Israel approves nearly 1,200 new settlement homes
Source: AP-Excite
By KARIN LAUB
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's housing minister on Sunday gave final approval to build nearly 1,200 apartments in Jewish settlements, just three days before Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are to resume in Jerusalem.
There was no immediate Palestinian comment, though the announcement by Housing Minister Uri Ariel was bound to deepen the atmosphere of distrust as the two sides head into talks after a five-year freeze.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had long insisted he would not resume talks without an Israeli settlement freeze, arguing that the expansion of settlements is pre-empting the outcome of negotiations.
The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967. Israel has built dozens of settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem that are now home to some 560,000 Israelis.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130811/DA83MD3O1.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)5 million Palestinian refugees in camps across the Middle East.
MarkLaw
(204 posts)Genocide and poverty are still with us.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)is always followed by settlement building or expanding.
Botany
(70,490 posts)
Mysterysouppe
(68 posts)Israeli governments come and go, but the march toward the Kingdom of David goes on.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Because of wars the Arab states started but could not finish. When you start wars and lose them there are consequences.
Botany
(70,490 posts)... end the State of Israel being a homeland for the Jewish people. Put yourself in the
shoes of a Palestinian and ask yourself how would you feel toward Israel?
Israel's building new homes on the West Bank right before the start of peace talks is
horse shit and designed to scuttle any sort of negations.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Jerusalem is the hardest part of that. Divided cities do not work -- see Berlin. The problem with Jerusalem is that traditional holy sites for Jews and Arabs are basically next to each other. One of the holiest sites for the Arabs, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is literally on top of the holiest site for Jews, the Western wall. Neither side trusts the other with control over the area.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)and start an educational campaign to explain how religion = mythology, and it is pretty fucking stupid to fight over it.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)it is too late for that. The only solution is one-state - one democratic state, one person, one vote.
what's wrong with that?
why should Israel be different from every other nation and be able to impose a religion on its citizens?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)If not, why not?
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)former9thward
(31,981 posts)And send in armies to about 150 nations around the world to enforce our -- well your --theories of how countries should be structured.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)former9thward
(31,981 posts)I have been lucky in my life to have spent time in 41 countries, most of which we used to call Third World. I have learned that many, if not most, have no wish for American style democracy. In the Islamic counties, for example, people want strong leaders. They don't want democracy. Whether that will change in a few hundred years I don't know. But I respect people's wishes. Some people want democracy but those people usually end up in Western countries.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)Have you heard of this thing called the Arab Spring?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Have you ever been to a Islamic dominated country?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)and they dare to fight back? Oh, the audacity.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Instead Israel haters are always claiming Israel is in violation of one UN resolution or another. They always ignore the UN mandate in 1947. Convenient.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)former9thward
(31,981 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in Jerusalem on September 17 1948, one of murders would go on to be elected Prime Minister of Israel-Yithzak Shamir
former9thward
(31,981 posts)but innocent non-combatants have been killed in every war of history by all sides.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)A three man 'center' of this extreme Jewish group had approved the killing: Yitzhak Yezernitsky (the future Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir), Nathan Friedmann (also called Natan Yellin-Mor) and Yisrael Eldad (also known as Scheib). A fourth leader, Emmanuel Strassberg (Hanegbi) was also suspected by the Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion of being part of the group that had decided on the assassination.[30][31][32][33] The assassination was planned by the Lehi operations chief in Jerusalem, Yehoshua Zettler. A four-man team ambushed Bernadotte's motorcade in Jerusalem's Katamon neighborhood. Two of them, Yitzhak Ben Moshe (Markovitz) and Avraham Steinberg, shot at the tires of the UN vehicles. A third, Yehoshua Cohen, opened the door of Bernadotte's car and shot him at close range. The bullets also hit a French officer who was sitting beside him, U.N. Observer Colonel André Serot. Both were killed. In the immediate confusion, Col. Serot was mistaken for Dr. Ralph Bunche, the American aide to Bernadotte. Meshulam Makover, the fourth accomplice, was the driver of the getaway car.[34][35] General Åge Lundström, who was in the UN vehicle, described the incident as follows:
“In the Katamon quarter, we were held up by a Jewish Army type jeep placed in a road block and filled with men in Jewish Army uniforms. At the same moment, I saw an armed man coming from this jeep. I took little notice of this because I merely thought it was another checkpoint. However, he put a Tommy gun through the open window on my side of the car, and fired point blank at Count Bernadotte and Colonel Serot. I also heard shots fired from other points, and there was considerable confusion... Colonel Serot fell in the seat in back of me, and I saw at once that he was dead. Count Bernadotte bent forward, and I thought at the time he was trying to get cover. I asked him: 'Are you wounded?' He nodded, and fell back... When we arrived [at the Hadassah hospital], ... I carried the Count inside and laid him on the bed...I took off the Count's jacket and tore away his shirt and undervest. I saw that he was wounded around the heart and that there was also a considerable quantity of blood on his clothes about it. When the doctor arrived, I asked if anything could be done, but he replied that it was too late." [36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)it still won't make it true.The Zionists started the first war at Israel's creation.
Israel started the 1967 war ("preemptive attack"
, along with others. It's a stretch to say that Egypt started the 1973 war, considering Egypt was expelling Israelis illegally occupying and settlement building on Egyptian land. The 1956 war was naked aggression against Egypt by Israel, along with France and Great Britain.
Israel supporters contradict themselves. First they claim that Jews have a right to the Palestinians' land, but then they claim it was really the Palestinians' fault for the Zionists taking their land. Who's stupid enough to fall for this B/S? Obviously many people do.
It is illegal to expel the natives from land acquired in war. Israel's behavior shows their true intentions for starting these wars.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Because the facts are not on your side.
On May 15, 1948 the Arab states told the UN they were going to "intervene in Palestine to restore order." On that day the Arab armies invaded Israel and eventually lost. In 1956 Egypt violated international law and treaties and closed the Suez canal. Israel went into the Sinai and Egypt was forced to allow shipping as required by law.
On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UN observers, and deployed its armies in the Sinai Peninsula. It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.
On May 30, 1967, Jordan signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border. On June 5, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. The Israeli Air Force destroyed most of the Egyptian Air Force in a surprise attack, then turned east to destroy the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.
On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt staged a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. They lost. Live with it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)using the excuse that Egypt's blocking the Straits of Tiran as an act of war to start a war that with hindsight being quite 20/20 one must wonder if the results were indeed not the purpose
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yes, they intervened because Israel had been conducting a pogrom against the Palestinian Arabs in the territories that Israel wanted. It's called a "civil war," but it was really just an invading force killing and driving off the native people.
No, in 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. It was indeed closed to Israeli shipping... but it had been closed to Israeli shipping since 1949. Nobody else was prevented from utilizing the canal, and further, no international law was broken. it was claimed that it was in violation of the 1888 Convention of Constantinople, but since that convention granted the khedive (the government of Egypt) the authority to close shipping for the purpose of defense for Egypt, Nasser was completely within his rights.
No, what happened in 1956 was that France and Britain lost their control of a very lucrative source of income, wanted it back. The plan was for Israel to invade and take the Canal, then France and great Britain would take it to the UN, claiming that Egypt was not strong enough to hold the Suez, and that such an important shipping route should only be controlled by those who can hold it - i.e., France and Great Britain. At which point UN power would rattle their sabers and Israel would withdraw from the Canal zone, presumably retaining control of the Sinai.
It was a scheme for two declining European powers to retain both a lucrative source of income for themselves, and a dues-free method of controlling their south Asian colonies. Israel was a willing catspaw. And thescheme was such bullshit that the US and USSR took a break from threatening to exterminate life on hte planet if someone sneezed, to inform the tripartate alliance that hteir invasion was sheer bullshit, and made threats to intervene militarily against Israel. Sirael hurried back to the correct side of the border, the Suez remained egyptian (and closed to Israeli shipping) and so on.
First off, nobody has ever blockaded Israel. A blockade is, well, what Israel is doing to gaza, it's naval control of the coastline allowing nothing in or out. Israel's entire Mediterranean coast was open, as was their Red Sea port. Egypt closed off the Straits of Tiran - given that the strait IS Egyptian territory, and that the convention of Constantinople allows for this, no laws were broken.
Egypt mobilized its military to the Sinai. Egypt also began a flurry of diplomatic overtures to other Arab states. surely they were planning an attack, right!? Well... No. They were planning in case of attack. The Egyptians parked in the Sinai and... did nothing else. Their diplomacy with Jordan, Iraq, and Syria was all defensive agreements, garnering aid from those nations if Egypt was attacked. Why? Well, remember how the Suez Crisis started (hahahaha, no you don't) with Egypt aligning itself with the USSR? Well, the Soviets passed a bit of intelligence to Egypt. This intelligence claimed that Israel was planning to launch a sneak attack against Egypt. Egypt then took defensive preparations, which did include sending the UN out of the Canal zone - no sense in having a bunch of foreign nationals blown up at the first target an invasion would strike, after all.
This points us to two possibilities for what followed. Either the Soviets were right and the Israelis were planning an attack anyway, and imply stepped it up, or the Soviets were wrong and Israel just got severely paranoid and went on the philosophy of "the best defense is a good offense." Whatever the case, Egypt was not planning to make the first move. When Israel attacked, the other nations that had joind defensive pacts with Egypt mobilized. Unsurprisingly, the Soviets had wandered off to sniff their socks or something by this point , and left their "allies" high and dry.
Which leads us to another question, of what exactly the Soviets were going to get out of this mess either way. I think that's a good question, and I don't know the answer to it.
Well, can't recall Israel ever declining military operations on Laylat al-Qadr or Christmas. The Israeli military was unprepared, and that makes it a tactically sound date to launch an operation against them. And yes, this time, it was the United Arab Republic going on the offensive... to reclaim territory occupied by Israel in 1967. You know, the Golan? Sinai? These places that are not Israel, never have been Israel? Yeah. I'd like to think that if Canada ever captured Montana, the US would go after Canada to get it back, y'know?
And if they hadn't? First off, the 1949 Geneva conventions expressly prohibit the acquisition of territory through military means. It allows for military occupation, but not civil annexation. This does in fact include territory owned by Arab states, and does not allow exceptions just for Israel. For peopel who constantly blather (as we've seen, incorrectly) about international law, zionists sure seem to like ignoring this one. Oh well, there it is. But just think for a moment, if Egypt had not lost 1967. Or 73. Or hell, what if the Arab states had succeeded in 1948.
Israel lost. Now Israel can take a swim. Get over it, right?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)They would have been exterminated and they know that. Which is why they have taken some of the actions they have taken over the years. It is very easy for us to be critical of certain things that Israel does from the peace and comfort of the U.S.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's your entire argument here, no reason for you to go changing your own rules. They lose. Whatever happens to them is their fault for losing. Sucks to be them, but the strong should dominate the weak, and to the victors go the spoils. if Israel lost, then tough shit, says 'former9thward,' from the comfort of his computer chair in the US. if they lose, they don't deserve what they have. Rule by might, that's how t works, isn't it?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)So yes, who did what to whom, and when is a pointless argument. The Palestinians continue to re-fight lost battles. They will never get to any of their goals as long as they do that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If the Palestinians just gave up, they would achieve their goals!
It's amazing the amount of rhetoric and thought patterns Israel supporters have in common with wife-beaters. Might makes right. Violence is always justified. If you don't obey, I'll be destroyed. Stop crying or I'll hit you again. If you give up, I'll treat you better. You know I love you so why don't you love me?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)And I kick the hell out of my dogs. Evil incarnate. When your arguments get that shallow you have nothing and are just doing a temper tantrum.
MarkLaw
(204 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)What you wrote above: "Because of wars the Arab states started but could not finish. When you start wars and lose them there are consequences." http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014562350#post10
You're shameless.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)MarkLaw
(204 posts)67??? LMAO Lavon affair?!?!?!?!?! This is one of the proven instances where Israel was actively promoting terror beyond it's borders.
Do you actually believe there wasn't more? They have been caught in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan Spying and executing government officials as well.
Egypt had every right to the Sinai. It belongs to them. Syria has every right to the fresh water in the Golan heights. The land to this day is occupied by people who consider themselves to be Syrian.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)And who is really entitled to land and by whom? If Israel says they are entitled to land they won in wars it is only because they keep it under threat of force.
And if force is all you recognize and use than one should not be surprised when someone else does or has done the same.
If your only claim to land is some god you cannot prove exists that case is weak.
Israel has a right to defend it's current lands and people - but taking a hard line and handling the Palestinian people as they have is just plain wrong and a terrible diplomatic move. If they keep poking and prodding, moving people out for their own race/religion's people to move in does not seem progressive. Tearing down the homes of people you don't like and think are evil simply because they are not like you so that more people you like can build homes on them seems rather....well, let's just leave it at 'bad'.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)They took it by force and keep it by force. If Natives attempted to take it back they would be met by force. Do we give back all the land to the Natives?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"Because of wars the Arab states started but could not finish. When you start wars and lose them there are consequences. "
Israel will keep pushing people out, expanding itself, and by history we know that the only way there will be anything done is for others to simply take the land. Israel sees only force as being legit, not sitting down and hammering out something that others and they can agree to in cases like this.
Taking land from people who live there is, to them, an act of war. Israel is in a position today where they are still taking the lands of others for their own use and then they react with wonderment when people resist.
When I hear the reason people backing Israel, and their own reason, is "God gave us the land" it is obviously a lie. They should just say "We want it and we will take what we want for ourselves"
Israel is no different that any other nation on the planet, and they want protection from the US for what they themselves are doing to the Palestinians. I support defending them from other countries as we would any ally, but I don't support what they are currently doing (and what the US did in the past is roundly criticized - by even myself, which does not mean I hate the US and it's people and it also does not mean I hate any other country when I criticize them not am I an anti-(insert name of country Here)).
We whine about american imperialism all the time. If we will just bulldozing homes north of the canadian border because we felt we should have that land, forcing people not like us to live in ghettos behind patrolled walls, etc - I would hope others would call it wrong.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)And when you have been attacked you put your opponent down. It is not a punch for a punch. It is laughable to paint Israel as the bad guy here. Israel is 6 million surrounded by 100 million who hate her and wish to drown every Jew in the Mediterranean. Of course it is going to be provocative at aggression. Any sane nation would too.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I am a supporter of Israel, just as I am the US. I am glad we back them and defend them.
But on some things they are wrong. Their expansion, kicking out palestinian people, bull dozing homes, etc should be looked at and criticized. Especially from a people who for so long didn't have a home and didn't like being kicked out and treated like crap by others.
Even people within the country have problems with it, one example: http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-elections-2013/israeli-elections-opinion-analysis/palestinian-ghettos-were-always-the-plan.premium-1.495144
It seems though that any criticism of them gets one labeled all too often or some folks rush in to defend any actions they take. On some things, the leaders there are just wrong.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Israel’s Bedouin population faces mass eviction
http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2013/07/23/bedouins-face-mass-eviction/#sthash.0FXygfM4.dpuf
How about other Jews? Woops, we only want the White ones.
Ethiopian women are forced to receive injections of the Depo-Provera contraceptive
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/an-inconveivable-crime.premium-1.484110
The right wing racists always love to go that well. "It's not racist because they are not part of Israel" Well it seems that discrimination reaches within Israel's borders just as easily, and has been for some time.
MarkLaw
(204 posts)Israel has started every war she's fought in.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Have fun with that.
MarkLaw
(204 posts)based on nothing more than their religions beliefs.
Kinda sick that this is occurring in modern times.
Did we learn nothing from ww2?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)The UN created Israel out of a piece of desert with no resources. Now it has a better economy than any of its neighbors who are stuck in the 7th century. That is the real cause of the hatred.
MarkLaw
(204 posts)Read the old testament, its full of the Hebrews killing natives because they were pagan, or immoral, or considered dirty or inferior. THEY WERE A GENOCIDAL TRIBE!
The European Immigrants that occupy Israel are largely unrelated the the Hebrews that existed throughout the Middle East 3000 years ago. They can't claim any real historical ethnic tie to the land.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Most Israel haters say the Old Testament is just made up tales and fake. Oh well maybe you should join the next Arab war against Israel and try to drive them to the Sea where they will all drown. Maybe you will get lucky next time.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)MarkLaw
(204 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)
You can't possibly argue on merit so you equate my Anti-genocidal point of view
with a pro-genocidal one.
Your type labels anyone who criticizes the genocide in Israel as anti-semitic and racist. HOW CAN PROGRESS BE MADE IN THAT ATMOSPHERE?
Nice try shill.
THAT VIDEO IS JUST A GLIMPSE OF THE BACKHANDED CRIMINAL TACTICS YOU SUPPORT WITH YOUR PROPAGANDA!
dawn frenzy adams
(429 posts)It's the thievery and genocide happening right before our eyes. The world will never be able to deny they didn't know it was happening.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Billions of dollars every year b/c they will not make peace. They have not had to make their own way in the world b/c we back them on every stupid thing they do, like here!
John2
(2,730 posts)ending up that way. This is nothing but ethnic cleansing. They pushed them out of the Territory with military force and replaced the population with people of Jewish decent from all over the World. It is similar to what happened to the Americas between Native Indians and European immigration from many countries. That is exactly what the Likud and Netanyahu is doing, while getting the West, to target states that oppose them. Netanyahu is very familiar with the supremacist views of people in the West. He is using that towards his advantage and his country. It is that old strategy of Divide and Conquer, Europeans used on the different Indian Tribes of America, to conquer them. The Arabs are very divided along religious sects, and many are more willing to kill other Arabs, just over those differences. Greed and power is also part of the equation, such as the Monarchs, controlling all the national wealth.
The biggest threat to Netanyahu's scheme would be a Nation that is not so fractured and has a powerful military. That is obviously the Persian country of Iran. We have been giving Israel Billions of dollars, ever since they declared Independent. Israel has enormous political influence in the United States and in the Government. You say anything against Israel,people will target you as anti-Israel or Anti,semitic. They have done that to several Black Leaders and including whites sometimes. It is very hard to have a rational debate on Israel without being attacked. Israel once aligned themselves with apartheid South Africa, against Nelson Mandela and the ANC, because their Policies were basically identical, against the native population.
Israel needs a restrictive immigration Policy, or just like the United States, it could be threatened by population changes. Anybody cannot become a citizen of Israel because their immigration Policy is based on race. They will always be under a threat. Their biggest enemy are natural forces over time.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Just watching Republicans and Democrats trying to out do each other in the campaign seasons over their love and support for Israel would tell you that. Again, it all stems from the money that goes to their campaigns for their support, or to their opponent if they are seen as not loyal enough to Israel. We need publicly funded elections!
John2
(2,730 posts)you about publicly funded Elections, or even free Elections. It will break the control by wealthy corporations or individuals over who gets elected. They are too over represented in the Government. We need people from all backgrounds in the Government.
progressoid
(49,978 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)jzodda
(2,124 posts)As usual. I can't understand how they could just let this situation fester decade after decade. I mean both sides should just sit down and talk it out and stop doing things to undermine the talks. Its as if they really like it this way. Its a shame Arafat did not take the deal presented to him by Clinton in 2000.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Only one side has any real power. Only one side can offer any serious concessions.
"...just three days before Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are to resume in Jerusalem."
Clearly, this is a blatant signal of the Israeli government's intentions.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)People tend to forget in that what is Now Israel has historically been a border area between what is now Turkey, Egypt and Iraq. Except for brief periods of history, the area had been ruled by one of those three powers, often all three with the borders shifting constantly.
The four long periods of Independence for Israel/Palestine was "Ancient Israel and Judah" that was founded by King Saul, united under King David, the divided between Israel and Judah after Solomon. This lasted, with varying degree of independence, till ancient Israel was conquered by the Assyrians and later when Jerusalem and ancient Judah was conquered by the Second Babylonian Empire.
Technically Israel was restored by Persian King of King Cyrus the Great, but remained within the Persian Empire till Alexander made it part of his Empire. Israel remained under Macedonian rule till the Maccabees won its war of independence. It quickly became a close ally of Rome and after various efforts of both Persian (Then ruled by the Parthians) and the Greeks (Who ruled Syria and Egypt till Rome took both) found itself within the Roman Empire. At first this was as an ally of Rome (Where it retained the right to pick its own king), then as a Client State (In client states, Rome picked the King, but in the case of Herod the Great, gave him the right to pick his own successor, a right only partially followed by Rome, and then Rome removed Harod's son and made in an Imperial Provence ruled by a tax collector for Rome, then returned to being a Client Kingdom till 70 AD when the First Jewish revolt occurred, forcing the Emperor to send in a Legion that stayed for at least 300 years).
The next time Palestine was ruled locally was during the Crusades. From the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West (c450 AD) till the Last Roman-Persian war (c 600) Constantinople and what is now called the Byzantine Empire ruled Palestine (Please note, Constantinople called itself the Roman Republic, as had the Roman Empire even at the height of the Empire 100-200 AD). Persian ruled Palestine for about a Dozen years, till the Emperor Heraclius (the Only Emperor named in the Koran) drove them out of Egypt and Palestine (and all but destroyed the Sassasid Persian Empire).
More on Heraclius:
http://www.roman-emperors.org/heraclis.htm
Imperial Index (List of Roman Emperors):
http://www.roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm
Sasanian Persian Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Empire
Anyway, after driving back the Persians due to the widespread adoption of Themes (Which combined the older provincial system with military units raised out of those districts AND tying in land ownership with military service, units were raised out of the Themes, but each land owner had to perform Military duty to retain ownership of land. In the Byzantine system, a man joined the army at age 16, fought for the Emperor till he turned 32 then took over his father's farm and his son replaced him in the Imperial Army (AND such older troops could be called up in an emergency if needed, but that would cut back how much farming they could get done).
The amount of land a soldier was given depended on what was that soldier's function in the Army,. Cavalrymen were given larger lands and often serfs (Notice I said Serfs NOT slaves, the serf owned duties to the land owner of the land, but he also retained rights to the land, and was viewed as a freeman to everyone but the land owner). to work the land while the landowner went to war. If this sounds like medieval feudalism and knighthood, you are right. It spread from the Greece to Western Europe after about 800 AD when Western Europe had to deal with the Invasion of the Vikings from the North, Raids and attacks from Moslems in North Africa, and the last barbarian invasion from the Steppes of Russia, the movement of the Magyars (Hungarians) to modern day Hungary and the subsequent raids by them, going as far West as France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)
Anyway, back to Palestine. Subsequent to the Last Roman-Persian war. the Arabs of Arabia was united for one of the few times in History. The Arabs attacked the much weakened Persian and Roman Empires. Heraclius seems NOT to have much desire to defeat the Arabs. Various reasons for this has been proposed, from Heraclius decision that since Egypt had rejected his attempts to end a religious split, they were heretics and this not worth fighting for, to a desire by Heraclius to live the comfortable life in his capital. The problem is the most logical reason is disliked by modern scholars. That is his troops did not want to fight. The reason for this is simple, the troops were NOT the paid mercenaries of the Roman Empire of 109 BC to 450 AD but feudal land owners whose military duty was paid for by the right to use their land. Going to take Palestine and Egypt back provided them nothing. Worse, one way to encourage troops to on on the offensive was to promise them part of any loot they managed to take when on the offensive (including first claim to any land in the conquered provinces). The problem was the Roman Elite, which still ruled the Empire in 600-700 AD, would refuse to give the soldiers the land, instead claim the land for themselves for their owned it in the past. This seems to have been the case when Egypt was returned from Persian to Roman rule. The previous landlords went back to Egypt and demanded that the Peasants pay them all the rents that had been due, but not paid, doing the Persian rule of Egypt. The net affect of this was growing hatred of the Roman Elite by the peasants of Egypt, who then supported the Arabs when the Arabs took over Egypt. In simple terms Heraclius was seeing that if he asked his troops to fight, they could drive back the Arabs, but at the lost of ability to farm their own lands. Heraclius Could not compensate them by giving them assets of the Conquered land, for these had been part of the Empire and thus "owned" by the Roman Elites who would want the land and goods returned to them not the troops. i.e. the troops would incur cost of NOT being able to plant their crops, AND they was no way to pay them for that lost, while the Roman Land owning elite would get all of the value of the land taken.
Anyway, no matter why Heraclius made no serious effort to defeat the Arabs (When compared to his earlier efforts to defeat the Persians), the result ended up with Arab rule over Palestine. This would be from Arabia, then Damascus, then Baghdad as the Capital of the Arab Empire changed over the next 200 years, then Cairo was that city was founded and became the Capital of Egypt and Egypt retook Palestine from Baghdad. Many of the Cities became de factor city states, independent of everyone, but ruling not much beyond the city walls. Then the Fatima Dynasty of Egypt started to decline and Palestine started to fall into Turkish hands (The Turks had Cross Persia during this same time period, a period of conquest and collapse, often at the same time. One of the side affect of this movement of the Turks was they came to rule modern Iraq and moved against Constantinople. In 1071 the Battle of Manzikert occurred and Constantinople lost control of what is now central Turkey. In response the Empire asked the west for help and the Crusades started about 1100 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert
Due to the wide spread adoption of Feudalism and the over throw of the last of the old Roman Elite (no family in Europe can trace its history in the male line prior to 800 AD, if you were NOT going to defend the land, you lost the land, the key to Feudalism), Western Europe had defeated its three invaders by 900 AD, and by 1000 AD going on the offensive with all three invaders (the Magyars decided to embrace Christianity and become part of the Holy Roman Empire was the first, then the Vikings turned Christian and finally the Arabs were driven back to southern Spain and North Africa). By 1100, due to the growing wealth in Western Europe due to the lack of attackers AND Europe being at the peak of the Medieval warm period, Western Europe could go on the Offensive to the East for the first time since the days of u the Theodosius I (379-395 A.D.) the Great .
http://www.roman-emperors.org/theo1.htm
Now, while Western Europe was able to go on the offensive, it did not want to rule Palestine. Thus the Crusading kingdoms were the result. Technically all were "fiefs" of the Eastern/ Byzantine Empire, but these were technical fiefs not real. In reality the Crusading Kingdoms were independent, tied in with Western Europe but Independent of Western Europe. Thus this is the third period when you have a fairly united country in what is now Israel that was also independent of the various powers that surround modern Israel. It lasted till the Mumluks, who ruled Egypt, worried about the Mongols (whose Empire reached Syria) decided that a vacant Palestine was the best defense against the Mongols. Prior to that neither the Crusaders nor the Moslems fighting them adopted scorched earth tactics. Both sides wanted a kingdom that could produce food and exports and thus while they may kill each other, they did nothing that would permanently harm the productively of the land.
That all changed with the Mamluks and their fear of the Mongols. It appears the Christian Kingdoms helped the Mumluks reach Syria to defeat the Mongols (It is also possible the Crusaders joined in, but NOT officially, for Islam forbids the use of non-believers in the ranks of an Islamic Army, through that was a rule even Mohammad broke in times of need. It is known that Byzantine Forces would help the Turks in Turkish wars with other Moslems and even Christian from 700 AD onward, thus such use of Christian forces was known but officially denied).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate_(Cairo)
This fear of the Mongols ended the third independent rule of Palestine, afterward it became part of the Mumluk's empire, till it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1517 AD. The Ottomans ruled the area till taken from them by the British during WWI. It became a British League of Nations Mandate till 1946, when all functions of the league was transferred to the UN. Thus it became a British UN Mandate till independence in 1948.
Just a comment that, whole modern Israel is indeed a "Blip" in the history of the Middle East, it is a Blip that keeps coming back, whenever it is NOT under the rule of Egypt, Asia Minor or Iraq. Even under one (or all three) group ruling Palestine, Palestine retained a good bit of independence since whoever lives in Jerusalem can play all three of the major middle east powers against each other (even when technically being ruled by one or the other three powers. For example wen Rome held both Asia Minor and Egypt, and Ancient Judea was a Client State of Rome, the Jews of Jerusalem thought nothing of seeking help from the Parthians then ruling Persia. A similar situation occurred after the Arab Conquest, the people of Palestine thought nothing of asking for assistance from Constantinople, even while the Arabs, who technically ruled them were at war with Constantinople. When the Turks were ruling Asia Minor and Iraq and the Mumluks ruling Egypt (after the Mongols are left the middle east), the locals played one against the other (and occasionally ask for assistance from the mongols still ruling Iran at that time OR the subsequent Persian rulers of Iran).
My favorite comment about Jerusalem was by Napoleon while his army was marching through Palestine. One of his general asked about going to Jerusalem, Napoleon said NO, for you do NOT need it to march an army from Egypt to Asia Minor or Iraq and to take it means going through some of the worse country an army on the offensive can march through. Jerusalem can be a city you can launch an attack on the main road that goes along the coast and thus important to hold if that is your intention, but it is NOT needed if it is to weak to support an army. In the days of Napoleon Jerusalem had no army and thus there was no reason for him to attack Jerusalem.
In many ways Jerusalem is the key to the whole region. With Jerusalem you have the center for an area to raise an army and support that army that is hard to attack and easy to defend. Jerusalem can be bypassed, and most armies going from Iraq or Asia Minor to Egypt (or Egypt to Asia Minor or Iraq) can avoid it. In many ways this is the reason Israel is willing to give up Gaza (it is on the main road and thus hard to defend) but wants the West Bank. Israel views the West Bank as part of a natural strategic fall back position. Thus it wants the Palestinians out of the West Bank.
In many ways who holds Jerusalem AND THE WEST BANK, controls the rest of Palestine. From that base you can attack anyone holding any land along the coast. If you are defeated you can retreat to good defensive lines that most troops along the coast will prefer to avoid. This is what ancient Israel did, this is what the Moslem did when the Crusaders attacked, it is what the Crusaders tried to set up when they ruled Palestine. The Turks, who built the existing city wall around old Jerusalem, saw the City as a strategic fall back position as it tried to hold Palestine against whoever was ruling Egypt (Thus during WWI, the British had to hold up their attack along the coast till Jerusalem was taken, so to minimize any attacks on their flacks from Jerusalem).
This also makes me believe that the Middle East Talks will produce nothing. Israel will NOT end its expansion of settlements in the West Bank till the unprofitably becomes so clear that it become clear it is harming Israel (i.e. of US ends foreign aid to Israel until the settlements are removed). Given the US is NOT about to cut foreign aid to Israel that is NOT going to happen. The Palestinians do not want to leave, so tensions will fester till it blows up.
This thread is about Israel being a blip in the history of the Middle east so I am to far off that topic to continue, except to point out something like Israel has existed in Palestine off and on since ancient times. The time periods when something like Israel did not exist, is when Palestine was under direct foreign rule. Given such direct foreign rule is not fashionable today, Israel exists and will continue to exists until it blows up given that no country that spends more then 10% of its economy on the Military has survived for any length of time (The Soviet Union was the last country that did so, and dissolved in 1989 due to that high military budget, today 40% of Israeli economy is tied in with the Military and that is a recipe for disaster that will make the Collapse of the Soviet Union look like a gentle fall).
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The announcement Sunday that Israel’s housing minister has approved construction of 1,200 new settlement units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be no surprise. It comes just a few days after the Civil Administration announced 878 new housing units in the West Bank. In fact, Israel’s approval of new settlement construction is the one new concrete development on the ground since Kerry announced the resumption of negotiations on July 19.
http://972mag.com/peace-talks-the-perfect-alibi-for-settlement-expansion/77268/
yellowwoodII
(616 posts)I used to be an advocate of giving Israel all the help they want, but the lack cooperation with the country that supports them the most (us) has changed my opinion about their virtue.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Thus, they grab whatever land they can now, knowing that they are vastly outnumbered and unpopular with all their neighbors. This land grab here can not be indicative of a long-term strategy.
It's ugly, and smells of desperation.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)They've had to fight for the right to exist since the day independence was declared (which according to some schmuck equals Israel starting the war in 1948).
closeupready
(29,503 posts)because they remembered - who they are, how they got from point A to point B, and they learned from that persecution.
Most cultures learn from persecution, and, over time, survive and thrive somehow.
The Jews were expelled from Israel - and returned. Similarly, the Palestinians are being expelled from Palestine. The difference is that the Palestinians are essentially Muslim arabs, and as such, belong to a tribe that is much larger and better-represented in all of Israel's neighbors, than the Jewish people.
So while I always hold out hope that a real peace process starts immediately, this second, this millisecond, I see these developments as indicators of how the right-wing Israelis have zero interest in one.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that many Jews now feel that trying to stay above it all got 6 million of us killed? That's not going to happen again.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Seriously. I think even Palestinians understand that.
But the idea that the sun won't set on Israeli domination of the Middle East is how realistic? That they can just essentially make unilateral decisions, unchecked?
I don't think that's realistic, and the Israelis are brilliant - they know this, too.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)but this is why this seems such an intractable situation. I think they will ultimately figure it out because more want peace than don't (and that goes for both sides). But that doesn't mean there aren't those - those who many listen to - that think the holocaust either didn't happen or wasn't as bad as it was - this is what is being taught in schools so I'm not as sure as you are that they do understand that part of it.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)JERUSALEM—As part of their continuing efforts to bring peace to the conflict-stricken region, Israeli government officials announced today the construction of a new settlement on Palestinian lands where future peace talks can be held. “After years of failed diplomacy, it has become clear that we need to make a fresh start, and what better way to do so than by appropriating a small amount of Palestinian territory where Israeli citizens can live and negotiators from both sides can talk about a peaceful way forward?” said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, referring to the civilian Jewish community that will be constructed in place of multiple razed city blocks in the West Bank. “With this new settlement in place, I believe that our prospects of peace and unity will be brighter than ever. In fact, we should build more settlements so there can be even more places to negotiate.” Netanyahu noted that any individuals currently living on the future site of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have exactly 36 hours to leave before they are forcibly removed.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
wish they would finish the border swaps left and cut loose all the Palestinians to manage, their own country. And neighboring countries who want to allow migrating communities to roam about can allow this if they wish.
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Post removed