LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What is "Palestine" - a brief history

K

Karen Kraft

29
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
36,253
[reprint]

People have no taste for history around here. They throw terms around about people and places but never care to check out the facts or the history.

People seem to suggest that there once was an Arab place called Palestine and then the United Nations kicked out all the Arabs and gave their land to the Jews because everybody felt sorry for the Jews because of the Holocaust of WWII.

No. Incorrect. I'm sure that's what they teach at public schools in the USA but it simply is not accurate.

Fast forwarding from Genesis 1:1 to 1920, we save some mostly irrelevant bandying back and forth of many populations. Limiting our inquiry to those things that led up to Israeli statehood (meaning, when the United Nations recognized a particular part of the planet as the nation of Israel), we start with THE BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. See the picture below:

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/Palestine_19206cb.jpg

Notice that it is much bigger than what we now call "Israel" with or without the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. There are two major parts of the British Mandate for Palestine: the left one is called "Palestine" and the right part is called Transjordan. Lots of room for everybody, right? Well, rather than give all that land to one group of people, they divided it up. This is what we call the Partition. The area rich in Jewish population was on the left side and that part ended up being carved here and there and took on the name "Israel." some of the neighboring countries took a piece here or there and the remaining part was called Jordan. The city of Jerusalem, important to both Jews and Muslims, was right in the middle of the Partition so everybody (Jews, Muslims, Christians, CupCake eaters, etc.), got to go there and do their thing. The Jews were supposed to stay in the left part and the Arabs were supposed to stay in the Jewish part or move into the right part, now called Jordan. Although Arabs outnumbered Jews 2:1, and although they got more than double the land mass, it's obvious that the Jews got a nicer piece of property. But that wasn't the only rub. The Arabs believed that 100% of the Jews (even the ones who had been there since 1880 and before) should not be allowed to stay in any part of the former British Mandate for Palestine but instead should go someplace else. They invaded the newly formed country of Israel in an effort to force all the Jews off what they considered to be "Palestine" -- meaning every inch of the original British Mandate for Palestine (see map again if you've forgotten). But they lost the war. Then they tried again in 1967 and again in 1972. Now, the trouble with losing wars is it usually costs the loser in terms of land or politics or both. In exchange for peace, Israel made a few deals and gave up some small chunks of land here and there to their former enemies and one very large chunk of land to Egypt, one of the former enemies. But a lot of Arabs had left Israel at the start of the war in 1948, vowing not to live subjected to Jewish nationhood. A lot deiced to stay or have since returned. That's how we basically got to the pre-terrorist state of affairs.

Then came the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and other groups, who pleaded with the rest of the world that they were displaced by the Jews -- they were thrown out of their homeland by the Jews. While this had developed some sympathy with some reasonable folks and a lot of Jew-haters, it never really got off the ground, so to speak, until the so-called "Palestinians" started hijacking airplanes, killing Olympic athletes, and so on. Then the world decided that, rather than risk getting blown up on an airplane, why not side with the Palestinians and agree that the Jews stole their land. But still, nothing much was getting accomplished.

But then came OPEC -- the oil cartel. Amazing sums of money were now in the hands of Arabs (not Palestinians, mind you -- just other Arabs). This money was not used to develop Jordan (the Arab side of the Partition of the British Mandate for Palestine), but to fund additional terrorist activities in a struggle between disputing Arab factions as to which was to control Islamic nations in the region. The Arab countries fell on one side or the other of the who's-in-charge dispute, but they all agreed that the one way to keep their individual populations loyal to their respective leaderships was to create endless Jihad against the Jews.

Israel offered land for peace here and there, but whenever they did that, the pieces of land set aside for Palestinians who did not wish to remain in Israel proper, used their newly established pieces of land not to develop and prosper, but to fight with each other and promote even greater jihad against the Jews. This was a sure way to get funding for the other, richer, Arab countries. The West Bank (the piece of land that was carved out to make it so the Jordan side of the Jordan River had access to said river) has more or less settled down, with there now being "sectors" of Jerusalem, for example, wherein varying forms of self-rule and joint purchasing security agreements have sort of been successful. The government of Jordan eventually decided to go with agricultural and tourist development rather than participate in the fruitless Jihad festivities. From time to time, mostly due to developments being created in these areas by Jews, both with and without Israeli approval (Israel has extreme right wing religious nuts who stone people drive on Saturday, etc. and who go crazy every time some graveyard is to be excavated by archeologists). But the bottom line is that the fictionalization of the Gaza Strip leadership has created a hell hole amidst endless piles of rubble, with folks lobbing rockets over the wall to kill Jews on the Israel proper side.

After a while, and from time to time, the Israelis get pissed off about all the people getting killed by the rockets and so they bomb, invade, retaliate, or blockade the Gaza Strip in order to stop the rockets, etc. The blockade is supported by Egypt, since Egypt doesn't like the Hamas guys who were elected to run the Gaza Strip. That part doesn't really involve the Jews or Israelis as much as it has to do with the who's-in-charge-of-the-Arab-Countries dispute.
 
Karen Kraft said:
[reprint]

People have no taste for history around here. They throw terms around about people and places but never care to check out the facts or the history.

People seem to suggest that there once was an Arab place called Palestine and then the United Nations kicked out all the Arabs and gave their land to the Jews because everybody felt sorry for the Jews because of the Holocaust of WWII.

No. Incorrect. I'm sure that's what they teach at public schools in the USA but it simply is not accurate.

Fast forwarding from Genesis 1:1 to 1920, we save some mostly irrelevant bandying back and forth of many populations. Limiting our inquiry to those things that led up to Israeli statehood (meaning, when the United Nations recognized a particular part of the planet as the nation of Israel), we start with THE BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE. See the picture below:

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/Palestine_19206cb.jpg

Notice that it is much bigger than what we now call "Israel" with or without the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. There are two major parts of the British Mandate for Palestine: the left one is called "Palestine" and the right part is called Transjordan. Lots of room for everybody, right? Well, rather than give all that land to one group of people, they divided it up. This is what we call the Partition. The area rich in Jewish population was on the left side and that part ended up being carved here and there and took on the name "Israel." some of the neighboring countries took a piece here or there and the remaining part was called Jordan. The city of Jerusalem, important to both Jews and Muslims, was right in the middle of the Partition so everybody (Jews, Muslims, Christians, CupCake eaters, etc.), got to go there and do their thing. The Jews were supposed to stay in the left part and the Arabs were supposed to stay in the Jewish part or move into the right part, now called Jordan. Although Arabs outnumbered Jews 2:1, and although they got more than double the land mass, it's obvious that the Jews got a nicer piece of property. But that wasn't the only rub. The Arabs believed that 100% of the Jews (even the ones who had been there since 1880 and before) should not be allowed to stay in any part of the former British Mandate for Palestine but instead should go someplace else. They invaded the newly formed country of Israel in an effort to force all the Jews off what they considered to be "Palestine" -- meaning every inch of the original British Mandate for Palestine (see map again if you've forgotten). But they lost the war. Then they tried again in 1967 and again in 1972. Now, the trouble with losing wars is it usually costs the loser in terms of land or politics or both. In exchange for peace, Israel made a few deals and gave up some small chunks of land here and there to their former enemies and one very large chunk of land to Egypt, one of the former enemies. But a lot of Arabs had left Israel at the start of the war in 1948, vowing not to live subjected to Jewish nationhood. A lot deiced to stay or have since returned. That's how we basically got to the pre-terrorist state of affairs.

Then came the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and other groups, who pleaded with the rest of the world that they were displaced by the Jews -- they were thrown out of their homeland by the Jews. While this had developed some sympathy with some reasonable folks and a lot of Jew-haters, it never really got off the ground, so to speak, until the so-called "Palestinians" started hijacking airplanes, killing Olympic athletes, and so on. Then the world decided that, rather than risk getting blown up on an airplane, why not side with the Palestinians and agree that the Jews stole their land. But still, nothing much was getting accomplished.

But then came OPEC -- the oil cartel. Amazing sums of money were now in the hands of Arabs (not Palestinians, mind you -- just other Arabs). This money was not used to develop Jordan (the Arab side of the Partition of the British Mandate for Palestine), but to fund additional terrorist activities in a struggle between disputing Arab factions as to which was to control Islamic nations in the region. The Arab countries fell on one side or the other of the who's-in-charge dispute, but they all agreed that the one way to keep their individual populations loyal to their respective leaderships was to create endless Jihad against the Jews.

Israel offered land for peace here and there, but whenever they did that, the pieces of land set aside for Palestinians who did not wish to remain in Israel proper, used their newly established pieces of land not to develop and prosper, but to fight with each other and promote even greater jihad against the Jews. This was a sure way to get funding for the other, richer, Arab countries. The West Bank (the piece of land that was carved out to make it so the Jordan side of the Jordan River had access to said river) has more or less settled down, with there now being "sectors" of Jerusalem, for example, wherein varying forms of self-rule and joint purchasing security agreements have sort of been successful. The government of Jordan eventually decided to go with agricultural and tourist development rather than participate in the fruitless Jihad festivities. From time to time, mostly due to developments being created in these areas by Jews, both with and without Israeli approval (Israel has extreme right wing religious nuts who stone people drive on Saturday, etc. and who go crazy every time some graveyard is to be excavated by archeologists). But the bottom line is that the fictionalization of the Gaza Strip leadership has created a hell hole amidst endless piles of rubble, with folks lobbing rockets over the wall to kill Jews on the Israel proper side.

After a while, and from time to time, the Israelis get pissed off about all the people getting killed by the rockets and so they bomb, invade, retaliate, or blockade the Gaza Strip in order to stop the rockets, etc. The blockade is supported by Egypt, since Egypt doesn't like the Hamas guys who were elected to run the Gaza Strip. That part doesn't really involve the Jews or Israelis as much as it has to do with the who's-in-charge-of-the-Arab-Countries dispute.
Click to expand...

Remember to read very carefully. There will be an exam tomorrow.
 
What is Turkey... a brief reintroduction.

...

As the think-tankers like to say: “Who lost Turkey?” In a nutshell: Kemal Ataturk. Since he founded post-Ottoman Turkey in his own image nearly nine decades ago, the population has increased from 14 million to over 70 million. But that five-fold increase is not evenly distributed. The short version of Turkish demographics in the 20th century is that Rumelian Turkey — i.e., western, European, secular, Kemalist Turkey — has been outbred by Anatolian Turkey — i.e., eastern, rural, traditionalist, Islamic Turkey. Ataturk and most of his supporters were from Rumelia, and they imposed the modern Turkish republic on a reluctant Anatolia, where Ataturk’s distinction between the state and Islam was never accepted. Now they don’t have to accept it. The swelling population has spilled out of its rural hinterland and into the once solidly Kemalist cities.


Do you ever use the expression “young Turks”? I heard it applied to the starry-eyed ideologues around Obama the other day. The phrase comes from the original young Turks, the youthful activists agitating for reform in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. The very words acknowledge the link between political and demographic energy. Today, the “young Turks” are old Turks: The heirs to the Kemalist reformers who gave women the vote before Britain did are a population in demographic decline. There will be fewer of them in every election. Today’s young Turks are men who think as Erdogan does. That doesn’t mean Turkey is Iran or Waziristan or Saudi Arabia, but it does mean that the country’s leadership is in favor of more or less conventional Islamic imperialism. As Erdogan’s most famous sound bite puts it: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.”

Some Western “experts” like to see this as merely a confident, economically buoyant Turkey’s “re-Ottomanization.” But the virulent anti-Semitism emanating from Erdogan’s fief is nothing to do with the old-time caliphate (where, unlike rebellious Arabs, the Jews were loyal or at least quiescent subjects), and all but undistinguishable from the globalized hyper-Islam successfully seeded around the world by Wahhabist money and so enthusiastically embraced by third-generation Euro-Muslims. Since 9/11, many of us have speculated about Muslim reform, in the Arab world and beyond. It’s hard to recall now but just a few years ago there was talk about whether General Musharraf would be Pakistan’s Ataturk. Instead, what we’re witnessing is the most prominent example of Muslim reform being de-reformed, before our very eyes, in nothing flat.

Demography is destiny, for the most part. For example, European Muslim populations are young, fast-growing, and profoundly hostile to Jews. European Jewish populations are old, fading, and irrelevant to domestic electoral calculations. Think of your stereotypically squishy pol, and then figure the reserves of courage it would require for the European establishment not to be anti-Israeli, and, indeed, ever more anti-Israeli as the years go by.

But demography alone isn’t always destiny. A confident culture can dominate far larger numbers of people, as England did for much of modern history. Bismarck’s famous remark that, if the British army invaded Germany, he’d send the local police force to arrest them is generally taken as a sneer at the minimal size of Her Britannic Majesty’s armed forces. But, in another sense, it’s a testament to how much the British accomplished with so little. Erdogan would not be palling up to Ahmadinejad and Boy Assad in Syria and even Sudan’s genocidal President Bashir, the Butcher of Darfur, if he were mindful of Turkey’s relationship with the United States. But he isn’t. He looks at the American hyperpower and sees, to all intents, a late Ottoman sultan — pampered, decadent, lounging on its cushions puffing a hookah but unable to rouse itself to impose its will in the world. In that sense, Turkey’s contempt for Israel is also an expression of near total contempt for Washington.

...
Click to expand...

Mark Steyn
NRO
__________________
The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.
Eric Hoffer
 
Karen Kraft said:
No. Incorrect. I'm sure that's what they teach at public schools in the USA but it simply is not accurate.
Click to expand...
Not sure they cover it much at all.

Anyway, cool story bro. Mostly accurate, although probably exaggerating OPEC's role and obviously a bit biased. It's all there, but carefully worded so that the only shit that doesn't stink is belongs to the poor angels of Knesset.
 
HB1965 said:
Where is this a reprint from? This sounds like it's the Karen Kraft version of Palestine History
Click to expand...

It sounds like an accurate description of the facts. What information do you have that proves it to be incorrect?
 
miles said:
It sounds like an accurate description of the facts. What information do you have that proves it to be incorrect?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's incorrect. It's the way it's written that makes me think she wrote it.
 
Liar said:
Not sure they cover it much at all.

Anyway, cool story bro. Mostly accurate, although probably exaggerating OPEC's role and obviously a bit biased. It's all there, but carefully worded so that the only shit that doesn't stink is belongs to the poor angels of Knesset.
Click to expand...

The facts are universal. The spin is all mine.

:)
 
miles said:
It sounds like an accurate description of the facts. What information do you have that proves it to be incorrect?
Click to expand...

LOL

Give it up. Whenever I post stuff that is 100% correct, I never get any direct argument. I can tell I win whenever the replies are always: Karen's a guy, Karen is a Nazi, Karen's not a guy but since she wrote something accurate she must have simply cut and pasted it because girls are stupid, Karen sure got a slap-down on that one!, gee, I bet that skooling left a mark! etc.

This is particularly true on my [U.S.] constitutional arguments. "Your wrong an Jose, my gardnor sez Aridzone law nonconstitution." That sort of thing.

I would love for someone to take the time to research and come back with corrections. I always admit when I am wrong. Well, I would admit it, were that ever to occur. :)
 
Tell me, did all the other countries in the area agree on the British Mandate?

And have you ever seen an Arabic map?
 
Let me guess: Karen didn't write it. Right?

Unread Today, 09:52 AM

phrodeau
This message is hidden because phrodeau is on your ignore list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
What is up with these threads?
Replies
10
Views
256
BillyWalrus
B
SinderellaSin
Reviews - not exactly a radical suggestion
Replies
1
Views
90
DHerbert
DHerbert
PierceDe
Introduction
Replies
1
Views
89
Soixenta
Soixenta
S
Can’t find a story - help
Replies
0
Views
53
Storyperv82
S
L
Minimum age for being in Porn should be 21 or older...
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
1K
LMWM321
L
Back
Top