Adding insult to injury: Israeli minister calls for voluntary emigration of Gazans

That wasn’t me saying Wikipedia was inaccurate. I had quoted the parts of the Wiki page you linked that you had obviously not read that contradicted your assertions and supported mine.

I haven’t posted any links to posts on X.

My post was a critique of the Opinion piece you linked to and highlighted where and when it deviated from documented historical facts. I didn’t dismiss it as an opinion piece, I stated factually what sort of article it was because it does make a difference in that opinion pieces are not fact checked or referenced.

The Israeli abuses are well documented outside of X.

OK.

So you rubbish my quotes from Wikipedia saying it is inaccurate and that "every undergraduate should know that" (when I was an undergraduate it wasn't created BTW).

My next piece of information was dismissed as an "opinion piece" full of lies.

Yet we are all supposed to swallow your own "opinion piece" washed down with loads of unverified X postings (from others) about Israeli abuses. 🤔

That is top level sanitised nonsense of an opinion piece.
Most of it isn’t even true.

The 1936 Palestinian rebellion against the British did result in the Peel Commission (mis-spelled as Peal in the opinion piece), but the resultant proposed partition was not acceptable to either Palestinians (95%) or the Jewish population (5%). The split was heavily in favour of the Jewish population, giving them 20% of the most fertile, resource heavy lands and 80% of the land, including uninhabitable deserts, to the Palestinians.

The twentieth Zionist Congress resolved in August 1937 that: "the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted"

The whole plan was shelved by the British in 1938.

It was all suspended during WWII.

What followed was not “Arabs continuing their violent rebellion” but the Jewish insurgency against the British which included terrorist attacks from 1944-1948.

The UN the decided on the partition, but no one offered anything to anyone from Palestine because they’d already all rejected it. The British represented Palestine as the occupying authority and the US represented the Zionists who wished to immediately emigrate to the region to found Israel. The fate of Palestine was decided in New York City without any Jewish or Arab Palestinian included, behind all their backs.

The start of the Nakba in 1947 by proto-IDF militias (I call them proto-IDF because after the stand up of Israel many militias were renamed as brigades or battalions in IDF and subsumed into the new state) was because the Jewish insurgency rejected the UN partition done to them as much as the Palestinians rejected it as well.

The very not in depth article repeats the myth that the “Arabs” started all out war because Israel was stood up, which is propaganda. I have already gone over why the Arab league intervened following a quarter million refugees caused by hundreds of Palestinian villages being massacred/depopulated and partially occupied the parts of Palestine set aside by the UN for a Palestinian state. Israel managed a nice opportunistic land grab during the Nakba.

The 1967 six day war is related as Egypt seeking to destroy Israel when in fact it was Israel that pre-emptively (surprise attack) invaded Egypt. Again the Palestinians were offered nothing. The opinion piece related the reaction of the Arab League to Israel’s decision not to allow a Palestinian State as if it were rejection of the same.

The 2000 “rejection” skips over the Oslo Accords of 1993 in which the PLO and Israel had agreed to a two state solution to be implemented over the course of 5-6yrs including the withdrawal of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. By 1999, this had not happened and Camp David was a last ditch attempt to rescue the two state solution. The PLO insisted on the Oslo Accords being honoured but Israel refused to remove their illegal settlements and in fact passed funding to build more while the negotiations were underway. Israel and the U.S. (acting as mediator) also moved out the date on which a Palestinian state would come into being by many more years. This was unacceptable (understandably) and both sides left with no agreement but both realising the Oslo Accords were defunct.

There was no rejection in 2008, because peace talks were in their infancy before being prematurely ended due to the Israeli PM stepping down. The PM, Olmert verbally offered a peace deal in which land swaps had been offered in return for leaving illegal settlements in place in West Bank but then refused to send the PA a written map showing what he was offering. Abbas said he would be happy to agree to a written plan with a map. But then Olmert was forced to resign in 2009 due to corruption charges and the whole deal was scrapped because his successor was Nethanyu who has been and still is fully, 100% opposed to any Palestinian state.

@onegrumpyoldwoman Good. Wikipedia, while a lovely idea, is not without bias and has no guarantee of accuracy. You may want to evaluate periodicals and magazines also for political leanings and journalistic standards. I've no comment on the points you are making, simply agree with others that Wikipedia is not a valid source, as many first year undergrads are dismayed to learn!

Another link (not from Wikipedia ;

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/10/un-backs-palestines-bid-for-membership-how-did-your-country-vote

Another link (not from Wikipedia)

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4660583-united-nations-palestine-statehood-gaza-big-mistake/

So here is some info from another source (not Wikipedia) to show how the Palestinians turned down the offer of their own state 5 times.

https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/#google_vignette

Because any objections are "anti semitic"

Hostile nation in between? How many peace deals did Palestinians and the Arab nations turn down? Who said the three no's? When Israel was declared a country and its own state what happened within the first 24 hours? Why would Israel give Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza if they wanted them gone? Why do Palestinians in Israel have the same rights as everyone else but the same can't be said for Israelis and Jews in other Arabs countries and states?

I'm just curious to see your mental gymnastics for those points!

Quite right. One should never rely on Wikipedia as a source for information.

@SummerFeverVenice
The Arab League was formed in Cairo on 22 March 1945 with six members: Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan after independence in 1946), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Yemen joined on 5 May 1945.
Since its formation the Arab League has promoted the Palestinian Arab cause in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including by imposing the Arab League boycott of Israel.

The Arab League opposed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947. On 15 May 1948, the then seven Arab League members coordinated an invasion of what was by then the former British Mandate, marking the start of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

To rewind a bit - At the Conference of San Remo, (April 19–26, 1920), international meeting convened at San Remo, on the Italian Riviera, to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, one of the defeated Central Powers in World War I; it was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.

The conference approved the final framework of a peace treaty with Turkey which was later signed at Sèvres, on Aug. 10, 1920. The Treaty of Sèvres abolished the Ottoman Empire, obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa, and provided for an independent Armenia, for an autonomous Kurdistan, and for a Greek presence in eastern Thrace and on the Anatolian west coast, as well as Greek control over the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles.
Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne, which voided previous Allied demands for Kurdish autonomy and Armenian independence but did otherwise recognize Turkey’s current boundaries.

During the Conference of San Remo, two “A” mandates were created out of the old Ottoman province of Syria: the northern half (Syria and Lebanon) was mandated to France, the southern half (Palestine) to Great Britain.

The province of Mesopotamia (Iraq) was also mandated to Great Britain. Under the terms of an “A” mandate the individual countries were deemed independent but subject to a mandatory power until they reached political maturity.

The "mandate system" was created in the aftermath of World War I to resolve the question of jurisdiction over the colonial territories detached from Germany and the Ottoman Empire.
Article 119 of the Versailles required Germany to renounce sovereignty over former colonies and Article 22 converted the territories into League of Nations mandates under the control of Allied states.

Mandatory Palestine was designated as a Class A Mandate, based on its social, political, and economic development. This classification was reserved for post-war mandates with the highest capacity for self-governance. All Class A mandates other than mandatory Palestine had gained independence by 1946.

Wikipedia is wrong about si many things. It is edited by armies of trolls now. Consider its deranged biography of Graham Linehan. I stopped sending my small contributions a couple of years ago.

You’re quite right. You have shown a lot of ‘in depth’ knowledge, writing about the Arab League as if it were just the name for all Arabs in Palestine by using Arab League/Palestinians interchangeably when they were not party to any of the UN negotiations at all. Writing that the Arab League/Palestinians were offered the land and rejected it, that they attacked Israel thereby causing the Nakba to happen over a year after the Nakba actually started.

You write that Jordan annexed West Bank from 1949-1967 (18 years) but don’t see how that biased perspective conflicts with the British in Palestine from 1918-1948 (30 years) doing the exact same role of trustee holding land in trust, but not being considered to have annexed Palestine.

You nitpick my list of examples to claim England never annexed Scotland. I point out that they did (for longer than Jordan supposedly annexed West Bank) and then you quibble over the end date being 1328 instead of 1329 because you thought a treaty ending a war for independence marked the legal formation of an independent kingdom of Scotland. Your ‘in depth’ knowledge didn’t include the fact that back then a Catholic kingdom and monarch was not legitimate in existence until the Pope formally recognised it. The Pope did for Catholic kingdoms what the UN does today for states- they don’t exist until formally recognised.

@SummerFeverVenice Really, you’d think you would know this.

What's that supposed to mean? Anything?

Or is it just a snipey comment because you're losing the debate through lack of in depth knowledge?

Thank you for agreeing that England did annex Scotland (for a bit)

I didn't (LOL)

Yeah, the Pope had to recognise kingdoms then too, and that didn’t happen until 1329. Really, you’d think you would know this.
Thank you for agreeing that England did annex Scotland (for a bit)

I suppose it depends on whether you believe Jordan (and the rest of the Arab League) was lying about holding the Palestinian designated lands in trust or not. Egypt treated Gazans not as nicely as Jordan treated the West Bank.

I don’t agree holding land in trust is annexation, it’s not part of the definition, and if it were as you allege, then it would mean Britain ‘annexed’ Palestine for thirty years when it did the exact same role as Jordan.

Fast forward to today, and Israel has taken by force 100% of the land, in violation and defiance of the UN partition and subsequent UN resolutions, with increasingly smaller bits not yet annexed but under military occupation. Israel is staunchly against any Palestinian state.

Not according to the Treaty of Northampton
the Treaty of Northampton in April, 1328, states, “… the King of England declared for himself and his heirs that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever to the great prince, Lord Robert by the grace of God illustrious King of Scotland, and that Scotland shall be separated from the kingdom of England, and from all claims of subjection or vassalage.”

lol, go a bit further back to the conquest of Scotland by Edward I in 1296. For twenty five years the kingdom of Scotland was conquered and then annexed by England.

Scotland was not an independent kingdom again until 1329 after the Scottish wars for independence succeeded.

Yes this is correct, but Jordan did not incorporate the West Bank into its domain, it did not possess the West Bank.I think you'll find they did ;
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. On April 24, 1950, the Jordan House of Deputies and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted the following resolution annexing the West Bank and Jerusalem:
"Approval is granted to complete unity between the two banks of the Jordan, the Eastern and Western, and their amalgamation in one single state: The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan, under the crown of his Hashemite Majesty King Abdullah ben el-Husein the exalted."

According to the Kingdom of Jordan’s website, the objective was “to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.”
Abdullah had long coveted all of Palestine as part of his desire to rule over Greater Syria and, his successor believed Israel was part of that vision

“Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission. For example, when one country incorporates new territory into its domain, that process is considered annexation.”

Yes this is correct, but Jordan did not incorporate the West Bank into its domain, it did not possess the West Bank.

Apart from 1 month where it merely announced an intention to annex and then changed its mind, Jordan occupied and held the West Bank in trust for the future Palestinian state. A trustee is not an owner of whatever is held in trust. Therefore, West Bank was never possessed by Jordan and thus never annexed.

Annexation doesn’t necessarily mean equal rights for the population in the territory.

So the fact that Jordan gave the Palestinians equal rights isn’t proof of annexation.

What Jordan did with West Bank is most similar to the trustee position the British had over Palestine from 1918-1948. An occupying power holding territory in trust can give the population equal rights or not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/creation-of-palestinian-citizenship-under-international-mandate-1918-1925/

@SummerFeverVenice England never "annexed" Scotland.

The Union came about when the two countries united due to James V1 of Scotand becoming James 1 England

Did you read this bit?

"When Jordan transferred its full citizenship rights to the residents of the West Bank, the annexation more than tripled the population of Jordan, going from 400,000 to 1,300,000.
The naturalized Palestinians enjoyed equal opportunities in all sectors of the state without discrimination, and they were given half of the seats of the Jordanian parliament."

So they became Jordanians.

Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country,
"After Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988."

Annexation refers to the act of taking possession of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission. For example, when one country incorporates new territory into its domain, that process is considered annexation.

Others agree it was "Annexation"

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/10/palestine-jordan-will-not-reannex-the-west-bank/

As a reminder, because you didn’t know who the Arab League was by writing them up as some Palestinian League wanting “all the land for themselves” (too funny), Jordan was a member of the Arab League. So all along they never fully annexed West Bank. They announced it because a contingent of Palestinians asked for it, then one month later they decided not to go through with it.

Annexation following a war of land acquisition is what Putin did to the Crimea, what the English did to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, what the US did to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees and not reading what you link!