Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Not being too well educated in the political enviroment of the middle east and given that the old guy's about to throw a seven, could anyone fill me in about him? Is he a goodie or a baddie? Should I like him or not?

Start reading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3102112.stm

I have mixed feelings about him. But he currently is too important for the Palestinian state. If he were to die there would be an incredible chaos in the middle east politics. Personally the man is too important and should be ready to appoint another man to lead the process of a Palestinian state.

Hmmm so he'll be a baddie then. Or a goodie from a certain point of view.

Both sides leaders are baddies in my opinion, and are both hindering any chance of peace.

But yeah, him dying will cause a lot of problems for the Palestinians. Although in the long term it may be for the good, as Bush said he won't deal with Arafat, which is kinda ridiculous in itself. So there isn't any hope of (mediated) peace until he's out of the picture.

That's the case with any politician. Some people see them as goodies others see them as baddies. In the case for Arafat the man has been accused of protecting Terrorist in the middle east. Yet at the same time he wants to improve the life of Arabs in the disputed terrorities.

exactly the same here.


In all honesty, i kinda even think he is dead, and they are covering it up until they come up with what the'll, and if hes not, they will cover it up untill they get a solution.

or just find a place he's allowed to be burried in

exactly

(rumour -> his wife wants money, and that organisation watns it as well)

and they will fight other the power in palestine and everything will go even worse than it is now

eh his wife has no chance but that their will be a power struggle among the Palestinian that has almost been scheduled at Arafat`s death

and he is dead now, ... or so a new rumor claims

that's sad, and it seemed like the whole war will end at last :9

(btw sorry for typos, too lazy to think)

it will never end, no one is willing to give space to the other

but they said they'll remove army and everything from gaza (or however it is called in english)

there is a HUGE difference between saying and doing

i know.
but they could stop fighting

tell them

i don't know their language

the universal language of wuv

exactly. i don't know it cry

The only one bad aspect of his death is that now we can expect great chaos in Palestina. Killing people in not so good way to fight for independence. But I think his priority was money

AT THE DRIVE IN FOREVERR!!!

The guy was a terrorist himself and directly contributed to and controlled Hamas and every Palistinian terror group in the region... come on.... everytime he said stop blowing peeps they did so because the guys a billionaire funding them. The PLO is just going to do the same thing they always have but this time they take all his money and directly control the aspects of operations.

Well either way he's toast now

Yasser Arafat has been officially declared dead. No mistake this time.

I think that the western media is far too biased on the side of Isreal. When isreal was created, they illegally forced millions of palestineans out of their homes, and took over their land. By all rights, isreal should still belong to the palestineans. I can understand how the UN would have felt sorry for the jews after WW2, but it's no excuse for kicking even more people out of their homes.

I humbly agree with GP... the wtf smiley is perfectly placed here
I would recommend RaventheOnly reads eleveninches's last post and then takes some good history books to discover the truth

not the case in Norway

well I was watching BBC news this morning, and it was TOTALLY biased against arafat.

John Howard, the Prime Minister I didn't vote for, seems to agree with the media. While Arafat was lying in a coma close to death he had the disrespect to come out and say how terrible Arafat would seem in the history books. Of course Little Johny is far from innocent, but really, it seemed wrong.

When isreal was created, they illegally forced millions of palestineans out of their homes, and took over their land. By all rights, isreal should still belong to the palestineans.

Dangerous logic there eleven. If we are looking at populations that have been wronged and ousted from their homeland you'd have to look at the Nations of the Native Americans first.

The middle east is a mess not because the Jews moved into Isreal. It's a mess because over they last 100 years everybody has been mucking around there and now it's catching up to us all. So many people are to blame that it would be a waste of time to play the Blame game now.

You forget that ORIGINALLY the Jews had claim to the land after the Arabs conquered it and ran them out. The Isrealis returned in numbers basically and ran them back out. The UN didn't feel sorry for them, it was the Soviets versus the rest and the Arabs joined the Commies so we gave the isrealis favor.

i know plenty of history to know Arafats a terrorist. I also know enough to tell you that the Jews were there first and only returned.

Hello.... we was sided with the Soviets against us for what? 50 years....!!!!! and he funded and controlled terror orginazations and has been the center of the resistance to peace between the Arabs and Isrealis. You don't realize how bad this guy was.



What do you think the first thing they said when Stalin and Hitler died... when Mao.... do you cry for the terrorists holding the detonator blasting a school bus apart?

It was the Jewish revolt against the Romans that caused the mass expulsion of Jews by the Romans.

Come back once you've read your history, and once you've figured out that Israel is an unwanted occupier, who wants to rule a people who do not want to be ruled by them. Oh, and stop watching Fox News

Back in October the Israli Parliament voted to withdraw Jewish settlers from the Gaza strip and the West Bank areas claim by Palestine. It seems that the Isralies are showing signs to stop the conflict. I feared that Arafat death might bring chaos and confusion to the Palestinian politics and most likely it will happen. Hopefully there won't be any more suicide attacks and the process doesn't get affected by anymore violence.

I was glad when Arafat condemn all the suicide attacks when he was alive the man did show that he wanted peace in the conflict. Whoever gets the job as a the new leader of Palestine hopefully will keep the peace process going.

the peace would already have been established in 1993 if they didn't kill Rabin

I disagree, there are many bad aspects of his death, not least of all there is now a vast number of people without their leader.
A wife without her husband etc etc

Tony Blair has flown out to meet mr Bush, Blair is suggesting they try to put alot of effort into this peace treaty.

pfff... bush interested in peace there? slim chance

There were good chances in the past. It just didn't happen.

and it will never happen if both don't give eachother space

Historically both have tried to resolve the conflict is just that there has never been been a cease fired from sides. As I said earlier hopefully the change in Palestinian politics won't hinder the little process that is taking place.

No, no. They only voted to leave the Gaza Strip, which is minuscule compared to the West Bank (see map). And not give any military control over, so they will still be under Israeli control and supervision. The Israeli plan is also to annex large parts of the West Bank where the settlers are living. Its hard to imagine the two-state solution Bush was envisioning a few years ago if the Israelis get their way.

Yasser didnt die he just ran away so he could marry bigfoot

as i said, Tony Blair is suggesting it. Bush hasnt said anything public on it yet, it was not his idea.

I never said anything that would suggest he was interested in peace there.

lots of people have suggested to get peace there, it means ****
it is about DOING not INTENDING to do something

so before giving people hope, lets wait

Giving hope is wrong?

I think Blair will genuinely try to help at least a little, he has an election coming up

Arafat is a terrorist. So are the Israeli leaders. The difference is that we (the US) aren't funding the Palestinians, so their leaders are never represented as terrorists. Israel is the 51st american state, it's practically a fact. I've never understood why Arafat was given the nobel peace prize. Just because he took part in negotiations to end the violence in the middle east shouldn't negate the terrible things he did in the past.

DS... that's the task of the women, after all, that kind opened the damn Pandora Box

but the US doesn't want peace he can't do that now

errr... CF... you mean that cause the US isn't funding the Palestinians they ARE represented as terrorists I think
and he got the peace prize together with Y. Rabin in 1994 for the Oslo Agreements which would secure peace in the Middle East ... untill some idiot shot his prime minister and all hope got shot (no pun intended)

Raz I agree with you 100%.

Did you know the European (Zionist) Jews were looking at land in Africa/Asia during the European (British) expansion period? If not for Britain the Jews would not be in Palestine today. Nor would they be able to sustain themselves without the backing and financing of the U.S.

Imo There will never be peace in that land as long as Israel is allowed to have Nuclear weapons and other nations in the region are not.

That is not fair.

Israel should follow the U.N. ban on Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East and disarm.

EDIT:

For those that want a brief history on the conflict click on the link below.

The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
by Robert Blecher, Stanford University.
http://www.alllearn.org/er/lg/IsraelPalestine2K2.shtml

I dont think its fair to say 'the US doesnt want peace'
Everybody wants peace in the end.

I assume you hold the same righteous indignation towards your own governments long bloody history of unprovoked violence? Sure you do.


Anyway: without getting into the definition of what constitutes terrorism: with any luck Arafats successor(s?) will "denounce terrorism" and the process of building some sort of peace can begin.

Again.

I dont........

You also think a dead man has married bigfoot

I sure do. And yours. Sept. 11th was a terrible event, but I don't doubt WHY the terrorists feel the way they do. We've been killing them for years.

you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Actually, the Taliban party, who refused to hand over Bin Laden, were actually in America weeks prior to Sept 11th. Guess who paid for it, yep, Dubya and his administration. Oh yeah, even after the Taliban were declared an enemy, american oil companies continued trying to make a deal with them over this damn pipe they wanted to build.

God bless bush eh?

All those steak dinners must have REALLY made them hate you

hey I read the supermarket tabloids

with "the US" I mean "the US government"

I wish I cold say that was news to me. There has never been any doubt in my mind that Bush is partly to blame for Sept 11th.

I just found another one of Michael Morres Puppets.

there is a difference between being a puppet and stating cold hard facts

I understood what you meant, Yerss, and i agree with your 'difference' statement.

Sombodys patriotic

Who? Stupid? What?

I've never actually seen any of Mr. Moores documentaries/movies

I think he's a blow hard with his greasy fingers in too many pies.

But, you know what I mean...you are too.

Maybe people would take you seriously if you stoped acting like a pansy

Are personal attacks necessary?

More people take me seriously than they do you.

But, do feel free to explain how a pansy acts?

I know I should be the more grown up, mature person here...but I'm just as weak as he is when it comes to being attacked.

like you

See, there you go, implying he is weak, it it needed?

At least Ive got balls unlike some people I know.

Am I the only one acting immature here? No, try quoting him.

And we all know I like BALLS!

Both of you, pack it in, your resorting to personal attacks on each other because of differing opinion. Cause of many problems today, get over yourselves adne ach other.

Dont you have something better to do like going to a gay pride festival?

No, I don't actually. Your turn.

and I see we have our own Palestinian-Israelic peacetalks here ...

That was uneeded

You can either calm down, the two of you, or i bring in the UN

Keep it on topic and use PM' s for your bickering.

I have better things to do that talk to this pansy Im going to the horror section

Bye sweetie...

The horror section, better than something?

You learn something new every day, eh?

Right, reported.

See ya in 3 days Scarpa wavey

I didnt want that, i just wanted the thread closed!

I have blood on my hands weep


Im a bad person
*jumps off bridge*

3 DAYS? You old softy.

I'd have him killed.

They're showing the arrival of his body in Cairo on CNN.

Scarpas? Wow... I take it all back. Raz kicks ass.

You know he was a idiot most of the time giving terrorist money to blow themselves up and then praising them for killing jews he also took money from his own people so now that he is gone maybe they can get peace over their because it is rediculiase that so many had to die on buses because of him and thats my opinion.

I think thats kind of disrespectful.




He condemned suicide bombings

Showing his coffin arriving in Cairo on CNN is disrespectful how?

Well i do think that people should be allowed a certain amount of privacy, let his family mourn in peace, then, wth their consent, show the coffin

the price of being famous

Arafat was hardly a private guy. And I doubt his family mind his coffin being shown.

I dont know, its a highly personal thing.

Actually I think his family would be expecting a state funeral. Hard not to show the coffin then.

well, fine.
But i think news cameras at a funeral is wrong.

From what I understand the removal will include civilians and certain Military personal in the area. The withdrawl will begin next summer. I don't have numbers or statistics, but Israel will control the boarder and the costline until the Palestinian leadership guarantees that there won't any more suicide attacks on Isralean residents. From a geographical view it is rather tiny compare to the West Bank, but at least it seems like a good way to start. This could take many years, and who really knows if it will help stop the violence.

Before Rome there was the Pelapinisian War. Greece and Persia. maybe you need to get a little deeper and stop assuming things. the Rome you are talking about was after 0 A.D. I am talking far before that....

Exactly. Most of the USA should legally belong to the Native Americans. The US predident (some time in the 1800's I think) signed a treaty which legally gave up all rights that the colonialists had to the native american's land. They promised that if the natives stoppped attacking them, then the colonial immigrats would not try to take their land. It was a legally binding document. But then they broke their promise as soon as they realised that some of the places in central north america had gold in them.

Not only did the ILLIGAL immigrants from the US take away the land, they forced the natives onto tiny reservations and killed off any of them who refused to move out of their homes.

THe easy way to make sure that there IS peace in the middle east is for a 3rd party to invade and destroy BOTH the isrelis and the palesinians.

you came up with this all by yourself or did you have help from a genius diplomat?

there will never be peace in the middle East. Did you hear me? NEVER. If history has taught us one thing, it is that there are no middle grounds when it comes to religoun, the strongest side gets to worship what they want in peace. No one over there even knows why they are fighting anymore, it is just an inbred hate twords each other. The only way peace would have some possiblity of prevailing in the middle east is if the jews left. The Jews are like Cristopher Columbus when it comes to IRaq. The only time these people are at peace, is when they are killing each other. Sorry, but it is the truth. Arafat diddnt do shit for anyone, he took his people to the door of the promised land, and said see... that is where we will never be.

For there to be peace in the middle east:

NUKE THE PLACE

Then nobody will want to live there

I say we skip to Nuclear war right now. It's going to happen, why not just Get it over with and welcome the age of three headed green mutants with open arms.

or as we in Norway call them: politicians of the domestic chrisitian democratic party

I wouldn't call this a good way to Start WD, I think Sharron is just giving the Palestinians the Gaza-strip because that way when ever he has to negotiate with them again he can say he already gave them a huge gift (since most of his own party is against it it's kinda true from his point of view) and as you said yourself Israel will control the broarder and the coastline until... No palestinian leadership will be able to guarantee that in the near future. IMO this is just a very empty gift.

Stopping this violence will not be easy and will take a long time, it wobn't happen untill we get 3 leaders who are willing to make it work (1 palestinian, 1 israeli and 1 american president)

wow, i see people talking about nuking them all, huh?
you know thats genocide right?

it's an idiotic idea

Shame that the middle east, basically were civilisation began, has ended up in such a way. I can hope it gets better, but I am doubtful, with such bitter political rivalry based on bitter religious rivalry there looks to be very few avenues for peace.

And you know we were only joking, right?

its a lame joke

Considering that as soon as Isreal was created the Arabic nations allied together and all attacked Isreal, and each and everytime Isreal handed them thier ass' in a paper bag they should be intitiled to the tiny sliver of land they retained. If the isrealis were looking to conquer they could have kept everything they conquered in the Six Day war. The Arabs gambled and lost.... now there just like a bunch of drunkin hobos trying to complain to the world about a 72 mile long piece of land they lost in war.

well I'm not gonna start about the history of Israel cause that would be a pointless discussion

as for as israel giving back the occupied territories (not only to the palestinians) I think they would be a lot safer if they did it, now I can understand why the israeli's are not inclined to do so. But it would greatly improve stability in the region

they shouldn't have lost ANYTHING in the first place!
the country is NOT for isreal in the first place, they shouldn't be there

it does not matter one single bit if you think 72 miles is big or not, it should not have happened in the first place. YOU can go and find a place for them

that's what I tried to avoid. It's done now we can't change it back

It may not be a good way, but still is a start into something. No matter to what length the argument might come to, the main objective of the peace process is that the Israli settlers and the soldiers that protect them to move out of the terrorities. Sharron argue intensively with his parliment to get at least something going. It may seen like empty gift, but still is a beginning to something positive. Once the settlers move out it is most likely that the Military personal will move out eventually out the strip.

Indeed, the violence will not stop suddenly but if everything works out the attacks will eventually get lesser and lesser. Another thing you said in another posts is that there is no point in going back into Origins of the Conflict. No point in that really, because sooner or later the argument will turn into a religious debate.

you saying you agree with that statement?

Basically I'm trying to avoid what you are trying to avoid. Going back into history and pin point which side is to be blame for the conflict.

This seems to be the most unbiased document on the subject:

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Based on biblical traditions, it is estimated that king David conquered Jerusalem about 1000 B.C. and established an Israelite kingdom over much of Canaan including parts of Transjordan. The kingdom was divided into Judea in the south and Israel in the north following the death of David's son, Solomon. Jerusalem remained the center of Jewish sovereignty and of Jewish worship whenever the Jews exercised sovereignty over the country in the subsequent period, up to the Jewish revolt in 133 AD.


The Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 or 721 B.C. The Babylonians conquered Judah around 586 B.C. destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, and exiled a large number of Jews. About 50 years later, the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylonia. Cyrus allowed a group of Jews from Babylonia to rebuild Jerusalem and settle in it. However, a large number of Jews remained in Babylonia, forming the first Jewish Diaspora. After the reestablishment of a Jewish state or protectorate, the Babylonian exiles maintained contact with authorities there. The Persians ruled the land from about 530 to 331 B.C. Alexander the Great then conquered the Persian Empire. After Alexander's death in 323 B.C., his generals divided the empire. One of these generals, Seleucus, founded a dynasty that gained control of much of Palestine about 200 B.C.


About 61 B.C., Roman troops under Pompei invaded Judah and sacked Jerusalem. The land came under Roman control. The Romans called the area Judea. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem in the early years of Roman rule. Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. The Romans named the area Palaestina, at about this time.

During the seventh century (A.D. 600's), Muslim Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Jerusalem was conquered about 638 by the Caliph Umar (Omar) who gave his protection to its inhabitants. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's. The rulers allowed Christians and Jews to keep their religions. However, most of the local population gradually accepted Islam and the Arab-Islamic culture of their rulers. Jerusalem became holy to Muslims as the site where, according to tradition, Muhammed ascended to heaven after a miraculous overnight ride on his horse Al-Buraq. The al-Aqsa mosque was built on the site generally regarded as the area of the Jewish temples.


The Seljuk Turks gained control of Jerusalem in 1071. Seljuk rule of Palestine lasted less than 30 years. In 1098, the Fatimids, based in Egypt, took advantage of the Seljuk struggles with the Christian crusaders from Europe. They allied themselves with the Crusaders and captured Jerusalem, Jaffa and other parts of Palestine in 1098

A great slaughter of the Jewish and Muslim defenders followed, and no Jews were allowed to live in Jerusalem. The crusaders held the city until 1187, when the Muslim ruler Saladin attacked Palestine and took control of Jerusalem.

The result was to greatly depopulate and impoverish the coast of Palestine for hundreds of years.
In the mid-1200's, Mamelukes, originally soldier-slaves of the Arabs, based in Egypt established an empire that in time included the area of Palestine. Arab-speaking Muslims made up most of Palestine's population. Beginning in the late 1300's, Jews from Spain and other Mediterranean lands settled in Jerusalem and other parts of the land. The Ottoman Empire defeated the Mamelukes in 1517, and Palestine became part of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Sultan invited Jews fleeing the Spanish Catholic inquisition to settle in the Turkish empire


In 1798, Napoleon entered the land. The war with Napoleon and subsequent misadministration by Egyptian and Ottoman rulers, reduced the population of Palestine. Arabs and Jews fled to safer and more prosperous lands. Revolts by Palestinian Arabs against Egyptian and Ottoman rule at this time may have helped to catalyze Palestinian national feeling. Subsequent reorganization and opening of the Turkish Empire to foreigners restored some order. They also allowed the beginnings of Jewish settlement under various Zionist and proto-Zionist movements. Both Arab and Jewish population increased. By 1880, about 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine, out of a population of about 400,000.


The Rise of Zionism - In the nineteenth century, the emancipation of Jews in Europe and nationalist ideas were blended with traditional Jewish ideas about Israel and Zionism. The marriage of "love of Zion" with modern nationalism took place first among the Sephardic (Spanish and Eastern) Jewish community of Europe, where the tradition of living in the land of the Jews and return to Zion had remained practical goals rather than messianic aspirations, and where Hebrew was a living language

The Zionists wished to establish a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine under Turkish or German rule. They were not concerned about the Arab population, which they ignored, or thought would agree to voluntary transfer to other Arab countries.

At the same time, Palestine's Arab population grew rapidly. By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at about 700,000. About 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 to 100,000 were Jews.

World War I - During World War I (1914-1918), the Ottoman Empire joined Germany and Austria-Hungary against the Allies. An Ottoman military government ruled Palestine. The war was hard on both Jewish and Arab populations, owing to outbreaks of cholera and typhus, however, it was more difficult for the Jews. For a time, the Turkish military governor ordered internment and deportation of all foreign nationals. A large number of Jews were Russian Nationals. They had been able to enter Palestine as Russian nationals because of the concessions Turkey had granted to Russian citizens, and they had used this method to overcome restrictions on immigration

Britain and France planned to divide the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East among themselves after the war. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 called for part of Palestine to be under British rule, part to be placed under a joint Allied government, and for Syria and Lebanon to be given to the France. However, Britain also offered to back Arab demands for postwar independence from the Ottomans in return for Arab support for the Allies and seems to have promised the same territories to the Arabs. In 1916, Arabs led by T.E. Lawrence and backed by Sharif Husayn revolted against the Ottomans in the belief that Britain would help establish Arab independence in the Middle East. The Arabs later claimed that Palestine was included in the area promised to them, but the British denied this.

The Balfour Declaration - In November 1917, before Britain had conquered Jerusalem and the area to be known as Palestine, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The declaration was a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild, based on a request of the Zionist organization in Great Britain. The declaration stated Britain's support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, without violating the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities

. After the war, the League of Nations divided much of the Ottoman Empire into mandated territories. The British and French saw the Mandates as instruments of imperial ambitions. US President Wilson insisted that the mandates be constructed to foster eventual independence. The British were anxious to keep Palestine away from the French, and decided to ask for a mandate that would implement the Jewish national home of the Balfour declaration, a project that would be supported by the Americans.

. The Arabs opposed the idea of a Jewish national home, considering that the areas now called Palestine were their land. The Arabs felt they were in danger of dispossession by the Zionists, and did not relish living under Jewish rule. Arabs lobbied the American King-Crane commission, in favor of annexation of the Palestine mandate area to Syria, and later formed a national movement to combat the terms of the Mandate. At the instigation of US President Wilson, the King Crane commission had been dispatched to hear the views of the inhabitants. At the commission hearings, Aref Pasha Dajani expressed this opinion about the Jews, "Their history and their past proves that it is impossible to live with them. In all the countries where they are at present, they are not wanted...because they always arrive to suck the blood of everybody..."

So you're dragging up something from 400BC from the Greek era? Even though there was a Jewish homeland after this period.

How exactly is that relevant to this discussion?

By this time, Zionists had recognized the inevitability of conflict with the Palestinian Arabs. David Ben Gurion, who would lead the Yishuv (the name for the Jewish community in Palestine) and go on to be the first Prime Minister of Israel, told a meeting of the governing body of the Jewish "Yishuv" (community) in 1919 "But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question...We as a nation, want this country to be ours, the Arabs as a nation, want this country to be theirs."

The British hoped to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine, as required by the mandate. The Jews were alarmed by the prospect of such institutions, which would have an Arab majority. However, the Arabs would not accept proposals for such institutions if they included any Jews at all, and so no institutions were created. The Arabs wanted as little as possible to do with the Jews and the mandate, and would not participate in municipal councils, nor even in the Arab Agency that the British wanted to set up.

In the spring of 1920, spring of 1921 and summer of 1929, Arab nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa. The violence led to the formation of the Hagana Jewish self-defense organization in 1920

The riots of 1929 occurred against the background of Jewish-Arab nationalist antagonism, and were also fueled by false rumors that the Jews intended to build a synagogue at the wailing wall, or otherwise encroach upon the Muslim rule over the Temple Mount compound, including the Al-Aqsa mosque.

Jewish immigration swelled in the 1930s, driven by persecution in Eastern Europe, even before the rise of Nazism. Large numbers of Jews began to come from Poland owing to discriminatory laws and harsh economic conditions. The rise of Hitler in Germany added to this tide of immigration. The Jewish Agency made a deal, the Hesder, that allowed Jews to escape Germany to Palestine in return for hard currency that the Reich needed. The Hesder saved tens of thousands of lives.
Arab Revolt and the White Paper - In 1936 widespread rioting, later known as the Arab Revolt, broke out. The revolt was led by Husseini family and by Fawzi El Kaukji, a former Turkish officer, and it was apparently financed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Hundreds of Arabs and Jews were killed in the revolt

The Peel and Woodhead commissions of 1937 and 1938 recommended partitioning Palestine into a small Jewish state and a large Arab one. The commission's recommendations also included voluntary transfer of Arabs and Jews to separate the populations. The Jewish leadership considered the plan but the Arab leadership, in particular, King Saud of Saudi Arabia, rejected partition and demanded that the British curtail Jewish immigration. Saud said that if the British failed to follow Arab wishes in Palestine, the Arabs would turn against them and side with their enemies.

In response to the riots, the British began limiting immigration and the 1939 White Paper decreed that 15,000 Jews would be allowed to enter Palestine each year for five years. Thereafter, immigration would be subject to Arab approval. At the same time, the British took drastic and often cruel steps to curtail the riots. Husseini fled to Iraq and then to Nazi Germany, where he subsequently broadcast for the Axis powers, was active in curtailing Jewish immigration from neutral countries and organized SS death squads in Yugoslavia.

Rickety boats full of refugees tried to reach Palestine. Many of the ships sank or were caught by the British or the Nazis and turned back, or shipped to Mauritius or other destinations for internment.

Reports of Nazi atrocities became increasingly frequent and vivid. Despite the desperate need to find a haven for refugees, the doors of Palestine remained shut to Jewish immigration. The Zionist leadership met in the Biltmore Hotel in New York City in 1942 and declared that it supported the establishment of Palestine as a Jewish Commonwealth.

After the war, it was discovered that the Germans had murdered about six million Jews in Europe, in the Holocaust. These people had been trapped in Europe, because virtually no country would give them shelter. The Zionists felt that British restriction of immigration to Palestine had cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The Jews were now desperate to bring the remaining Jews of Europe, about 250,000 people being held in displaced persons camps, to Palestine.

The Arabs brought pressure on the British to block such immigration. The British found Palestine to be ungovernable and returned the mandate to the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations.

Partition - The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended that Palestine be divided into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The commission called for Jerusalem to be put under international administration The UN General Assembly adopted this plan on Nov. 29, 1947 as UN Resolution (GA 181), owing to support of both the US and the Soviet Union, and in particular, the personal support of US President Harry S. Truman.

Truman wrote in his diary, however, "I think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell."

The intention was an economic union between the two states with open borders. At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands" belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency. There were about 600,000 Jews in Palestine, almost all living in the areas allotted to the Jewish state or in the internationalized zone of Jerusalem, and about 1.2 million Arabs. The allocation of land by Resolution 181 was intended to produce two areas with Jewish and Arab majorities respectively. Jerusalem and environs were to be internationalized. The relatively large Jewish population of Jerusalem and the surroundings, about 100,000, were geographically cut off from the rest of the Jewish state, separated by a relatively large area, the "corridor," allotted to the Palestinian state.

It may be a start yes, and whether the Israelis see this through is another matter.

But, you can't achieve lasting peace between two peoples unilaterally.

Basically it seems that the Jews conquered the lands first, under David, then the romans came in and established Palestine and drove out the Jews.

Satus Quo for another couple of centuries. Then the Ottoman Empire came along and started allowing Jews to settle.

Then the Zionists wanted a jewish homeland so they began lobbying countries like France, Britain and the US to allow them to settle in the area.

Then they decided that they could just get all the jews in Europe to go there and then they would be the majority and there would be no choise left to the Palestinians but to accept it.

Then the UN divided the country and gave hafl to the jews and half to the Palestinians, keeping Jerusulem under international control

Which pretty much brings us to Arafat. The way I look at it, the Palestinians are in the right

Capt_Fantastic, you left out the Holocaust. That is the prime reason the UN allowed the creation of Israel.

I didn't leave it out. It's in the last post

Oh, you mean in my summary post. Sorry, I did. However, I'm sure the Palestinians think the holocaust is a tragidy, but the holocaust isn't their problem.

I feel sick. Some Bush supporting conservative girl was glad he was dead, and making jokes about it. FFS! He just DIED. Even if Saddam of Usama died, I wouldn't start making ****ing jokes about it.

Ignorance, Arrogance... what else must I be witness to in my own country?

I think it will be a long search before a new leader that can unite all the factions will be found.

All points in history are relevent. Considering they were saying who was where first. The Jews were there first period. Ever heard of the kingdom of Solaman? Abraham ring a bell? The Muslim religion itself agrees that the old testimant and new testimant are history.... therefore the Jews are the rightful originals to the land and have been kicked out many times.

yea you wouldn't be dancing in the streets if Hitler or Stalin had just been assasinated

The magnitude of those two people is on a much higher scale then Arafat.

Slaughtering the innocent is no different in number. They all had the same interest... genocide. Arafat wanted Isreal... the Jews themselves into the sea.

"Even if Saddam of Usama died, I wouldn't start making ****ing jokes about it."


Really? I would.


"Osama Bindeadin"


Thank you thank you, I'll be here all night.

*da da da duh* *plays drums*

clap

I do'nt think Arafat would have conquered other countries to exterminate the jews. Hitler did do it, and you can't compare Araft with Stalin, they have almost no point of comparisment

no, they are not. Not every israeli is a jew and not every arab is a palestinian


all points in history are relevent FOR HISTORY LESSONS. it's uber-bull to go and have every history-point checked.
Ok, under the same reasoning, every non-native american should move the heck away from the states and give it back to the indians (yeahyeah, not political correct), because they were their first period.
Or the Maoris and the Aboriginals? they should get their land back too.
What about the bushmen and pygmees in Africa? their territory shrinks too when the cities and villages expands.
And THOSE are not even 2000 years old, RO...!

and now that we should take all points ... where should the europeans be? most of them come from barbaric tribes that invaded/entered the Roman Empire around 400 AD, that's also not even near your time period...
in other words... you can go pack and move to antarctica, but don't take off terrain from the pinguins.

aint really what miss Denmark was aiming at Yersie

I'm a guy, I don't read between the lines

you better learn that then or else ...............

What do you think this whole conflicts about? The Arabs want the Isrealis dead, all of them. There will be no peace until one of the sides is dead or they get enough sense to accept that neither will leave.

Those who can fight and defend the land they conquered fair and square should be entitled to any land they wish. The jews lost there, but returned; the Arabic nations are just pissed that they got thier asses handed to them for the last 50 years. If you remember what my response was about you would understand that raz tried to say that i knew nothing of the conflict and i get all my info from a channel i never watch..... he threw some Roman exodous 400 AD points when this conflict goes way far back... he was trying to say that the Arabs were there first so we should give them back their land when in fact it was the otherway around.

well, considering they were armed by allied nations, is that really fair?
and by your logic, i guess we should have not went to war with iraq in 91, since saddam took over kuwait "fair and square"...and didnt hitler conquer western europe "fair and square"?

what im saying is the term "fight to defend the land they conquered" is insane. that gives any 'conquerer' the justification to move anywhere and take over, so long as they have the war machine to back it up.

on a seperate note...
i was always under the understanding that islam branched off from christianlity and judhaism, as in muslems ancestors were converted jews and christians, in other words many palastinians and isralies share the same distant ancestors. but its been a long time since western civ. class, so please correct me if i'm wrong.


EDIT>>> oops...didnt realise UROT already brought up that first point...well i second it then.

I agree with what PVS wrote... if it's all about it being fair to have land if you can defend the conquered land, still makes isreal a wrong idea since they didn't fought to conquer it after WWII, they GOT it for free

ergo, by that idea, they should not be there at all for starters