NationStates Jolt Archive

i'm really surprised how many pro-israelis there are here. were i'm from you would make alot of people angry saying what people are saying here. try to defend israel late at night in abar with young people, you will be glassed.

Whereupon, I draw my Ruger P-89 and drop 13 of them.

there's one singular important line of thought involved in all this.

Did a jew ever bomb a german nightclub?

Did a jew ever blow up a bus of german children?

Did a jew ever walk into a german square and detonate an explosive device wrapped in ball bearings covered in rat poison?

Did the jews, as a people, ever state that it was their goal to destroy the german state?

No, but considering what the Nazis were doing to them, I wouldn't be surprised if they had.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v144/mitch445/randomcrap/donut.jpg

This is automatically going in every thread Soviestan starts.

The fact that this is actually being debated is proof that most of NSG is fucking retarded.
That's a bit harsh. Most people are either arguing the Nazis are worse or have stamped this as trolling, after all.

That's a bit harsh. Most people are either arguing the Nazis are worse or have stamped this as trolling, after all.

No it's not too harsh. Harsh is being gassed at Auschwitz.

No it's not too harsh. Harsh is being gassed at Auschwitz.
... bwuh?

some was paid for - but nothing even approaching the size of Israel now.

Do not like the size of Israel now? Blame the arab states who attacked Israel and lost.

Brief summary of Israel:

- 3000+ years ago, assorted Hebrew tribes unite, fight off random Arabs, Hittites, Akkadians, Egyptians, Phoenicians et al. Form nation (Kingdom of Judea or some such thing).

- around 2500 years ago: Hebrews conquered by Persians.

- Shortly thereafter: Persians conquered by Greeks.

- Shortly thereafter: Greeks conquered by Romans.

- Romans expel Hebrews.

- Turks and Muslims conquer Romans.

- Hebrews move to Babylon or Eastern Europe or something.

- Hebrews displaced for a thousand years or so.
Gee.... guess we should relocate all of humanity back to their borders of 1000 years ago based their race eh?


- Zionists purchase some land from Britain; the UN gives them the rest. Area is roughly equivalent to Israel today except for the West Bank, Golan Heights, southern Negev and Gaza Strip.
Much of what was given to Israel belonged to Palastinians on the land. many were driven off by force and the land was then given to Jews


- Arabs don't like it and attack Israel repeatedly, get pwnt same. In each defensive war Israel expands its territory until it has what it owns today.

- Israel is therefore a legitimate nation because it either bought or fought for most of what it holds today.
Ca suit.
It brought a little, and fought for a lot.

If you believe it has the right to be a nation through right of conquest, then you also accept that other groups have the right to try take it by right of conquest.

Live by the sword...


Er... I don't see anyone going and shooting those youngsters... explain?
Whoever I was responding to was saying palastinian kids were legitmite targets as palastinian kids are often brainwashed - I was showing some photos of Israeli kids, who appear to be the same - are they therefore ligitmite targets?

Whoever I was responding to was saying palastinian kids were legitmite targets as palastinian kids are often brainwashed - I was showing some photos of Israeli kids, who appear to be the same - are they therefore ligitmite targets?
Children writing messages on shells =/= children strapping bombs around them and blowing themselves up.

Do not like the size of Israel now? Blame the arab states who attacked Israel and lost.

To rephrase - the Jewish population owned a small fraction of the land that was turned into Israel with the origional mandate.

Zionist groups then drove palastinians off the land they legitmately owned within Israel to take it for the Jewish population.

So, are they using friendly cluster bombs? Which kill children softly?

Yes.

IDF scientific minds have developed a new type of cluster bomb that hides until a special age-sensor determines that someone coming near is under 18-years of age - preferably under 12. At that point special morphing skin modules alter the surface of the bomb to look like animal skin with laces and seams so that the unwitting child thinks it's something that can be kicked. Of course, not having a slue where it might have come from.

Are a lot of footballs left lying about in the Mideast?

Oh, in case it's necessary, the above was dripping with sarcasm...

Children writing messages on shells =/= children strapping bombs around them and blowing themselves up.

Most suicide bombers are teenagers... you rarely if ever see small children carrying out suicide attacks. Yet some feel they are legitmite targets.

To rephrase - the Jewish population owned a small fraction of the land that was turned into Israel with the origional mandate.

Zionist groups then drove palastinians off the land they legitmately owned within Israel to take it for the Jewish population.

Again, there was this little thing called a war in 1948 that had 5 arab armies attacking little ole Israel. Can you not see this fact? In war, there is always displacement. People fleeing in one way or the other.

As for defensive, germany was defending itself from the allies, was it not?

How dare those upstart nations not realize that Germany was only innocently visiting France, Belgium, Poland, Russia, etc.!

I mean, really, to attack German tourists like that. Shameful...

Gee.... guess we should relocate all of humanity back to their borders of 1000 years ago based their race eh?
Strawman.


Much of what was given to Israel belonged to Palastinians on the land. many were driven off by force and the land was then given to Jews
Aside from the small linguistic concern that there was no such thing as "Palestinians" at the time...

That is acknowledged. There may have been incidents of abuse. But since the land belonged to the United Kingdom by right of conquest, and the UK gave/sold it over to the Jews, it is Israel's land. The Palestinians, or the Arabs or whatever they were called then, did not have a government or representation, so legally it wasn't their land. In other senses... it wasn't their land either, since the earth belongs to humans and the other species that live upon its surface.


It brought a little, and fought for a lot.

If you believe it has the right to be a nation through right of conquest, then you also accept that other groups have the right to try take it by right of conquest.

Live by the sword...
Exactly. And Israel has the right to defend itself. Which it has, explaining why there is no Palestinian state at the present time.


Whoever I was responding to was saying palastinian kids were legitmite targets as palastinian kids are often brainwashed - I was showing some photos of Israeli kids, who appear to be the same - are they therefore ligitmite targets?
I suppose they would be, yes, if they went out to take up arms and attack Palestinians.

On the other hand, there have been documented instances of Palestinian children attacking Israelis (somewhere... you can do a search if you want), so in those instances they can be considered legitimate targets.

Actually. Do you know who is really bad? The Muslims.
*Runs*

To rephrase - the Jewish population owned a small fraction of the land that was turned into Israel with the origional mandate.

Zionist groups then drove palastinians off the land they legitmately owned within Israel to take it for the Jewish population.

Actually, Zionist groups bought a lot of the land from Palestinians. Or the UN or US or UK bought it for them. Yes, there may have been instances of Palestinians being driven off land they had paid for and lived upon, and such things would be illegal. However, Israel later did fight for and win much of that land when it was attacked by the surrounding Arab countries (the War of Independence). So the point is moot.

A brief history of the mid-east conflict
circa 1900: Leaders of Zionist movement want homeland in present day Israel
circa WW1: England (GB) agrees; decides portion of mid east will go to Jews followign cessation of hostilities
1918: GB doesn't follow through; Jews go about living in Europe
1935ish-1945: 3rd Reich and Final Solution; Europe's Jewry slaughtered (to be fair, so were lots of gypsies and dissidents but not in proportion)
1948: UN mandates 2 states in Palestine (as an aside, Palestine is the name given to the land by the Romans, 2000 years later, the British name their territory the same thing) anyway: the two states are Israel including the 1948 borders (look em up if you want), the 2nd state is an Arab state in the West Bank
This arrangement is acceptable to the Jews, but not to Syria, Jordan, and Egypt who immediately attack Israel telling the Arabs living there: "get out cuz we're gonna kill everyone" The Arabs that leave Israel mostly flee to the West Bank. The armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria are defeated. Jordan seizes and annexes the West Bank--forces the same Arabs they told to get out of Israel to live in camps. Egypt does a similar thing to the Gaza Strip (annex it and force the inhabitants into camps)

Later on (forgive me for not remembering some of the years, again, you can look em up) the same three Arab countries attack Israel again, they are defeated and Israel annexes the West Bank, the Gaza strip, and the Golan Heights to provide a buffer between Israel and her enemies. Jewish settlements pop in the these territories as a first line of defense should another attack come.

About this time PLO begins in earnest--I say in earnest because it had started long before, but it becomes more common

Egypt Nationalizes the Suez Canal, GB and Israel come to agreement; long story short Israel attacks Egypt and seizes the Sinai Penninsula; French-British army moves to return the Canal to the Brits, US is enraged and forces GB to back down...without the British the French cannot do much (no real surprise there though...) and Egypt retains the Canal.

Yom Kippur War Egypt, Jordan, Syria attack Israel. After heavy fighting in Golan Heights Syria is repulsed. After early gains in the Sinai, Egypt too is driven back. The settlements in the West Bank do their job and hold the Jordanian off long enough for the Israeli army to arrive.
Following this, Israel makes peace with Egypt and returns the Sinai to them

Fast forward, terror attacks against Israel, and Israeli responses spiral along; yadda yadda yadda.

To compare the Nazis and Zionists crimes against humanity is futile and wrong. Fixing on one over the other undermines the level of harm caused by witch ever is set down on second place. Sure, we can come up with some similar “modus operandus” but the reality is that it will be unfair to the victims of the Nazism who flee to Palestine in search for refuge to say that they were worst or “close to” the very evil they were trying to escape.

At the same time, we can’t ignore the magnitude of the crimes against humanity committed by the State of Israel. Siding with Israel will be as wrong as trying to deny that the holocaust ever existed. Zionism, as any other extremist organization, is base on the premises that there is a class of people above others undermining the humanity of those who are seen as low-graded. Many Jewish people understand the wrongful obliteration of the Palestinian people. We should not forget that while the Christians were crusading the Holly Land killing not only Jewish and local Christians, the ones who stepped forward to protect the Jewish were the Muslims.

Many Jewish people stand against Zionism. The Following is an extract of a critique you can read on www.jewsagainstzionism.com


The term "Zionism" was first introduced in 1893 by Nathan Birmbaum, but Theodor Herzl, an Austrian Jew born to a prosperous, emancipated Budapest family, is recognized as the founder of the Zionist idealogy when he published his book in 1896, "The Jewish State", where he declared that the cure for anti-semitism was the establishment of a Jewish state. As he saw it, the best place to establish this state was in Palestine.

While Herzl claimed that the establishment of a "Jewish" state would cure anti-Semitism, he also promoted anti-Semitism to further his cause.

Herzl stated in his diary:


“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

Benny Morris (the Israeli Historian), described how Herzl foresaw how anti-Semitism could be "HARNESSED" for the realization of Zionism. He stated:

"Herzl regarded Zionism's triumph as inevitable, not only because life in Europe was ever more untenable for Jews, but also because it was in Europe's interests to rid the Jews and relieved of anti-Semitism: The European political establishment would eventually be persuaded to promote Zionism. Herzl recognized that anti-Semitism would be HARNESSED to his own--Zionist-purposes." (Righteous Victims, p. 21)





http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/a__zionist_jew_aiming_at_an_innocent_palestinian__woman.jpgv45205.jpg

Anyone who converts to Islam to rebel or to it for other people or for attention should just go back to whatever they did before. A conversion to Islam is not something to take lightly or to play around with. One must be fully committed to God and only God. Hypocrites will not win God's favour.

Well, you've just described about 90% of the converts in the west. I mean, c'mon, muhammed was a pedophile. Why follow that, if not for the noteriety it gives you.

I mean, I understand - a little - if you are born into it. After all you probably don't question these things. But to willingly convert as a adult? Not likely, it even beats christianity in the whacky races. Which is quite a feat.

Anyway, you can tell its rebellion because of the number of ex-extreme left wingers that do it. It indicates a lack of seriousness.

That is acknowledged. There may have been incidents of abuse. But since the land belonged to the United Kingdom by right of conquest, and the UK gave/sold it over to the Jews, it is Israel's land. The Palestinians, or the Arabs or whatever they were called then, did not have a government or representation, so legally it wasn't their land. In other senses... it wasn't their land either, since the earth belongs to humans and the other species that live upon its surface. By right of conquest?

Besides, the UK gave it to the muslims too. That's how they managed to convince them to help them manage that conquest.

Actually, Zionist groups bought a lot of the land from Palestinians. Or the UN or US or UK bought it for them.

What percentage? Roughly.......

Nazi rule has been over for a long time. Israel is still around to cause suffering. So very obviously Israel is worse.

.That is acknowledged. There may have been incidents of abuse. But since the land belonged to the United Kingdom by right of conquest, and the UK gave/sold it over to the Jews,..

No it didn't and no it did not. I suggest you research the terms of the British mandate and how landownerwbhip was affected by the transition to it from the Ottoman Empire.

....

Exactly. And Israel has the right to defend itself. Which it has, explaining why there is no Palestinian state at the present time.,..

Israel has built civillian colonies amongst the Palestinians in the occupied territories, which it then had to defend against the "natives". How does this aid the defence of the state of Israel as internationally recognised?

....
On the other hand, there have been documented instances of Palestinian children attacking Israelis (somewhere... you can do a search if you want), so in those instances they can be considered legitimate targets.

With stones. As long as you support shooting children in the West for similar offences I suppose you arent a hypocrite. Do you support shooting children for throwing stones in Paris or New York?

... it wasn't their land either, since the earth belongs to humans and the other species that live upon its surface.Land belongs to no-one, but the right to live in a land in peace is the right of those who dwell there. Jews are foreign to Palestine except those who have lived there with the last 1500 years or so. Throughout history that was always 5 to 10 percent of the population there. That's how it should be. The rest should go elsewhere.

This thread, and the one asking Christians and Jews whether they believe Muhammed is a prophet strikes me as trolling.

He's looking for an obvious answer that will then be attacked.

And Israel has the right to defend itself.The Palestinians also have that right, which renders any attack in any form on the Jewish intruders justified.

Let's teach a new word.... proportion.... lovely, isn't it?

Let's teach a new word.... proportion.... lovely, isn't it??? does that mean to kill as many jews as they have killed palestinian arabs?

The Palestinians also have that right, which renders any attack in any form on the Jewish intruders justified.

Well, let them attack in the territories, but not in shopping centers...

The Palestinians also have that right, which renders any attack in any form on the Jewish intruders justified.

Bullshit. It's not justified when you attack the civilians of your enemy. Imagine if the US had decided to just carpet bomb Afghan cities and villages instead of minimizing civilian casualties with smart bombs and troops on the ground. Imagine the bad press we would have to deal with. But when it's some Palestinian terrorist blowing himself up on a bus instead of at a military checkpoint people like you make excuses for them.

Land belongs to no-one, but the right to live in a land in peace is the right of those who dwell there. Jews are foreign to Palestine except those who have lived there with the last 1500 years or so. Throughout history that was always 5 to 10 percent of the population there. That's how it should be. The rest should go elsewhere.

Over the last 1500 years, with the exception of the last 400, the population of european decendants living in the americas was exactly 0.

Of the last 400, they were in the minority for the last 200. Should the americans just pack up and leave because historically not only were they in the minority in America, but for about 3/4 of the last 1600 years, they weren't there AT ALL?

With the exception of the native population, everyone living in America today decends from groups that were either in the vast minority over history, or not even present for the bulk of it. Europeans are foreign to America, and no European lived in America before 400 years ago at all.

?? does that mean to kill as many jews as they have killed palestinian arabs?

What I mean is that you look at the facts from primary sources and not secondary and tertiary sources...

Let's teach a new word.... proportion.... lovely, isn't it?

Proportion? How do you define that? How can you say when one side's reaction is proportional or not? Palestinians in Gaza rain rockets down indiscriminately on Israel. Should Israel then shell Gaza randomly to maintain proportion?

Bullshit. It's not justified when you attack the civilians of your enemy. Imagine if the US had decided to just carpet bomb Afghan cities and villages instead of minimizing civilian casualties with smart bombs and troops on the ground. Imagine the bad press we would have to deal with. But when it's some Palestinian terrorist blowing himself up on a bus instead of at a military checkpoint people like you make excuses for them.civilians of your enemy? the jewish/israeli civilians are the enemy. their coming to palestine is what caused and still causes the injustice against the palestinian rabs. palestinian arabs have every moral right to defend their home land against jewish foreigners.

This thread is Godwinned on the first post, lol

civilians of your enemy? the jewish/israeli civilians are the enemy. their coming to palestine is what caused and still causes the injustice against the palestinian rabs. palestinian arabs have every moral right to defend their home land against jewish foreigners.

you lose the ability to claim moral justification when you blow up a nightclub. Sorry.

By your logic it is the Palestinian civilians that are the enemies of Israel, because it is the CIVILIANS that are committing terrorism, it is the CIVILIANS that are launching missles, it is the CIVILIANS who are blowing up pieces of Israel. So Israel has the "moral right" to go killing Palestinian civilians, because it is the CIVILIANS that are targeting them.

Proportion? How do you define that? How can you say when one side's reaction is proportional or not? Palestinians in Gaza rain rockets down indiscriminately on Israel. Should Israel then shell Gaza randomly to maintain proportion?

I meant the Israel-Nazi comparison.
Of course there's no proportion in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but you people make it worse than it really is

Over the last 1500 years, with the exception of the last 400, the population of european decendants living in the americas was exactly 0.

Of the last 400, they were in the minority for the last 200. Should the americans just pack up and leave because historically not only were they in the minority in America, but for about 3/4 of the last 1600 years, they weren't there AT ALL?

With the exception of the native population, everyone living in America today decends from groups that were either in the vast minority over history, or not even present for the bulk of it. Europeans are foreign to America, and no European lived in America before 400 years ago at all.If native Americans should ever claim back their home land, the non-native Americans should indeed leave without grumbling. How could any invader ever expect to be welcomed? OK, having Iraq in mind I can see that Americans can't understand that.

If native Americans should ever claim back their home land, the non-native Americans should indeed leave without grumbling.

.......

Wow. News flash. I was born in New York. I vote for my politicians. I contribute in my government.

I AM a native american. The terms "native" lose distinction over time.

Well, you've just described about 90% of the converts in the west.

you got a source for that?

I mean, c'mon, muhammed was a pedophile.
Thats a lie. The prophet waited until Ashia hit puberty before consamating the marriage. If he was a paedophile he wouldn't have waited. Also her age has been disputed; 9 on the low 15 or 16 on the high end. All his other wives were over the age of 17.

I mean, I understand - a little - if you are born into it. After all you probably don't question these things. But to willingly convert as a adult?
All Muslims are called to question and reflect on their belief, or else how could one truly call themselves Muslim?

Not likely, it even beats christianity in the whacky races.
How exactly?

Anyway, you can tell its rebellion because of the number of ex-extreme left wingers that do it. It indicates a lack of seriousness.

where do you get this from? source?

.......

Wow. News flash. I was born in New York. I vote for my politicians. I contribute in my government.

I AM a native american. The terms "native" lose distinction over time.

not to mention that even native americans aren't so native if you look thousends years back in time....

you lose the ability to claim moral justification when you blow up a nightclub. Sorry.

By your logic it is the Palestinian civilians that are the enemies of Israel, because it is the CIVILIANS that are committing terrorism, it is the CIVILIANS that are launching missles, it is the CIVILIANS who are blowing up pieces of Israel. So Israel has the "moral right" to go killing Palestinian civilians, because it is the CIVILIANS that are targeting them.Jews/Israelis are the invaders. Not the Palestinians. Jews/Israelis are a foreign occupation force, their military as well as those who settled in Palestine to create Israel (and all their offspring).
And BTW Israel is constantly killing Palestinian civilians. So blowing up a nightclub of people who with their very lifestyle and presence in a land they don't belong in cause suffering to Palestinians, is justifiable.

.......

Wow. News flash. I was born in New York. I vote for my politicians. I contribute in my government.

I AM a native american. The terms "native" lose distinction over time.Oh excuse me, not native Americans but Native Americans then...

So blowing up a nightclub of people who with their very lifestyle and presence in a land they don't belong in cause suffering to Palestinians, is justifiable.

Then it is equally justifiable to go killing people who might decide to go blow up other people.

Can't have it both ways. If killing civilians is justifiable it's justifiable all around. If strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up my people is ok, then me going around, rounding you all up and shooting you in the head so you don't do it again is equally OK.

You can't do it both ways. If you want to commit terrorism with your citizens then you lose the right to cry foul when those citizens start being shot in the face.

Oh excuse me, not native Americans but Native Americans then...

Fine.

You've now just displaced 300 million people and crippled the world economy. So now, 300 million peoople are now jobless, and homeless, and the principle economic power of the world just vanished off the face of the earth plunging the planet into a global depression.

What do you do now?

Then it is equally justifiable to go killing people who might decide to go blow up other people.

Can't have it both ways. If killing civilians is justifiable it's justifiable all around. If strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up my people is ok, then me going around, rounding you all up and shooting you in the head so you don't do it again is equally OK.

You can't do it both ways. If you want to commit terrorism with your citizens then you lose the right to cry foul when those citizens start being shot in the face.Defending one's home land against invaders is no terrorism, it's defense. Jews/Israelis are the aggressors, not the Palestinian Arabs. That's what makes the difference.

Fine.

You've now just displaced 300 million people and crippled the world economy. So now, 300 million peoople are now jobless, and homeless, and the principle economic power of the world just vanished off the face of the earth plunging the planet into a global depression.

What do you do now?

I'll go to Eurodisney :P

Fine.

You've now just displaced 300 million people and crippled the world economy. So now, 300 million peoople are now jobless, and homeless, and the principle economic power of the world just vanished off the face of the earth plunging the planet into a global depression.

What do you do now?Celebrate justice. And don't overestimate the US.

civilians of your enemy? the jewish/israeli civilians are the enemy. their coming to palestine is what caused and still causes the injustice against the palestinian rabs. palestinian arabs have every moral right to defend their home land against jewish foreigners.

No, sorry. You have no moral right to kill women, children and working stiffs. Neither side does. On top of that, thinking that Palestinians will ever be able to dislodge Israel and take over that whole piece of land is stupid. Israel is there to stay. The Palestinians aren't going anywhere either. Both sides have to make up their minds to set up borders that insure a viable Israel and a viable Palestine and get on with their lives. Until then blood will spill, and most of it will be Palestinian.

Gotta love couch politics... easy to do that when sitting on a couch or a chair behind a computer screen and not being actually there

Celebrate justice. And don't overestimate the US.

what US? In your situation we've just given all the land back to the "native" population.

There is no US anymore.

No, sorry. You have no moral right to kill women, children and working stiffs. Neither side does. On top of that, thinking that Palestinians will ever be able to dislodge Israel and take over that whole piece of land is stupid. Israel is there to stay. The Palestinians aren't going anywhere either. Both sides have to make up their minds to set up borders that insure a viable Israel and a viable Palestine and get on with their lives. Until then blood will spill, and most of it will be Palestinian.There is no reason why Arabs should cede their land to foreigners. None.

If native Americans should ever claim back their home land, the non-native Americans should indeed leave without grumbling. How could any invader ever expect to be welcomed? OK, having Iraq in mind I can see that Americans can't understand that.

You know what? I was born here in New Jersey. If some Lenape Indian decides to claim my home he's not getting it without a fight. I have just as much claim as he does. I'm sure an Israeli who was born in Haifa feels the same way.

Jews/Israelis are the invaders. Not the Palestinians. Jews/Israelis are a foreign occupation force, their military as well as those who settled in Palestine to create Israel (and all their offspring).
And BTW Israel is constantly killing Palestinian civilians. So blowing up a nightclub of people who with their very lifestyle and presence in a land they don't belong in cause suffering to Palestinians, is justifiable.

Nope. If you're born on a piece of land, you build a home and contribute to the economy you have a claim to it. The Jews in Israel right now have as strong of a claim to the land as the Palestinians. Anyway, let's discuss what is and what will be instead of what should be. Israel isn't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. What needs to be done is to set a fair border and stop the wasteful violence.

You know what? I was born here in New Jersey. If some Lenape Indian decides to claim my home he's not getting it without a fight. I have just as much claim as he does. I'm sure an Israeli who was born in Haifa feels the same way.And the Palestinan in whose place the Israeli who was born in Haifa now lives in has every right to remove that Israeli. This Israeli who was born in Haifa causes suffering just by being there. He should pack and leave.

Celebrate justice. And don't overestimate the US.

It's hard to OVERestimate the world's biggest economy, strongest military, and biggest contributor of aid. If the US goes, the world goes into a major economic depression. Parts of the world fall into a new dark age.

Nope. If you're born on a piece of land, you build a home and contribute to the economy you have a claim to it. The Jews in Israel right now have as strong of a claim to the land as the Palestinians. Anyway, let's discuss what is and what will be instead of what should be. Israel isn't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. What needs to be done is to set a fair border and stop the wasteful violence.

Quite right, I can't go to poland.... I don't speak the language... quite hard.

Nope. If you're born on a piece of land, you build a home and contribute to the economy you have a claim to it. The Jews in Israel right now have as strong of a claim to the land as the Palestinians. Anyway, let's discuss what is and what will be instead of what should be. Israel isn't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. What needs to be done is to set a fair border and stop the wasteful violence.

Fighting the occupation is not wasteful violence.

There is no reason why Arabs should cede their land to foreigners. None.

Yeah there is. It's called reality. Ignoring it is as deadly as standing in the highway and ignoring a truck racing at you.

Nope. If you're born on a piece of land, you build a home and contribute to the economy you have a claim to it. The Jews in Israel right now have as strong of a claim to the land as the Palestinians. Anyway, let's discuss what is and what will be instead of what should be. Israel isn't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. What needs to be done is to set a fair border and stop the wasteful violence.What fair border could there ever be? There is no room for Israel in Palestine.

Fighting the occupation is not wasteful violence.

Well then, by extension of the same argument, Jews might argue that they were the "original" occupants of the land, and that the Palestinians merely showed up after the Diaspora and illegally occupied the land.

We can be as stupid as you like - and give everyone justification to kill everyone else ad infinitum.

And the Palestinan in whose place the Israeli who was born in Haifa now lives in has every right to remove that Israeli. This Israeli who was born in Haifa causes suffering just by being there. He should pack and leave.

Except that the Palestinian can't remove the Israeli by force. Maybe through negotiations, but never by force. By using force he's only condeming more of his fellow Palestinians to death. If they're that stupid and suicidal, maybe it's good that they die.

And the Palestinan in whose place the Israeli who was born in Haifa now lives in has every right to remove that Israeli. This Israeli who was born in Haifa causes suffering just by being there. He should pack and leave.
Leave to where? He'll only displace someone lese wherever he tried to go. By your logic, we sould all remain rooted the exact spots where our ancestors lived. That is not possible, and often not a matter of choice.
Ou of curiosity where do you live? Has nobody other than your direct line of ancestors ever lived there? hmm? I didn't think so. If this is your honest opinion you ARE a filthy hypocrite.
To sugest that all of north america should pack it's bags and leave if the native people's descendents ask us to nicely is absurd. Turning back time isn't an option.

How did the Nazis use the holocaust to justify the holocaust?

The nazis clamied the jews were communist terrorists, thats how they justifed the holocaust.

Well then, by extension of the same argument, Jews might argue that they were the "original" occupants of the land, and that the Palestinians merely showed up after the Diaspora and illegally occupied the land.

We can be as stupid as you like - and give everyone justification to kill everyone else ad infinitum.Jews are not the "original" occupants of the land, although they may have lived there for some time. But they left out of their own folly. The remaining folks are the ancestors of the Arabs who still dwell there, while the Jews in the "diaspora" mingled with Europeans/Japhites.

Leave to where?

I dont care. Anywhere. The fact is they are only there after displacing Muslims from their land.

The nazis clamied the jews were communist terrorists, thats how they justifed the holocaust.

the difference between the two being, there have actually been palestinian terrorsts.

likewise calling the occupation even comparable to the holocause is idiocy in the extreme.

Jews are not the "original" occupants of the land, although they may have lived there for some time. But they left out of their own folly. The remaining folks are the ancestors of the Arabs who still dwell there, while the Jews in the "diaspora" mingled with Europeans/Japhites.


Well, yes, the jewish folly was called the roman empire

i'm really surprised how many pro-israelis there are here. were i'm from you would make alot of people angry saying what people are saying here. try to defend israel late at night in abar with young people, you will be glassed.

Sorry to hear you live in such an intolerant, barbaric place. Your people sound truley neanderthalic. I hope I just created a new word. in any case, I hope one day your people grow up and learn to live with differing opinions. It's the first step in living in an enlightened society.

Jews are not the "original" occupants of the land, although they may have lived there for some time. But they left out of their own folly. The remaining folks are the ancestors of the Arabs who still dwell there, while the Jews in the "diaspora" mingled with Europeans/Japhites.

Yadda yadda yadda. Like I said, we can keep adding justifications...:rolleyes:

Leave to where? He'll only displace someone lese wherever he tried to go. By your logic, we sould all remain rooted the exact spots where our ancestors lived. That is not possible, and often not a matter of choice.
Ou of curiosity where do you live? Has nobody other than your direct line of ancestors ever lived there? hmm? I didn't think so. If this is your honest opinion you ARE a filthy hypocrite.
To sugest that all of north america should pack it's bags and leave if the native people's descendents ask us to nicely is absurd. Turning back time isn't an option.If one is dealing with a group of people that's as aggressive as Israelis are, turning back time is a must.

What fair border could there ever be? There is no room for Israel in Palestine.

A fair border would be one that allows for two viable states. As for "no room for Israel in Palestine", that kind of stubborn attitude only serves to spill Palestinian blood. I'm stunned by how much you want to see Palestinians die. Your ideas are a bigger threat to them than the most hardline Israeli settler.

I dont care. Anywhere. The fact is they are only there after displacing Muslims from their land.

so basically...it's ok to displace people where ever else they go, just not Muslims.

And by the way, "their" land?

What country, exactly, owned that land before? Will give you a hint, it wasn't Palestine.

Jews are not the "original" occupants of the land, although they may have lived there for some time. But they left out of their own folly. The remaining folks are the ancestors of the Arabs who still dwell there, while the Jews in the "diaspora" mingled with Europeans/Japhites.

No, my ancestors, the Romans, kicked their asses and forced them out. Sorry about that.

I dont care. Anywhere. The fact is they are only there after displacing Muslims from their land.

The Jews lived right there in that spot for thousands of years. They were brutaly oppressed by the Romans, the Huns and finally the Muslims. Though many left because of their slaughter at the hands of the Muslims and went to live in Europe and other places that weren't so barbaric, there were Jews there for milenia before they finally founded Isreal.

Yadda yadda yadda. Like I said, we can keep adding justifications...:rolleyes:There is but one justification necessary: Israelis are violent invaders who must be fought by all means. Just that.

Jews are not the "original" occupants of the land, although they may have lived there for some time. But they left out of their own folly. The remaining folks are the ancestors of the Arabs who still dwell there, while the Jews in the "diaspora" mingled with Europeans/Japhites.

If by "folly" you mean "rome"

I dont care. Anywhere. The fact is they are only there after displacing Muslims from their land.Huh. So the only kind of displaced people that matter are Muslims. You are a secterian anti-humanist piece of bigoted crap.

There is but one justification necessary: Israelis are violent invaders who must be fought by all means. Just that.

once again, if you are willing to resort to terrorism you lose the right to complain when your civilians get rounded up and shot.

if you turn your civilians into weapons, you turn them into legitimate targets.

The Jews lived right there in that spot for thousands of years. They were brutaly oppressed by the Romans, the Huns and finally the Muslims. Though many left because of their slaughter at the hands of the Muslims and went to live in Europe and other places that weren't so barbaric, there were Jews there for milenia before they finally founded Isreal.And? Nobody's talking about those Jews who have always lived there, but about those who came from outside to demand Arab land for the creation of their unnecessary state.

ya right okay, the isralies are the scapegoat of the world! they have been hated for many hundreds of years. its about time they stand up for themselves instead of being trembled and insulted by people like you!! the nazies were truly horralble and truley evil group. there is no doulbt that the nazies were worse then isralies. hesbola is worse then the isralies most of the muggers in neew york are worse the jews in Isral and it is ovois that u have no idea what u are talking about IDIOT!!!:upyours:

There is but one justification necessary: Israelis are violent invaders who must be fought by all means. Just that.

Either you are intentionally missing the point, or you really like getting Palestinians killed.

Let's face it - the whole war thing is a waste of time, money, and people.

It hasn't gotten the Palestinians a single step closer to anything. Nor has it gotten the Israelis a single step closer to anything.

They are both members of the same family, if the books are to be believed.

Both sons of Abraham. That means you're at least half-brothers.

Are you in the habit of killing your family members? For shame!

There is but one justification necessary: Israelis are violent invaders who must be fought by all means. Just that.

Ok, how about we kick all Muslims out of Europe? They violently invaded European lands several times. How do you think Islam spread to Albania and Bosnia? Kick them out too, or does that attitude only apply to Jews?

Ok, how about we kick all Muslims out of Europe? They violently invaded European lands several times. How do you think Islam spread to Albania and Bosnia? Kick them out too, or does that attitude only apply to Jews?
Yes! Let's kick everyone's ass, and if we need a reason, we'll just make one up!

once again, if you are willing to resort to terrorism you lose the right to complain when your civilians get rounded up and shot.

if you turn your civilians into weapons, you turn them into legitimate targets.Just as Jewish civilians are weapons. Once more, defending one's home is never terrorism.

And the Palestinan in whose place the Israeli who was born in Haifa now lives in has every right to remove that Israeli. This Israeli who was born in Haifa causes suffering just by being there. He should pack and leave.

By your logic, we should all pack up and leave and go live in sub-Saharan Africa. All humans came from there, after all; we unlawfully seized Europe, Asia, Oceania, and North and South America from the bears, foxes, rabbits, bumblebees, crocodiles, and flies. Actually, why don't we eliminate all life on Earth except for microorganisms? They were here first, after all.

If you're going by the "they were there first" argument, then the land first belonged to the assorted Hebrew tribes, who defeated the Philistines (today Palestinians) and other Arabic tribes to rule the land and live there for centuries more. After a long succession of wars the Arabs invaded and killed off a good portion of the remaining Jewish population. Nobody really complained then. So when Jews come back and kill off a good portion of the remaining Arab population, why should anyone complain?

I, quite simply, don't see why Israel shouldn't have the right to the land it owns because it either fought for, bought, or was granted (by previous owners) every inch thereof, metaphorically. And I also don't see why any culture or people that succeeds in driving the Israelis off that land can't have it "back".

In addition, most of the population of Israel today was born there. Thus they count as natives, and "innocents" (unless they're in the IDF or something). So killing one of them is as justifiable as killing a natively born Palestinian. Which is either fine or not, depending on your mentality and morals (or lack thereof).

And? Nobody's talking about those Jews who have always lived there, but about those who came from outside to demand Arab land for the creation of their unnecessary state.

once again, what nation controlled that land?

It wasn't palestinian land at all, ever. There was no nation of palestine, there was no system of palestinian governance. It was NEVER the "land of palestine", at all.

I dont care. Anywhere. The fact is they are only there after displacing Muslims from their land.


You're right, we must end this unjust occupation of Muslim land.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/878774671_l.gif

And? Nobody's talking about those Jews who have always lived there, but about those who came from outside to demand Arab land for the creation of their unnecessary state.

The Jews who were there got tired of being oppressed by Muslims so they decided to fight for their own state. More power to them. I hope they continue to fight. Beats living in a Muslim country. If the Palestinians, a race of people that didn't exist until the founding of Isreal, want to keep fighting their battles by strapping bombs onto their children and sending them to blow up discos then they should expect Ireal to defend itself.

Either you are intentionally missing the point, or you really like getting Palestinians killed.

Let's face it - the whole war thing is a waste of time, money, and people.

It hasn't gotten the Palestinians a single step closer to anything. Nor has it gotten the Israelis a single step closer to anything.

They are both members of the same family, if the books are to be believed.

Both sons of Abraham. That means you're at least half-brothers.

Are you in the habit of killing your family members? For shame!So what is your suggestion? To give up everything just to make the Jewish invaders happy? To give up history and family heritage? To accept displacement?
And save that Abraham shit for someone else.

Just as Jewish civilians are weapons. Once more

When has a israeli ever strapped a bomb to himself? Which civilian has acted as the weapon here? Existance is not attack. Living is not murder. Simply being does not turn one into a terrorist.


defending one's home is never terrorism.

Which is true for both. There are plenty of Israelis BORN in Israel that see it as their home just as much as the palestinians do, and are willing to defend it to the death.

It isn't often that you see a truly idiot thread on here.

I mean yeah, there's alot of lunacy being passed around and some extremists, but this goes over the line into the truest stupidity I've seen in quite some time.

To even suggest that some kind of comparison exists between the Nazi party and Israel is to demonstrate a distorted view of reality so complete as to make it impossible to relate to it on any level.

I know it's fashionable these days to take your least favorite national leader and compare him to Hitler, but my god... that's just rhetoric. This...

I'm not even going to justify the thread any further. My answer should be plain.

So what is your suggestion? To give up everything just to make the Jewish invaders happy? To give up history and family heritage? To accept displacement?
And save that Abraham shit for someone else.


Still waiting for you to show who owned the land before Isreal.

Both regimes carried out an occupation they deemed as just, but the international community did not. Both setup ghettos, roadblocks and curfews for the occupied, those who break curfew get shot in the street with tanks. Both were racist regimes who operate(d) with a sense of superiority. Both committed mass killings and slaughters including of women and children. Both used the holocaust as justification or propaganda for their actions. Both are hated by the international community and invaded their neighbours. And both are feircely militaristic.

Its a very close race but the Nazis haven't been around for 60 years and only lasted around 20. The regime of Israel is still around and has been for 60 years. Its close, but I say Israel takes this one. your thoughts?

You should be banned forever from posting such anti-semetic crap.

If you're going by the "they were there first" argument, then the land first belonged to the assorted Hebrew tribes, who defeated the Philistines (today Palestinians) and other Arabic tribes to rule the land and live there for centuries more.
The Philistines from the bible aren't actually the same people as today's Palestinians. They came with the muslim invasion from saudi arabia.

So what is your suggestion? To give up everything just to make the Jewish invaders happy? To give up history and family heritage? To accept displacement?
And save that Abraham shit for someone else.

No, my suggestion is to find a way to live together without killing each other.

No one gets displaced.

BTW, it's not "that Abraham shit". It's generally accepted as true by both Arabs and Jews.

The Jews who were there got tired of being oppressed by Muslims so they decided to fight for their own state. More power to them. I hope they continue to fight. Beats living in a Muslim country. If the Palestinians, a race of people that didn't exist until the founding of Isreal, want to keep fighting their battles by strapping bombs onto their children and sending them to blow up discos then they should expect Ireal to defend itself.Your cheap hint on the word 'Palestinian' means nothing. It's about the humans, not the name they go by. They are Palestinian Arabs and they have the right to defend their home land.

once again, what nation controlled that land?

It wasn't palestinian land at all, ever. There was no nation of palestine, there was no system of palestinian governance. It was NEVER the "land of palestine", at all.

Exactly. There only problem is that they hate Jews. Theye didn't want a Jewish state even if they are allowed to participate in government (they are) and fully in civic life (they are). There was no country there, just a bunch of Jews and a lot of racist Muslims who decided to call themselves Palestinians after the Jews living there decided that they wanted to have a government and to defend themselves.

Your cheap hint on the word 'Palestinian' means nothing. It's about the humans, not the name they go by. They are Palestinian Arabs and they have the right to defend their home land.

and they are Israeli jews, and they have the right to defend theirs.

savy now?

If one is dealing with a group of people that's as aggressive as Israelis are, turning back time is a must.

If you turn back time, you'll eventually get to the point when Israel was mainly inhabited by Phoenicians, Sumerians and the like, which later became the Greeks and the Persians respectively. After that it was taken over and entirely inhabited by Hebrews. If you're unwilling to go back that far, the Hebrews were conquered and driven out by Emperor Tiberius of Rome, so logically the Italians, French, Germans, and British should come along and claim Israel as their land. They were all there before the Muslims were.

:rolleyes:

No, my suggestion is to find a way to live together without killing each other.

No one gets displaced.

BTW, it's not "that Abraham shit". It's generally accepted as true by both Arabs and Jews.There is no way to live together without returning to the Palestinian Arabs what is theirs. Let all those in all the refugee camps around "Israel" return to their families' lands.

BTW save your Abraham shit for someone else. we are talking about the plight of Palestinian Arabs, not some fabricated biblical history so much used by Jews and Christians.

The idea of the "nation of palestine" is absolute bullshit at its core.

Before 1967 the west bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no palestinians then.

Before 1967 the gaza strip was owned by Egypt, and there were no palestinians then.

The "native land of Palestine" was Egyptian and Jordanian, and there were no palestinians then.

Only when that land became in control of Israel, and thus "the jews" did the call for "a native palestine" come out.

Where were the calls for a palestinian state when the west bank was owned by Jordan?

Where were the calls for a palestinian state when the gaza strop was owned by Egypt?

It wasn't there. Only when it was under control of Israel was it suddently a displacement of the "native population" which although it was apparently there for 1500 years didn't seem to exist before 1967.

Your cheap hint on the word 'Palestinian' means nothing. It's about the humans, not the name they go by. They are Palestinian Arabs and they have the right to defend their home land.

Cheap hint? I thought I was very direct. :confused:

I, quite simply, don't see why Israel shouldn't have the right to the land it owns because it either fought for, bought, or was granted (by previous owners) every inch thereof, metaphorically. And I also don't see why any culture or people that succeeds in driving the Israelis off that land can't have it "back".).

I'v e already asked how how much they bought. Do I get an answer?

And whatever about what they fought for in 1948, as that acheived an Israeli state, I fail to see how it justifies todays occupation outside its borders.


The Jews who were there got tired of being oppressed by Muslims so they decided to fight for their own state. .

No, thats not what happened. At all. First they moved there between the late 1800s and 1948 as immigrants and secondly they conducted a "terrorist" campaign against the British, not Turks or Muslims or British Muslims or Turkish Brits. Please go read some basic history before commenting.

There is no way to live together without returning to the Palestinian Arabs what is theirs. Let all those in all the refugee camps around "Israel" return to their families' lands.

That they abandoned when the other Arabs attacked in '48. Guess what, it wasn't Isreal that set up the refugee camps.

BTW save your Abraham shit for someone else. we are talking about the plight of Palestinian Arabs, not some fabricated biblical history so much used by Jews and Christians.

So history is only used when you want to kill Jews even though the Muslims make the connection as well?

There is no way to live together without returning to the Palestinian Arabs what is theirs.

Return what is theirs? I will ask you, one more time. When was there ever a nation of palestine?

When in the history of this planet has there ever been a nation of palestinians? Ever? Before it belonged to Israel, the land belonged to Jordan and Egypt.

There has never, in the history of this planet, been a palestinian nation. It is questionable if there ever truly has been, in general, such a thing as a palestinian

If you turn back time, you'll eventually get to the point when Israel was mainly inhabited by Phoenicians, Sumerians and the like, which later became the Greeks and the Persians respectively. After that it was taken over and entirely inhabited by Hebrews. If you're unwilling to go back that far, the Hebrews were conquered and driven out by Emperor Tiberius of Rome, so logically the Italians, French, Germans, and British should come along and claim Israel as their land. They were all there before the Muslims were.

:rolleyes:I'm well aware of the history of the region. And Muslims didn't come to Palestine, the people living there just converted to Islam. They remained the same people.

The idea of the "nation of palestine" is absolute bullshit at its core.

Before 1967 the west bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no palestinians then.

Before 1967 the gaza strip was owned by Egypt, and there were no palestinians then.

The "native land of Palestine" was Egyptian and Jordanian, and there were no palestinians then.

Only when that land became in control of Israel, and thus "the jews" did the call for "a native palestine" come out.

Where were the calls for a palestinian state when the west bank was owned by Jordan?

Where were the calls for a palestinian state when the gaza strop was owned by Egypt?

It wasn't there. Only when it was under control of Israel was it suddently a displacement of the "native population" which although it was apparently there for 1500 years didn't seem to exist before 1967.

There was no call for it then because the Jordanians and Egyptians aren't a bunch of filthy Jews.

Return what is theirs? I will ask you, one more time. When was there ever a nation of palestine?
...It's about the people, the individuals, the humans. What do you want with a 'Palestinian nation' ? What does 'nation' matter for someone who is forced out of his house and land? Are Palestinian Arabs lesser because there is no 'Palestinian nation' ? Have they a lesser right to dwell in their ancestral home? 'Nation' is a weird European concept.

I'm well aware of the history of the region. And Muslims didn't come to Palestine, the people living there just converted to Islam. They remained the same people.

They converted to Islam because they were conquered. That's how religions spread. They didn't convert to Islam because the Muslims offered to give them all a puppy.

I'v e already asked how how much they bought. Do I get an answer?

And whatever about what they fought for in 1948, as that acheived an Israeli state, I fail to see how it justifies todays occupation outside its borders.

Because it gained land when it stopped an armed buildup in 1967. Egypt Jordan and Syria tried to win a war. They lost. Part of waging a war and losing is that sometimes you lose your land.

Don't want to lose your land? Don't wage war. This wasn't "palestinian" land, it was Egyptian, and Jordanian. Countries that waged a war against Israel, and lost.

Spoils of war.

Now I'll be fine if they pull out and go back to their own borders. I would accept that. I would be happy with that.

But to pack up and leave Israel all together? Lunacy.

You know I was just thinking, and neither the Nazi's nor the Israelis are as bad as Sovietstan's threads as of late.

It's about the people, the individuals, the humans. What do you want with a 'Palestinian nation' ?

You know, they ones that aren't Jewish. Real people. Real humans that aren't Jewish.

I'v e already asked how how much they bought. Do I get an answer?

There's information on the JNF website. Alot of the land was purchased by the JNF and then became state-owned.
http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=history

The Philistines from the bible aren't actually the same people as today's Palestinians. They came with the muslim invasion from saudi arabia.

Technically, as the Arabic people originated in Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians would come from there, no? ... or is that something else entirely?

They anyway lent their name to the group, so whatever. They must be the same ^_^

It wasn't palestinian land at all, ever. There was no nation of palestine, there was no system of palestinian governance. It was NEVER the "land of palestine", at all.
It was a British colony, but in practice aside from missionaries, the Governor, the army etc., most of the people were either Arabs or Jews. Both groups were treated pretty much equally, and if some of the Arabs did live in poorer conditions it was because there were more Arabs, so those conditions were noticed to a greater degree among Arabs than among Jews.

The real problem started when Britain handed over control to the Jews rather than the Arabs, on the UN's orders. While Zionists had bought a fair portion of the land, a fair portion was just given with no regard for who was already living there. However, the Arabs living on the territory could have just continued living there as they always had and not minding the change of government. Instead, they had a hissy fit and declared war, commencing violent acts against the Israeli government. Israel was, of course, rather pissed and responded in kind, and the Arabs have resented it ever since. But ultimately it's their fault rather than the Israelis', because they chose to fight instead of co-operate or just ignore the change of government. It wouldn't seem to be a very big deal; aside from the technology upgrades and the greater number of nuclear power plants and cell phone base stations -- and of course a greater number of Jewish inhabitants than before -- Israel hasn't changed all that much since '48.

The idea of the "nation of palestine" is absolute bullshit at its core.

Before 1967 the west bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no palestinians then.

Before 1967 the gaza strip was owned by Egypt, and there were no palestinians then.

The "native land of Palestine" was Egyptian and Jordanian, and there were no palestinians then.

Only when that land became in control of Israel, and thus "the jews" did the call for "a native palestine" come out.

Where were the calls for a palestinian state when the west bank was owned by Jordan?

Where were the calls for a palestinian state when the gaza strop was owned by Egypt?

It wasn't there. Only when it was under control of Israel was it suddently a displacement of the "native population" which although it was apparently there for 1500 years didn't seem to exist before 1967.
There was no call for it then because the Jordanians and Egyptians aren't a bunch of filthy Jews.There was no call for it then because the Jordanians and Egyptians aren't a bunch of filthy Jews.

Bingo

Exactly. There only problem is that they hate Jews..

ONOESSSZZZ111!!!THEY WANT TO EAT THE BABIES!!!!!

Nothing to do with being kicked out of where they lived and being occupied by those people who didf the kicking 20 years later...or the two tier system of justice. the killings, the settlements, the land theft, no....that would be mad talk altogether


Theye didn't want a Jewish state even if they are allowed to participate in government (they are) and fully in civic life (they are). ..

Well, in fact they aren't.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

And in the occupied territories they are subject to a form of martial law, unprotected by Geneva convention. You should look it up.

Technically, as the Arabic people originated in Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians would come from there, no? ... or is that something else entirely?

They anyway lent their name to the group, so whatever. They must be the same ^_^


It was a British colony, but in practice aside from missionaries, the Governor, the army etc., most of the people were either Arabs or Jews. Both groups were treated pretty much equally, and if some of the Arabs did live in poorer conditions it was because there were more Arabs, so those conditions were noticed to a greater degree among Arabs than among Jews.

The real problem started when Britain handed over control to the Jews rather than the Arabs, on the UN's orders. While Zionists had bought a fair portion of the land, a fair portion was just given with no regard for who was already living there. However, the Arabs living on the territory could have just continued living there as they always had and not minding the change of government. Instead, they had a hissy fit and declared war, commencing violent acts against the Israeli government. Israel was, of course, rather pissed and responded in kind, and the Arabs have resented it ever since. But ultimately it's their fault rather than the Israelis', because they chose to fight instead of co-operate or just ignore the change of government. It wouldn't seem to be a very big deal; aside from the technology upgrades and the greater number of nuclear power plants and cell phone base stations -- and of course a greater number of Jewish inhabitants than before -- Israel hasn't changed all that much since '48.


And one more thing you're forgetting. The UN resolution 1948 actually set up palestinian borders. It was ready to create a nation of palestine along side a nation of Israel.

And Israel said "fine, ok, we get our nation, they get theirs, whatever". It was the PALESTINIANS who objected, it was they who could have had their nation and it was they who rejected it.

Psychotic Dan wins the thread!

*hands prize to Dan*

Because it gained land when it stopped an armed buildup in 1967. Egypt Jordan and Syria tried to win a war. They lost. Part of waging a war and losing is that sometimes you lose your land.

Don't want to lose your land? Don't wage war. This wasn't "palestinian" land, it was Egyptian, and Jordanian. Countries that waged a war against Israel, and lost.

Spoils of war.

Now I'll be fine if they pull out and go back to their own borders. I would accept that. I would be happy with that.

But to pack up and leave Israel all together? Lunacy.It was Arab land. Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians are the same people. The land of Israel was artificially cut out of Arab land by the distant UN's decision.

You know, they ones that aren't Jewish. Real people. Real humans that aren't Jewish.No, those who have come from outside after the end of the Ottoman Empire.

It was Arab land. Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians are the same people. The land of Israel was artificially cut of Arab land by the distant UN's decision.

Same people? Then why do they want THEIR OWN STATE?

Ask a syrian if he's an egyptian. See what he says, I dare you.

You know, they ones that aren't Jewish. Real people. Real humans that aren't Jewish.

Seriously.What the hell?What is people's problems with the Jewish?I know quite a few Jewish people.Guy at my school,he's a really nice guy,really easy to get along with.My old french teacher was Jewish,she was quite possibly one of the best teachers I ever had.Someone want to explain why they have such a grudge?Surely,they've never affected your life,why hold a vendetta against people you don't know?

ONOESSSZZZ111!!!THEY WANT TO EAT THE BABIES!!!!!

Nothing to do with being kicked out of where they lived and being occupied by those people who didf the kicking 20 years later...or the two tier system of justice. the killings, the settlements, the land theft, no....that would be mad talk altogether



Well, in fact they aren't.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm

And in the occupied territories they are subject to a form of martial law, unprotected by Geneva convention. You should look it up.
Sure. Now. I'm of the opinion that Isreal needs to give up it's settlements and stop taking land in occupied territories, but Muslim hatred for and oppression of Jews goes back centuries.

No, those who have not come from outside after the end of the Ottoman Empire.

So now it's a distinction of time? Show me the "nation of palestine" during that time. Who was it that "displaced the Arabs" and created the camps. It wasn't Isreal.

Just for your information.... nation and nationality is a European invention.... basically, a 19th century thing that the Arabs took after WW2 in the influence of colonial powers such as France and england

Seriously.What the hell?What is people's problems with the Jewish?I know quite a few Jewish people.Guy at my school,he's a really nice guy,really easy to get along with.My old french teacher was Jewish,she was quite possibly one of the best teachers I ever had.Someone want to explain why they have such a grudge?Surely,they've never affected your life,why hold a vendetta against people you don't know?

Okay, maybe I should have used the sarcasm tag, but I thought it was obvious - especially in light of my other posts. :confused:

There's information on the JNF website. Alot of the land was purchased by the JNF and then became state-owned.
http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=history

ok, thanks.

Nodinia, I didn't know exactly how much; I just knew that some of it had been bought, but didn't want to state a figure in case I might be wrong. Not that I ever am, of course, but just in case. <.<

It was Arab land. Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians are the same people. The land of Israel was artificially cut of Arab land by the distant UN's decision.
When the State of Israel was created, the UN also drew up a map for a State of Palestine in which the Arabs could live. There were Jews living in the State of Palestine, and they moved to the State of Israel. There were Arabs living in the State of Israel, but rather than moving to the State of Palestine, they made a fuss over the decision.

That, and, would it really matter that the land was occupied by Jews? That doesn't mean Arabs won't be able to live there... only that there will also be Jews in the same general area. They could keep their bloody land, they just wouldn't be ruling over it with an Arab government. Which, I note, they were not doing before the creation of the State of Israel either, and I didn't see them being very upset about that.

Jews were not kicking Arabs out, they were just moving in. The Arabs could have stayed if they hadn't turned violent against the newcomers, and kept their land and culture. What would it matter that there was a new government? They didn't suicide-bomb and intifada the British Christians after all. Why not?

Okay, maybe I should have used the sarcasm tag, but I thought it was obvious - especially in light of my other posts. :confused:

...Ah.
Sorry.
I only just joined on this thread.
Leave me,I'm only a n00b :(
I just saw your post and didn't realise the sarcasm,I'm sorry.

Same people? Then why do they want THEIR OWN STATE?

Ask a syrian if he's an egyptian. See what he says, I dare you.Syria and Egypt were one state for a while. Bad example.
Cutting up the Middle east wasn't the Arabs' idea. It was the Europeans'.

Sure. Now. I'm of the opinion that Isreal needs to give up it's settlements and stop taking land in occupied territories,

Why? It won those territories in warfare. If the nations from which it won them want them back, they should fight for them too.

/2¢

No, those who have not come from outside after the end of the Ottoman Empire.

As has been repeated over and over, there were always Jews there getting their asses kicked by oppressors. More came after WWII, but it's not like there were no Jews there before - it's just that the Arabs could subjegate them more easily before because there weren't as many. Jews are fine in teh Middle east as long as they stay subservient and don't openly practice their religion or culture.

Syria and Egypt were one state for a while. Bad example.
Cutting up the Middle east wasn't the Arabs' idea. It was the Europeans'.

After the Ottomans joined numerous European nations in a war and lost.

ok, thanks.

Nodinia, I didn't know exactly how much; I just knew that some of it had been bought, but didn't want to state a figure in case I might be wrong. Not that I ever am, of course, but just in case. <.<


When the State of Israel was created, the UN also drew up a map for a State of Palestine in which the Arabs could live. There were Jews living in the State of Palestine, and they moved to the State of Israel. There were Arabs living in the State of Israel, but rather than moving to the State of Palestine, they made a fuss over the decision.

That, and, would it really matter that the land was occupied by Jews? That doesn't mean Arabs won't be able to live there... only that there will also be Jews in the same general area. They could keep their bloody land, they just wouldn't be ruling over it with an Arab government. Which, I note, they were not doing before the creation of the State of Israel either, and I didn't see them being very upset about that.

Jews were not kicking Arabs out, they were just moving in. The Arabs could have stayed if they hadn't turned violent against the newcomers, and kept their land and culture. What would it matter that there was a new government? They didn't suicide-bomb and intifada the British Christians after all. Why not?

The point is that no-one asked the Arabs and the decision to divide Palestine was made over their heads. They had every right to fight the "newcomers", the intruders.

There's information on the JNF website. Alot of the land was purchased by the JNF and then became state-owned.
http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=history

That took land that the occupants had been driven from. Before the Arabs were expelled in 1948, How much was bought? The Jewish Virual library has the figure in acres/dunums somewhere, I believe....I suggest you get a looking.


Because it gained land when it stopped an armed buildup in 1967]

Not according to the rest of the planet. I'm referring to what is now Israel pre the 1st Arab Israeli war however


While Zionists had bought a fair portion of the land, ]

For the second time, how much? If you say a "fair portion" you must know.....


Before 1967 the west bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no palestinians then.

Before 1967 the gaza strip was owned by Egypt, and there were no palestinians then.]


The PLO was founded in 1964 as an umbrella organistion for palestinian groups.

.......

Wow. News flash. I was born in New York. I vote for my politicians. I contribute in my government.

I AM a native american. The terms "native" lose distinction over time.

I, too, am a native American. I was born in Rhode Island. Thus, I am a native.

Why? It won those territories in warfare. If the nations from which it won them want them back, they should fight for them too.

/2¢

Because there's ideology and then there's practicality. Practicality dictates that the situation demands comprmise on the part of the Isrealis.

After the Ottomans joined numerous European nations in a war and lost.And? Arabs are no Turks and they never wanted to be in the Ottoman Empire. After centuries of Turkish oppression they should have been free to do with their land whatever they wanted, but instead they were forced to accept what the Europeans wanted.

Because there's ideology and then there's practicality. Practicality dictates that the situation demands comprmise on the part of the Isrealis.

Actually, it dictates compromise all around.

No one is getting anywhere.

ok, thanks.

Nodinia, I didn't know exactly how much; I just knew that some of it had been bought, but didn't want to state a figure in case I might be wrong. Not that I ever am, of course, but just in case. <.<
Here's another article with some numbers Nodinia. There's tons of material out there on the topic. http://www.ismi.emory.edu/JournalArticles/MESapr84.html

you lose the ability to claim moral justification when you blow up a nightclub. Sorry.

By your logic it is the Palestinian civilians that are the enemies of Israel, because it is the CIVILIANS that are committing terrorism, it is the CIVILIANS that are launching missles, it is the CIVILIANS who are blowing up pieces of Israel. So Israel has the "moral right" to go killing Palestinian civilians, because it is the CIVILIANS that are targeting them.

I have to agree unfortunately. In order to be legit, they have to hit only military targets and they are not doing so. They have but most of their attacks seem to be directed against civilians.

The point is that no-one asked the Arabs and the decision to divide Palestine was made over their heads. They had every right to fight the "newcomers", the intruders.

They didn't own the land anyway. What they did own they abandoned after the other Arabs attacked. Guess who put them in camps? Not the Isreali's. Guess who hasn't accepted them into their nations? Those nicely homogenous arabs.

So what is your suggestion? To give up everything just to make the Jewish invaders happy? To give up history and family heritage? To accept displacement?
And save that Abraham shit for someone else.

How about negotiating a workable border to keep the Palestinians from getting slaughtered? Or is it preferable to allow Palestinians to die year after year with no real prospect for a viable Palestinian state?

That took land that the occupants had been driven from. Before the Arabs were expelled in 1948, How much was bought? The Jewish Virual library has the figure in acres/dunums somewhere, I believe....I suggest you get a looking.

You suggest *I* get looking? You were the one asking for information. I was merely giving you somewhere to start, since you seemed ignorant of the JNF's land purchase program. But it seems that you know how to work google after all.

They didn't own the land anyway. What they did own they abandoned after the other Arabs attacked. Guess who put them in camps? Not the Isreali's. Guess who hasn't accepted them into their nations? Those nicely homogenous arabs.Because that would have meant to accept Israel.

And? Arabs are no Turks and they never wanted to be in the Ottoman Empire. After centuries of Turkish oppression they should have been free to do with their land whatever they wanted, but instead they were forced to accept what the Europeans wanted.

Now you get to show some evidence of this. You're the one claiming the Ottoman Empire as a dividing line for "newcomers" now you're attacking them. Make up your mind. Especially being that it wasn't "their" land if it was the Ottomans.

Because that would have meant to accept Israel.

Nope, try again. It means they have martyrs to use as political leverage. Real quality there, eh? Such a nicely homogenous society that you keep claiming the Arabs are.

There is no comparison between Hitler’s regime and any other, period.

I'm all up for israel returning to the 67 borders.... no need for the territories... just problematic

The point is that no-one asked the Arabs and the decision to divide Palestine was made over their heads. They had every right to fight the "newcomers", the intruders.

So was the decision to divide the former Ottoman Empire up among assorted European powers. Or the Ottoman Empire's decision to join WWI, likely drafting a good number of Arabs. Or a whole lot of other things they don't seem to be protesting much about, like when the UN rules in their favour (which it does do, and has done, contrary to conspiracists' beliefs).

ok, thanks.

Nodinia, I didn't know exactly how much; I just knew that some of it had been bought, but didn't want to state a figure in case I might be wrong. Not
that I ever am, of course, but just in case. <.<?

Though I am foul mouthed, harsh, sarcastic and unpleasant, I do appreciate honesty. It was 7-8% of the total area by 1946/7. This was compiled by the committee that proposed the (rejected by the Arabs) UN plan, and was part of a very detailed, large, survey. Somebody here had a map with the details portrayed in coloured sections on it, but I forgot to keep a link You may check it but you'll often find it mentioned in acres/dunums to make it sound larger than it is. Just divide it by the total area given for the mandate and you'll get somewhere between 7 and 8%, depending where you get the figure.

Not exactly what you'd expect, the way some go on, is it?

Now you get to show some evidence of this. You're the one claiming the Ottoman Empire as a dividing line for "newcomers" now you're attacking them. Make up your mind. Especially being that it wasn't "their" land if it was the Ottomans.It was Arab land militarily occupied by the Ottoman regime. After that was gone there was no reason to give away land to foreigners. Why should they? The land that supported their life and they called home. Why give it up to foreigners?

Because that would have meant to accept Israel.

I'll bet if the Muslims hadn't forbid the Jews to worship at the Temple of David and had allowed them to practice their religion and culture freely and peacfully the Jews wouldn't have needed their own state. The only reason one was created was because it was the only way for them to be able to have their culture.

I'm all up for israel returning to the 67 borders.... no need for the territories... just problematic

And you know what, I'd really have no problem with that. I'm not really in favor of the settlements as they exist now, let them withdraw to the land they gained in 48 and the land they won in 67.

In my opinion Israel should leave palestine the way Israel was when they got there. Demolish all the infrastructure, dismantle all the hospitals and schools they built, cut the power lines, demolish the sewer system, leave the land barren. Leave it exactly the way they got Israel.

Then say "here's your state, now do something with it by yourself" and leave.

So was the decision to divide the former Ottoman Empire up among assorted European powers. Or the Ottoman Empire's decision to join WWI, likely drafting a good number of Arabs. Or a whole lot of other things they don't seem to be protesting much about, like when the UN rules in their favour (which it does do, and has done, contrary to conspiracists' beliefs).UN rules in Arabs' favour? When has any of that been enforced?

It was Arab land militarily occupied by the Ottoman regime. After that was gone there was no reason to give away land to foreigners. Why should they? The land that supported their life and they called home. Why give it up to foreigners?

how do you define it as "arab land"? Jews were living there long before there was such a thing as a muslim. In fact, it was the jewish population that was originally displaced from it. It would seem they have the original claim to it.

And you know what, I'd really have no problem with that. I'm not really in favor of the settlements as they exist now, let them withdraw to the land they gained in 48 and the land they won in 67.

In my opinion Israel should leave palestine the way Israel was when they got there. Demolish all the infrastructure, dismantle all the hospitals and schools they built, cut the power lines, demolish the sewer system, leave the land barren. Leave it exactly the way they got Israel.

Then say "here's your state, now do something with it by yourself" and leave.

Nah, let them keep the infrastructure... it's a worse punishment than starting a new

Defending one's home land against invaders is no terrorism, it's defense. Jews/Israelis are the aggressors, not the Palestinian Arabs. That's what makes the difference.

Once you cross the line and attack civilians on purpose, you no longer can claim that you are defending your homeland. You can only claim that if you go after the military personel itself.

I'll bet if the Muslims hadn't forbid the Jews to worship at the Temple of David and had allowed them to practice their religion and culture freely and peacfully the Jews wouldn't have needed their own state. The only reason one was created was because it was the only way for them to be able to have their culture.?? What temple of David?

?? What temple of David?

Ah, now you're going to deny it existed... LOL

Nah, let them keep the infrastructure... it's a worse punishment than starting a new

I have no interest in punishment. If they want their nation let them have it. Let them build it anew, by themselves.

Once you cross the line and attack civilians on purpose, you no longer can claim that you are defending your homeland. You can only claim that if you go after the military personel itself.The military personel is only the weapon in the hand of the 'civilians'. They pay for it and they elect the government that sends it against Arabs.

You suggest *I* get looking? You were the one asking for information. I was merely giving you somewhere to start, since you seemed ignorant of the JNF's land purchase program. But it seems that you know how to work google after all.

O I'm fully aware of the "land purchase" program, though thats a post expulsion legal device. I just find it strange that everybody who likes to say "they bought the land" had no clue whatsoever how much land was bought from its Arab owners by zionist immigrants.

And a lot really don't know, as opposed to being disengenous about it.

I have no interest in punishment. If they want their nation let them have it. Let them build it anew, by themselves.

trust me, israeli infrastructure sucks... I know from experiance

Ah, now you're going to deny it existed... LOLWhat temple? The tent halfway between David's palace and Mount Moriah? There were no Muslims in the time of David. What temple?

The military personel is only the weapon in the hand of the 'civilians'. They pay for it and they elect the government that sends it against Arabs.

and the palestinian civilians support the infrastructure that breed terrorism. Once you make civilians a legitimate target for EITHER side, you make it a legitimate target for ALL sides.

If the palestinians target Israeli civilians then they get their civilians targetted in return.

trust me, israeli infrastructure sucks... I know from experiance

hehe, ok, I get what you mean.

Either way, a shitty hospital is still better than dirt.

I say, leave the israelis alone, we'll kill each other eventually.

In my opinion Israel should leave palestine the way Israel was when they got there. Demolish all the infrastructure, dismantle all the hospitals and schools they built, cut the power lines, demolish the sewer system, leave the land barren. Leave it exactly the way they got Israel.


But as the mandate was an agricultural exporter before 1947, and over 80% of agricultural land was owned by Arabs, thats hardly true now, is it? The main contriburtion to the area was the citrus, which the settlers used to make a market for themselves, as Arabs dominated the olive crop.

What fair border could there ever be? There is no room for Israel in Palestine.

And why is that? Others would disagree with you infact, the UN does disagree with you. If it wasn't for the Arabs violating the UN Resolution that would have made Jerusalem an international city and would have sat up two different states.

and the palestinian civilians support the infrastructure that breed terrorism. Once you make civilians a legitimate target for EITHER side, you make it a legitimate target for ALL sides.

If the palestinians target Israeli civilians then they get their civilians targetted in return.Palestinian civilians have always been targeted by Israel.

And why is that? Others would disagree with you infact, the UN does disagree with you. If it wasn't for the Arabs violating the UN Resolution that would have made Jerusalem an international city and would have sat up two different states.Why two states? The land was entirely Arabic before the UN plan.

?? What temple of David?

You know, Judaism's most important religious landmark? The one the Muslim's destroyed purposely by building the Dome of the Rock on top of it? The Muslim's do a lot of that...

Beleriand, you're getting monotonous and boring. And you would be happier with a solution that involves a lot of death and killing (of Jews) than anything else that would make everyone happy, prosperous, and loving.

So good luck to you then!

O I'm fully aware of the "land purchase" program, though thats a post expulsion legal device. I just find it strange that everybody who likes to say "they bought the land" had no clue whatsoever how much land was bought from its Arab owners by zionist immigrants.

And a lot really don't know, as opposed to being disengenous about it.And some people do know, and don't use it as justification. *puts up hand*
I don't see how it's a post expulsion legal device if the purchases took place before the war in 48. Also, the term "expulsion" is questionable. Most, not all, of the arabs in Israel's current territory fled, expecting to return in due course. Surprise - they lost. Others were forcibly expulsed. It has never been clear in what proportions.

Palestinian civilians have always been targeted by Israel.

Because Israeli citizens are a target for Palestinian terrorists. Get it now? As long as Palestininians continue to target Israeli civilians then Israel will continue to do the same.

And since you are in favor of that, quit bitching.

You know, Judaism's most important religious landmark? The one the Muslim's destroyed purposely by building the Dome of the Rock on top of it? The Muslim's do a lot of that...

I like the way you just keep throwing crap and avoid any type of discussion. It helps cover the holes in the plot doesn't it? Don't forget to mention the way the Islamesez treat women too...always goes down a treat.

Why two states? The land was entirely Arabic before the UN plan.

by what definition? As I said if we go back to the original occupiers, it is very much jewish, as they were there long before there was such a thing as a muslim.

Though I am foul mouthed, harsh, sarcastic and unpleasant, I do appreciate honesty. It was 7-8% of the total area by 1946/7. This was compiled by the committee that proposed the (rejected by the Arabs) UN plan, and was part of a very detailed, large, survey. Somebody here had a map with the details portrayed in coloured sections on it, but I forgot to keep a link You may check it but you'll often find it mentioned in acres/dunums to make it sound larger than it is. Just divide it by the total area given for the mandate and you'll get somewhere between 7 and 8%, depending where you get the figure.

Not exactly what you'd expect, the way some go on, is it?

Ah. Yeah, I read 110,000 acres or some similar figure, and I wasn't entirely sure what the acres-square kilometres conversion factor was (and have no idea how much an acre is, being hopelessly stuck in the outdated SI system), so I just assumed it was a lot. According to Google it's actually around 440 km^2 whereas Israel's current area is 20,330 km^2 and its 1946-7 area was around a third of that. I suppose I have been roundly PWNT. The seppuku will be in order as usual... Jeeves! My sword!

*cough*

At any rate: The Zionist movement did not actually purchase that much land. Therefore, Jews did occupy Israel in a slightly questionable manner, akin to a peaceful invasion. The Arabs fought back; however, in the subsequent battle Israel took control over the area it was anyway supposed to have according to the UN mandate, as well as some other places; further holdings were added in the 60s and 70s.

So Israel is not exactly a fountain of moral justice and liberty, having effectively invaded the area it now controls, with that control originally granted by another, unrelated governing body (the United Nations). At this stage, you can either be an internationalist -- in which case Israel is legit because the UN said so -- or a non-internationalist, in which case Israel is legit because it subsequenty fought for its land.

I, still, don't see the objection.

I like the way you just keep throwing crap and avoid any type of discussion. It helps cover the holes in the plot doesn't it? Don't forget to mention the way the Islamesez treat women too...always goes down a treat.

Exactly! Who would want to live that way? In anycase, I've done plenty of discussion on this topic here. Get's boring going over the same crap and pointless when you're arguing that terrorist tactics are justifiable. More fun to throw in a few sarcastic comments.

And some people do know, and don't use it as justification. *puts up hand*
I don't see how it's a post expulsion legal device if the purchases took place before the war in 48. .

Well as only 7% or so was purchased before 1947 and the expulsion...


Also, the term "expulsion" is questionable. Most, not all, of the arabs in Israel's current territory fled, expecting to return in due course. Surprise - they lost. Others were forcibly expulsed. It has never been clear in what proportions.

A statement that always flew in the face of the fact that if they couldnt organise a coherent resistance, the odds of them organising a mass migration were similarily flawed. However Benny Morris, in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem" does a village by village count, and shows that the overwhelming majority fled because of Israeli action, direct or indirect, and that the organised flight idea was a myth. He also says the expulsions were justified by the way but thats another story.

Just as Jewish civilians are weapons. Once more, defending one's home is never terrorism.

Now I know you are crazy. The only way the Israeli civilians get turned into weapons is when they are in a military uniform defending their country from Palestinian terrorists.

Why two states? The land was entirely Arabic before the UN plan.

And the land was entirely Jewish before the Arabs showed up.

And entirely Phoenician before the Jews showed up.

And entirely Cro-Magnon before that, and Neanderthal, and Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, and possibly even a few Australopitheci africani....

:rolleyes:

Well as only 7% or so was purchased before 1947 and the expulsion...Right. So the purchases can be used to legally justify 7-8% (2 million out of 26 million dunams). The rest has 'legitimacy' from the UN partition plan and the subsequent wars. If you want to talk about 'jutification' at all. I prefer to talk about reality.A statement that always flew in the face of the fact that if they couldnt organise a coherent resistance, the odds of them organising a mass migration were similarily flawed. However Benny Morris, in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem" does a village by village count, and shows that the overwhelming majority fled because of Israeli action, direct or indirect, and that the organised flight idea was a myth. He also says the expulsions were justified by the way but thats another story.
Flight is distinct from expulsion. Obviously those that flew did so because of the Israeli action. Those that did not flee remain in Israel until today as citizens. So clearly there wasn't expulsion in all cases, and the fleeing that did occur was largely not coerced.

And the land was entirely Jewish before the Arabs showed up.

And entirely Phoenician before the Jews showed up.

And entirely Cro-Magnon before that, and Neanderthal, and Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, and possibly even a few Australopitheci africani....

:rolleyes:

I tried that line of argument, and Beleriand couldn't understand it.

So what is your suggestion? To give up everything just to make the Jewish invaders happy? To give up history and family heritage? To accept displacement?
And save that Abraham shit for someone else.

Or agreed to the accords that would have given them about 95% of the land back that Yasar Arafat turned down.

Your cheap hint on the word 'Palestinian' means nothing. It's about the humans, not the name they go by. They are Palestinian Arabs and they have the right to defend their home land.

They never had a homeland. :rolleyes:

Ah. Yeah, I read 110,000 acres or some similar figure, and I wasn't entirely sure what the acres-square kilometres conversion factor was (and have no idea how much an acre is, being hopelessly stuck in the outdated SI system), so I just assumed it was a lot. According to Google it's actually around 440 km^2 whereas Israel's current area is 20,330 km^2 and its 1946-7 area was around a third of that. I suppose I have been roundly PWNT. The seppuku will be in order as usual... Jeeves! My sword!.

No, its messy. Besides if you're American you'll be able to find a gun quicker than a sword, I presume.

*cough*

At any rate: The Zionist movement did not actually purchase that much land. Therefore, Jews did occupy Israel in a slightly questionable manner, akin to a peaceful invasion. !.

No, the real problems started in 1947.


The Arabs fought back; however, in the subsequent battle Israel took control over the area it was anyway supposed to have according to the UN mandate, as well as some other places; further holdings were added in the 60s and 70s.
!.


It ethnically cleansed the areas gained 1947 and started colonies in the areas outside its borders, yes.


So Israel is not exactly a fountain of moral justice and liberty, having effectively invaded the area it now controls, with that control originally granted by another, unrelated governing body (the United Nations). At this stage, you can either be an internationalist -- in which case Israel is legit because the UN said so -- or a non-internationalist, in which case Israel is legit because it subsequenty fought for its land.!.

The pre-1967 borders are "legit". The occupation? No.


I, still, don't see the objection.

There is an Israeli state. There is no need to settle a bunch of fantatics amongst the descendants of those they expelled in the 40's. Its colonialism, unjustified and wrong.

There is no way to live together without returning to the Palestinian Arabs what is theirs. Let all those in all the refugee camps around "Israel" return to their families' lands.

BTW save your Abraham shit for someone else. we are talking about the plight of Palestinian Arabs, not some fabricated biblical history so much used by Jews and Christians.

Except that according to the Muslim faith, they share the same relative of Abraham so you cannot ignore that fact regardless how much you want to you racist pig.

It's about the people, the individuals, the humans. What do you want with a 'Palestinian nation' ? What does 'nation' matter for someone who is forced out of his house and land? Are Palestinian Arabs lesser because there is no 'Palestinian nation' ? Have they a lesser right to dwell in their ancestral home? 'Nation' is a weird European concept.

Stop spouting crap and answer his question. It is obvious now that you have no answer.

Why? It won those territories in warfare. If the nations from which it won them want them back, they should fight for them too.

/2¢

Or negotiate like the Jordanians and the Egyptians did. The Egyptians even got land back.

Right. So the purchases can be used to legally justify 7-8% (2 million out of 26 million dunams). The rest has 'legitimacy' from the UN partition plan and the subsequent wars. If you want to talk about 'jutification' at all. I prefer to talk about reality.
Flight is distinct from expulsion. Obviously those that flew did so because of the Israeli action. Those that did not flee remain in Israel until today as citizens. So clearly there wasn't expulsion in all cases, and the fleeing that did occur was largely not coerced.


Jaffa alone saw the expulsion 50,000 on direct order by Begin, as he admits in his Biography. Haifa was empted by units of the Haggannah of 35,000. Etc and so on.

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion." (Ben Gurion, from Erezt Yisrael)

"The possibility of large-scale transfer of a population by force was demonstrated, when the Greeks and the Turks were transferred [after WW I]. In the present war [referring to WW II] the idea of transferring a population is gaining more sympathy as a practical and the most secure means of solving the dangerous and painful problem of national minorities" (Ben Gurion, 1944)

"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Ben Burion, Feb 7, 1948)

No, its messy. Besides if you're American you'll be able to find a gun quicker than a sword, I presume.

*cough*
Yes but I actually have a sword, whereas the nearest gun shop is several miles away and requires a licence and a few hundred bucks, neither of which I have.

*cough*


No, the real problems started in 1947.

Jews were already settling by then, and had been since the 1920s or earlier.

It ethnically cleansed the areas gained 1947
According to the CIA, around 276,000 Arabs have been displaced, which would imply expulsion. That means that the rest of them either left of their own accord or were killed; likely the former, as I don't think Israel could have covered up mass murder on that scale from the primary intelligence agency of the world's sole remaining superpower.
and started colonies in the areas outside its borders, yes.

Perhaps individual Israelis did do that, but the Israeli government did not. I believe. I'm a little bit shaky on the history, as you may have already gathered.


The pre-1967 borders are "legit". The occupation? No.
The nations Israel fought agreed to let it take over the territories it occupies, admittedly at gunpoint, but nonetheless the fact that Israel conquered those territories in warfare makes Israeli occupation legitimate. If the Arab nations want them back, they should fight for them.


There is an Israeli state. There is no need to settle a bunch of fantatics amongst the descendants of those they expelled in the 40's. Its colonialism, unjustified and wrong.
Actually, most of the fanatics are going there of their own accord. The vast majority of Israeli Jews are moderates, or at least all of the ones I've met have been (I've only seen a very few people in Israel wearing a kipah or tallis or whatever the other symbols of orthodox Judaism are called). It is also the moderates that have been the most unjustifiably persecuted of all Jewish groups. That is, I can see persecuting ultra-orthodox Jewish fanatics if they talk and act like ultra-orthodox Christian or Muslim fanatics these days; but not moderates like many Israelis.

The military personel is only the weapon in the hand of the 'civilians'. They pay for it and they elect the government that sends it against Arabs.

And the arabs spend money on training suicide bombers and paying the famililes of those who blow themselves up. You cannot go around attacking civilians. It is illegal and deserves punishment. Your argument has no weight if you advocate the killing of civilians.

Why two states? The land was entirely Arabic before the UN plan.

so you do not know about the UN Resolution that would have established 2 states and have made Jerusalem (important to all three faiths involved here) an international city? Goes to show you are ignorant of history.

And the arabs spend money on training suicide bombers and paying the famililes of those who blow themselves up. You cannot go around attacking civilians. It is illegal and deserves punishment. Your argument has no weight if you advocate the killing of civilians.

It also defeats your ultimate purpose. The world cried out against aprtheid. The world cried out against Brittish colonialism in India. Apartheid is gone from South Africa and the Brittish are gone from India. Why? Why is there no similar cry from the world for the rights of the Palestinians? Could it be that their tactics are so reprehensible that people just don't feel good about supporting them? I wonder what would happen if the Palestinians decided to fight the way Mandela and Ghandi did. It would probably take a while for everyone to forget about the Palestinians sending teenagers into Isreal with bombs strapped to their chests and blowing up buses, but after a while they would. How might the world react to the situation then?

Yes but I actually have a sword, whereas the nearest gun shop is several miles away and requires a licence and a few hundred bucks, neither of which I have..

If your sword cost less than a few hundred, you'll be in for a painful death...or 'more painful'...anyhoo....


Jews were already settling by then, and had been since the 1920s or earlier.
..

But were not forcing Arabs out at gunpoint. Not that they got on either....


According to the CIA, around 276,000 Arabs have been displaced, which would imply expulsion. That means that the rest of them either left of their own accord or were killed; likely the former, as I don't think Israel could have covered up mass murder on that scale from the primary intelligence agency of the world's sole remaining superpower..

I never meant to imply that they were killed, but they were forced out because they were Arab. See my earlier post to K. for more detail. The figure is disputed by the way, and theres enough disputed figures here to g with for the moment.


Perhaps individual Israelis did do that, but the Israeli government did not. I believe. I'm a little bit shaky on the history, as you may have already gathered...

A few hundred thousand "individual" Israelis with either direct or illicit Goverment support. Some bought land, some "bought land" accompanied by men with guns, and land was stolen. 40% in fact.


The nations Israel fought agreed to let it take over the territories it occupies, admittedly at gunpoint, but nonetheless the fact that Israel conquered those territories in warfare makes Israeli occupation legitimate. If the Arab nations want them back, they should fight for them....

No, Jordan ceded all rights to the West Bank to the Palestinians and the Egyptians did the same re Gaza. You mayt of course check.



Actually, most of the fanatics are going there of their own accord. The vast majority of Israeli Jews are moderates, or at least all of the ones I've met have been (I've only seen a very few people in Israel wearing a kipah or tallis or whatever the other symbols of orthodox Judaism are called). It is also the moderates that have been the most unjustifiably persecuted of all Jewish groups. That is, I can see persecuting ultra-orthodox Jewish fanatics if they talk and act like ultra-orthodox Christian or Muslim fanatics these days; but not moderates like many Israelis.

When I'm talking about 'filling the area with fanatics', I'm talking about the occupied territories and settlements, not Israel or the average Israeli.

I wonder what would happen if the Palestinians decided to fight the way Mandela and Ghandi did.

Nelson never renounced or condemned armed struggle......

Nelson never renounced or condemned armed struggle......

He also never strapped a bomb onto a 15 year old and sent them to blow up a supermarket.

-snip-

As I have to go to class, I'll split from this debate in a moment, but I ought to be back... eventually... someday. See you all later.

(Just a "no, I'm not avoiding the issue, I actually have a life" post.)

He also never strapped a bomb onto a 15 year old and sent them to blow up a supermarket.

No, he just believed in blowing up people and shooting them occassionaly.

Jaffa alone saw the expulsion 50,000 on direct order by Begin, as he admits in his Biography. Haifa was empted by units of the Haggannah of 35,000. Etc and so on.

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion." (Ben Gurion, from Erezt Yisrael)

"The possibility of large-scale transfer of a population by force was demonstrated, when the Greeks and the Turks were transferred [after WW I]. In the present war [referring to WW II] the idea of transferring a population is gaining more sympathy as a practical and the most secure means of solving the dangerous and painful problem of national minorities" (Ben Gurion, 1944)

"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Ben Gurion, Feb 7, 1948)
I certainly agree with your third Ben Gurion quote there. The first two merely demonstrate that Ben Gurion thought about, and may ahve favored expulsion. It doesn't show that it happened. Thankfully, (unless you're a christian, I suppose) we don't get judged for our thoughts, but merely for our actions. The fact that Jaffa and Haifa have large populations of arabs today is obvious proof that there was no complete forceful removal of arabs from those areas. Some were forced out. Others got scared and left. Wars create tension in mixed populations, and private militias with no centralized command (as the infant IDF was in 48) are not consistent or particularly merciful types of armed forces. To call what happened "ethnic cleansing" as you have is in my view a misrepresentation.

No, he just believed in blowing up people and shooting them occassionaly.

I never heard of any incident when he espoused any attack on anyone who wasn't police or armed forces. If you don't see a difference in the Palestinian tactics and the ones used in South Africa, or El Salvador or Nicaragua or Colmbia, for that matter, then you're either blind or being disengenuous. Some armed struggles focus on their actual oppressors. Some focus on any civilian. The truth is that the reason they blow up malls and night clubs is because they hate Jews and don't see them as human.

Both regimes carried out an occupation they deemed as just, but the international community did not

Distinction
- Nazi occupation was purely territorial and first strike based
- Israel's occupation was the result of a conflict in which THEY were attacked first, being vastly outnumbered and outgunned (the US did not sell them arms in 1948, far from it, they put an arms embago on the region)
- Israel has repeadly offered to end the ocupation


Both were racist regimes who operate(d) with a sense of superiority.

Distinction
- The Nazi's were attempting to create a race of pure Aryans through Eugenics
- Israel is not pursuing any eugenics policy
- Isralie citizenship is held by many Arabs, who have often commented that they much prefer being in Israel as they are more used to speeking their own mind


Both committed mass killings and slaughters including of women and children.

You will have to demonstrate that the Isralies commited the same kinds of genocides as the Nazi's for that one. The only example is Dar Yassin and that was not the Isrlaie millitary.


And both are feircely militaristic.

If you are surrounded by unfriendly states what else can you expect.

The Arab sates are far worse with regards to racism, refuisng to let the Jews own any land in their own states, not allowing public practise of non Islamic religions, not allowing a man and a woman who are not married to enter the same hotel room together etc etc.

The first two merely demonstrate that Ben Gurion thought about, and may ahve favored expulsion..

No, he favoured expulsion, first by the British and then, when circumstances changed, by 'Israeli' forces.

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (1937, on the Peel Commission)

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer."(1938)

And later -

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Dec 1947 in an address to the Hagganah)

Another testimony on forced expulsion - Yitzhak Rabin

"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action." (Y Rabin on the expulsions from Ramla and Lydda 10/11th July 1948)



It doesn't show that it happened. Thankfully, (unless you're a christian, I suppose) we don't get judged for our thoughts, but merely for our actions. The fact that Jaffa and Haifa have large populations of arabs today is obvious proof that there was no complete forceful removal of arabs from those areas. ..

I would have thought the presence of a few hundred thousand Palestinian Arab refugees in 1949 would be a convincing proof. I suppose that give your logic that theres Arabs there now could be also be used as an argument that the Jews never left Israel en masse and that white people from Europe have always dwelt in America.

As for "complete" - 3,500 or so Arabs remained in Haifa from a population of 35,000 approx. In Jaffa, about 4,000 were left in one area of the city.


Some were forced out. Others got scared and left. Wars create tension in mixed populations, and private militias with no centralized command (as the infant IDF was in 48) are not consistent or particularly merciful types of armed forces. To call what happened "ethnic cleansing" as you have is in my view a misrepresentation.

Despite the orders clearly specifying expulsion along with seizure, as mentioned above, and incidents as mentioned by Rabin. You might blame some of the excesses of the Irgun or some unit of the Hagganah on the nature of the command structure, but trucks, along the streets of cities, telling people to leave their homes from loud hailers, as happened in Haifa/Jaffa?

i make no great moral judgement on this, given the time and place, but I find it appalling that people try to pretend it didnt happen.

Both regimes carried out an occupation they deemed as just, but the international community did not. Both setup ghettos, roadblocks and curfews for the occupied, those who break curfew get shot in the street with tanks. Both were racist regimes who operate(d) with a sense of superiority. Both committed mass killings and slaughters including of women and children. Both used the holocaust as justification or propaganda for their actions. Both are hated by the international community and invaded their neighbours. And both are feircely militaristic.

Its a very close race but the Nazis haven't been around for 60 years and only lasted around 20. The regime of Israel is still around and has been for 60 years. Its close, but I say Israel takes this one. your thoughts?

The Nazis, of course. With whom the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, among other Moslem leaders, was aligned.

-----

"O Believers! take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the evil doers." Sura 5:56 (Everyman's The Koran, tr. by J.M. Rodwell).

I can't believe that this topic is still alive. To me it's undebateable. In NO way Israel is or can be compared to the Nazis. The Nazis make Saddam look like a saint.

Israel's occupation was the result of a conflict in which THEY were attacked first,That's just not true. The first act of war was when Jews declared statehood in a land they were foreigners in. This was an attack on the rights of Arabs to live in their ancestral land undisturbed by outside forces and a clear attack on their right to self-determination. Arabs were in the majority in all three sections of the UN division plan for Palestine, so there was no reason or legitimacy for the creation of a Jewish state on Arab soil against the expressed will of Arabs. There was never a reason to divide Palestine, or the Middle East for that matter, in the first place.

And the arabs spend money on training suicide bombers and paying the famililes of those who blow themselves up. You cannot go around attacking civilians. It is illegal and deserves punishment. Your argument has no weight if you advocate the killing of civilians.Illegal? So what? Since when is creating a state in a foreign land legal? And dwelling in the land while the original inhabitants dwell in camps and wait to return?
I clearly see what the purpose of your pointless division into military and civilians is: you try to claim that Israeli civilians are innocent. But they aren't. Their very existence and remaining in Palestine (which they have renamed after their assumed ancestor Israel) is an atrocity against the original inhabitants of the land: Arabs. The Israeli military only does the will of the Israelis, so it is they who are to blame and who are the source of the Palestinian Arabs misery. Palestinian Arabs have every right to regain their land. All of their land. By every means they deem necessary. After all it's not their fault, that Jews couldn't get along in Europe (or anywhere else really).

Just imagine: an ordinary Arab family in 1930 or so, with a small house, a garden, and a few acres of land to support the family. How could you possibly expect that this family should give up their home, their land, their lives, their heritage, their friends, etc etc, just to let a bunch of foreigners move in? How?

That's just not true. The first act of war was when Jews declared statehood in a land they were foreigners in. This was an attack on the rights of Arabs to live in their ancestral land undisturbed by outside forces and a clear attack on their right to self-determination. Arabs were in the majority in all three sections of the UN division plan for Palestine, so there was no reason or legitimacy for the creation of a Jewish state on Arab soil against the expressed will of Arabs. There was never a reason to divide Palestine, or the Middle East for that matter, in the first place.

What reason? Because Britain promised the use of that land as a result of Hitler's action. Take it up with Britain.

And once again you talk about the rights of arabs to live in their ancestral land while at the same time utterly ignoring that the jews where there a long time before the arabs.

how do they not have the same right to their ancestral land?

Since when is creating a state in a foreign land legal?

Law is defined by the decisions of the sovereign. If the sovereign nation says "this land is now Israel" then it is legal, by definition, since it was the use of the power of the sovereign.

What reason? Because Britain promised the use of that land as a result of Hitler's action. Take it up with Britain.

And once again you talk about the rights of arabs to live in their ancestral land while at the same time utterly ignoring that the jews where there a long time before the arabs.

how do they not have the same right to their ancestral land?The Britons? They had no right so give away Arab land. It wasn't theirs. They were only supposed to administer it for a time.
Jews weren't in Palestine before Arabs.

Law is defined by the decisions of the sovereign. If the sovereign nation says "this land is now Israel" then it is legal, by definition, since it was the use of the power of the sovereign.What sovereign? And what sovereign nation?

The Britons? They had no right so give away Arab land. It wasn't theirs. They were only supposed to administer it for a time.

Administer it for the United Nations, who approved the creation.

Jews weren't in Palestine before Arabs.

I suggest you learn your history.

What sovereign? And what sovereign nation?

either Great Britain or the United Nations, depending on your perspective. That land belonged to somebody, and it wasn't the Arabs.

either Great Britain or the United Nations, depending on your perspective. That land belonged to somebody, and it wasn't the Arabs.Why not? They lived there.

Jews weren't in Palestine before Arabs.Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Bible, or Torah?

Administer it for the United Nations, who approved the creation.The United Nations had no right to decide anything against the inhabitants of the land.

I suggest you learn your history.I know history.

Why not? They lived there.

Because they were conquered....too bad.

Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Bible, or Torah?Yes. And?

Because they were conquered....too bad.So your justification is the ability to apply force? Well then Arabs have every right to blow up Israelis.

Yes. And?The Jews were clearly living in what is now know as Palestine long before such a thing as an "Arab" existed

That's just not true. The first act of war was when Jews declared statehood in a land they were foreigners in.

Despite having recently been there for over 50 years, and traditionally having been there for over 3000. Check your history


This was an attack on the rights of Arabs to live in their ancestral land undisturbed by outside forces and a clear attack on their right to self-determination.

The Arab's right to self deterimation was granted, as was the right to Jewish self detemination. You cannot grant it to one and not the other, hence the UN decision to create two states, which Israel accepeted dispite being unfair to them, given the population they had in that area.


Arabs were in the majority in all three sections of the UN division plan for Palestine, so there was no reason or legitimacy for the creation of a Jewish state on Arab soil against the expressed will of Arabs. There was never a reason to divide Palestine, or the Middle East for that matter, in the first place.

And the Muslims were a minority in what was India, but they were not in the region of Pakisatan. Hence Pakistan was given up seperately.

The UN estimate at the time of the partition was 583,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs (not all of whom were Muslims)

So your justification is the ability to apply force? Well then Arabs have every right to blow up Israelis.

and, in return, the Israelis have the right to drag the arabs out into the street and shoot them in the head.

Now this won't solve anything, and israel is there, and not going away, so the two parties can continue killing each other until they're all dead...or they can make the best of the situation as it is.

Which is the whole point. Israel isn't going anywhere. It's past may be bloody, it's creation may be somewhat suspect, but it's here, and it's not going away, no matter how many palestinians blow themselves and others away.

So the palestinians can continue to reign terrorism, and die, or they can make peace.

The Jews are clearly living in what is now know as Palestine long before such a thing a an "Arab" existedWhen Jews came into existence, i.e. when the remnant of Israelites (a group distinguishing themselves from other Hebrews by their religion and assumed history) returned from the "Babylonian Exile", they never again were in the majority of the population.

When Jews came into existence, i.e. when the remnant of Israelites (a group distinguishing themselves from other Hebrews by their religion and assumed history) returned from the "Babylonian Exile", they never again were in the majority of the population.

oh, so now it matters who was in the majority? What happened to ancestral homeland? What happened to "history"?

Oh, that's right, because if you go down that line you'd have to recognize that jews have an equal, if not greater ancestral claim.

and, in return, the Israelis have the right to drag the arabs out into the street and shoot them in the head.

Now this won't solve anything, and israel is there, and not going away, so the two parties can continue killing each other until they're all dead...or they can make the best of the situation as it is.

Which is the whole point. Israel isn't going anywhere. It's past may be bloody, it's creation may be somewhat suspect, but it's here, and it's not going away, no matter how many palestinians blow themselves and others away.

So the palestinians can continue to reign terrorism, and die, or they can make peace.But the point is that Israelis can't make peace. Well, in fact they can, but only their peace, i.e. the continuation and extension of the occupation.

Why not? They lived there.

And guess what, they were invited to live there again. Imidately after the 1948 war, Israel offered return to those who left during the conflict under three conditions

- they became Isralie citizens
- they renounced viloence
- they became peaceful and productive citizens of Israel

and 150,000 Arabs took up that offer, which is why we now have a large Israelie Arab population in Israel, who much prefer Israel as there they have the right to speek their mind, unlike in the Arab nations around

But the point is that Israelis can't make peace. Well, in fact they can, but only their peace, i.e. the continuation and extension of the occupation.

How would you then explain the fact that in 2000 the Palesitinas were offered 95% of the West bank, all of Gaza and East Jerusalem in exchange for peace and the return but they refused.

But the point is that Israelis can't make peace. Well, in fact they can, but only their peace, i.e. the continuation and extension of the occupation.

well, they're the ones with the guns. And the palestinians can live with that fact, or die by it.

WHen palestinians attempt to make peace and Israel still continues to treat them unfairly, I'll care about their plight. But as long as a palestinian continues to entertain the thought about blowing up a whole group of innocent people, I just can't bring myself to shed a tear when he gets a bullet through his face.

oh, so now it matters who was in the majority? What happened to ancestral homeland? What happened to "history"?

Oh, that's right, because if you go down that line you'd have to recognize that jews have an equal, if not greater ancestral claim.No they haven't. Why would they? As I said before, Jews made up only 5 to 10 percent of the population of Palestine since ancient times. There was no reason to ever change that. Jews who have been living in Europe for the best part of two millennia cannot claim Palestine as their ancestral home, while those who have always been living there can.

well, they're the ones with the guns. And the palestinians can live with that fact, or die by it.

WHen palestinians attempt to make peace and Israel still continues to treat them unfairly, I'll care about their plight. But as long as a palestinian continues to entertain the thought about blowing up a whole group of innocent people, I just can't bring myself to shed a tear when he gets a bullet through his face.You are the ones with the guns. And Israelis are never innocent. Their very existence is an act of war against the Arabs.

You are the ones with the guns. And Israelis are never innocent. Their very existence is an act of war against the Arabs.

I'm american asswipe, not israeli. I admit ISRAEL is the one with the guns, they're the ones with the army, they're the ones with the force.

So they're the ones with the power. And again when the palestinians stop their terrorism and talk peace, I'll begin to care about how they're treated.

Until then, I really can't bring myself to shed a tear for the poor poor terrorists.

They support peace they support disarmament they get their land. They support terrorism they get a bullet to the face.

Simple equation.

I'm american asswipe, not israeli. I admit ISRAEL is the one with the guns, they're the ones with the army, they're the ones with the force.

So they're the ones with the power. And again when the palestinians stop their terrorism and talk peace, I'll begin to care about how they're treated.

Until then, I really can't bring myself to shed a tear for the poor poor terrorists.

They support peace they support disarmament they get their land. They support terrorism they get a bullet to the face.

Simple equation.Israelis/Jews started the war. Palestinians only defend themselves and their home land. Let the Jews go back to where they came from, and Palestinians will make peace. Until then I view every dead Israeli as one step closer to justice.

You are the ones with the guns. And Israelis are never innocent. Their very existence is an act of war against the Arabs.

Now you show your true coulors. Isralies are all the enemy to you. Civilian or soldier, you dont care. Whose the real racist here.

There are rules to war. And one of those rules is you do not intentionally kill civilains. That isnt war, that is terrorism. Isralies yes may be the IDF, but they may also be students, office workers, mothers, teachers, au pairs, businessmen, bankers, doctors etc. They are not involved in the conflict, they are innocent.

The IDF arnt like the Palestian terrorists. The people they are trying to kill are the people that are trying to kill their population. Civilians are also killed but thats to be expected when the terrorists try to hide among them so the Isralies wont target them. But it doesnt work the other way around. The IDF wear uniforms, have bases, are out in the open. If the terrorists were really freedom fighters they would be killing those that opress them only, IE the IDF, but they dont, they kill civilains.

Have you ever read the Qu'ran, Bible, or Torah?After the Bible, Esau is Jacobs OLDER brother.

Israelis/Jews started the war. Palestinians only defend themselves and their home land. Let the Jews go back to where they came from, and Palestinians will make peace. Until then I view every dead Israeli as one step closer to justice.

No, the Arab states started the war. By attacking a state that had done nothing to them

Israel imideately after said war offered to let the Palestians return. But did they all. No. Some did, 150,000 roughly, but not all. It is not Israels fault if people did not accept their offer

Israel has offered peace many times. They offered the entire of Gaza, 95% of the West bank and east Jerusalem in 2000, but it was rejected.

If the only peace that you will accept is the death of every last Isralie, then I suggest that it is you who is the racist, and you will have to accept a great deal more Arab deaths. If your concern is for life, rather than which nation is which, then peace now would be the best thing. The Paleistinas continually rejecting peace isnt getting them anywhere. Israel will not give them more land now. To do so would show that terrorism gives better results than negotaition, which should not be, and is not true. Thus it will not happen

You want your state, you have it. It and the lakes of Isralie and Arab blood it will take to forge. I personally want peace, with a barren lakebed.

Now you show your true coulors. Isralies are all the enemy to you. Civilian or soldier, you dont care. Whose the real racist here.

There are rules to war. And one of those rules is you do not intentionally kill civilains. That isnt war, that is terrorism. Isralies yes may be the IDF, but they may also be students, office workers, mothers, teachers, au pairs, businessmen, bankers, doctors etc. They are not involved in the conflict, they are innocent.

The IDF arnt like the Palestian terrorists. The people they are trying to kill are the people that are trying to kill their population. Civilians are also killed but thats to be expected when the terrorists try to hide among them so the Isralies wont target them. But it doesnt work the other way around. The IDF wear uniforms, have bases, are out in the open. If the terrorists were really freedom fighters they would be killing those that opress them only, IE the IDF, but they dont, they kill civilains.Palestinians are only killing those who oppress them. That's the Israelis. Students, office workers, mothers, teachers, au pairs, businessmen, bankers, doctors etc, they all pay for the military and they elect the governments to use the military to secure the further occupation of a foreign land. They are guilty.

I'm so glad someone had the courage to make these comparisons.

And the Jews may not be commiting the sickest and most twisted of the Nazis atrocities, but they commiting atrocities. We cannot allow the way a nation has been persecuted in the past to overshadow or justify their current actions.

The Nazis were worse, yes, but Israel is still *really* bad.

Palestinians are only killing those who oppress them. That's the Israelis. Students, office workers, mothers, teachers, au pairs, businessmen, bankers, doctors etc, they all pay for the military and they elect the governments to use the military to secure the further occupation of a foreign land. They are guilty.

Um. Congratulations, you're officially a terrorist sympathizer. I really hope you die. Have a nice day.

No, the Arab states started the war. By attacking a state that had done nothing to them

Israel imideately after said war offered to let the Palestians return. But did they all. No. Some did, 150,000 roughly, but not all. It is not Israels fault if people did not accept their offer

Israel has offered peace many times. They offered the entire of Gaza, 95% of the West bank and east Jerusalem in 2000, but it was rejected.

If the only peace that you will accept is the death of every last Isralie, then I suggest that it is you who is the racist, and you will have to accept a great deal more Arab deaths. If your concern is for life, rather than which nation is which, then peace now would be the best thing. The Paleistinas continually rejecting peace isnt getting them anywhere. Israel will not give them more land now. To do so would show that terrorism gives better results than negotaition, which should not be, and is not true. Thus it will not happen

You want your state, you have it. It and the lakes of Isralie and Arab blood it will take to forge. I personally want peace, with a barren lakebed.Jews never wanted peace and they never offered anything seriously. The 2000 proposal was a bad cynical joke. It would have only given the Palestinians autonomy over the hilltops of Samaria, but no water and no infrastructure.

Palestinians are only killing those who oppress them. That's the Israelis. Students, office workers, mothers, teachers, au pairs, businessmen, bankers, doctors etc, they all pay for the military and they elect the governments to use the military to secure the further occupation of a foreign land. They are guilty.

Let's use your logic for a moment. The terrorists are guilty of terrorism. The police are guilty because they do nothing to stop it. And the palestinian people who pay for and support the police are equally guilty.

So by your own logic all the palestinians, every single one of them are guilty of murder. Every single one of them.

And since they are guilty, every single one of them deserves death. Every single one of them deserves to be executed. Israel should just go kill them all.

Every

single

one of them.

All guilty, kill them all. That is the logical extention of your argument. Again you can't have it both way. You want to morally justify the actions of the terrorists? you've given moral justification for the IDF to move into the west bank and slaughter every single one of them, women, children, everything that moves.

What you are advocating is a blood bath, and one the palestinians simply can't win. Israel can if they want to wipe the palestinians from existance, kill them all. And that's exactly what would happen if you got your way.

A full on war will result in one thing and one thing only. The death of palestine.

Palestinians are only killing those who oppress them. That's the Israelis. Students, office workers, mothers, teachers, au pairs, businessmen, bankers, doctors etc, they all pay for the military and they elect the governments to use the military to secure the further occupation of a foreign land. They are guilty.

No, they are not. The ones who are guilty, if there are any, are the government and the millitary. They and they alone are the ones taking the active decisions to enforce what you are talking about.

You want to pull the "Civilains pay for the army, therfore civilains are guilty card" out, then you have to realise that it works both ways. If that were true, then every single Palestinan in the West bank and Gaza would be dead. The Isralies if they adopted your doctrine, are legitamte in any attack on the Palestianin citizenry.

Also, you have to realise, the citizens vote for the government, but they do not support every single action that the government takes. Why do you think there are so many peace rallies in Israel. The citizenry of any population is too diverse for any genralisation like that

You want a war, you want Israel wiped out. How many people will have to die for your blood soaked utopia to come true. What do you care about more? Who controls the land, or those peoples lives.

Um. Congratulations, you're officially a terrorist sympathizer. I really hope you die. Have a nice day.The 'state' of Israel is the terrorist. No-one else.

The 'state' of Israel is the terrorist. No-one else.

And you're a delusional little shit. Might I suggest leaving your mom's basement?

The 'state' of Israel is the terrorist. No-one else.

funny, I thought the person who blew up a night club in jerusalem, miles away from the west bank, and killed people who he never knew, and didn't know him, was the terrorist.

And by your logic, every palestinian deserves to die.

No, they are not. The ones who are guilty, if there are any, are the government and the millitary. They and they alone are the ones taking the active decisions to enforce what you are talking about.

You want to pull the "Civilains pay for the army, therfore civilains are guilty card" out, then you have to realise that it works both ways. If that were true, then every single Palestinan in the West bank and Gaza would be dead. The Isralies if they adopted your doctrine, are legitamte in any attack on the Palestianin citizenry.

Also, you have to realise, the citizens vote for the government, but they do not support every single action that the government takes. Why do you think there are so many peace rallies in Israel. The citizenry of any population is too diverse for any genralisation like that

You want a war, you want Israel wiped out. How many people will have to die for your blood soaked utopia to come true. What do you care about more? Who controls the land, or those peoples lives.It is the population who put the government in charge. Rabin was shot because he didn't do the population's will. And after that the butthole Netanjahu got elected. That's a very clear sign that Israel never intended any peace with anyone. And since? Further Jewish settlement in the West bank, demolition of Palestinian houses, bombardment of the Gaza Strip, erection of a detention wall far inside the West Bank.

funny, I thought the person who blew up a night club in jerusalem, miles away from the west bank, and killed people who he never knew, and didn't know him, was the terrorist.

And by your logic, every palestinian deserves to die.You thought wrong. Blowing up Israelis isn't terrorism, it's removing invaders, occupiers, oppressors.

You thought wrong. Blowing up Israelis isn't terrorism, it's removing invaders, occupiers, oppressors.

the world doesn't work in your sick, delusionary reality. Intentionally targeting civilians is terrorism.

Period.

it doesn't matter who you are.