?

Avnery: Violence is part of the resistance to occupation. The basic fact is not the violence; the basic fact is the occupation. Violence is a symptom; the occupation is the disease--a mortal disease for everybody concerned, the occupied and the occupiers. Therefore, the first responsibility is to put an end to the occupation. And in order to put an end to the occupation, you must make peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. This is the real aim, this is the real task.

So what has the Bush administration has demonstrated to the world? That the way to may change, to get what one wants, a la Iraq, is to use violence?

I don't necessarily agree that Iran is preparing for war. They are developing ballistic missiles and possibly nuclear weapons, although the case for nuclear weapons is largely circumstantial. The question then, is whether or not Iran would use nuclear weapons as a deterrent or would they use them offensively.

Isreal's immediate concern is that Iran is supporting groups like Hizbullah, and in the longer term, if Iran will become more aggressive toward Israel, either indirectly through groups like Hizbullan, or more directly.

Certainly, the militant rhetoric from Ahmadinejad does not ease the concerns of Israel or the US.

 

[Yonoz]

BTW Here are some bits from the http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm":

Accordingly we, members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

...

The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the community of nations.

We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

In the absence of a constitution, the Proclamation of Independence is a type of supreme legal document. Laws that clearly collide with some part, such as "[The State of Israel] will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" are actively annulled by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may challenge the Executive Authority without requiring an appeal.

 

[Yonoz]

Isreal's immediate concern is that Iran is supporting groups like Hizbullah, and in the longer term, if Iran will become more aggressive toward Israel, either indirectly through groups like Hizbullan, or more directly.

Actually, Israel's immediate concern is the Iranian nuclear program. This is not new to us, we've been following it for years. This is a critical point for Israeli foreign policy. This is the strongest existential threat Israel has ever faced, and if necessary I believe military action will be taken. It is a red line for us.
BTW Avnery's great but he's not a realist. When it comes to finding a solution his view becomes very egocentric. You cannot convince the people of Israel to jump into a peace treaty just like you cannot convince Palestinians to do the same.

 

[Yonoz]

Here's a good article about Zionism's land deals, http://www.ismi.emory.edu/JournalArticles/MESapr84.html" :

Before an area of land was considered for JNF purchase, the Agricultural Settlement Department of the Palestine Zionist Executive Jewish Agency conducted geographic, topographic and hydrographic studies. In addition, a series of recommendations was usually made about a land's suitability for growing certain kinds of crops. Estimates were made about the cost of an amelioration program and the time necessary to prepare the land for actual settlement. Time was of the essence, but attention had to be paid to the availability of drinking water, road building needs, access to main highways or the railroad, possible swamp drainage, and other costs associated with the establishment of a moshav or a kibbutz if rural areas were under consideration.10 Sometimes, the land to be acquired was considered so desirable that the plans for its future use were drawn up while the contracts were in various stages of negotiation. A simple land purchase took anywhere from one to six months or more to complete. But evaluations, negotiations, purchase and transfer sometimes took years, even decades to complete as in the cases of the Sursock, Wadi Hawarith, and Huleh area purchases.
...
Not only could land purchase negotiations last for years, but the payments made for a particular area of land also stretched over a period of time. In most cases, payment to a seller was fixed in installments. Initial sums were usually paid to lubricate the selling motive. Local village notables, tenants in occupation, mukhtars, intermediaries, brokers, short-term squatters, and land registry officials often received persuasive sums. The owner or owners also received a sum of money prior to signing the contract. This could mean paying several similar or different sums to members of one family who owned portions of a large land area. A subsequent payment was sometimes made when all the title deeds available were collected and condensed into one large parcel. Another payment was made when a portion of the land was legally transferred or prior to the land being considered free of tenants and agricultural occupants. Still another sum was paid when possession was taken (this to avoid squatting by transient fellaheen), and then periodically as stipulated in a contract.11 The duration of the financial connection between the JNF and the Arab seller(s) gave the JNF leverage over the seller in effecting certain obligations such as registration, tax payments, compensation to agricultural occupants, and assurances that the land would be delivered free of fellaheen occupants.

 

[Bystander]

Got any numbers for total area purchased prior to 1948? Compared to area of Israel today?

Edit: Read first, then ask the questions. The article discusses the Ottoman registry post WW I; were the British maintaining the old Ottoman records and recording transactions? It ain't clear who owned what to sell to whom under which legal code --- can't be Ottoman post WW I, got to be LoN Mandate assuming the legal obligations of the Ottoman Empire, and administering registry, titles, and transactions under that, or a modification.

 

[kyleb]

TRANSFERRED? Do you know what that means?! Are you accusing the Zionist movement of planning a crime against humanity in 1920? Get your facts straight.

I've got nothing wrong with my facts here, 'expropriate gently' was means by which Theodor Herzl orignaly picture the transfer, and that evolved over time.

Avnery's a good man and I completely agree with what you quoted. Unfortunately this is not never-never-land and such a final solution can only be implemented when both sides trust each other. It is up to the negotiators to start contructing a progressive solution, and that requires that both sides actually meet to discuss it.

As Avery said, Israel in is the position of power here hence has the responsibility for leadership. Misleading the world int by trying to pass http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf a 'generous offer' or a 'progressive solution' is downright Fantasy Land, and that isn't any way to establish trust.

 

[Yonoz]

Read first, then ask the questions. The article discusses the Ottoman registry post WW I; were the British maintaining the old Ottoman records and recording transactions? It ain't clear who owned what to sell to whom under which legal code --- can't be Ottoman post WW I, got to be LoN Mandate assuming the legal obligations of the Ottoman Empire, and administering registry, titles, and transactions under that, or a modification.

I'm not so sure but I believe under the law the British imposed Ottoman documents were legal tenders, as would be expected. In fact, in its last days the Ottoman Empire was apparently plagued by bad bookkeeping.

 

[kyleb]

kyleb, thanks for that link. Interesting interview!

Yeah, Uri Avnery has a wealth of experience in this conflict and isn't afraid to speak his mind about his opinions on it, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8712" as well.

Certainly, the militant rhetoric from Ahmadinejad does not ease the concerns of Israel or the US.

Could you please cite a specific example of what you are referring to here? When such comments raise concern I think it is best we understand their context and insure the accuracy of the translations.

 

[Yonoz]

I've got nothing wrong with my facts here, 'expropriate gently' was means by which Theodor Herzl orignaly picture the transfer, and that evolved over time.

Herzl also wanted Israel to be founded in Uganda. I have read Altneuland - it is a fictional story of a Jewish utopia. Herzl was a pioneer, and as he was dealing with uncharted waters he sometimes thought up some really weird stuff. There has never been an official Arab transfer. Only a Jewish one.

As Avery said, Israel in is the position of power here hence has the responsibility for leadership. Misleading the world int by trying to pass http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf a 'generous offer' or a 'progressive solution' is downright Fantasy Land, and that isn't any way to establish trust.

How can a negotiation proposal be a disregard for Palestinian sovereignty?

 

[Bystander]

I'm not so sure but I believe under the law the British imposed Ottoman documents were legal tenders, as would be expected. In fact, in its last days the Ottoman Empire was apparently plagued by bad bookkeeping.

"Dunam, 0.1 hectare, 1000 m², used as a measurement since British mandate." So, 2 million dunams, 2000 km² purchased outright from 19th century, up to partition, some fraction of remaining area (probably large) held outright by Ottoman Empire (then unknown ownership under LoN Mandate to British --- reparations?), and what was the status and disposition of that --- under Ottomans, LoN, and post-partition (had it worked)?

 

[Yonoz]

"Dunam, 0.1 hectare, 1000 m², used as a measurement since British mandate." So, 2 million dunams, 2000 km² purchased outright from 19th century, up to partition, some fraction of remaining area (probably large) held outright by Ottoman Empire (then unknown ownership under LoN Mandate to British --- reparations?), and what was the status and disposition of that --- under Ottomans, LoN, and post-partition (had it worked)?

There was a census in the 50's in which government survey takers passed across Israel, mapping abandoned property, as part of a legislative effort to consolidate unclaimed land under the national territorial administration. Such lands remain state property today, however they are leased to various bodies or serve as nature reserves. There is a process by which these lands are sold to communities who have lived and cultivated the land for exceptional periods of time, and, pending regulation, they may be sold or developed by the state for specific purposes, eg given to universities, national infrastructure facilities, powerlines, roads etc.

 

[Bystander]

Okay, that's post-partition --- I was more curious whether the Ottoman records were in decent enough shape to establish what fraction of the current area, 20,000 km², was Ottoman, rather than private, property.

 

[Astronuc]

Could you please cite a specific example of what you are referring to here? When such comments raise concern I think it is best we understand their context and insure the accuracy of the translations.

Perhaps I should have indicated "comments attributed to Ahmadinejad." For example -

"Israel must be wiped off the map ... The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

Ahmadinejad - Addressing a conference on The World without Zionism, in Tehran on 26 October.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/39AF3EA0-C8E9-456A-99D3-438045D4431F.htm

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 14 – Radical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described on Friday Israel as a “rotten tree” that would be “annihilated with one storm”.

“The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm”, Ahmadinejad said at a conference in Tehran dubbed “International Conference of Holy Qods and Support for the Rights of the Palestinian Nation”.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6774

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/

These quote seem pretty militant to me.

Now it could be that Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood, or is there a deliberate attempt by the media distort or misrepresent him?

 

[Yonoz]

Okay, that's post-partition --- I was more curious whether the Ottoman records were in decent enough shape to establish what fraction of the current area, 20,000 km², was Ottoman, rather than private, property.

That's the main problem. It was a desolate land the was divided between several families. The Ottomans, constructing and operating their famous railroads, cut down much of Israel's and Lebanon's native forests. This is one of the reasons for the abundance of swampland in Palestine. Entire regions were unpopulated, some only seasonaly. But even those were not the property of the many Falaheen inhabitants. Falaheen were Arab peasants that owned no land, but cultivated or simply lived off it.

 

[kyleb]

Herzl also wanted Israel to be founded in Uganda. I have read Altneuland - it is a fictional story of a Jewish utopia. Herzl was a pioneer, and as he was dealing with uncharted waters he sometimes thought up some really weird stuff. There has never been an official Arab transfer. Only a Jewish one.

I recommend taking good look though Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons's 'A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine'.

How can a negotiation proposal be a disregard for Palestinian sovereignty?

Because sovereignty requires more than a collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control.

Okay, that's post-partition --- I was more curious whether the Ottoman records were in decent enough shape to establish what fraction of the current area, 20,000 km², was Ottoman, rather than private, property.

I don't know where to find the number you are asking for, but precentage of public land for each sub-district as of 1945 can be seen on http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg" .

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I don't know where to find the number you are asking for, but precentage of public land for each sub-district as of 1945 can be seen on http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg" .

What just happened to the screen?

Excluding the Negev, public land is around 10-15%, smaller fraction than I woulda thought, 1000 to 1500 km². Then 10,000 in the Negev (10-15 depending on dictionary or atlas).

 

[Yonoz]

I recommend taking good look though Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons's 'A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine'.

That's what they are. Proposals. There were also proposals to establish a Jewish home in Uganda or South America. They all remained just that - proposals.

Because sovereignty requires more than a collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control.

Maybe, but it is an offer, the value of which is subject to several views which we will not uncover here - not a "flagrant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty" as you labelled it.

 

[kyleb]

Perhaps I should have indicated "comments attributed to Ahmadinejad." For example -
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/39AF3EA0-C8E9-456A-99D3-438045D4431F.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6774

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/

These quote seem pretty militant to me.

Now it could be that Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood, or is there a deliberate attempt by the media distort or misrepresent him?

You can find a full translation of the speech to which your first and third example came from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/w...ml?ex=1157083200&en=241f323284dee73c&ei=5070" which I linked earlier. I don't speak Farsi so of course I have to go off such translations as well; but conidering the context and variations in translation it looks like mostly misunderstanding to me in the media included, with a little misrepresentation going long in perpetuating that misunderstanding. Do you see anything more than that?

 

[Yonoz]

Even if the man is misunderstood, why does he keep making threat-noises? I mean seriously, if you wanted to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, would you be making comments anything like the least grim translations?