NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:

Let me put it this way..

I forcefully take your house/car/property from you.. then I turn around and offer to share with you The backyard I just took from you.

That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.

Well said. Well said indeed.

*shakes head* not this shit again

Trust me you can paint the picture anyway you want (and by God its the most painted thing on Earth) but its how the will people see it that matters.

Oh and please don’t use U.K it’s the British Empire keep I up and I’ll start calling Americas damn colonials like the good old days

*shakes head* not this shit again

Trust me you can paint the picture anyway you want (and by God its the most painted thing on Earth) but its how the will people see it that matters.

There's always opinion, but on some matters there are just facts, and facts are above any opinion.

Oh and please don’t use U.K it’s the British Empire keep I up and I’ll start calling Americas damn colonials like the good old days

I don't think it was ever called the British Empire. I insist on calling nations by their official names (for example, I never call the UK "Great Britain" or, god forbid, "England"), so UK it is. And you can call Americans colonials if you want; I'm not American.

There's always opinion, but on some matters there are just facts, and facts are above any opinion.

You quite naive if you truly believe that.

I don't think it was ever called the British Empire. I insist on calling nations by their official names (for example, I never call the UK "Great Britain" or, god forbid, "England"), so UK it is. And you can call Americans colonials if you want; I'm not American.

Ummm, yes it was.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland adopted it's current title in 1927 following the partition of Ireland.

There's always opinion, but on some matters there are just facts, and facts are above any opinion.

nope facts can be painted anyway you want your obviously pro-Israel so that’s they way you put it


I don't think it was ever called the British Empire. I insist on calling nations by their official names (for example, I never call the UK "Great Britain" or, god forbid, "England"), so UK it is. And you can call Americans colonials if you want; I'm not American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

Out of curiosity What do you call Taiwan when the Chinese government is in the same room?

nope facts can be painted anyway you want your obviously pro-Israel so that’s they way you put it

Ok, let's see you paint 'em differently then.
By the way, I think I'll fix the analogy in the first post:

Someone gives you his house.
That house had been rented out by someone.
You kick that guy out.
He starts getting pissy at you.
You offer to give him back the backyard.
He doesn't take it, instead he insists on the entire house.

Ok, let's see you paint 'em differently then.
By the way, I think I'll fix the analogy in the first post:

Someone gives you his house.
That house had been rented out by someone.
You kick that guy out.
He starts getting pissy at you.
You offer to give him back the backyard.
He doesn't take it, instead he insists on the entire house.

And, to make sure that you don't come back, he kills you, your wife and kids, your relatives, people who loan you money, and anyone who ever talked nice to you. And dances on the mutilated bodies.

That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.
So you've only gone back to Ottoman times have you?
Well, lets go back to Roman times, then Israel and Palestine are stealing the land from Italy.
Lets go back some more, Well, now the Isralies and the Palestines are stealing from Macedon and Greece.

THousands of years ago, I think the Palestines where in "The Holy Land" before the Isralites


Out of curiosity What do you call Taiwan when the Chinese government is in the same room?
which Chinese goverment?

And you can call Americans colonials if you want; I'm not American.
I am! Long live the colonies! Yay!

Take that, Europe!

THousands of years ago, I think the Palestines where in "The Holy Land" before the Isralites




The jews migrated to the Israel area looooong before the religion of Islam was founded.

The jews migrated to the Israel area looooong before the religion of Islam was founded.
so?

There where people there before the Isralies, they just converted afterwards

So you've only gone back to Ottoman times have you?
Well, lets go back to Roman times, then Israel and Palestine are stealing the land from Italy.
Lets go back some more, Well, now the Isralies and the Palestines are stealing from Macedon and Greece.

THousands of years ago, I think the Palestines where in "The Holy Land" before the Isralites

You've got your chronologies skewed. The Israelites were there before the Palestinians, they displaced other peoples but those peoples didn't survive to the modern age. The Palestinians got there much later. An interesting point, and one that gives Israel legitimacy, is that the Israelites never left, they just became a minority.

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:



That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.
It's not like there was nobody living on that land and it's not like they had houses that were bulldozed and it's not like those people were put in refugee camps and it's not like the Ottoman people aren't the same people as the palestinians.

I mean, why should German people stay in Germany. It was the land of the Visigoth, Teuton, and others. Germans has no right to that land. Let's kick them out and offer them the Black forest as compensation for ruining their lives and keep their hard earned houses.

so?

There where people there before the Isralies, they just converted afterwards

They were other ethnic groups, mostly tribal, which have not survived the centuries.

I forget the names of the groups, but modern palestinians did not descend from them, those that did survive integrated somewhat into areas that are now Iraq and Jordan.

You've got your chronologies skewed. The Israelites were there before the Palestinians, they displaced other peoples but those peoples didn't survive to the modern age. The Palestinians got there much later. An interesting point, and one that gives Israel legitimacy, is that the Israelites never left, they just became a minority.

ah but under the same logic Britain owns Northern France but Rome owns us

You've got your chronologies skewed. The Israelites were there before the Palestinians, they displaced other peoples but those peoples didn't survive to the modern age. The Palestinians got there much later. An interesting point, and one that gives Israel legitimacy, is that the Israelites never left, they just became a minority.
I knew the Isralites displaced people, I though those were Palestinians, aparently they weren't.
I still think the should share.

It's not like there was nobody living on that land and it's not like they had houses that were bulldozed and it's not like those people were put in refugee camps and it's not like the Ottoman people aren't the same people as the palestinians.



Mostly (and I"m not saying that it didn't happen in some instances, but MOSTLY) the palestinians were given the choice to REMAIN in Israel as citizens. It was arafat and his crew that urged the palestinians to reject the Leage of Nation's partition and leave israel and go into other areas until they could "destroy" Israel and take the WHOLE thing.

They screwed up.

Mostly (and I"m not saying that it didn't happen in some instances, but MOSTLY) the palestinians were given the choice to REMAIN in Israel as citizens. It was arafat and his crew that urged the palestinians to reject the Leage of Nation's partition and leave israel and go into other areas until they could "destroy" Israel and take the WHOLE thing.

They screwed up.
Well, its not like the Isralites are not to blame either, they had been doing anti-arab things for a long time, just like the arabs did to the Isralites.
They're both to blame, and they should share.

I knew the Isralites displaced people, I though those were Palestinians, aparently they weren't.
I still think the should share.

Well, when Israel was ORIGINALLY made, the Leage of nations set up a split of the land where Israel would get one half, Palestinians would get the other half as the STATE of palestine, and Jerusalem would be an international city.

israel accepted, the palestinians rejected.

In the Oslo Accords in the 90s, Prime Minister Ben Gurian working with Clinton offered the Palestinians a plan that would lead to a seperate and independant Palestinian state.

The palestinians rejected it.

Recently Israel began to withdraw from the West Bank and made motions that they would help in the formation of Palestine, provided that the palestinians reject terrorism. The palestinians elected Hamas.

Israel has TRIED to share, the palestinians have made it pretty clear that they don't want to.

ah but under the same logic Britain owns Northern France but Rome owns us
Ah, but the British didn't stay in France, did they? Their descendants became French, and essentially the British left the area. Even more so with Rome, as there is no Rome anymore.

But, yeah, they should learn to share (both Palestinians and Israelis)

Ah, but the British didn't stay in France, did they? Their descendants became French, and essentially the British left the area. Even more so with Rome, as there is no Rome anymore.

But, yeah, they should learn to share (both Palestinians and Israelis)
Well it's not like the Israeli stayed in current Israel either.

And I'm all for sharing.

Well it's not like the Israeli stayed there either.



You can not be "israeli" before there was an Israel. There was however a JEWISH presence continually in that area. It has increased and decreased, and was the minority population for a good while, but there have ALWAYS been jews in what is now Israel, since they first moved to that land.

You can not be "israeli" before there was an Israel. There was however a JEWISH presence continually in that area. It has increased and decreased, and was the minority population for a good while, but there have ALWAYS been jews in what is now Israel, since they first moved to that land.

they didn't even move there in the first place. before they were hebrews, they were just some other group(s) living in the levant.

The jews migrated to the Israel area looooong before the religion of Islam was founded.


The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. In 1850 these consisted of approximately 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews. For centuries these groups had lived in harmony: 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Jewish.

But then in the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as "Zionists," this group consisted of an extremist minority of the world Jewish population. They wanted to create a Jewish homeland, and at first considered locations in Africa and South America, before finally settling on Palestine for their colony.

At first this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine — many with the express wish of taking over the land for an exclusively Jewish state — the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, there was fighting between the two groups, with escalating waves of violence.

Thats all you really need to know.

The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. In 1850 these consisted of approximately 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews. For centuries these groups had lived in harmony: 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Jewish.

You realize he was not talking about the 1800s I hope.

You realize he was not talking about the 1800s I hope.
Well, the Ottomans owned that land in the 1800s, and the OP starts with the Ottomans

Well, the Ottomans owned that land in the 1800s, and the OP starts with the Ottomans

Yes they did own it in the 1800s. How did they acquire it? Through warfare what else. However, the Jews were already there.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland adopted it's current title in 1927 following the partition of Ireland.
I wouldn't bother if I were you. KP seems to think that he, and he alone, is the only one in the world who knows the 'proper' way of addressing anyone from the British Isles.

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:



That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.

yeah

some 4000ish years ago, the Phillistines (sound familiar?) occupied what's now the area around Gaza.

Israel and Judah (well, when they were split) occupied more or less what is now Israel. I think Israel went up into a bit of what's now Lebanon, but the points is:

Palestinians are in Gaza now as they were then (well they were called Phillistines then, before Mohammed had everything clarified for him in the dream)

or are current Palestinians not descended from the ancient Phillistines?

THousands of years ago, I think the Palestines where in "The Holy Land" before the Isralites


Today's Palestinians are decedents of the Canaanites?

If you want to look to the current times. There were many Jews living in and around Jerusalem up to the 1927 Arab revolt.

Unless somebody is going to take in all the people of Israel, the argument of whose land is it really is no longer valid as Israel is not going anywhere.

Effort needs to be made into defining what is a workable land for the Palestinians (ie water rights).

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:

That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.


You look like a real expert on the matter.... :rolleyes:

It is not only important which state or empire controls the area, for individuals have ownership rights as well. All born on the Israel/Palestine territory deserve representation by their government. Currently Arabs living in the territory have less or no representation.

Yes small farmers lost their land to large landowners during the Ottoman Tanzimat. This only caused conflict when Zionist fleeing the persecution in Europe stated to buy land of the landowners, putting the small farmers out of business. This led to years of clashes under the British.

Following the creation of the Israeli state and the withdrawal of the English, war erupted between the new Israeli state and the recently independent Arab states. Luckily Israel, came out on top and survived. Sadly many Palestinians/Arabs were uprooted. These local people were not represented when Jordan and Egypt occupied the remaining Arab territories; they became refugees in their lands. Following the preventive strike of Israel these people lost the little rights they had. The Palestinian natives did not once get to choose for a viable state, they where never represented.

In this conflict we see that people think of large monolithic groups like "the Yews", "the Israeli's", "the Palestinians" and "the Arabs" and so on. This is extremely unhelpful for this complicated conflict. Please remember that it is individual people that matter, viewing people as groups will allow for the horrific practices we have seen in the 20th century. Don’t do it!!

It is not only important which state or empire controls the area, for individuals have ownership rights as well. All born on the Israel/Palestine territory deserve representation by their government. Currently Arabs living in the territory have less or no representation.

I am calling bull crap here. There are Arabs in the Israeli Parliment as well as an arab on the Israeli Supreme Court.

It is not only important which state or empire controls the area, ...snip...In this conflict we see that people think of large monolithic groups like "the Yews", "the Israeli's", "the Palestinians" and "the Arabs" and so on. This is extremely unhelpful for this complicated conflict. Please remember that it is individual people that matter, viewing people as groups will allow for the horrific practices we have seen in the 20th century. Don’t do it!!

Thanks, that was oddly refreshing.

I am calling bull crap here. There are Arabs in the Israeli Parliment as well as an arab on the Israeli Supreme Court.

You are right Israel is a democracy... :rolleyes:

Still, some of the problems for Arab Israeli's is the nature of the Jewish state

I also agree that the Jewish nature of Israel is essential. :)

Still, Arabs Israeli's have less representation, more in practice, than in theory; their towns get a lesser share of public works (no running water etc.), and police authorities treat Arabs more harshly. You will find enough examples like this in Israeli newspapers. The current conflict only deepens the divide between groups, and the minority group suffers usually more than the majority group.

It is the Arab population which has been labelled as refugees that have no representation at all. Nor do they have rights or are they protected by law. This is the most problematic issue in the Israeli democracy. Giving these people citizenship would destroy Israel, therefore these Arabs deserve their own representation in the form of a state.

You are right Israel is a democracy... :rolleyes:

Are you saying that it is not?

Still, some of the problems for Arab Israeli's is the nature of the Jewish state

I also agree that the Jewish nature of Israel is essential. :)

The arab Israelis do not seem to have a problem at all. After all, they are not going around killing Jews.

Still, Arabs Israeli's have less representation, more in practice, than in theory; their towns get a lesser share of public works (no running water etc.), and police authorities treat Arabs more harshly. You will find enough examples like this in Israeli newspapers. The current conflict only deepens the divide between groups, and the minority group suffers usually more than the majority group.

And yet, the Arab Israelis have free movement and can visit their holy sites. They can do just about anything they want. As can the Christians in Israel too come to think of it. Heck, they can even join the IDF. Imagine that.

It is the Arab population which has been labelled as refugees that have no representation at all.

You mean the Palestinians who were told to get out by their Arab neighbors so that the Arab world can attack infant Israel then they do nothing to assist or if they did try to help, nearly had their government overthrown by these same people?

Nor do they have rights or are they protected by law. This is the most problematic issue in the Israeli democracy. Giving these people citizenship would destroy Israel, therefore these Arabs deserve their own representation in the form of a state.

Give who citizenship? Those in the West Bank and Gaza? The two areas that are designated to be part of a Palestinian State?

You quite naive if you truly believe that.

OMG, can we not descend into the vile netherrealm of absolute relativism where "there's no such thing as facts" and "everything is a matter of opinion" (and, by extension, every "opinion" has equal weight). I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the OP, but nothing-- nothing-- will ever be accomplished by dismissing an argument wholesale with "you're naive if you believe there's such a thing as a fact, or an argument based on supposed facts." That's the very root of 'truthiness,' where facts don't matter because "there's no such thing! What's true is what I feel to be true." It totally destroys discourse, and bespeaks either an intellectual dishonesty (denying what one knows to be true for the sake of sneaking out of a real argument through the back door) or a perverse worldview where no one can ever be right or wrong and the relativist can justify anything with some pedantic appeal to the non-existence of 'facts.' Yes, objective reality can be a nuisance, but to deny that some things are (or even could be) 'facts' is beyond naive, it's obtuse.

Well, when Israel was ORIGINALLY made, the Leage of nations set up a split of the land where Israel would get one half, Palestinians would get the other half as the STATE of palestine, and Jerusalem would be an international city.

israel accepted, the palestinians rejected.

In the Oslo Accords in the 90s, Prime Minister Ben Gurian working with Clinton offered the Palestinians a plan that would lead to a seperate and independant Palestinian state.

The palestinians rejected it.

Recently Israel began to withdraw from the West Bank and made motions that they would help in the formation of Palestine, provided that the palestinians reject terrorism. The palestinians elected Hamas.

Israel has TRIED to share, the palestinians have made it pretty clear that they don't want to.

It is true that Arab states rejected the partition of the teritory they felt was theirs...

The palestinians did not reject the Oslo accords otherwise it would not have been called an accord... :rolleyes:

The prime minister was not Ben Gurion, but Rabin who was assassinated

It was Nethanyahu that promised to reverse the Oslo accords; he was successful.

Barak did try to come to an agreement, but he and Arafat failed because a lack of mutual trust. It was too little too late

Hamas was also chosen because Fatah was corrupt, and the Living conditions of Palestinians had worsened since the Oslo accords. Both Fatah (corruption) and Israel (roadblocks) carry responsibility for this.

Are you saying that it is not?



The arab Israelis do not seem to have a problem at all. After all, they are not going around killing Jews.



And yet, the Arab Israelis have free movement and can visit their holy sites. They can do just about anything they want. As can the Christians in Israel too come to think of it. Heck, they can even join the IDF. Imagine that.



You mean the Palestinians who were told to get out by their Arab neighbors so that the Arab world can attack infant Israel then they do nothing to assist or if they did try to help, nearly had their government overthrown by these same people?



Give who citizenship? Those in the West Bank and Gaza? The two areas that are designated to be part of a Palestinian State?

I am sad I have not much time left for you. Let me be short

I do consider Isreal a Democracy. The strenght of democracy is in critical people be critical of those close to you!

You greatly overestimate the ability of the Arab governments to tell people to get out; people flee wars every where

I am not sad that infant Israel won against the Infant Arab states

Do you see a palestinian state the West Bank and Gaza?

Remember the words of a Palestinian millitant:
"those shopkeepers think only of money, they do not care for the cause."

He is partly right only those that have little to loose risk that by fighting Israel, this is indeed the answer...

You greatly overestimate the ability of the Arab governments to tell people to get out; people flee wars every where

Sryia admitted that they are responsible for the refugee problem. Syria and others told palestinians in the area to get out because they were going to attack. Israel did allow them to return but the Arab nations told them not to. Seems to me that they do have the ability to do so.

Do you see a palestinian state the West Bank and Gaza?

Nope and I blame Hamas, Fahtah, Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade, and Islamic Jihad for that. They had many chances to have a state by now and they blew each and every single opportunity. My father has a saying in regards to this. "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Remember the words of a Palestinian millitant:
"those shopkeepers think only of money, they do not care for the cause."

He is partly right only those that have little to loose risk that by fighting Israel, this is indeed the answer...

Blowing yourself up in a cafe or at a restaurant is not going to win you any friends. All it does is force retaliation. There will be no peaec till the terrorists are disarmed.

The only thing you need to know is that just about everywhere else in the whole world beside the middle east - people have figured out how to live together peacefully.

The british and the french stopped fighting, the germans and the french, the russians and the japanese, the koreans and the japanese, &c &c &c.

But not the looney middle easterners. Doesnt matter if the religion is judaism or islam - they cannot be trusted.

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:



That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.

Basing a thread on what that nitwit OD says ...kinda dooms it . He's utterly lacking any credibility and types shit just to grab attention.
But this point has been brought up many times and has not stopped the terrorist apologist from crying and moaning...:headbang: is what you might as well be doing for all making sense is worth to them .

Sryia admitted that they are responsible for the refugee problem. Syria and others told palestinians in the area to get out because they were going to attack. Israel did allow them to return but the Arab nations told them not to. Seems to me that they do have the ability to do so.



Nope and I blame Hamas, Fahtah, Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade, and Islamic Jihad for that. They had many chances to have a state by now and they blew each and every single opportunity. My father has a saying in regards to this. "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.



Blowing yourself up in a cafe or at a restaurant is not going to win you any friends. All it does is force retaliation. There will be no peaec till the terrorists are disarmed.
So, in your opinion, Israel is totally blameless for this mess? :rolleyes:

So, in your opinion, Israel is totally blameless for this mess? :rolleyes:

I did not say that East Canuck.

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.


The administration of the land was given to the british - mandated by the league of nations -hence the term "mandate of palestine". It was a class A mandate - judged ready for independence. The vast majority of the land was privately held by local landowners, and by 1947, only 7% of the land was in "settler" hands. During the attack of the neighbouring states, certain elements used this as an excuse to remove the Arabs from the land. As for your claim that the Palestinians rejecting the chance to create their state, they in fact accepted the proposals put by Barak, however Sharon was then elected shortly after.


There's always opinion, but on some matters there are just facts, and facts are above any opinion.

What amount (in acres or dunums) was in settler hands by 1947?


Mostly (and I"m not saying that it didn't happen in some instances, but MOSTLY) the palestinians were given the choice to REMAIN in Israel as citizens. It was arafat and his crew that urged the palestinians to reject the Leage of Nation's partition and leave israel and go into other areas until they could "destroy" Israel and take the WHOLE thing..

They were not given the choice, nor was there an organised exodus. Arafat was 18 or 19 and not in anyway prominent at that particular juncture.


Israel has TRIED to share, the palestinians have made it pretty clear that they don't want to...

Alas.....wrong again....
"Since beginning of the Al Aqsa intifada much blame has been placed on former President Yasser Arafat for the ending of the peace talks in 2000 at Camp David. What most Western commentators fail to add is that talks continued at the Taba Summit in Egypt in January 2001. At these talks both sides came the nearest to agreement than at any time in the entire history of the occupation. However the Israeli Prime Minister Barak pulled out of the peace talks to begin campaigning for the Israeli elections. Yasser Arafat sensing that Taba may have been his last chance to negotiate a peace deal, called for Barak to come back to the table. This was unheeded and Barak went on to lose the Israeli election to the Likud leader Ariel Sharon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit


You can not be "israeli" before there was an Israel. There was however a JEWISH presence continually in that area. It has increased and decreased, and was the minority population for a good while, but there have ALWAYS been jews in what is now Israel, since they first moved to that land....

Correct.


I am calling bull crap here. There are Arabs in the Israeli Parliment as well as an arab on the Israeli Supreme Court.....

"The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens. "
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

However its the treatment of Arabs within the occupied territories which is the most brutal, violent and sectarian. The IDF refuse to act by the fourth Geneva convention and practice a two-tier system of "justice" with the Arabs firmly on the bottom. Should you have questions on this, please ask.


Syria and others told palestinians in the area to get out because they were going to attack......

Do you know that Rabin alone gave the order for 50,000 to be expelled? (He refers to this incident in his biography).

Mr. Nodinia? Did you not notice that I did not say that for a reason? Because I was debating on the side of Israel. You do not bring up what your own side did in a debate where you are in support of said side. I would have brought that up if I was debating against Israel.

I did not say that East Canuck.
looking back at your post, it certainly seemed that way. Blaming the troubles on the terrorists organisations solely is blind apologism and is not constructive to a good debate.

I am happy to see you are not of of those.

looking back at your post, it certainly seemed that way. Blaming the troubles on the terrorists organisations solely is blind apologism and is not constructive to a good debate.

I am happy to see you are not of of those.

Some of my posts may seem like that because I have been debating from a pro-israeli position. There have been times when I counter this position because of various stupid remarks from other posters.

When I take a position on an issue, I debate from their position. I will acknowledge when points are scored (as I have done with CanuckHeaven in regards to Iraq) and even concede points when necessary.

Mr. Nodinia? Did you not notice that I did not say that for a reason? Because I was debating on the side of Israel. You do not bring up what your own side did in a debate where you are in support of said side. I would have brought that up if I was debating against Israel.

ok, ok, ok.

There's always opinion, but on some matters there are just facts, and facts are above any opinion.



I don't think it was ever called the British Empire. I insist on calling nations by their official names (for example, I never call the UK "Great Britain" or, god forbid, "England"), so UK it is. And you can call Americans colonials if you want; I'm not American.

Well actually the terms UK and Great Britain are interchangeable as the official title is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

England is also a nation as is Scotland. Wales however is a Principality (if memory serves).

The usage of Empire is from the days of the Raj in India and in a sense can be used as a catch all term.

nope facts can be painted anyway you want your obviously pro-Israel so that’s they way you put it
No. Then they aren't really facts.

opinion =/= fact

fact > opinion! No more post-mod fallacies and bullshit please.

Hasn't anyone else wondered why the Palestinian refugee camps have been around for so long? After all, aren't there refugee camps and displaced peoples after every war? Where do those people go? Well, they may choose to return to their homeland once they can reasonably do it, but migrating to nearby nations is often a possibility, right?

Not in the case of the Palestinians. Why haven't any of them migrated to Iran or Lebanon, etc? Maybe it just so happens that the Arab nations don't want them there. Palestinians are barred from immigrating to most Arab nations, except Jordan I believe. And even if they are allowed in, they're treated as well as...say...the Jews and Christians.

Why? Because Middle Eastern Nations consider Palestians to be the scum of the Arab world. Iran and Syria and even Iraq under Saddam Hussein gave at the very least "minimal" financial backing to be used solely for the purpose of destroying Israel. They'll back suicide missions to "avenge the sad fate of their Palestinian brothers" but won't grant even temporary asylum to those same families. Yes, I do feel sorry for Palestinians, because they are a group of people herded together like beasts to act as human cannons in the war to purge the Middle East of the Jews. And if the entire Palestinian refugee population dies in the process, then in the eyes of the Arab world, BOTH THE JEWISH AND THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM HAVE BEEN SOLVED (in a more crude way killing two birds with one stone).

It's strange how denial of Israel's right to exist is becoming so common now.

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:



That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.Thank you. The Palenstianians had their chance. They didn't take it. If anyone stole anything, it's the Brits, really. Well, actually the Romans then the Ottomans, as Jerusalem was Jewish land. Nobody really seems to care that Jerusalem was Jewish land before the time anyone could remember. If anyone stole land, it was the Romans, Ottomans, Brits, Palenstianians, etc. from the Jews.

The prime minister was not Ben Gurion, but Rabin who was assassinated

*grumbles* You are quite correct there. David Ben Gurion was Israel's first PM, Yitzak Rabin was the one who was assassinated following the camp david discussions.

I have no idea how those two got swapped in my mind, correction accepted.

It's strange how denial of Israel's right to exist is becoming so common now.

Obviously I missed that in this thread. Would you mind pointing it out?

It's strange how denial of Israel's right to exist is becoming so common now.
Obviously I missed that in this thread. Would you mind pointing it out?
You're right, it should have said "It's strange how denial of Israel's right to self defense is becomming so common now"

You're right, it should have said "It's strange how denial of Israel's right to self defense is becomming so common now"
No, it should have said,

"It's strange how people argue over shit that doesnt affect them."


:rolleyes:

No, it should have said,

"It's strange how people argue over shit that doesnt affect them."


:rolleyes:
If that's the way you feel, then feel free not to post in this or other threads.

If that's the way you feel, then feel free not to post in this or other threads.
I'm just trying to express the point that we are squabbling over something we cannot change. I was just going about it in a snooty fashion.

*stomps off*

No, it should have said,

"It's strange how people argue over shit that doesnt affect them."


:rolleyes:

No, it should have said

"Its strange how the pro-israelis keep putting words in other peoples mouths in order to try to bully them"

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:



That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.

Ohhh... my.... goodness, I can't believe the ignorance of that post.

My Palestinian father was seven years old when his family was driven off land that THEY OWNED by Israelis with machine guns. What the hello are you talking about???? This happened to many people during that time. If you could talk to my uncles and aunts, they'd all tell you. My maternal grandfather was also driven from his land by armed Israelis. If you think I'm making this up, I can't convince you otherwise. But good God, that was one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on the Internet. Still steaming here.

And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state.

You are confusing two different and seperate things ... sovereignty and ownership. For example, I live in Canada. The Dominion of Canada is the sovereign state ... they are entitled to pass laws, etc. That does not mean they own every single piece of property in Canada. There are lots of individuals who own the property, some Canadian, some not.

Similarily, while the Ottoman Empre and the British Empire were sovereign in Palestine, this does not mean that they owned all of the land there. Palestinians lived there and used and occupied the land as owners. Although Palestine was not a sovereign state, Palestinians could own land there.

When the Israeli state was set up, they became sovereign (although the legitimacy of their acquisition of sovereignty was somewhat debatable ... they did it by force, and without the consent of the British as existing sovereign). But this did not entitle them to ownership of all of the land.

So the Palestinians did own the land, even if they weren't a sovereign state, and the fact that the Israelis took the land of the Palestinians illegally and without compensation pretty much makes it a theft.

Alot of conflict could have been avoided if the US and Israelis had not jumped the gun and decided to take the land by force, and had waited for the British to pursue the more reasonable course of setting up seperate Israeli and Palestinian states.

Baseless arguments like this, is why violence in the Middle East persist. Forget about the damn past and focus on what's happening today, period. Treat both Arab nations and the Jewish nation on equal ground (don't support one over the other because of "vested interest".) It's pathetic to witness how Arab countries cannot deal with Israel (toe to toe) without America and Europe having a say in it. How Arab world are paralyzed when Israeli troops (and especially the Israeli air force) roam through their territories so freely. It's really humiliating that Israel, America, and France are discussing the outcome of Lebanon’s incursion, I mean, where are the Arab leaders? Where are their opinions? These dilemmas are occurring in their region (Lebanon/Israeli war, Syria+Iran alliance, Iraq war, extremism, authoritarian, and etc..), but all I hear is where Americans or Europeans think about these situations, forget that, what I would like to hear is, what do the Arab people think about what's happening to their peoples? Screw what non-Arabs think about that region, because in the end, they don't sleep at night with these entire burden in them. The Arab world are wakening up and starting to realize how hollow their governments and leaders are, how they portray themselves as powerful and visional they are but really they are neutered leaders.

Obviously I missed that in this thread. Would you mind pointing it out?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11513984&postcount=15

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11516211&postcount=62

I mean, why should German people stay in Germany. It was the land of the Visigoth, Teuton, and others. Germans has no right to that land. Let's kick them out and offer them the Black forest as compensation for ruining their lives and keep their hard earned houses.

Well, that argument was shit. Visigoths, German. Teutons, German. Black Forest, German.

Next.

I wouldn't bother if I were you. KP seems to think that he, and he alone, is the only one in the world who knows the 'proper' way of addressing anyone from the British Isles.

Well, I do. It's officially called the United Kingdom. Not Great Britain, not England, but the UK.

My Palestinian father was seven years old when his family was driven off land that THEY OWNED by Israelis with machine guns. What the hello are you talking about???? This happened to many people during that time. If you could talk to my uncles and aunts, they'd all tell you. My maternal grandfather was also driven from his land by armed Israelis. If you think I'm making this up, I can't convince you otherwise. But good God, that was one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on the Internet. Still steaming here.

Hey, guess what? I don't care! Is Israel now.

Hey, guess what? I don't care! Is Israel now.
You may not care, but it pretty much disproves your statement that the land was never Palestinian.

The fact about the Middle East that everybody needs to know:

1. It's in the east
2. It's in the middle.

No, it should have said

"Its strange how the pro-israelis keep putting words in other peoples mouths in order to try to bully them"

As opposed to the other way around which seems to happen quite frequently?

You may not care, but it pretty much disproves your statement that the land was never Palestinian.

No it doesn't. There was never a country called Palestine (except the British Mandate). There were just Palestinians living there. Hey, my family is Ukrainian! Australia is Ukrainian! :rolleyes:

it's not like the Ottoman people aren't the same people as the palestinians.
Erm....I beleive Palesentians more closely related to the Arabic race, the Ottoman Empire was ruled by Turks...most of the time. Calling an Arab a Turk is like calling a Korean Japanese, and just as likely to get you killed and/or maimed in the wrong circumstances.

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:

That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.
Wow, a little rant, a little rave, and a little flame. Hmmmm.

Okay, back to the thread title:

The fact about the Middle East that everybody needs to know.

When it comes to UN Resolutions, Israel has an automatic "get out of jail free card".

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html)
(1972-2006)

IMHO, this activity exacerbates the current political unrest in the Middle East.

No it doesn't. There was never a country called Palestine (except the British Mandate). There were just Palestinians living there. Hey, my family is Ukrainian! Australia is Ukrainian! :rolleyes:

The land that the Palestinians were living on, they owned. People aren't saying that Palestine was sovereign nation. They are saying that the land was owned by Palestinians and that land was taken from them without consent (in other words, stolen) by the Israelis.

The Palestinians owned the land they lived on and the newly created Israeli state kicked them away. That is wrong. If the UN decided to create a new nation, and your property was right in the middle of it, would you willingly give it all up because the new government told you to get out?

Mr. Nodinia? Did you not notice that I did not say that for a reason? Because I was debating on the side of Israel. You do not bring up what your own side did in a debate where you are in support of said side. I would have brought that up if I was debating against Israel.

This debating on one side or the other allows for myth and lies to evolve that will never bring the conflict to an end. Support Israel by not mindlessly debating on the side of Israel.

Be critical of the state you hold dear, lest it become a terrible place indeed...

The land that the Palestinians were living on, they owned. People aren't saying that Palestine was sovereign nation. They are saying that the land was owned by Palestinians and that land was taken from them without consent (in other words, stolen) by the Israelis.

The Palestinians owned the land they lived on and the newly created Israeli state kicked them away. That is wrong. If the UN decided to create a new nation, and your property was right in the middle of it, would you willingly give it all up because the new government told you to get out?

Actually, much of the land had been purchased by Jews in the first place.

Ohhh... my.... goodness, I can't believe the ignorance of that post.

My Palestinian father was seven years old when his family was driven off land that THEY OWNED by Israelis with machine guns. What the hello are you talking about???? This happened to many people during that time. If you could talk to my uncles and aunts, they'd all tell you. My maternal grandfather was also driven from his land by armed Israelis. If you think I'm making this up, I can't convince you otherwise. But good God, that was one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on the Internet. Still steaming here.


We all know that ignorance is widespread in this world; due to the internet ignorance can hit us in the face like this…

Very few seem to have real knowledge and many even then attempt to divert the facts (assuming there are facts)

Actually, much of the land had been purchased by Jews in the first place.

Large parts of the lands acquired before the creation of the state Israel was indeed purchased. Note that both sides made use of force during the British Mandate era. Still, because of the Ottoman reform, called Tanzimat, the land that had been worked for generations now had to have ownership modelled after the Europeans. Those literate and influential could subscribe to land for a limited period. Many of the land came into the ownership of large landowners. This was not a problem because life changed little; instead of paying a small tax to the Ottoman Empire a small sum had to be paid to the new landowner. You can imagine the problems arising which European Jews bought the land from the landowners one hundred years later, telling the families that had worked the land for ages to leave. There is no right and wrong in this truly sad story. :(

After the creation of Israel, however, land was mostly took by force sadly enough :(

Thank you. The Palenstianians had their chance. They didn't take it. If anyone stole anything, it's the Brits, really. Well, actually the Romans then the Ottomans, as Jerusalem was Jewish land. Nobody really seems to care that Jerusalem was Jewish land before the time anyone could remember. If anyone stole land, it was the Romans, Ottomans, Brits, Palenstianians, etc. from the Jews.
and if we go back in time even more, the Jews took the land from somebody else before that.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11513984&postcount=15

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11516211&postcount=62
again, I fail to see where these posts deny the right of Israel to exist.

Furthermore, I would appreciate if you stopped twisting my words to make me look like I said something I didn't. I never denied Israel's right to exist and my post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11513984&postcount=15) was not about that but about the falsehood of the OP about touting his opinion as fact.

In so many words: you're lying or grossly misreading these posts.

Actually, much of the land had been purchased by Jews in the first place.

And as I asked earlier - how much?


You can give the answer in terms of percentage, acres or dunums, its "all good" as some of the Amerikans say.

This debating on one side or the other allows for myth and lies to evolve that will never bring the conflict to an end. Support Israel by not mindlessly debating on the side of Israel.

Be critical of the state you hold dear, lest it become a terrible place indeed...

No doubt you would be right but a whole purpose of a debate is to have all sides represented with their views. I am looking at it from Israel's view since I am debating from a pro-Israeli point of view. I have been critical of Israel before. I do disagree with their attack method but I do understand where they are coming from.

Well, that argument was shit. Visigoths, German. Teutons, German. Black Forest, German.

Next.
nevermind the FACT that it was a comparison to show that the people living on those land during the Ottoman empire are the exact same people that we are now calling the palestinians.

You are just shooting yourself in the foot by calling Visigoth and teutons germans, here. Ottomans empire resident, palestinians. Are you saying that your original point was shit?

No it doesn't. There was never a country called Palestine (except the British Mandate). There were just Palestinians living there. Hey, my family is Ukrainian! Australia is Ukrainian! :rolleyes:
Well that was a shit argument. the two bolded part contradict each other.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11513984&postcount=15

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11516211&postcount=62

The first struck me as not being serious, and the second does not relate to what you were saying.

The first struck me as not being serious, and the second does not relate to what you were saying.
And, if you notice the post #, actually comes after his original post anyway. So how that 'proves' that posts earlier to his op were anti-Israel is beyond me.
Unless he has access to a time machine of course.

When it comes to UN Resolutions, Israel has an automatic "get out of jail free card".

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html)
(1972-2006)

IMHO, this activity exacerbates the current political unrest in the Middle East.
Exacerbates it greatly, cause Israel is safe in the knowledge that it has carte Blanche to do whatever the hell it likes without UN interference, thanks to the US veto powers.
And the Arab countries know this as well.
Great way to help the Middle East hate America.

I notice from the above link the number of times Britain abstains from those votes (7 times from the last 8 resolutions). Again, another great way of rubbing sand in the faces of the Arab nations.

No doubt you would be right but a whole purpose of a debate is to have all sides represented with their views. I am looking at it from Israel's view since I am debating from a pro-Israeli point of view. I have been critical of Israel before. I do disagree with their attack method but I do understand where they are coming from.

As do I know where Israel is coming from ;)

I understand your point. Yet is more debate really what is needed? Instead of debating the issue, we should try resolve our differences through the use of arguments. Let us try to leave populist messages out of the discussion.

I understand that you would like people to share your support for Israel, however the next step out of the conflict is not to give a questionable reading of the facts, nor should we linger in the right and wrong of the past. The past is important to understand the conflict and show the outcome.

I have two questions for you

Do you also understand where the Arabs are coming from?
Do you not worry where Israel might be heading to?

All right. A little context for my post here: I have two Palestinian-born friends, no Israeli friends, and we're political people, so we talk about this. That is the personal side that I always hear. However, last year I got the opportunity to listen to both the Palestinian and the Israeli ambassador speak.

One of the major problems is the falsified information - from BOTH sides. This is why it is so difficult to separate fact from fiction in this case, why sometimes the "facts" we get are actually opinions or complete lies. For example, the Palestinian ambassador spoke about the wall cutting off Palestinian communities from wells, cutting through farmers' fields, etc. When the Israeli ambassador was asked about it, he didn't try to explain it away. He simply said it didn't happen like that.

Palestinians maintain that they were kicked out of their homes, without compensation, to make room for Israeli settlers. One of my Palestinian friends has told me that his family owned huge tracts of land in what is now Israel, and was never compensated for it. They were extremely wealthy in that regard, and lost it all when Israel came in. This is second-hand information (even to him, since it happened before he was born), so can it really be trusted? He believes it; I take all the information from this conflict with a grain of salt. Israel continues to say that they paid for every bit of land they own. They say that people were given a choice to stay, and many chose to leave. I look at this claim the same way I look at the Palestinians' claim.

That is the basis for the whole conflict. There are two completely different stories given from either side. There are extremists on both sides promoting these stories. And don't tell me that only Palestinians are terrorists. I have heard absolute horror stories of what the IDF can and does do to the Palestinians. Atrocities that my friends witnessed before they were 10 years old. Both sides have terrorists, if that is the word to be used.

Neither side is innocent in this conflict, and it is impossible to tell which side is telling the truth. But I guess that's why you've got forums like this, eh?

I understand your point. Yet is more debate really what is needed? Instead of debating the issue, we should try resolve our differences through the use of arguments. Let us try to leave populist messages out of the discussion.

I agree that we should discuss ways that peace can be obtained. However, I have a feeling that will cause more flaming on these boards than what we have already. :D

I understand that you would like people to share your support for Israel, however the next step out of the conflict is not to give a questionable reading of the facts, nor should we linger in the right and wrong of the past. The past is important to understand the conflict and show the outcome.

I agree with you yet again that we must understand the past in order to preserve the future for he who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

I have two questions for you

Do you also understand where the Arabs are coming from?
Do you not worry where Israel might be heading to?

Question one: Yes I do understand where the Arabs are coming from. Some of it is religious and others is history. Its a good mixture of everything.

Question two: Of course I worry where they might be headed.

Erm....I beleive Palesentians more closely related to the Arabic race, the Ottoman Empire was ruled by Turks...most of the time. Calling an Arab a Turk is like calling a Korean Japanese, and just as likely to get you killed and/or maimed in the wrong circumstances.


The Ottoman rulers were indeed Turks

The Ottoman people were among others Turks/Azeri's, Slavs, Arabs (Christian, Sunni, Shi'a, and Jew) and others of these religions... I could name more like the Kurds for example the rest I would need to look up...

Note that people are divided by both religion and ethnicity; The main remaining difference between Turks and Greeks at the end of the Ottoman Empire was in religion, not ethnicity. (don't tell the Turks or the Greeks that please.. :p )

Here is aa list of ALL the UN resolutions concerning Israel...

Go look them up . learn some history. Learn to make decisions and form opinions based on facts instead of what someone tells you to believe or says is true .

United Nations Security Council resolutions
Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests recommendations for the Palestine Commission
Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Calls upon Arab and Jewish armed groups to cease acts of violence
Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests convocation of special session of the General Assembly
Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948)
Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 89 (November 17, 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and "transfer of persons".
Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid.
Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 Mar)
Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 Sep)
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 338 (October 22, 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
Resolution 339 (October 23, 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425 (1978): 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of June 16, 2000.
Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".. Israeli settlements in the occupied territories thus declared illegal.
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478 (August 20, 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 1559 (September 2, 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel. It also states that "the Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming Israel's withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.


Go to GOOGLE and put the number of the resoulution in .


And note THE US DID NOT VETO ..or the resolutions wouldn't have passed .

After you read the resolutions its up to you to go back and find out the circumstances that created the need...

Mostly Israel kisking the ass of all the countries in the regions that attacked it and then they went to the UN to try to get the land they lost to Israel as a result , back .

This one tiny country....try to find another country thats the subject of so many UN resolutions ..:D

The Birth of Israel from the 1947 UN resolution .


THE DIVISION sanctioned by the UN ...

The division
The land allocated to the Arab state consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one third of the coastline. The highlands contained no large bodies of standing water and were relatively secure from malaria, allowing a substantial permanent population to exist.

The Jewish state was to receive 55% of Mandatory Palestine. In the north, this area included three fertile lowland plains -- the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. All three were extremely fertile in 1947, but were largely uninhabitable before 1900 due to silting caused by deforestation. The resulting marshes allowed mosquitos to breed, but also made potential farmland available to Jewish settlers. (Mark Twain's travel journal, Innocents Abroad contains a vivid description of malaria in Palestine in the 1870's.)

The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert. The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish state was also given sole access to the Red Sea and the Sea of Galilee (the largest source of fresh water in Palestine). The land allocated to the Jewish state was largely made up of areas in which there was a significant Jewish population (Map of population distribution). Palestine's land surface was approximately 26,300 km², of which about one third was cultivable. The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456 km² in 1920 to 1,393 km² in 1945 (Khalaf, 1991, pp. 26-27) and 1,850 km² by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).

Regarding the Arab ownership, the MidEast Web states "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." [1] The precise amount of land owned by local Arabs and the state has been subject to considerable dispute as the Ottoman Empire did not maintain an accurate land registration system and many land claims consisted of little more than contracts between private parties that may or may not have been based on actual possession.

Much of the Jewish population, especially in rural areas, lived on land leased from Arab owners.


The Jewish population was concentrated in settlement areas in 1947. The borders were drawn to encompass them, placing most of the Jewish population in the Jewish state. (Map reflects Jewish owned land not the size and number of settlements. It does not imply that only Jews lived here or that all other land was owned or exclusively populated by Arabs.) State of Israel
Geography
Land of Israel · Districts · Cities
Transportation · Mediterranean
Dead Sea · Red Sea · Sea of Galilee
Jerusalem · Tel Aviv · Haifa

History
Zionism · Timeline ·Aliyah · Herzl · Flag
Balfour · Mandate · 1947 UN Plan
Independence · Austerity · Refugees


Arab-Israeli conflict · Proposals
1948 War · 1949 Armistice · Suez War
Six-Day War · Attrition War
Yom Kippur War · Lebanon War
Israel-Lebanon Conflict
Peace treaties with: Egypt, Jordan


Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Timeline · Peace process · Peace camp
1st Intifada · Oslo · 2nd Intifada
Barrier · Disengagement

Economy
Science & technology · Companies
Tourism · Winemaking · Military industry


Demographics · Culture
Judaism · Israeli Arabs · Kibbutz
Music · Archaeology · Universities
Hebrew · Literature · Sport · Israelis

Laws · Politics
Law of Return · Jerusalem Law
Parties · Elections · PM · President
Knesset · Supreme Court · Courts

Foreign affairs
UN · Intl. Law · Arab League

Security Forces
Israel Defense Forces
Intelligence Community · Security Council
Police · Border Police · Prison Service

Portal:Israel

This box: view • talk • edit
The UN General Assembly made a non-binding recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone including the religiously significant towns Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The two states envisioned in the plan were each composed of three major sections, linked by extraterritorial crossroads. The Jewish state would receive the Coastal Plain, stretching from Haifa to Rehovot, the Eastern Galilee (surrounding the Sea of Galilee and including the Galilee panhandle) and the Negev, including the southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now Eilat). The Arab state would receive the Western Galilee, with the town of Acre, the Samarian highlands and the Judean highlands, and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now Ashdod) and encompassing what is now the Gaza Strip, with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. The UNSCOP report placed the mostly-Arab town of Jaffa, just south of Tel Aviv, in the Jewish state, but it was moved to form an enclave part of the Arab State before the proposal went before the UN.

The plan was a compromise position based on two other plans.

The plan tried its best to accommodate as many Jews as possible into the Jewish state. In many specific cases, this meant including areas of Arab majority (but with a significant Jewish minority) in the Jewish state. Thus the Jewish State would have an overall large Arab minority. Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev), were also included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration in order to relieve the "Jewish Problem".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_181


Israel EXIST and cannot be undone ...or moved...face that FACT .

As soon as all the jihadist nuts get that fact ...then you can have a bit of peace..unless someone just kills them all first .

What I find ridiculous is the Hezbollah claim to Shebaa Farms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

Looks like the UN agrees that it never belonged to Lebanon, ever. Period. And certainly not to Hezbollah.

But, you may see the cynical approach to the whole matter in this:

The new Lebanese claim to this area is one reason now asserted for Hezbollah's continuing conflict with Israel, and cross-border attacks.[16] However, Hezbollah's spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin had this to say about the Farms: "If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.”[17]

Apparently, even if you give them Shebaa Farms, which they claim is disputed territory, you won't have peace.

They want it all, and they want all the Jews gone.

All right. A little context for my post here: I have two Palestinian-born friends, no Israeli friends, and we're political people, so we talk about this. That is the personal side that I always hear. However, last year I got the opportunity to listen to both the Palestinian and the Israeli ambassador speak.

One of the major problems is the falsified information - from BOTH sides. This is why it is so difficult to separate fact from fiction in this case, why sometimes the "facts" we get are actually opinions or complete lies. For example, the Palestinian ambassador spoke about the wall cutting off Palestinian communities from wells, cutting through farmers' fields, etc. When the Israeli ambassador was asked about it, he didn't try to explain it away. He simply said it didn't happen like that.

Palestinians maintain that they were kicked out of their homes, without compensation, to make room for Israeli settlers. One of my Palestinian friends has told me that his family owned huge tracts of land in what is now Israel, and was never compensated for it. They were extremely wealthy in that regard, and lost it all when Israel came in. This is second-hand information (even to him, since it happened before he was born), so can it really be trusted? He believes it; I take all the information from this conflict with a grain of salt. Israel continues to say that they paid for every bit of land they own. They say that people were given a choice to stay, and many chose to leave. I look at this claim the same way I look at the Palestinians' claim.

That is the basis for the whole conflict. There are two completely different stories given from either side. There are extremists on both sides promoting these stories. And don't tell me that only Palestinians are terrorists. I have heard absolute horror stories of what the IDF can and does do to the Palestinians. Atrocities that my friends witnessed before they were 10 years old. Both sides have terrorists, if that is the word to be used.

Neither side is innocent in this conflict, and it is impossible to tell which side is telling the truth. But I guess that's why you've got forums like this, eh?

This is the problem of a war that is also fought by propaganda indeed.

So the “facts” cannot be trusted, what then?

We can acknowledge that parts of what we believe may not be true.
We can look at other times in history and ask ourselves if it is plausible.

But foremost we must not forget that, as you said, people believe these things; it really does not matter if it is true or not. The fact remains that people believe this has happened and will act as though this has happened regardless.

Let us take these beliefs as the main fact, and work from there. :)

All right. A little context for my post here: I have two Palestinian-born friends, no Israeli friends, and we're political people, so we talk about this. That is the personal side that I always hear. However, last year I got the opportunity to listen to both the Palestinian and the Israeli ambassador speak.

One of the major problems is the falsified information - from BOTH sides. This is why it is so difficult to separate fact from fiction in this case, why sometimes the "facts" we get are actually opinions or complete lies. For example, the Palestinian ambassador spoke about the wall cutting off Palestinian communities from wells, cutting through farmers' fields, etc. When the Israeli ambassador was asked about it, he didn't try to explain it away. He simply said it didn't happen like that.

Palestinians maintain that they were kicked out of their homes, without compensation, to make room for Israeli settlers. One of my Palestinian friends has told me that his family owned huge tracts of land in what is now Israel, and was never compensated for it. They were extremely wealthy in that regard, and lost it all when Israel came in. This is second-hand information (even to him, since it happened before he was born), so can it really be trusted? He believes it; I take all the information from this conflict with a grain of salt. Israel continues to say that they paid for every bit of land they own. They say that people were given a choice to stay, and many chose to leave. I look at this claim the same way I look at the Palestinians' claim.

That is the basis for the whole conflict. There are two completely different stories given from either side. There are extremists on both sides promoting these stories. And don't tell me that only Palestinians are terrorists. I have heard absolute horror stories of what the IDF can and does do to the Palestinians. Atrocities that my friends witnessed before they were 10 years old. Both sides have terrorists, if that is the word to be used.

Neither side is innocent in this conflict, and it is impossible to tell which side is telling the truth. But I guess that's why you've got forums like this, eh?

There was an extensive survey done in 1945/46 for presentation to the UN by the British, with, I seem to remember, American assistance. It in no way whatsover backs pro-Israeli claims re land ownership. Nor does it give any credence to the idea that the place was a desert before the settlers arrived.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/102-1030975-7954549?n=283155

Hezbollah charter says...


The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity



No peace treaty or cease fire will recognized.


That means for Israel and the region to have peace hezbollah must be destroyed .

What I find ridiculous is the Hezbollah claim to Shebaa Farms.


Thats nice. Go start a thread on it.

Both sides have terrorists, if that is the word to be used.


But anyone can see that there is a difference between the 'terrorist' elements in each side. In the 1920s, there were some Jewish (or more correctly, Zionist) extremists who resorted to terror against the British, because the British refused to allow any more Jews to emigrate to Palestine (because they were bowing to pressure from the Arab governments). Thus, the Jewish side were once the terrorists. However, I object to calling the current methods used by the IDF as terrorist. They are perhaps bloody and heavy handed, but they are certainly not like the methods used by the radical elements on the Palestinian side. The IDF does not target innocent civilians. Hezbollah does, it seems.

Thats nice. Go start a thread on it.

Why when it fits into this thread quite nicely.

nevermind the FACT that it was a comparison to show that the people living on those land during the Ottoman empire are the exact same people that we are now calling the palestinians.

You are just shooting yourself in the foot by calling Visigoth and teutons germans, here. Ottomans empire resident, palestinians. Are you saying that your original point was shit?

No I'm not. The Ottomans were turkish, and it was their empire. Not Palestinian. The Visigoths and Teutons were specifically part of the German spectrum, they're German.

Thats nice. Go start a thread on it.
It's illustrative of the idea that Hezbollah has no real intention of negotiating, no real intention of having peace, no real intention of a ceasefire. Their only real intention is the destruction of Israel in its entirety.

Of course, that's entirely in line with their stated, printed goals.

Hate having that rubbed in your face, don't you? How are we supposed to negotiate with people whose stated goal is NOT to negotiate, NOT to have a ceasefire, and NOT to have peace - ever.

And to have them acting in strict accordance with those stated goals - well, that's no surprise to me. So don't ask anyone to "negotiate" with them.

It's like "negotiating" with a king cobra that you suddenly found under the sheets with you. I doubt if he will listen to your entreaties not to bite you.

Well that was a shit argument. the two bolded part contradict each other.

Not... really. Palestine is implied as a nation for the "Palestinian people" (despite the fact that they already have Jordan :rolleyes:). The British Mandate was the region of Palestine, but specifically under British control. Region of Palestine =/= nation of Palestine.

Question one: Yes I do understand where the Arabs are coming from. Some of it is religious and others is history. Its a good mixture of everything.

Question two: Of course I worry where they might be headed.

I am glad you do...

:D

Most of us just want this conflict to end... :(

Consequently we need less taking sides in this conflict...

I think you know that religion plays a role in the conflict, but that this is no religious conflict. Sometimes, looking mainly at religion might make one think one is looking at a different kind of people, while the other is usually very similar.

I am glad you do...

:D

Most of us just want this conflict to end... :(

Consequently we need less taking sides in this conflict...

I think you know that religion plays a role in the conflict, but that this is no religious conflict. Sometimes, looking mainly at religion might make one think one is looking at a different kind of people, while the other is usually very similar.

Unfortunately it is human nature to take sides in any conflict. You are right that most of us do want the conflict to end. Even Israel and Lebanon want it to end. The problem is an ending that will satisfy all parties. :(

And you are also right that we have to look at other aspects outside of religion when dealing with this war. This runs far deeper than religion as the entire Middle East has been conquerored by one foe after another. One western power after another. The whole area is one volitale warzone and has been for centuries. :(

But anyone can see that there is a difference between the 'terrorist' elements in each side. In the 1920s, there were some Jewish (or more correctly, Zionist) extremists who resorted to terror against the British, because the British refused to allow any more Jews to emigrate to Palestine (because they were bowing to pressure from the Arab governments). .

Incorrect, it was actually slowed due to fears of large scale civil conflict within the territory, due to a combination of Arab fears and increased immigration.


Thus, the Jewish side were once the terrorists. However, I object to calling the current methods used by the IDF as terrorist. They are perhaps bloody and heavy handed, but they are certainly not like the methods used by the radical elements on the Palestinian side. The IDF does not target innocent civilians. Hezbollah does, it seems.

40 years of repression does not leave the IDF in a good light.

No I'm not. The Ottomans were turkish, and it was their empire. Not Palestinian. The Visigoths and Teutons were specifically part of the German spectrum, they're German.
*sigh*

As I told before, the Ottoman empire contained many cultures...
These included Arabs, especially in the area we are discussing...

Saying their leader where Turks and saying it was their empire....

What shall I say; your arguments show a special sophistication :rolleyes:

It's illustrative of the idea that Hezbollah has no real intention of negotiating, no real intention of having peace, no real intention of a ceasefire. .

And the OP was about Hezbollah, was it?

And the OP was about Hezbollah, was it?
It's about facts in the Middle East.

Just posting the facts, which you seem to not want posted, especially if it shows you are so, so wrong.

It's illustrative of the idea that Hezbollah has no real intention of negotiating, no real intention of having peace, no real intention of a ceasefire. .

And the OP was about Hezbollah, was it?

Well lesse where the Arabs are comming from ...
At one time the cradle of civilization.
Having conquered and formed a huge Empire that existed for thousands of years .
Home of outstanding cultural and scientific advancements....at one time .
home of one of the worlds great religions and a part of the land is the home of at least three .

Comes along the Crusades...they beat them off...but bad vibes for the future.

Comes the western Imperialist and the Colonization and subjugation of these once proud empires that lasted for almost two hundred years .
Exploitation of the wealth of these countries by western entities backed up by proxy government and western guns .

They FINALLY get rid of the colonial masters....

The UN takes land and says HERE IS ISRAEL ...

Arabs say WHAT THE FUCK ? AGAIN ???? This time with JEWS ?????

The Former western colonist headed by Great Britain and France along with Israel take back the Suez canal after Nasser says fuck you its mine...they say fuck you in aint ...

The US says FUCK ALL OF YOU .
And along with canada returns controll to Egypt..( hmmm wonder why Egypt and the US are friends ??? )

War ...war and more war as the Arabs with Soviet help...( lets not forget the cold war ) try to destroy Israel..

Arabs suffer many humiliating defeats ...illustrating to the zealots that the governments are corrupt and incompetant and must be removed...so they do try ...

More trying to destroy Israel more humiliating defeats ...

1973....they ALMOST do it...

US for the first time ( in such a massive way ) takes sides and supports Israel with arms and in many Arab minds turns the war in Israels favor .


The US becomes SATAN .

Brief and to the point..its all been down hill from there.

As the Arab nations grow and become stronger and maybe allow or revolt and find a democratic voice ...maybe things will change ..at least thats what the American government thinks..they bet the house on it .

We will see.

They just might decide to unite and pay us all back by wiping us of the Earth .:D

What I find ridiculous is the Hezbollah claim to Shebaa Farms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

Looks like the UN agrees that it never belonged to Lebanon, ever. Period. And certainly not to Hezbollah.

But, you may see the cynical approach to the whole matter in this:



Apparently, even if you give them Shebaa Farms, which they claim is disputed territory, you won't have peace.

They want it all, and they want all the Jews gone.
Correct me if I’m wrong, I thought that;

1. The UN considers the Sheba farms to be part of Syria.
2. That the plantations where owned by Lebanese (the number of Lebanese is unclear due to the nature of the records)
3. Israeli settlers are currently living there.

So I do see a conflict of interests there…

Still, you are probably right that giving the Sheba farms will not appease Hizbullah

There is another interesting post dealing with hizbullah that will need answering first :p

It's about facts in the Middle East.

Just posting the facts, which you seem to not want posted, especially if it shows you are so, so wrong.


How does Hezbollah founded in the 1980s relate to land ownership in 1946?

Correct me if I’m wrong, I thought that;

1. The UN considers the Sheba farms to be part of Syria.
2. That the plantations where owned by Lebanese (the number of Lebanese is unclear due to the nature of the records)
3. Israeli settlers are currently living there.

So I do see a conflict of interests there…

Still, you are probably right that giving the Sheba farms will not appease Hizbullah

There is another interesting post dealing with hizbullah that will need answering first :p


You're correct about everything except the land records.

The United Nations agreed with Israel's view that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout.[14] At the same time the UN noted that its decision was "without prejudice to future border agreements between the Member States concerned," referring to Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

The United Nations stated: "On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."[25]

In a June 18, 2000 statement, the Security Council noted that Israel and Lebanon had confirmed to the Secretary General, that identification of the withdrawal line was solely the responsibility of the United Nations and that both sides would respect the line as identified. Moreover, the Security Council took note, "with serious concern," of reports of violations - by Hezbollah[26] - that had occurred since June 16, 2000, and called upon the parties to respect the line drawn by the United Nations.

and

Nancy Soderberg, the former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, made a similar observation on July 21, 2006. She wrote that: "When it was clear the Israelis were going to withdraw fully from Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials fabricated the fiction that this small, sparsely populated area was part of Lebanon. They even produced a crudely fabricated map to back up the dubious claim. I and United Nations officials went into the map room in the United Nations and looked at all the maps of the region in the files for decades. All showed the Shebaa Farms clearly in Syria."

How does Hezbollah founded in the 1980s relate to land ownership in 1946?
Because Hezbollah claims to be involved in the land dispute as well.

Really trying hard to exclude them, because you know they are duplicitously trying to justify their actions against Israel, and you can't defend their claims.

Here is aa list of ALL the UN resolutions concerning Israel...

Go look them up . learn some history. Learn to make decisions and form opinions based on facts instead of what someone tells you to believe or says is true .



Go to GOOGLE and put the number of the resoulution in .


And note THE US DID NOT VETO ..or the resolutions wouldn't have passed .

After you read the resolutions its up to you to go back and find out the circumstances that created the need...

Mostly Israel kisking the ass of all the countries in the regions that attacked it and then they went to the UN to try to get the land they lost to Israel as a result , back .

This one tiny country....try to find another country thats the subject of so many UN resolutions ..:D
so you show a list of passed resolution, many of which Israel has broken and you think this somehow prooves your point that the US is not using his veto in Israel's favor? Please! :rolleyes:

I remember a draft last year that never even went so far as being a resolution because the US said that it wasn't going to vote for it because "it didn't mention Israel's concern about terrorism". When denouncing Israel attacks in the West Bank.

So anyone who claims that the Us is not using his veto in Israel's favor is seriously deluded.

Because Hezbollah claims to be involved in the land dispute as well.

Really trying hard to exclude them, because you know they are duplicitously trying to justify their actions against Israel, and you can't defend their claims.

Strawman nonsense from one of our regular islamophobes. I've no interest in what their claims are, have not referenced them prior to your arrival nor were they part of the OP. In short, fuck their claims.

Hezbollah charter says...


[/b]


No peace treaty or cease fire will recognized.


That means for Israel and the region to have peace hezbollah must be destroyed .
What has that got to do with your original point? Nothing!

Are you here for a debate or are you just spouting ideological propaganda?

Edit: nevermind, I got my answer right there:

Well lesse where the Arabs are comming from ...
At one time the cradle of civilization.

(snip long rant)


it would seem you are just another Israel apologist. Goodbye.

it would seem you are just another Israel apologist. Goodbye.
It would seem you are just another terrorist apologist. Goodbye.

Oh, and Canada believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Oh, and they think Hamas, the current government of the Palestinians, is a terrorist organization as well.

http://ww2.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/national_security/counter-terrorism/Entities_e.asp

Incorrect, it was actually slowed due to fears of large scale civil conflict within the territory, due to a combination of Arab fears and increased immigration.

Right. It was slowed, not stopped altogether. But considering the huge demand for immigration, for many Jews, it must have seemed like being stopped. 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. http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
Coming just before the war, with many thousands of Jews fleeing Europe, it must have forced these desperate people to consider illegal immigration.



40 years of repression does not leave the IDF in a good light.

True. Not a good light at all. Downright bloody, at times. And yet we call it 'repressive' because they had the military might. But perhaps anyone with the military might does not pass through history in a good light. Britain, America, Russia, Germany, the list is a long one. How hard is it to be gentle to your opponents when you have the power to hurt them back? Particularly when they hurt you?

No I'm not. The Ottomans were turkish, and it was their empire. Not Palestinian. The Visigoths and Teutons were specifically part of the German spectrum, they're German.
ever heard of comparison? Of figure of style?

Let me explain then. A comparison is used in the english language to draw a parrallel between two different situation to better explain the point one is trying to make. No two parts of a comparison is ever the same . That is not the point. The point of a comparison is to show in a different light what someone is trying to say, in order for people to better understand.

That being said:

The fucking Ottoman empire had fucking arab people owning fucking land that was fucking took from their fucking hand to be given to the fucking Israeli without any kind of fucking compensation. It doesn't matter what kind of empire it was, the owners of those lands are the same people we call the Palestinians now.

Here is another comparison to explain my point. You are Austrian (they are arab). You live in Australia (they lived in a Turkish empire). The land you own is not Australia's to do as it pleases without giving you compensation. If Queensland (Israel) gets made a separate country from Australia , is the land you own yours or Queensland? And would you bitch if some Queenslander take your home and kick you out of your land claiming it was Austalia that gave it to him?

Hezbollah charter says...
Quote:
The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity

No peace treaty or cease fire will recognized.


(main part illustrated in bold letters)

Right…
Let me try to be concise

I agree that Hizbu-llah uses terror to achieve its goals
I agree that they indeed believe that the destruction of Israel is needed.

Still, this is not the only goal of the Islamists. Their first goals, as with any organisation is survival. Second they want to improve conditions for their “constituency”: the Shi’ite Arabs in Lebanon. They consider the destruction of Israel helpful for this goal.

This does not, however, mean that they will do anything to destroy Israel. For, they do want to help their people. If their people would have a better life without the destruction of Israel they would find a new, probably more political, role. Note they had already entered the political system of Lebanon. They would still hate Israel for a few generations, but they would not risk their lives destroying it.

That means for Israel and the region to have peace hezbollah must be destroyed .

Sadly, this war provides Hizbu-llah with renewed legitimacy, for only they can fight Israel.

Moreover, as their strength is dependent on their support, and support dependent on the people’s need for Hizbu-llah to protect their interests, Hizbu-llah can only be destroyed or changed by rendering the militant wing obsolete.

Most people that have a paying job, a family and a future will not become militants; Lebanon’s prosperity is invariably linked to Israeli security.

Besides force (of which we have enough already), one needs pragmatism to deal with these organisations. Also note that each organisation is different in goals and nature; Hizbu-llah is in another situation than Hammas...

But anyone can see that there is a difference between the 'terrorist' elements in each side. In the 1920s, there were some Jewish (or more correctly, Zionist) extremists who resorted to terror against the British, because the British refused to allow any more Jews to emigrate to Palestine (because they were bowing to pressure from the Arab governments). Thus, the Jewish side were once the terrorists. However, I object to calling the current methods used by the IDF as terrorist. They are perhaps bloody and heavy handed, but they are certainly not like the methods used by the radical elements on the Palestinian side. The IDF does not target innocent civilians. Hezbollah does, it seems.

The moral divide between targeting civilians intentionally and knowingly killing civilians that you did not target is extremely small. Especially considering that large numbers of civilian casualties are concerned.

Furthermore, as individual terrorists may deliberately target civilians, so do individual soldiers and brigades, especially following the loss of their fellows…

Shockingly, the Palestinian race, a debateable entity at best, pre-dated Ottoman conquest, as did Palestine. How dare that inconveniant millenia between Islamic expansionism and Ottoman hegemony impose upon your twaddle....:rolleyes:

The moral divide between targeting civilians intentionally and knowingly killing civilians that you did not target is extremely small. Especially considering that large numbers of civilian casualties are concerned.

But when you consider the options: either defend your people (resulting in the unfortunate but inevitable death of civilians) or do nothing, i.e., refuse to defend your people (resulting in even more deaths of civilians--those of your own people). In each case, civilians will die. Thus, is it fair to accuse the IDF of knowingly killing civilians that they did not target? Whatever they do, civilians will die. Not so in the case of Hezbollah. If they did nothing, I suspect that no civilians will die.


Furthermore, as individual terrorists may deliberately target civilians, so do individual soldiers and brigades, especially following the loss of their fellows…

But it is still a relatively easy to distinguish between the planned strategic terrorist attacks of Hezbollah, and the spontaneous reactions of angry emotional grief stricken IDF soldiers.

Or if you are accusing the IDF of deliberately targeting innocent Palestinian civilians, i.e. strategically (which would only hurt their own cause), I can't refute that, since as far as I know, it could be possible. But then the question is more about who is innocent. When the headlines read 'Two kids killed in an IDF rocket attack', of course the kids are innocent, but their daddy might have been high on the most wanted terrorist list. In such a case, would you pull the trigger to kill the terrorist (and his two kids, because they are in the same car) in order to prevent that man from killing your two kids? Tough question, huh?

But when you consider the options: either defend your people (resulting in the unfortunate but inevitable death of civilians) or do nothing, i.e., refuse to defend your people (resulting in even more deaths of civilians--those of your own people). In each case, civilians will die. Thus, is it fair to accuse the IDF of knowingly killing civilians that they did not target? Whatever they do, civilians will die. Not so in the case of Hezbollah. If they did nothing, I suspect that no civilians will die.

But it is still a relatively easy to distinguish between the planned strategic terrorist attacks of Hezbollah, and the spontaneous reactions of angry emotional grief stricken IDF soldiers.

Or if you are accusing the IDF of deliberately targeting innocent Palestinian civilians, i.e. strategically (which would only hurt their own cause), I can't refute that, since as far as I know, it could be possible. But then the question is more about who is innocent. When the headlines read 'Two kids killed in an IDF rocket attack', of course the kids are innocent, but their daddy might have been high on the most wanted terrorist list. In such a case, would you pull the trigger to kill the terrorist (and his two kids, because they are in the same car) in order to prevent that man from killing your two kids? Tough question, huh?

Shit, no more time...

I will need to come back to you on that though :)

I am sad I have not much time left for you. Let me be short

I do consider Isreal a Democracy. The strenght of democracy is in critical people be critical of those close to you!

You greatly overestimate the ability of the Arab governments to tell people to get out; people flee wars every where
Sryia admitted that they are responsible for the refugee problem. Syria and others told palestinians in the area to get out because they were going to attack. Israel did allow them to return but the Arab nations told them not to. Seems to me that they do have the ability to do so.

I am not sad that infant Israel won against the Infant Arab states

Do you see a palestinian state the West Bank and Gaza?

Remember the words of a Palestinian millitant:
"those shopkeepers think only of money, they do not care for the cause."

He is partly right only those that have little to loose risk that by fighting Israel, this is indeed the answer...


Nope and I blame Hamas, Fahtah, Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade, and Islamic Jihad for that. They had many chances to have a state by now and they blew each and every single opportunity. My father has a saying in regards to this. "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Blowing yourself up in a cafe or at a restaurant is not going to win you any friends. All it does is force retaliation. There will be no peaec till the terrorists are disarmed.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're both Israelis aren't you?

Alleghany, if you're not Israeli, you should be really, really ashamed of that last paragraph. I think you just accused someone who actually lives there of being a suicide bomber. And urging Israel to "disarm all terrorists."
If you live there, I can excuse your paranoia and extremism. But if you don't, please drop the "disarm all terrorists" thing.
Terrorists=any armed individuals who are not on my side.
Disarm=kill.
Given that, it reads "kill them all."

If you're living in Israel or Lebanon at this time, that kind of extremism (paranoia) is understandable. If you're sitting home in the US or Britain, watching it on the TB and wondering when your taxes are going to go up, pull your pointy head in. Really :rolleyes:

It would seem you are just another terrorist apologist. Goodbye.

Oh, and Canada believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Oh, and they think Hamas, the current government of the Palestinians, is a terrorist organization as well.

http://ww2.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/national_security/counter-terrorism/Entities_e.asp

Hamas? The current government of the Palestinians? What?

Hamas? The current government of the Palestinians? What?
Hamas (Arabic: حركة حماس‎; acronym: Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية‎, or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization that currently forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority.[1] It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[2] Canada,[3] [4] the United Kingdom,[5] the European Union,[6] Israel, and the United States,[7] and is banned in Jordan.[8]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're both Israelis aren't you?

No not an Israeli. If I were one, I probably be in Lebanon right about now and not posting here on NS :p

Alleghany, if you're not Israeli, you should be really, really ashamed of that last paragraph. I think you just accused someone who actually lives there of being a suicide bomber. And urging Israel to "disarm all terrorists."
If you live there, I can excuse your paranoia and extremism. But if you don't, please drop the "disarm all terrorists" thing.
Terrorists=any armed individuals who are not on my side.
Disarm=kill.
Given that, it reads "kill them all."

So how does disarming terrorists equal killing them all? Hamas is a political party as is Fatha. Even Hezbollah is a political party. I do not want to see political parties destroyed. I want to see their militant factions disarmed. I would love for it to be done peacefully. So please pray tell tell me how I want to disarm the terrorists equals killing them all?

As to my last comment about suicide bombers, I did not accuse him of being one. I was commenting on the state of affairs in Israel where terrorists (most notably Hamas) sends their people into night clubs and restaraunts to blow themselves up to cause as many casualties as possible. By doing so, they only invite counter attacks and it does nothing to help establish peace in the region.

If you're living in Israel or Lebanon at this time, that kind of extremism (paranoia) is understandable. If you're sitting home in the US or Britain, watching it on the TV and wondering when your taxes are going to go up, pull your pointy head in. Really :rolleyes:

I was trying to come up with something to say but it was not going to be nice so I am just going to let this statement stand without comment. I believe my comments addressed earlier in this post will be enough explaination.

It would seem you are just another terrorist apologist. Goodbye.
Please, please, please tell me I've just been put on your ignore list. That way, I'll be happy that a lying warmonger with genocidal tendencies will never distort my words again. It would make me one happy camper.

Of course, I never said the terrorist were right and never did wrong, like you are saying with Israel, but that's not the first time you twist my words to make me say something I didn't. Again, I say: cease and desist.


Oh, and Canada believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Oh, and they think Hamas, the current government of the Palestinians, is a terrorist organization as well.

http://ww2.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/national_security/counter-terrorism/Entities_e.asp
Which is all fun and good and I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread like the one you did but this is not relevant to the topic at hand so I'll just ignore it for now.

Except to mention that I am ashamed with my current head of state and I can't wait 'till we go back to elect someone else.

No not an Israeli. If I were one, I probably be in Lebanon right about now and not posting here on NS :p



So how does disarming terrorists equal killing them all? Hamas is a political party as is Fatha. Even Hezbollah is a political party. I do not want to see political parties destroyed. I want to see their militant factions disarmed. I would love for it to be done peacefully. So please pray tell tell me how I want to disarm the terrorists equals killing them all?

As to my last comment about suicide bombers, I did not accuse him of being one. I was commenting on the state of affairs in Israel where terrorists (most notably Hamas) sends their people into night clubs and restaraunts to blow themselves up to cause as many casualties as possible. By doing so, they only invite counter attacks and it does nothing to help establish peace in the region.



I was trying to come up with something to say but it was not going to be nice so I am just going to let this statement stand without comment. I believe my comments addressed earlier in this post will be enough explaination.

I too let my comments stand without modification. I've read a bit more of the thread, since, and all I can say is you seem ideally suited for engagement in that particular situation. Don't bother with a flak jacket.

Hamas (Arabic: حركة حماس‎; acronym: Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية‎, or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization that currently forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority.[1] It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[2] Canada,[3] [4] the United Kingdom,[5] the European Union,[6] Israel, and the United States,[7] and is banned in Jordan.[8]

What possible authority you think is added to your posts by using arabic, is thoroughly outweighed by the footnotes, which illustrate plainly that you have cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia.

You're correct.

I'd plain forgotten the Palestinian Authority. Thought we were talking Lebanon.

My bad. :)

Right. It was slowed, not stopped altogether. But considering the huge demand for immigration, for many Jews, it must have seemed like being stopped. 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. http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
Coming just before the war, with many thousands of Jews fleeing Europe, it must have forced these desperate people to consider illegal immigration.
?

Indeed, and as ever I don't so much want to condemn the events of 47/48, considering what those people had just escaped, as point out that they happened.



True. Not a good light at all. Downright bloody, at times. And yet we call it 'repressive' because they had the military might. But perhaps anyone with the military might does not pass through history in a good light. Britain, America, Russia, Germany, the list is a long one. How hard is it to be gentle to your opponents when you have the power to hurt them back? Particularly when they hurt you?

The whole settler movement, and the backing of it by the Israeli state and its military, give these things an edge. Wars are fought between nations and people die, but there is no need to start colonies amongst a people already removed from one "homeland" and use a first world powers strength to do so. Its the occupation thats the real evil - not the death caused by the clashes of states, bad as they are.

What possible authority you think is added to your posts by using arabic, is thoroughly outweighed by the footnotes, which illustrate plainly that you have cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia.

You're correct.

I'd plain forgotten the Palestinian Authority. Thought we were talking Lebanon.

My bad. :)

I could care less what alphabet is in the quote. Simpler to cut and paste it rather than link to Wikipedia and have you have to search through the whole page to find what I wanted to show you.

Can't make anyone happy here:

1. I link, and people denigrate the link.
2. I cut and paste - and link - and I get complaints on either one.
3. I cut and paste (and it's obvious it's from Wikipedia - no secret, and I'm not claiming it's mine, because I put it in quotes), and they bitch.
4. I quote from books and they bitch.

Seems like you want to spend more time denigrating my potential "authority" before I even post.

I too let my comments stand without modification. I've read a bit more of the thread, since, and all I can say is you seem ideally suited for engagement in that particular situation. Don't bother with a flak jacket.

Aw man. Just when I was getting ready to fight. Alwell *puts the flak jacket away*

Its ok Nobel Hobos. I have been studying up on the Middle East ever since I registered for my Modern Middle East class at school. I want to be as well prepared as I can.

Not... really. Palestine is implied as a nation for the "Palestinian people" (despite the fact that they already have Jordan :rolleyes:). The British Mandate was the region of Palestine, but specifically under British control. Region of Palestine =/= nation of Palestine.

And you still havent answered the question.....

I could care less what alphabet is in the quote. Simpler to cut and paste it rather than link to Wikipedia and have you have to search through the whole page to find what I wanted to show you.

Can't make anyone happy here:



Hey, I admitted you were right, and I was wrong.
I said it was because I'd kept talking Lebanon, although you'd plainly stated "Palestinian Authority" My mistake!
And I cited your source for you.

Shit, what's it take to make you happy?

Shit, what's it take to make you happy?

Use more lube.

Aw man. Just when I was getting ready to fight. Alwell *puts the flak jacket away*

Its ok Nobel Hobos. I have been studying up on the Middle East ever since I registered for my Modern Middle East class at school. I want to be as well prepared as I can.

I think Politeia utopia was an original source who could have been used for a bit more information than just the 'bottom line' of what they fall back to when attacked.
Or they might have been a well informed US lefty. Certainly their grammar improved with time.
Aw, I dunno. Attack dispells BS, for sure, but it also drives moderates to the other extreme. Unless they are extremely well informed moderates.
What side do you think Politeia utopia was really on, anyway? Struck me as a centrist - peacemaker - let's find common ground type.

I think Politeia utopia was an original source who could have been used for a bit more information than just the 'bottom line' of what they fall back to when attacked.
Or they might have been a well informed US lefty. Certainly their grammar improved with time.
Aw, I dunno. Attack dispells BS, for sure, but it also drives moderates to the other extreme. Unless they are extremely well informed moderates.
What side do you think Politeia utopia was really on, anyway? Struck me as a centrist - peacemaker - let's find common ground type.

To be honest, I do not know what side he/she is on. I know there are people on here you want to argue just for argument sake. However, I do think that Politeia is well informed. I like that. I need to see more of what he types in the future before I can truly gouge what side he/she is really on.

To be honest, I do not know what side he/she is on. I know there are people on here you want to argue just for argument sake. However, I do think that Politeia is well informed. I like that. I need to see more of what he types in the future before I can truly gouge what side he/she is really on.

That's funny.
It probably seems really trite of me, talking to a student who's going to read books on this subject, and debate it with other students who read books.
It might even seem grandiose to suggest that a debate on NSG might even matter to anyone, or change their mind.
But, it seems to me that the internet is the only way we can escape from the Media, the Mass Media, which relays what it thinks will interest the average person, to each of us individually. It's our chance to hear any voice which catches our ear, our chance to tell our personal truth to anyone who will listen. Our own personal printing press, our own time machine (into the past for a decade or two), our own surveillance device.

And right there, was a person with a lot of stuff I for one didn't recognize from the usual media outlets.
By all means, politely ask for a source for some of Politeia's ideas.
E.g. "That's a totally new opinion to me! Where can I read more about it?"
And if they then give you a link to their personal blog, you're none the poorer for it, huh?

Let's speculate. Politeia is an Iraqi, spending his wages as a recently-enlisted policeman on a wireless internet connection and a laptop. He doesn't entirely trust this internet thing, so he takes a noncommitall name, and wanders into NSG, and tests the waters on Israel/Lebanon. Makes a post, suddenly finds himself having to take sides.
Crikey, Saddam was madly anti-Israel, so he can't be that. But he's a Sunni, and he doesn't want anyone to know that, so he can't be moderate, and he certainly doesn't want to take any side that has the US clearly on it, so he just probes around for what isn't going to offend anyone. And finds nothing. Everyone takes offence at anything to do with his region. Yet he feels very strongly about it, because it's his country that some part-time political analyst thinks should be "nuked to glass."

You can be rough with me. I've posted enough about myself that people really ought to know when they're going to offend me. DM and BM offend me on a regular basis, and I've started to sit back and admire their work, rather than go into a rabid denouncement ...

Oh crap. That's a bird singing. It's six AM.

THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.


Good quote, way to rip up occeandrive. Thats just the way he is.

That's funny.
It probably seems really trite of me, talking to a student who's going to read books on this subject, and debate it with other students who read books.
It might even seem grandiose to suggest that a debate on NSG might even matter to anyone, or change their mind.

To me it does not matter. I come here to see what others are saying. I will agree and disagree and agree to disagree because I know no one will change their mind. It rarely happens.

But, it seems to me that the internet is the only way we can escape from the Media, the Mass Media, which relays what it thinks will interest the average person, to each of us individually. It's our chance to hear any voice which catches our ear, our chance to tell our personal truth to anyone who will listen. Our own personal printing press, our own time machine (into the past for a decade or two), our own surveillance device.

So very true.

And right there, was a person with a lot of stuff I for one didn't recognize from the usual media outlets.
By all means, politely ask for a source for some of Politeia's ideas.
E.g. "That's a totally new opinion to me! Where can I read more about it?"
And if they then give you a link to their personal blog, you're none the poorer for it, huh?

I do try to read the links here. Sometimes it is quite obvious what side the links are on. Sometimes they are not. I read them all just the same because it is the only way to learn. Even the bias links have facts associated with them.

*snip*

I really do not like to speculate in regards to other posters. Speculate about past events, sure. Even future events I like to speculate on. However, I will not speculate about who another poster is or is not.

You can be rough with me. I've posted enough about myself that people really ought to know when they're going to offend me. DM and BM offend me on a regular basis, and I've started to sit back and admire their work, rather than go into a rabid denouncement ...

I am trying not to be rough on anyone as it is not my way. I try to stay calm in these types of debate so that what I say can carry more weight. When posters post in anger, their posts will carry less weight for it shows that they can not keep their temper.

Oh crap. That's a bird singing. It's six AM.

Funny!!! It is only 1630 here. :p

...

I am trying not to be rough on anyone as it is not my way. I try to stay calm in these types of debate so that what I say can carry more weight. When posters post in anger, their posts will carry less weight for it shows that they can not keep their temper.
...

So true. You are not rough, though your opinions are strong.
Sometimes I am angry as I type. But then I read it, and don't like it, and never click the send button. I keep it ... my problem.
:)

So true. You are not rough, though your opinions are strong.
Sometimes I am angry as I type. But then I read it, and don't like it, and never click the send button. I keep it ... my problem.
:)

That is very wise of you.

No it doesn't. There was never a country called Palestine (except the British Mandate). There were just Palestinians living there. Hey, my family is Ukrainian! Australia is Ukrainian! :rolleyes:
I will say this again ... you are confusing sovereignty (who the state power is) with ownership (who actually owns the land). They are not the same thing. Palestinians could in fact own land even if there was no Palestinian state. Please read my post above for further details.

I will say this again ... you are confusing sovereignty (who the state power is) with ownership (who actually owns the land). They are not the same thing. Palestinians could in fact own land even if there was no Palestinian state. Please read my post above for further details.

Plus despite an earlier claim about a large amount of the land being owned by settlers earlier for some strange reason he can't give a percentage, or an amount in acres or dunums.

Ok, I'm sick to fuck of hearing shit like this:



That was an analogy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it would have some weight... IF THE LAND HAD EVER BELONGED TO THE PALESTINIANS!

Israel didn't steal shit. The land was Ottoman. After WWI, the British took control of it. After WWII, the UK created several states there, including Israel and Jordan. There were intentions for a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and a Kurdish state. The Palestinians have several times been given the chance to create their state, and they've rejected them all. It was their choice, and they should shut the hell up about it now. At least they have this; the Kurds never got their state.

This has been a K-P Public Service Announcement.

In this post I am well pleased :D

Actually, much of the land had been purchased by Jews in the first place.
At gunpoint?

Indeed, and as ever I don't so much want to condemn the events of 47/48, considering what those people had just escaped, as point out that they happened.

Fair enough.




The whole settler movement, and the backing of it by the Israeli state and its military, give these things an edge. Wars are fought between nations and people die, but there is no need to start colonies amongst a people already removed from one "homeland" and use a first world powers strength to do so.

Yes, I agree, that does seem offensive. However, this sort of thing (colonisation) has been done throughout history by the side with the military might. That doesn't make it right, of course. But I would say that this is typical of human nature. Were I in the same position, I would be tempted to do the same thing, because I am human. Only by recognising that as wrong would I possibly avoid it. Sure, there is no NEED to start colonies, but I would not be surprised if you or I did the same thing, were we in that position--fighting for survival, and surrounded by enemies who want us dead.


Its the occupation thats the real evil - not the death caused by the clashes of states, bad as they are.

So you are basically asserting that is a less evil to occupy someone's land than it is to kill them? I am going to have to disagree with you there. How could it be worse to take someone's house than to take the lives of their children? Of course, I am not defending the colonists who force people to leave their homes, bulldoze them, and build new ones and settle there. But that has to be a lesser evil than killing people in their homes, or in buses, or in cafes or night clubs.

And what is more, the issue of occupation is clouded here, since Jews have always lived in Palestine, pretty much as long as the Arabs have been there (descendents of Abraham). And ever since the Ottman empire, the Palestinians have not 'occupied' the land, in the sense of self-government. They have simply been the majority under British rule.

Furthermore, since the political leaders of the Palestinians declared war on the Zionists, and lost the war(s), how can they continue to claim the right to occupation of the land? Surely the penalty for declaring war and for losing it should be the loss of that for which the war was fought. While I don't hold that opinion very strongly, I do see that to be a reasonable conclusion. (Feel free to object though.)

I will say this again ... you are confusing sovereignty (who the state power is) with ownership (who actually owns the land). They are not the same thing. Palestinians could in fact own land even if there was no Palestinian state. Please read my post above for further details.

My friend, if WWII has taught us nothing else, it's that ownership doesn't mean shit.

At gunpoint?

No. With money. Ironic, no? Actually, no it's not...

In this post I am well pleased :D


Sad, because Palestinian bashing will not result in long term security for Isreal. Moreover it is a threat to the liberal nature of the Isreali democracy.

There are only 2 paths out of this conflict:

1. Massive genocide
2. Peace

Sad, because Palestinian bashing will not result in long term security for Isreal. Moreover it is a threat to the liberal nature of the Isreali democracy.

There are only 2 paths out of this conflict:

1. Massive genocide
2. Peace


Peace, peace, peace!

The Versailles-Treaty kind.

But when you consider the options: either defend your people (resulting in the unfortunate but inevitable death of civilians) or do nothing, i.e., refuse to defend your people (resulting in even more deaths of civilians--those of your own people). In each case, civilians will die. Thus, is it fair to accuse the IDF of knowingly killing civilians that they did not target? Whatever they do, civilians will die. Not so in the case of Hezbollah. If they did nothing, I suspect that no civilians will die.

But it is still a relatively easy to distinguish between the planned strategic terrorist attacks of Hezbollah, and the spontaneous reactions of angry emotional grief stricken IDF soldiers.

Or if you are accusing the IDF of deliberately targeting innocent Palestinian civilians, i.e. strategically (which would only hurt their own cause), I can't refute that, since as far as I know, it could be possible. But then the question is more about who is innocent. When the headlines read 'Two kids killed in an IDF rocket attack', of course the kids are innocent, but their daddy might have been high on the most wanted terrorist list. In such a case, would you pull the trigger to kill the terrorist (and his two kids, because they are in the same car) in order to prevent that man from killing your two kids? Tough question, huh?


This is not a though question; I would choose for my kids, naturally.

However, Israel would be better served by opposing Hizbu-llah with different means. Hizbu-llah has become stronger because of this war. Refusal to bomb lebanon would likely be the best protection against the rockets in the short term. Reducing the legitimacy of Hizbu-llah and other organisations would provide the best security in the long term

Peace, peace, peace!

The Versailles-Treaty kind.

Right, peace!

Right, peace!

Yep. Genocide is kinda sucky. So, on to Versailles.

So you are basically asserting that is a less evil to occupy someone's land than it is to kill them? I am going to have to disagree with you there. How could it be worse to take someone's house than to take the lives of their children? Of course, I am not defending the colonists who force people to leave their homes, bulldoze them, and build new ones and settle there. But that has to be a lesser evil than killing people in their homes, or in buses, or in cafes or night clubs.

A lesser evil perhaps, but why differentiate between these evils that cause so much damage. For these evils both lead to more killing.


And what is more, the issue of occupation is clouded here, since Jews have always lived in Palestine, pretty much as long as the Arabs have been there (descendents of Abraham). And ever since the Ottman empire, the Palestinians have not 'occupied' the land, in the sense of self-government. They have simply been the majority under British rule.

Living in a country does not give one the right to own all of it. In this case we are talking about Jewish Arabs, Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs that lived in this area.

Currently the main issue is that large parts of the population of Israel/Palestine are not represented by a government.

Furthermore, since the political leaders of the Palestinians declared war on the Zionists, and lost the war(s), how can they continue to claim the right to occupation of the land? Surely the penalty for declaring war and for losing it should be the loss of that for which the war was fought. While I don't hold that opinion very strongly, I do see that to be a reasonable conclusion. (Feel free to object though.)

In modern international law there no longer exists the right of conquest, and for good reason I might ad. Furthermore it was Irael that started the war of 67 for security reasons, which had nothing to do with the Palestinians. Moreover the people now living in Israel/Palestine all have the right to representation, regardless of the acts of the generations before them.

No. With money. Ironic, no? Actually, no it's not...

II am sad to say, that your statements until now do not seem to be hindered by knowledge, or the lack of arguments... :rolleyes:

This does not matter, but listening might well get you further in life than expressing your beliefs, in the mistaken conviction that they are arguments. Or perhaps you have indeed a deeper wisdom that you simply will not share with us… :D

The moral divide between targeting civilians intentionally and knowingly killing civilians that you did not target is extremely small. Especially considering that large numbers of civilian casualties are concerned.

Furthermore, as individual terrorists may deliberately target civilians, so do individual soldiers and brigades, especially following the loss of their fellows…


Unfortunately, this is pretty much exactly what I wanted to say.

Not only that, but I'd like you to think about the Western (especially North American) media. Whether you want to say they have a left or right lean, I think it would be very difficult to argue with the idea that they are extremely pro-Israel. Is it then very hard to believe that we're not hearing about every instance of the IDF killing civilians? Or, when we do, we're told that a terrorist was hiding there? Or at the very least that they had intelligence that pointed to a possible terrorist hideout?

Again, this is second hand information, and from someone who it happened to when he was young, but one of my Palestinian friends says that he remembers almost weekly attacks on Palestinian towns. Not military strongholds. Towns. With women and children, noncombatants. You could argue that there were terrorists, possible suicide bombers - the point is we don't know. I don't know, and I will freely admit that. (One of the reasons I want to visit Israel/Palestine one day.) And if this doesn't actually happen, well... people believe it does. So, Palestinians see Israelis and the IDF as terrorists as much as Israelis see Palestinians as such.

Note: Both sides are wrong, don't call me a terrorist apologist, blah blah blah.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much exactly what I wanted to say.

Not only that, but I'd like you to think about the Western (especially North American) media. Whether you want to say they have a left or right lean, I think it would be very difficult to argue with the idea that they are extremely pro-Israel. Is it then very hard to believe that we're not hearing about every instance of the IDF killing civilians? Or, when we do, we're told that a terrorist was hiding there? Or at the very least that they had intelligence that pointed to a possible terrorist hideout?



One of the problems in understanding the Arab point of view is that the political elite in Israel is culturally closer to the west. We consequently understand their point of view more readily. The Arabs do well communicating to the rest of the Middle East, but are less successful in the West

So you are basically asserting that is a less evil to occupy someone's land than it is to kill them?

I'm saying that a war between two opposing sides is less likely to breed the kind of hate that occupying a country and treating the natives as second class citizens is. Its the constant humiliation etc.


And what is more, the issue of occupation is clouded here, since Jews have always lived in Palestine, pretty much as long as the Arabs have been there (descendents of Abraham). And ever since the Ottman empire, the Palestinians have not 'occupied' the land, in the sense of self-government. They have simply been the majority under British rule.

I'm referring to the West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem, rather than what is now Israel.


Furthermore, since the political leaders of the Palestinians declared war on the Zionists, and lost the war(s), how can they continue to claim the right to occupation of the land? Surely the penalty for declaring war and for losing it should be the loss of that for which the war was fought. While I don't hold that opinion very strongly, I do see that to be a reasonable conclusion. (Feel free to object though.)

Again, I refer to the West Bank and the OT.

No. With money. Ironic, no? Actually, no it's not...

How much land? You seem adamant that some was bought previous to the war (and indeed thats true). How much?

Peace, peace, peace!

The Versailles-Treaty kind.
ummmm?

are we trying to cause WWIII?

because Versailles played a big role in causing WWII