NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, well, fuck it. They're there now. Who's going to move them? Nobody. Best resolution to the problem is to establish workable borders and get on with the business of running their countries. Or we could go on with Palestinians launching rockets and blowing themselves up followed by Israeli tanks and planes punishing the Palestinians and let the corpses pile up.Fuck it? So you admit but ignore the initial evil? I don't.

Fuck it? So you admit but ignore the initial evil? I don't.

One man's evil is another man's good. You see it as justified when Palestinians kill Israeli teenagers, so you're no better than me. You're just less in touch with reality. Say, when did they equip those padded cells with internet connections?

well if Israel was traditionally jewish land, with arabs living on it at the time....

That would make the ARABS the invaders, no?No. Arabs were already there. All they did was remain when the Jews left. Palestine was never traditionally "Jewish land". Jews were only living in the land alongside many others.

One man's evil is another man's good. You see it as justified when Palestinians kill Israeli teenagers, so you're no better than me. You're just less in touch with reality. Say, when did they equip those padded cells with internet connections?There is a difference between us. You're on the aggressors' side.

No. Arabs were already there. All they did was remain when the Jews left. Palestine was never traditionally "Jewish land". Jews were only living in the land alongside many others.

More disconnect from Reality. Newsflash: Not all Jews left their ancestrial land. And Palestine was not called that until after the Jewish uprising of 70 A.D. It is primarily Jewish land more so than it is your so called "palestinian land"

There is a difference between us. You're on the aggressors' side.

And yet, you are also on the aggressors side for wanting the violence to continue against Israel who wants to live in peace with their neighbors.

There is a difference between us. You're on the aggressors' side.

Yeah, there is a difference. You're on the terrorist's side and you're delusional. I'm curious about something. You seem blindly idealistic. You strike me as someone who doesn't have to deal with reality. Are you a college kid using up mommy and daddy's money? This is a serious question.

More disconnect from Reality. Newsflash: Not all Jews left their ancestrial land. And Palestine was not called that until after the Jewish uprising of 70 A.D. It is primarily Jewish land more so than it is your so called "palestinian land"

If you want to get pedantic about it, it was Caananite land (or whatever the hell they were called). Teh J00h's were the invaders too!?!1!1

See why I find this thought process bullshit now?

thats a very good poin. but i think ethiopia is technically the rastafarian homeland.Rastafarianism didn't originate in Ethiopia. Ethiopians are almost entirely Ethiopian Orthodox, except for a few Falasha Jews. Rastafarianism was inspired by a Jamaican, Marcus Garvey.

You need to be more discriminating about where you get your information. The world press is very anti-Israel, so most information you recive about Israel (wether it's in a school room or in a news report) is going to paint them in a negative light, and their enemies as tragic, desperate, freedom fighters.

If Israel takes some mesures that we veiw to be extreme, just remember that this is a nation that has been under constant attack since it's inception. It is a place where a suicide bomber may end your life at any moment.

I don't think we, from our relatively peaceful position are capeable of fully understanding the mentality of a war-weary nation under seige, threatened with distruction on all sides, who is attacked almost daily by their enemies.

To compare them to the nazis shows both an ignorance of their situation, and a deploreable lack of empathy.more discriminating about info? has it not occurred to you that maybe the rest of the world has it right and it's you who are uninformed?

You say Israel is under attack, from whom? You forget it's the Palestinians land that is under a foreign occupation, when have the rules of warfare been changed that disallows an occupied people to fight back anyway they can to repel a brutal military occupation? It's not a matter of attack but of self-defense for the Palestinians, classifying the Palestinians as the aggressors is as ludicrous as saying the resistance of occupied countries during WW2 were the aggressors and not the Nazi's.

Suicide bombs-an unfortunate method but what choice have they been left, brutal conditions breed brutal reactions. Almost every Israeli between 18-45 are military personnel therefore legitimate targets, it's sad there innocent collateral damage but Israeli's care nothing about collateral damage when they fire rockets into civilian homes. Check the stats you'll find find far more innocent Palestians getting killed than Israeli's.

No. Arabs were already there. All they did was remain when the Jews left. Palestine was never traditionally "Jewish land". Jews were only living in the land alongside many others.

No, that region was never traditionally Arab land. Why do you think it was renamed. Let me remind you, to disacoiate it from JEWISH identity. It was called Jeudea. It was the Jews who built the region to what it is now.

If you want to get pedantic about it, it was Caananite land (or whatever the hell they were called). Teh J00h's were the invaders too!?!1!1

See why I find this thought process bullshit now?

Spell Jews correctly please!

And if you have followed what I was saying, the jews were not there first either.

People on this board have laughed at me when I have stated that NS is full of anti-semites. I think this thread does a very good job of proving me right.

Yeah, there is a difference. You're on the terrorist's side and you're delusional. I'm curious about something. You seem blindly idealistic. You strike me as someone who doesn't have to deal with reality. Are you a college kid using up mommy and daddy's money? This is a serious question.Palestinians are no terrorists. And I am not blindly idealistic, I just - unlike you - don't accept injustice, such the implantation of a Jewish state in the Middle East clearly is.

Spell Jews correctly please!

:D I did it on purpose. "teh ebil j00h's!11!!!"

And if you have followed what I was saying, the jews were not there first either.

Honestly, I haven't. I didn't bother reading the entire thread (again). But, yes, I am agreeing with you also.

People on this board have laughed at me when I have stated that NS is full of anti-semites. I think this thread does a very good job of proving me right.

I see one or two. Not that many given the population of this board.

more discriminating about info? has it not occurred to you that maybe the rest of the world has it right and it's you who are uninformed?

You say Israel is under attack, from whom? You forget it's the Palestinians land that is under a foreign occupation, when have the rules of warfare been changed that disallows an occupied people to fight back anyway they can to repel a brutal military occupation? It's not a matter of attack but of self-defense for the Palestinians, classifying the Palestinians as the aggressors is as ludicrous as saying the resistance of occupied countries during WW2 were the aggressors and not the Nazi's.

Suicide bombs-an unfortunate method but what choice have they been left, brutal conditions breed brutal reactions. Almost every Israeli between 18-45 are military personnel therefore legitimate targets, it's sad there innocent collateral damage but Israeli's care nothing about collateral damage when they fire rockets into civilian homes. Check the stats you'll find find far more innocent Palestians getting killed than Israeli's.

If the Israelis wanted to inflict collateral damage they could wipe out entire Palestinian neighborhoods instead of firing one rocket into one car or building where there are terrorists. Israel has shown quite a bit of restraint. Also the Palestinian casualty reports have been shown to be inflated. They play the media to get sympathy.

Palestinians are no terrorists.

They are if they go around blowing up civilians at Malls and nightclubs on purpose.

And I am not blindly idealistic,

Yes you are.

Palestinians are no terrorists. And I am not blindly idealistic, I just - unlike you - don't accept injustice, such the implantation of a Jewish state in the Middle East clearly is.

Yeah, whatever. You keep the dream of destroying Israel alive and see how much Palestinian blood spills because of it. Hey, it's moisture and fertilizer. Maybe someday when Israel gets fed up and wipes out the Palestinians their legacy will be fertile green fields.

People on this board have laughed at me when I have stated that NS is full of anti-semites. I think this thread does a very good job of proving me right.Anti-Semites? Well, I am pro-Semitic, I am on the Arab side.

I think it is safe to conclude that most of the anti-Zionists on this board are morons. (not all, but most)

Let me clear up a few things:


Zionism is simply the support of the idea of Israel
Israel is NOT a theocracy. Most of the Jews who live there are secularists. Israel doesn't discriminate against it's gays or women and the Arab population has more rights in Israel than they have in Saudi Arabia
The United Nations created the State of Israel, not the US. There was no invasion by the Jews. They immigrated to the land and sought partition once the Arabs started to attack them.
The "Palestinian" lands lost were lost in a war that they themselves started.
The land lost in 1967 wasn't even Palestinian. It was Jordanian and Egyptian. Even when under Arab rule, there was no such thing as Palestine.
The Jews haven't forced the Palestinians into ghettos. They are in refug camps because the Egyptians and Jordanians put them there to use as pawns in their war against Israel.
There is no genocide against the Palestinians. If there were, there would not be any left.

Palestinians are no terrorists. And I am not blindly idealistic, I just - unlike you - don't accept injustice, such the implantation of a Jewish state in the Middle East clearly is.

Palestinian chicks
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i261/exforcesuk/woman_gun_kids.jpg

Israeli chicks

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/csite/6.jpg

They are if they go around blowing up civilians at Malls and nightclubs on purpose.They only retaliate against those who dwell on their land on purpose.

Yes you are.No.

Anti-Semites? Well, I am pro-Semitic, I am on the Arab side.

LOL

That argument is flawed. While Arabs are semites, the term anti-semite specifically refers to Jews and not Arabs.

See Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semite

BTW, I love the Garak quote, but he does have better ones.

I would like to remind you (everyone) that there are rules pertaining to proper argument and debate. These rules are collectively known as logic. To deviate from these rules invalidates your entire argument.


Thank you for your time.....carry on.

They only retaliate against those who dwell on their land on purpose.

It was never there land which is what you can not get through your head.

No.

Yes.

If the Israelis wanted to inflict collateral damage they could wipe out entire Palestinian neighborhoods instead of firing one rocket into one car or building where there are terrorists. Israel has shown quite a bit of restraint. Also the Palestinian casualty reports have been shown to be inflated. They play the media to get sympathy.
if you want to comment on my post direct towards the heart of the matter. HOW can a people living under a military occupation of a foreign country be guilty of aggression? How do resistance fighters become reclassified as terrorists? Trivia fact, The Nazi's called resistance fighters in occupied countries ..... "terrorists".

They only retaliate against those who dwell on their land on purpose.

No.

You need to get a sense of reality.

The Palestinians were attacking the Jews long before Israel was established. I'm sure they were just doing it because of the occupation, right?:rolleyes:

It was never there land which is what you can not get through your head.It was their land. The British were only there to administer it for a time after the Turks were thrown out and then return the land to the Arabs. But then the Jews sneaked in.

HOW can a people living under a military occupation of a foreign country be guilty of aggression? How do resistance fighters become reclassified as terrorists?

By targeting civilians on purpose, you are no longer classified as a resistence fighter but as a terrorist.

Trivia fact, The Nazi's called resistance fighters in occupied countries ..... "terrorists".

That is true but the difference there is, most of the resistence fighters went after the Nazis themselves and not civilians. Not saying that there was not some intentional targeting of civlians thought.

if you want to comment on my post direct towards the heart of the matter. HOW can a people living under a military occupation of a foreign country be guilty of aggression? How do resistance fighters become reclassified as terrorists? Trivia fact, The Nazi's called resistance fighters in occupied countries ..... "terrorists".

When your Resistance is doomed to failure, as the Palestinian one is, it's just killing for the sake of killing. The Palestinians won't eliminate Israel. They only succeed in making life harder for themselves and getting people on both sides killed. If that's not terrorism then at least it's insanity or deep stupidity.

The only future for Palestine is to stop the violence and negotiate for more land on which to build a viable state. They need to get to work building something to live for rather than embracing death.

Umm, the Nazis?

As far as I know, there aren't any Israelis rounding up Palestinians, starving them, executing them, and cremating them in concentration camps. And, I don't think there are any Israelis experimenting on Palestinian children or subjecting their women to torture and rape by solidiers.

And, AFAIK, the Jews in Germany didn't send nutjob fanatics with bombs strapped to their chests to blow up schools and restaurants. There is absolutely no comparison, because by this logic every country in the Middle East, and indeed the entire world, is comparable to the Nazi regime.


I definately agree, and add that the question is an insult to every Jew that ever lived.

You need to get a sense of reality.

The Palestinians were attacking the Jews long before Israel was established. I'm sure they were just doing it because of the occupation, right?:rolleyes:You rather mean Jews were attacking Arabs and wiping out their villages long before Israel was established.

You rather mean Jews were attacking Arabs and wiping out their villages long before Israel was established.

In 1927? Nope, it was the Arabs killing Jews.

You rather mean Jews were attacking Arabs and wiping out their villages long before Israel was established.

In the 1920s Arabs would riot, kill and rape Jews in "palestine". But you go on ahead and believe in your delusions.

I think it is safe to conclude that most of the anti-Zionists on this board are morons. (not all, but most)

Let me clear up a few things:


Zionism is simply the support of the idea of Israel
Yes, but the issue that people have problem with is how that idea is obtained.

Israel is NOT a theocracy. Most of the Jews who live there are secularists. Israel doesn't discriminate against it's gays or women and the Arab population has more rights in Israel than they have in Saudi Arabia
Yes, it does. For example the recent Gay Pride march that wa forced off the streets and into a football stadium instead because of the vocal pressure from Orthodox fuckheads.

The United Nations created the State of Israel, not the US. There was no invasion by the Jews. They immigrated to the land and sought partition once the Arabs started to attack them.
That's a matter of opinion.

The "Palestinian" lands lost were lost in a war that they themselves started.
And? Land captured in war is illegal- whether you started it or not. Remember WWI? That kinda pissed off a whole nation until 20 years later...

The land lost in 1967 wasn't even Palestinian. It was Jordanian and Egyptian. Even when under Arab rule, there was no such thing as Palestine. You're right. There is such as thing as a Palestinian today however.

The Jews haven't forced the Palestinians into ghettos. They are in refug camps because the Egyptians and Jordanians put them there to use as pawns in their war against Israel.
Again, a matter of opinion.

There is no genocide against the Palestinians. If there were, there would not be any left.

NNGGG. By your definiton - there was no genocide against the Jews during the Second World War then.

genocide [?d?en?said] noun
the deliberate killing of a race of people

genocide

n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

You rather mean Jews were attacking Arabs and wiping out their villages long before Israel was established.

Oh yes and the Arabs are completely innocent aren't they :rolleyes:

It was their land. The British were only there to administer it for a time after the Turks were thrown out and then return the land to the Arabs.

And before the Turks were the Persians (again), before that was the Romans, before that was the Greeks, before that was the Persian/medes, before that was the Babylonians who took down the Judea while the Assyrians took down Northern Israel and were later conquered by the Babylonians as well. OOPS. Did I say that the Kingdom of Israel was taken over by two foreign invaders? Why yes I did. BTW: They took over the land from those of the Cannanites who basically no longer exist.

By targeting civilians on purpose, you are no longer classified as a resistence fighter but as a terrorist.There is no such thing as Israeli civilians. They are all an occupying force. Stop pretending there was a division between what the Israeli military does and what Israeli people want.

-snip-

Yeah yeah yeah. :rolleyes: Then someone whips out a picture of Golda Meir and it all goes back to being a retarded 8 year old.

Grow up.

Oh yes and the Arabs are completely innocent aren't they :rolleyes:

Arabs are the brown underdogs. It's the responsibility of every college student who wants to be edgy and radical to see them as completely innocent and to blame any horrible shit they do on the West in general or America and Israel in particular.

The only future for Palestine is to stop the violence and negotiate for more land on which to build a viable state. They need to get to work building something to live for rather than embracing death.

why should they negotiate for what is theirs? If some steals your home or your car do you negotiate for it's return?

And before the Turks were the Persians (again), before that was the Romans, before that was the Greeks, before that was the Persian/medes, before that was the Babylonians who took down the Judea while the Assyrians took down Northern Israel and were later conquered by the Babylonians as well. OOPS. Did I say that the Kingdom of Israel was taken over by two foreign invaders? Why yes I did. BTW: They took over the land from those of the Cannanites who basically no longer exist.What's your point? The only relevant question is who actually lived there when the Turks left.

There is no such thing as Israeli civilians. They are all an occupying force. Stop pretending there was a division between what the Israeli military does and what Israeli people want.

Once again being an apologist for the massacre of women and children.

There is no such thing as Israeli civilians.

Yes there is. A big difference between the two.

Arabs are the brown underdogs. It's the responsibility of every college student who wants to be edgy and radical to see them as completely innocent and to blame any horrible shit they do on the West in general or America and Israel in particular.This is not about finger-pointing. This is about the evil the Jews have (once more) brought to the land between the Jordan and the sea.

why should they negotiate for what is theirs? If some steals your home or your car do you negotiate for it's return?

When you have no other option with any prospect for succeeding, yeah, you do. Either that or do without it.

There is no such thing as Israeli civilians.

Oh there is very much such a thing as an Israeli Civilian. Your hatred is astounding.

They are all an occupying force.

Much like Egypt was in Gaza and Jordan was in the West Bank after the 1948 war. After the 67 war did these areas go to Israel.

Stop pretending there was a division between what the Israeli military does and what Israeli people want.

Why? I will stick with facts while you stick with your dillusions.

why should they negotiate for what is theirs? If some steals your home or your car do you negotiate for it's return?

Who "stole" what again? Who owned the land befire Isreal? Oh, right, the UK. Who abandoned their property when the arabs attacked? Oh, right, the "Palestinians". Who stuck them in camps instead of helping them? Oh, right, the other Arab nations. Who refuses to accept any treaty? Oh, right, the "palestinians".

Once again being an apologist for the massacre of women and children.So why do you not let them into your own home and keep them there? Why should the Palestinian Arabs suffer that?

Yeah, well, fuck it. They're there now. Who's going to move them? Nobody. Best resolution to the problem is to establish workable borders and get on with the business of running their countries. Or we could go on with Palestinians launching rockets and blowing themselves up followed by Israeli tanks and planes punishing the Palestinians and let the corpses pile up.

so i think we are actually in some sort of an agreement. peace is the best option(duh).
however, the anti-israeli side feel it is up to israel to sort out the problem, which they havent been doing.

This is getting repeatative...
Let's agree on the following, we got here several very dogmatic "holier than thou" people who are sitting on their couch in their ivory tower and get their information from secondery sources... and then they rain judgment on people based on half truths....

And just that you know, I was referring to both side (although I'm clearly rooting for the israeli side, as being israeli myself).

But again... this thread purpose isn't really proving who's right or wrong, it exists just for the sake of arguing.

So why do you not let them into your own home and keep them there? Why should the Palestinian Arabs suffer that?

Because they weren't given land next to mine by the UN, nor did I attack them saying they're on my land.

BTW, how many Palestinians are living in your home? Why don't the other arab nations accept the Palestinians? Oh, right, they like having martyrs.

What's your point? The only relevant question is who actually lived there when the Turks left.

The point is, the Jews were there long before the Arabs were there. That is the point.

This is not about finger-pointing. This is about the evil the Jews have (once more) brought to the land between the Jordan and the sea.

I would flame the shit out of you here, but I'm close to being deleted, so I'll let this post go with only this comment. You're supporting murderers and your ideas are getting many people, Israeli and Palestinian killed. Your ideas are holding back Palestinians and condeming them to poverty, suffering and death. I only hope one day that you develop the wisdom to accept the things that cannot be changed and learn to live well in spite of them. I also hope the Palestinians learn to do the same for their own sake.

well if Israel was traditionally jewish land, with arabs living on it at the time....

That would make the ARABS the invaders, no?

looping conversation. thats retarded. the jews became christian, mostly. 300 years later the arabs took. over.

Because they weren't given land next to mine by the UN, nor did I attack them saying they're on my land.

BTW, how many Palestinians are living in your home? Why don't the other arab nations accept the Palestinians? Oh, right, they like having martyrs.Oh, so you would have accepted it if out of the blue the UN had one day decided over your head to give your land away to strangers? As if.

looping conversation. thats retarded. the jews became christian, mostly. 300 years later the arabs took. over.

Your source for this?

Yes there is. A big difference between the two.no there is not-every Israel between 18-45 is a member of their military, there are exceptions for religious or health reasons. That there are innocents getting killed is no different than any other war that has been fought. Israel is no more concerned with collateral damage than the Palestinians.

So why do you not let them into your own home and keep them there? Why should the Palestinian Arabs suffer that?

Why don't you ask that of your Arab friends in the region?

More disconnect from Reality. Newsflash: Not all Jews left their ancestrial land. And Palestine was not called that until after the Jewish uprising of 70 A.D. It is primarily Jewish land more so than it is your so called "palestinian land"

no it got its name before that. about 300bc.

Oh, so you would have accepted it if out of the blue the UN had one day decided over your head to give your land away to strangers? As if.

Who's land was given away? Not the "Palestinians". Who was displaced by the UN? Nobody. Who was displaced by the attacks by other arabs? The "Palestinians".

Why don't you just admit you're an apologist for outright murder of Jews? I guess all those kids killed by the "resistance fighters" are legitimate targets in your world?

Why won't you answer my question? How many Palestinians are in your home? Why won't the other Arab nations accept them?

no it got its name before that. about 300bc.

Source for that please?

BTW, I love the Garak quote, but he does have better ones.

Best Garak quote ever, comes from the best DS9 episode ever. "In the Pale Moonlight", episode 19 of season 6:

That's why you came to me, isn't it, captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you wanted: A war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant, and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain.

This is not about finger-pointing. This is about the evil the Jews have (once more) brought to the land between the Jordan and the sea.

You know I was joking when I said "teh ebil j00h's".

You're just a little nazi is all.

I would flame the shit out of you here, but I'm close to being deleted, so I'll let this post go with only this comment. You're supporting murderers and your ideas are getting many people, Israeli and Palestinian killed. Your ideas are holding back Palestinians and condeming them to poverty, suffering and death. I only hope one day that you develop the wisdom to accept the things that cannot be changed and learn to live well in spite of them. I also hope the Palestinians learn to do the same for their own sake.Your ideas are demanding the acceptance of injustice against Arabs, only because they are in the weaker position. You demand to accept the second conquest of the land at issue by a group of slaughterers who name themselves 'Israel'.

no it got its name before that. about 300bc.

Your source for this?

The region was renamed Syria Palestinia after the 70AD revolt.

Your ideas are demanding the acceptance of injustice against Arabs, only because they are in the weaker position. You demand to accept the second conquest of the land at issue by a group of slaughterers who name themselves 'Israel'.

Do you even know israelis personally?
Or your favourite reading meterial is mein kampf and the protocols of the elders of zion?

Are you a college kid using up mommy and daddy's money? This is a serious question.

this is an example when the clearly wrong side try to use arguements that have nothing to with the topic, inorder to direct the conversation in the wrong direction. very arragant and stuborn people use attacks on aperson to try and discredit their opinion. examples like spelling and grammar. or in this case, people who in college.
this is retard cause its changing topic(again). people who go to college are usually mor educated than people who dont.

Your ideas are demanding the acceptance of injustice against Arabs, only because they are in the weaker position.

Demand? no

Accept the reality that it's that or death? yes.

The fact is there have been injustices on BOTH sides, despite your instance to the contrary. Both sides have done horrible things to the other. And israel isn't going away. The palestinians aren't going away, unless Israel kills them all.

Reality is different than your bloodbath masterbatory fantasies, a lot different. What is needed now is both sides to meet the other. Is it ideal for either one? No. But again, for the palestinians, it's that or death.

Yes, but the issue that people have problem with is how that idea is obtained.
It was attained by legal means

Yes, it does. For example the recent Gay Pride march that wa forced off the streets and into a football stadium instead because of the vocal pressure from Orthodox fuckheads. That was bad, but they still have the right to marry. Tell me one Islamic country that has given that right. Oh yeah, in the Palestinian territories, they would be executed for it.


That's a matter of opinion.That is not a matter of opinion by any stretch of the imagination. The UN created Israel. The US had very little to do with it. They in fact put an embargo on Israel and wouldn't sell weapons.

As for the seeking partition, that really didn't occur until after the multiple attacks by Palestinians on the Kibbutzim. You are very ignorant on this subject.


And? Land captured in war is illegal- whether you started it or not. Remember WWI? That kinda pissed off a whole nation until 20 years later...
Not my problem the Palestinians would rather kill Jews than get a state. They deserve to be in the piss poor shape they are in today. After all, it is their own damn fault for rejecting the 1937 deal, the 1947 partition, trying to continue to make war against the Jews with Fedayeen attacks in the 50s, and rejecting every offer made to them.

You're right. There is such as thing as a Palestinian today however.

No there really isn't. Palestine is an invention from Psykes-Picot (sp)\

Again, a matter of opinion.
You're full of shit and can't comprehend historical fact.

Former Syrian PM Khalid al-Azm wrote the following in his 1972 memoirs:

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave ... We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. ... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. ... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children--all this in the service of political purposes."

NNGGG. By your definiton - there was no genocide against the Jews during the Second World War then.

genocide [?d?en?said] noun
the deliberate killing of a race of people

genocide

n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Once again, you are full of BS here. If the Jews were out to kill the Palestinians, there would be none left after 60 years. THat is especially true given the power of the Israeli military.

Your source for this?

The region was renamed Syria Palestinia after the 70AD revolt.

Does it really matter whether it was either?

I'm sure America wasn't called 'America' by the Amer-Indians that were there before Vespucci. Doesn't change anything.

Your ideas are demanding the acceptance of injustice against Arabs, only because they are in the weaker position. You demand to accept the second conquest of the land at issue by a group of slaughterers who name themselves 'Israel'.

Your "ideas" are demanding the massacre of non-combatants on one side only.

Why don't you ask that of your Arab friends in the region?What? Because there is no reason for any Arab to let foreign Jews into his home.

Your "ideas" are demanding the massacre of non-combatants on one side only.What does non-combatants mean in this respect? Those who sit back and watch what the military they employ does for them?

Your ideas are demanding the acceptance of injustice against Arabs, only because they are in the weaker position. You demand to accept the second conquest of the land at issue by a group of slaughterers who name themselves 'Israel'.

I've said all I need to say to you. It's fucked up that you've put me, ME in a position to be the voice of reason and pragmatism. You're ruining my reputation on this forum by making me challenge your hate mongering vitriol. I seriously do hope that one day you learn to see the difference between what is and what can be as opposed to what you think should be. If not you're going to have a hard, bitter life.

Best Garak quote ever, comes from the best DS9 episode ever. "In the Pale Moonlight", episode 19 of season 6:

That is the best DS9 epsiode ever. I love it because there is no way Picard would've done such a thing.


Here is another good Garak quote
"But the point is, if you lie all the time, nobody's going to believe you, even when you're telling the truth."
"Are you sure that's the point, Doctor?"
"Of course, what else could it be?"
"That you should never tell the same lie twice..."

- Julian Bashir and Elim Garak, on the lesson of The Boy Who Cried Wolf

What? Because there is no reason for any Arab to let foreign Jews into his home.

You know, you're right, I say you strap on a bomb, and try to visit israel... just that you show us how much you believe in your higher justice...

Who "stole" what again? Who owned the land befire Isreal? Oh, right, the UK. Who abandoned their property when the arabs attacked? Oh, right, the "Palestinians". Who stuck them in camps instead of helping them? Oh, right, the other Arab nations. Who refuses to accept any treaty? Oh, right, the "palestinians".abandoned their property? if I move my family out of danger it's abandoning? and you have the right to steal it? I guess I should have gone to New Orleans right after Katrina left I could have gained some prime real estate from those who "abandoned " their property.

Camps-hundreds of thousands of people show up in your country do have housing available? or do you construct camps, why aren't they allowed to return home after the war ends?

Refuse treaties?-unacceptable treaties-what nation would accept an agreement that gives them no control of their borders and airspace, loss of their only natural resource, freedom of movement in their own country, loss of huge tracts of land. That's not a treaty that's enslavement.

this is an example when the clearly wrong side try to use arguements that have nothing to with the topic, inorder to direct the conversation in the wrong direction. very arragant and stuborn people use attacks on aperson to try and discredit their opinion. examples like spelling and grammar. or in this case, people who in college.
this is retard cause its changing topic(again). people who go to college are usually mor educated than people who dont.

No, it was an attempt to find out how anyone could be so blinded by ideology that he's willing to support a lost cause that only ends up getting people killed.

What? Because there is no reason for any Arab to let foreign Jews into his home.

Once again, who owned the land before Isreal? Who displaced the palestinians? Who put them in camps and refuses to accept them?

Answers: UK, Arab nations, Arab nations

I've said all I need to say to you. It's fucked up that you've put me, ME in a position to be the voice of reason and pragmatism. You're ruining my reputation on this forum by making me challenge your hate mongering vitriol. I seriously do hope that one day you learn to see the difference between what is and what can be as opposed to what you think should be. If not you're going to have a hard, bitter life.You are no voice of reason, your just one anti-Arab voice.

You are no voice of reason, your just one anti-Arab voice.

And you are? best joke ever

Once again, who owned the land before Isreal? Who displaced the palestinians? Who put them in camps and refuses to accept them?

Answers: UK, Arab nations, Arab nationsThe UK never owned the land. They were only there to temporarily administer it. The land belongs to those who have lived on it since ancient times.

You are no voice of reason, your just one anti-Arab voice.


So advocating the murder of women and children (which you are) is "reasonable"?

The UK never owned the land. They were only there to temporarily administer it. The land belongs to those who lived on it.

No, they actually owned the land according to the League of Nations.

The UK never owned the land. They were only there to temporarily administer it. The land belongs to those who lived on it.

That's nice that you believe that. So since the jews are living on it now and have been for almost 60 years, that makes the land thiers since whoever owned it before is gone. And since noones land was "taken" in the first place but was abandondoned when the other Arab nations attacked, it's still theirs.

No, they actually owned the land according to the League of Nations.No.

The UK never owned the land. They were only there to temporarily administer it.

Temporarily administer it, for the purposes of establishing a jewish state.

In June 1922 the League of Nations passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home"

They were to temporarily administer it, up to the point of forming Israel. Which is exactly what they did.

You can keep screaming "they were only there to administer it temporarily" but you ignore the fact that one of their principle duties OF that administration was to set up the formation of Israel.

History for you. Afte World War 1, the league of nations (which I erroniously refered to as the UN earlier) created the British Mandate to govern the territories, as well as help bring about specific goal of the league of nations.

One of those goals was the creation of Israel. The british mandate, under which they "temporarily administered" the land, required them to help set up Israel, which they stated their commitment to in the Balfor Declaration of 1917.

The land belongs to those who have lived on it since ancient times.

That land belonged to the Ottoman Empire. The ottoman Empire was defeat in war and collapsed. They were conquered, and the land fell into the hands of the League of Nations, where it remained, until it was given to Israel.

They fought a war, they lost. Concequences of war.

i think idf said there was such a thing as palestine. my country recognises palestine as a country. i met the palestinian ambassador. nice man.

It was attained by legal means
Land by war =/= legal means. See 1967, 1981 for this.

That was bad, but they still have the right to marry. Tell me one Islamic country that has given that right. Oh yeah, in the Palestinian territories, they would be executed for it.
That wasn't your point was it? We're better than Iran? OooHHhh. Well, shit. There's a marker. Here was I thinking you were holding the democracy up against other Western liberal democracies.

That is not a matter of opinion by any stretch of the imagination. The UN created Israel. The US had very little to do with it. They in fact put an embargo on Israel and wouldn't sell weapons.
I wasn't taking about the UN bit. I was talking about the "They immigrated to the land and sought partition once the Arabs started to attack them." bit. That's a matter of opinion- the historical fact is still disputed about that.


Not my problem the Palestinians would rather kill Jews than get a state. They deserve to be in the piss poor shape they are in today. After all, it is their own damn fault for rejecting the 1937 deal, the 1947 partition, trying to continue to make war against the Jews with Fedayeen attacks in the 50s, and rejecting every offer made to them.
Then don't bitch and whine about being hard done by if the state breaks international law all the time. Don't expect sympathy from the international community if they flout the law.

No there really isn't. Palestine is an invention from Psykes-Picot (sp)\
Wow. Then I guess there is no such person as an East Timorese, or a Basque, or a Tibetian.

You're full of shit and can't comprehend historical fact.
Hi. Welcome to an adult debate.

Former Syrian PM Khalid al-Azm wrote the following in his 1972 memoirs:

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave ... We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. ... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. ... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children--all this in the service of political purposes."
Yeah, we can both drag up quotations from both sides (Ben Gurion springs to mind) that attack our points. Where do we end up? Back at the beginning.

Once again, you are full of BS here. If the Jews were out to kill the Palestinians, there would be none left after 60 years.
Right. Because that was exactly my point alright. :rolleyes: Tell me, did you graduate from the school of Corny dodging?

THat is especially true given the power of the Israeli military.
Hah!

No, they actually owned the land according to the League of Nations.

nice twist of logic-British mandate only administered/governed it, the residents owned it, the majority were Palestinians residents.

i think idf said there was such a thing as palestine. my country recognises palestine as a country. i met the palestinian ambassador. nice man.

It sounds like your country is full of morons. Especially since you said earlier everyone in the bars are anti-semitic. You must be proud.

That's nice that you believe that. So since the jews are living on it now and have been for almost 60 years, that makes the land thiers since whoever owned it before is gone. And since noones land was "taken" in the first place but was abandondoned when the other Arab nations attacked, it's still theirs.No-one's land was taken? So Arabs are no-one? You're an anti-Semite.

nice twist of logic-British mandate only administered/governed it, the residents owned it, the majority were Palestinians residents.

And they willfully deserted the land on the order of Syrian and Egyptian Generals to pave the way for their armies. THey just expected to be able to return afterwards because they thought they couldn't lose.

No-one's land was taken? So Arabs are no-one? You're an anti-Semite.

And you need to see the Wizard of Oz to go get a few items. More specifically what the Scarecrow and Tin Man are seeking.

I wonder if people did noticed what happened in last year's summer.... right? oh right... I think that israel evacuated the gaza strip.... yes, that meany meany country has left that strip, and left structures there that cost the tax payer a lot money.... buy why? ooo I know I know... so they'll return and do that again... cause they're eeeeeeeevil... with horns and a pitchfork

Temporarily administer it, for the purposes of establishing a jewish state.Since when was this the purpose? And since it was all against the will of the land's inhabitants, it had no legality whatsoever.

I wonder if people did noticed what happened in last year's summer.... right? oh right... I think that israel evacuated the gaza strip.... yes, that meany meany country has left that strip, and left structures there that cost the tax payer a lot money.... buy why? ooo I know I know... so they'll return and do that again... cause they're eeeeeeeevil... with horns and a pitchforkThe Gaza pullout was merely a political maneuver of the fat man now in a coma to divert the world's attention from the tightening grip on the West Bank.

What? Because there is no reason for any Arab to let foreign Jews into his home.

It is no more their home than it is the Jews home. Why is it that you cannot see that?

The Gaza pullout was merely a political maneuver of the fat man now in a coma to divert the world's attention from the tightening grip on the West Bank.

Riiiiiiiight, the little voice told you that... right? right?

It is no more their home than it is the Jews home. Why is it that you cannot see that?

Like I said before, he needs to see the Wizard of Oz to get what the Scarecrow was seeking.

It is no more their home than it is the Jews home. Why is it that you cannot see that?

Exactly. Spot on. One hundred per cent.

Obviously this subject runs hot on both sides of the meter.

I think it is unrealistic to compare the Nazis and the Israelis. How do I make that judgement? Simple, it was the avowed policy and fervent belief of Hitler and his inner circle that certain groups of humans were sub-human (Jews, Gays, Bolsheviks, et al).

Do I think Israel is completely in the right? No.

Do I think the groups who comprise the Palestinian government are completely in the right? No.

I do believe that Israel has the right to exist, I believe they also have a responsibility to be good neighbors.

The same goes for the Palestinians. They have the right to exist and they also have the responsibility to be good neighbors.

It is long past overdue for adults to go to the bargaining table and simply make the compromises both sides are loathe to make.

But, we are talking about a part of the world that despite it's long history is full of immature, selfish people. The maddening thing is this immaturity is inherent in the systems of belief taught by extremists in the religious sects.

I view the religious extremism in the Church of Islam no differently than I view the religious extremism of extreme Jewish Orthodoxy or the religious extremism of Christian Fundamentalists. Religion at it's worst provides areas to divide humanity. The blessed and the infidel, the saved and the not saved. It is all catechistic nonsense with one purpose. To create a sense of exceptionalism and moral superiority. It is worthy of the deepest of contempt.

No-one's land was taken? So Arabs are no-one? You're an anti-Semite.

Oh, how cute, he's trying to turn around the insults.

Guess what? Who abandoned their land when the other arab nations attacked? Guess what? Nobody's land was taken. The arabs just didn't want to live w/ those dirty jews next to them.

Since when was this the purpose?

1922

And since it was all against the will of the land's inhabitants, it had no legality whatsoever.

The land's inhabitants got conquered in war. That's what losing war means. Their land was conquered, tough shit for them.

Romans conquered the jews, Europe conquers the Ottomans. Vicious circle, but if you want to go back to the argument of "it was against the will of the inhabitants therefore not legal" then the roman conquest of the jewish israel wasn't legal, and therefore the land never legally transfered, and it's been in the hands of the jewish families ever since.

Can't have it both ways. Either invasion and conquer breaks your claim to your land, in which case it's legal because the conquerer made it legal, or it doesn't, in which case the ottoman empire occupied it illegally.

Don't try to argue about international legality, you know jack shit all about it. By definition law is made by the sovereign. Law is what the sovereign says it is, nothing more.

I think I figured out UB's true identity given his idiotic statements.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/wopette/borat2.jpg

You are no voice of reason, your just one anti-Arab voice.

You are just one anti-jew voice. Go peddle your hatred where your like do not have to listen to reasoning and facts.

Since when was this the purpose? And since it was all against the will of the land's inhabitants, it had no legality whatsoever.

So you support areas that don't want Arabs or blacks moving in even though nobody's property is taken to do so?

And they willfully deserted the land on the order of Syrian and Egyptian Generals to pave the way for their armies. THey just expected to be able to return afterwards because they thought they couldn't lose.

how old are you 12? 13? in every war since the beginning of time civilians have done the same thing, if a war is coming grab your kids and get the F*** out of the way. Using this excuse to legitimize stealing their homes is ILLEGAL! look it up. It's called the Geneva Convention, the same laws that were applied to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.

how old are you 12? 13? in every war since the beginning of time civilians have done the same thing, if a war is coming grab your kids and get the F*** out of the way. Using this excuse to legitimize stealing their homes is ILLEGAL! look it up. It's called the Geneva Convention, the same laws that were applied to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.

Now show me in the Geneva Convention where it says that.

It is no more their home than it is the Jews home. Why is it that you cannot see that?Jews had their homes elsewhere before the immigrated to Palestine. Palestinian Arabs had their homes right there. There was no reason ever to expect Palestinian Arabs to give up their homes to foreign Jews so those could live there. Why is it that you cannot see that?

how old are you 12? 13? in every war since the beginning of time civilians have done the same thing, if a war is coming grab your kids and get the F*** out of the way. Using this excuse to legitimize stealing their homes is ILLEGAL! look it up. It's called the Geneva Convention, the same laws that were applied to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.

I am curious how a document that came to force in 1950 has baring on events of 1948.

True or not, the formation of Israel predates the Geneva Convention

i think idf said there was such a thing as palestine. my country recognises palestine as a country. i met the palestinian ambassador. nice man.

And what country was that?

Jews had their homes elsewhere before the immigrated to Palestine. Palestinian Arabs had their homes right there. There was no reason ever to expect Palestinian Arabs to give up their homes to foreign Jews so those could live there. Why is it that you cannot see that?

Who gave up their homes? Oh, right, no-one until they abandoned them.

how old are you 12? 13? in every war since the beginning of time civilians have done the same thing, if a war is coming grab your kids and get the F*** out of the way. Using this excuse to legitimize stealing their homes is ILLEGAL! look it up. It's called the Geneva Convention, the same laws that were applied to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait.

Former Syrian PM Khalid al-Azm wrote the following in his 1972 memoirs:

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave ... We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. ... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. ... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children--all this in the service of political purposes."

The Palestinians gave up their claim to the land when they left. Some didn't leave though. Those who didn't leave are the ISRAELI ARABS who have more rights in Israel than they could have in any Arab nation.

And what country was that?

Ignore him. He's wrong. The Palestinian Territories are not recognised as a country.

They have "Special Representatives" not Ambassadors. Gorias is mistaken.

The Gaza pullout was merely a political maneuver of the fat man now in a coma to divert the world's attention from the tightening grip on the West Bank.

And yet, they have pulled out of some settlements in the West Bank as well. OOPS! More holes in your logic.

Former Syrian PM Khalid al-Azm wrote the following in his 1972 memoirs:

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees ... while it is we who made them leave ... We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. ... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. ... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children--all this in the service of political purposes."

The Palestinians gave up their claim to the land when they left. Some didn't leave though. Those who didn't leave are the ISRAELI ARABS who have more rights in Israel than they could have in any Arab nation.

Yeah....no. Making someone leave =/= giving up willingly.

Because it was someone else who drove them out, doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

I wonder if people did noticed what happened in last year's summer.... right? oh right... I think that israel evacuated the gaza strip.... yes, that meany meany country has left that strip, and left structures there that cost the tax payer a lot money.... buy why? ooo I know I know... so they'll return and do that again... cause they're eeeeeeeevil... with horns and a pitchfork

naive you are.... Gaza was abandoned because it was indefensible, and politically it made easier to hang on to the West Bank.

now if they end the occupation of the West bank and remove colonies there, there will be a chance of bringing peace to the region...but that would make me naive believing that Israel actually wants to give up the stolen land in return for peace.

And yet, they have pulled out of some settlements in the West Bank as well. OOPS! More holes in your logic.

They were pulling out more until the PLO broke the truce (again) and started bombing civilians (again).

Yeah....no. Making someone leave =/= giving up willingly.

Because it was someone else who drove them out, doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

Then it isn't Israel's responsibility since they didn't make hte Palestinians leave. Syria and Egypt should be forced to absorb them as the Israelis absorbed the Jews forced out of Iraq and other Islamic countries.

It sounds like your country is full of morons. Especially since you said earlier everyone in the bars are anti-semitic. You must be proud.

i never said everyone in my bars were anti-semitic. being anti-israel, doesnt make you anti-semitic. and i am proud.

Who gave up their homes? Oh, right, no-one until they abandoned them.They abandoned them because of their fear of Jewish atrocities. It's very natural to try to get out when threatened.
And you are saying that the Jewish immigrants expected to live somewhere in the land although they knew it was already inhabited by others? They knew exactly that in order to live in Palestine they would have to remove Arabs. Or did the plan to built a new artificial island there? Or maybe a second floor on pillars all over the land?

Jews had their homes elsewhere before the immigrated to Palestine.

You are forgetting that the Jews never fully left the area. You are forgetting that they were expelled by the Romans in 70AD after the failed uprising to toss out the Romans from their land. You are forgetting about the Kingdom of Israel that was around before they were conquered by the Assyrians in the North and the Bablyonians in the South.

Palestinian Arabs had their homes right there. There was no reason ever to expect Palestinian Arabs to give up their homes to foreign Jews so those could live there. Why is it that you cannot see that?

Why is it that you cannot see the fact that it is NO MORE THE ARAB'S LAND THAN IT IS THE JEWISH LAND? Niether side was there first. Why is it that you cannot see that?

They were pulling out more until the PLO broke the truce (again) and started bombing civilians (again).

to be fair to the PLO (I can't believe I said that) I believe it was Hamas, not the PLO

And yet, they have pulled out of some settlements in the West Bank as well. OOPS! More holes in your logic.Which settlements? Those between the Green Line and the Wall far inside the West Bank? Or what? Or those inside the Wall?

Then it isn't Israel's responsibility since they didn't make hte Palestinians leave.
Why do you assume I think its ok that it was done by the Syrians or Egyptians or Jordanians? Of all people, they screwed over the Palestinans more than anyone else.

That still doesn't make it justifiable to merely seize control of 'empty' land. Regardless of who pushed them out, they should still have the right to return to their lands and homes- just like the same rights all refugees have across the world.

Syria and Egypt should be forced to absorb them as the Israelis absorbed the Jews forced out of Iraq and other Islamic countries.

Sure if that's what you want. Sadly that would logically mean re-absorbing all their old homes/farms/villages... which are now inside Israel proper. The issue is not the people- it is the land they were on. That was the point of this (meandering) discussion.

Ignore him. He's wrong. The Palestinian Territories are not recognised as a country.

They have "Special Representatives" not Ambassadors. Gorias is mistaken.

I know he is wrong. I am curious what nation he is from though.

They abandoned them because of their fear of Jewish atrocities. It's very natural to try to get out when threatened.
And you are saying that the Jewish immigrants expected to live somewhere in the land although they knew it was already inhabited by others? They knew exactly that in order to live in Palestine they would have to remove Arabs. Or did the plan to built a new artificial island there? Or maybe a second floor on pillars all over the land?

No, they were told to leave by the Arab armies that were coming in - they were promised after they were finished killing the Jews, they would be allowed back.

You seem to forget history.

And yet, they have pulled out of some settlements in the West Bank as well. OOPS! More holes in your logic.

building of settlements has never stopped, and dismantling the odd hilltop outpost doesn't qualify as removing a settlement.

colonizing another peoples land is wrong and there is no way you can spin it to legitimize it

They abandoned them because of their fear of Jewish atrocities. It's very natural to try to get out when threatened.

Nope, try again. The ones doing the "threatening" were other arabs.

And you are saying that the Jewish immigrants expected to live somewhere in the land although they knew it was already inhabited by others? They knew exactly that in order to live in Palestine they would have to remove Arabs. Or did the plan to built a new artificial island there? Or maybe a second floor on pillars all over the land?

So who was "removed"? No-one. They just didn't want jews near them. You seem to think that every available location in the land has people living on it. Try again. Your reaching to justify your defense of murder is pretty pathetic.

Jews had their homes elsewhere before the immigrated to Palestine.

Yeah, in Aushwitz unfortunatly.

They were pulling out more until the PLO broke the truce (again) and started bombing civilians (again).

Sad but it is true :(

Ignore him. He's wrong. The Palestinian Territories are not recognised as a country.

They have "Special Representatives" not Ambassadors. Gorias is mistaken.

the palestinian embassy is beside sydny parade in south dublin.

building of settlements has never stopped, and dismantling the odd hilltop outpost doesn't qualify as removing a settlement.

colonizing another peoples land is wrong and there is no way you can spin it to legitimize it

the problem is seperating whose land it actually IS.

Arabs have a claim to it.

Jews have a claim to it.

It's both of their land. And neither party seems too willing to live together, so either the bloodshed continues until one is dead, or they split it down the middle.

But to call it simply "palestinian land" without recognizing equally compelling arguments that it is, in fact, jewish land as well it to willingly be blind to the problem.

building of settlements has never stopped, and dismantling the odd hilltop outpost doesn't qualify as removing a settlement.

colonizing another peoples land is wrong and there is no way you can spin it to legitimize it

Whoops, wrong again.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4797062

You are forgetting that the Jews never fully left the area. You are forgetting that they were expelled by the Romans in 70AD after the failed uprising to toss out the Romans from their land. You are forgetting about the Kingdom of Israel that was around before they were conquered by the Assyrians in the North and the Bablyonians in the South.Fuck you. I never demanded the removal of those Jews who had always lived there alongside the Arabs. Just those who came there for ideological or other reasons after the end of the Turkish rule over the land. We are talking about the 20th century, not some Assyrian or Babylonian invasions of the distant past.

Why is it that you cannot see the fact that it is NO MORE THE ARAB'S LAND THAN IT IS THE JEWISH LAND? Niether side was there first. Why is it that you cannot see that?It is the land of those who lived in it prior to the Jewish/Zionist immigration.

Which settlements? Those between the Green Line and the Wall far inside the West Bank? Or what? Or those inside the Wall?

Why don't you look it up. I would but I'm in my Modern Middle East Class at the moment.

the palestinian embassy is beside sydny parade in south dublin.

It is not an embassy. They do not have an Ambassador. He may call himself an "Ambassador" but he is merely a Special Representative. The Department of Foreign Affairs does not recognise the Palestinian Territories as a country.

If you need to check, ring them up.

Whoops, wrong again.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4797062The issue was the West Bank.

Fuck you. I never demanded the removal of those Jews who had always lived there alongside the Arabs.

Just demanded they live under arab opression.

It is the land of those who lived in it prior to the Jewish/Zionist immigration.

Oh, you mean the jews? You know, the ones who have lived there for thousands of years and were living there in 1947.

the palestinian embassy is beside sydny parade in south dublin.

Hate to break this to you but Ireland has not recognized a nation as Palestine as there is no nation of Palestine.

Fuck you. I never demanded the removal of those Jews who had always lived there alongside the Arabs. Just those who came there for ideological or other reasons after the end of the Turkish rule over the land. We are talking about the 20th century, not some Assyrian or Babylonian invasions of the distant past.

It is the land of those who lived in it prior to the Jewish/Zionist immigration.

And still lived there until they abandoned in to allow access for invading armies of other arabs.

the problem is seperating whose land it actually IS.

Arabs have a claim to it.

Jews have a claim to it.

It's both of their land. And neither party seems too willing to live together, so either the bloodshed continues until one is dead, or they split it down the middle.

But to call it simply "palestinian land" without recognizing equally compelling arguments that it is, in fact, jewish land as well it to willingly be blind to the problem.

Agreed 100%.

The issue was the West Bank.

Now try reading puppy, I know it's hard but there's this thing called "facts". You may want to learn some.

"and four settlements in the West Bank "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4812619

Hate to break this to you but Ireland has not recognized a nation as Palestine as there is no nation of Palestine.

State, not nation. There is a distinct but very important difference there. Particularly in foreign realtions.

Why don't you look it up. I would but I'm in my Modern Middle East Class at the moment.Why don't you tell me. Here's a map: http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/israel/maps/map050220-large.jpg

And still lived there until they abandoned in to allow access for invading armies of other arabs.Yeah, of course you would have wanted them to stay to be slaughtered by Jews.

Fuck you.

Congratulations. You just lost this debate.

I never demanded the removal of those Jews who had always lived there alongside the Arabs. Just those who came there for ideological or other reasons after the end of the Turkish rule over the land. We are talking about the 20th century, not some Assyrian or Babylonian invasions of the distant past.

Problem is, you cannot just focus on the 20th century. You have to look at the whole history of the region to put what is going on now into perspected. Failure to do so shows that you just want to ignore history.

It is the land of those who lived in it prior to the Jewish/Zionist immigration.

In that case, then it belongs to the Cananites who are long since dead.

Yeah, of course you would have wanted them to stay to be slaughtered by Jews.

You are ignorant of the fact that the Arabs who stated WEREN'T slaughtered by the Jews. That is why there are 1 million Arabs in Israel today.

Like I said, go see the Wizard of Oz. He has something for you Mr. Scarecrow.

Yeah, of course you would have wanted them to stay to be slaughtered by Jews.

Of course I would. That's exactly what I was saying. OF course it wasn't the IDF doing the "slaughtering".

Make up some more history, it's funny.

State, not nation. There is a distinct but very important difference there. Particularly in foreign realtions.

My apologies. As an American, I keep forgetting that people make a distinction between the two. I have been trying to break that habit however.

Just demanded they live under arab opression.What Arab oppression?

Oh, you mean the jews? You know, the ones who have lived there for thousands of years and were living there in 1947.No I mean the Arabs (90%) and the Jews (10%). Even in 1947 Jews weren't the majority in Palestine. So why should Arabs suffer a minority rule?

Yeah, of course you would have wanted them to stay to be slaughtered by Jews.

I question where the hundreds of thousands of Arab Israeli citizens (first class citizens I might add) came from if the jews slaughtered all the arabs who remained behind.

Now show me in the Geneva Convention where it says that.

lazy? or not smart enough to do a web search? I tell you it's illegal to annex land gained by warfare an you want me to lead you by the hand to find the evidence. You just don't want to know, your being willfully ignorant.

Yeah there is. Israel is a productive nation with a strong high-tech industry. Arab nations produce nothing but oil. Israel has no oil. Converting it into another Arab nation means you trade a nation that contributes to the technological progress of humanity for a nation of date farmers and beggars. The world would be a poorer place.

Nice bit of racist crap there.



The Jews have a very very strong claim to the land.
.

O, from the Bible you didnt have to hand to earlier?, (because I was wiping my ass with it) That book is not (a)true or (b) even fucking amusing.


Israel doesn't discriminate against it's gays or women and the Arab population has more rights in Israel than they have in Saudi Arabia.

Not according to this.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm


When your Resistance is doomed to failure, as the Palestinian one is, it's just killing for the sake of killing..

Thank christ Michael Collins never believed that kind of shite....


This is about the evil the Jews have (once more) brought to the land between the Jordan and the sea...

If you want to do something for the Palestinian cause - shut the fuck up. Seriously.


"Who displaced the palestinians?.""And since noones land was "taken" in the first place but was abandondoned when the other Arab nations attacked, it's still theirs."..

The Hagganah, Irgun etc in 1947,1948. I refer you to my earlier posts to Kreitzmoorland where I went into it in detail.

And of course the real problem now occurs in areas outside Israels borders where its trying to build civillian colonies.


No, they actually owned the land according to the League of Nations.?...

No, they were to run the administration until independence. "ownership" was not part of their remit, old sod.


No, they were told to leave by the Arab armies that were coming in - they were promised after they were finished killing the Jews, they would be allowed back..?...

Yet Begin and Rabin both mention in their diaries/autobiographies taking part in the expulsions of tens of thousands of Arabs. Why is is this?

What Arab oppression?

No I mean the Arabs (90%) and the Jews (10%). Even in 1947 Jews weren't the majority in Palestine. So why should Arabs suffer a minority rule?

And why should the Jews have suffered Arab rule when the leader of the Palestinians at the time was an SS Officer and one of the architects of Hitler's Final Solution?

No I mean the Arabs (90%) and the Jews (10%). Even in 1947 Jews weren't the majority in Palestine. So why should Arabs suffer a minority rule?

Because they lost.

Because they lost.So force constitutes justice? You must be US-American.

So force constitutes justice? You must be US-American.

justice and force are two entirely seperate things and shouldn't be confused. The ottoman empire tried to wage a war and lost. Right or wrong, just or unjust, it's a concequence of the action.

lazy? or not smart enough to do a web search? I tell you it's illegal to annex land gained by warfare an you want me to lead you by the hand to find the evidence. You just don't want to know, your being willfully ignorant.

Translation: It didn't apply since it hadn't been written yet.

You made the claim, now support it. SO far most of your "facts" have been wrong.

Thank christ Michael Collins never believed that kind of shite....


:p *pats fine gael badge* :cool:

justice and force are two entirely seperate things and shouldn't be confused. The ottoman empire tried to wage a war and lost. Right or wrong, just or unjust, it's a concequence of the action.What does that have to do with the Arabs? Arabs are no Turks. It's like when Germany occupied Poland and lost, you would have punished the Polish.

So force constitutes justice? You must be US-American.

Now throw in some good old-fashioned US bashing and we have Troll ala mode.

What does that have to do with the Arabs? Arabs are no Turks. It's like when Germany occupied Poland and lost, you would have punished the Polish.

The poles were punished by the Germans and by the USSR.

The poles were punished by the Germans and by the USSR.After the war?
The analogy would be that the allied forces would have punished the Polish after Germany lost; just as you advocate punishing the Arabs after the end of their oppression by the Turks.

What does that have to do with the Arabs? Arabs are no Turks. It's like when Germany occupied Poland and lost, you would have punished the Polish.

And yet the Turks controlled the land. The arabs seemed to deal w/ "minority rule" then.

After the war?

Let's see. The Poles didn't abandon thier land to allow Germans to slaughter others.

Nice false analogy.

After the war?

In reality, yes after the war. Once the Poles lost, they were out of the war. So yes, they got punished after the war.

Let's see. The Poles didn't abandon thier land to allow Germans to slaughter others.

They were just forced out of the area and into a centralize area in central Poland in and around Warsaw and was renamed.

Let's see. The Poles didn't abandon thier land to allow Germans to slaughter others.

Nice false analogy.wtf?

After the war?
The analogy would be that the allied forces would have punished the Polish after Germany lost; just as you advocate punishing the Arabs after the end of their oppression by the Turks.

Were collaborators punished? Yep. Were the Palestinians who abandoned their property to allow the massacre of Jews by the Arabs collaborators? Yep.

Let's see. The Poles didn't abandon thier land to allow Germans to slaughter others.

Nice false analogy.


I've already pointed out where you can find a great deal of evidence that this is not true. You might either acknowledge that, refute it, or come up with a plausible explanation as to why Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin lied when they said they expelled large numbers of Palestinians.

wtf?

It's called a logical argument. You should learn how to construct one sometime.;)

I've already pointed out where you can find a great deal of evidence that this is not true. You might either acknowledge that, refute it, or come up with a plausible explanation as to why Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin lied when they said they expelled large numbers of Palestinians.

Someone already posted from the memoirs of a Syrian government figure who says that you're wrong.

No I mean the Arabs (90%) and the Jews (10%). Even in 1947 Jews weren't the majority in Palestine. So why should Arabs suffer a minority rule?

The official UN analysis disagrees with you

In the original area of the partition, Jews were a majority, with aprox 580,000 Jews and 390,000 Arabs. I think your statisitics are making the commom mistake of including Jordan in the calculations

wtf?

Since reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits: I'll use smaller words.

Palestinians left to allow other arabs to kill Jews. After Arabs lost, Jews not allow Palestinians back.

Simple enough?

It's called a logical argument. You should learn how to construct one sometime.;)There is no logic in this. Punishing the oppressed instead of the oppressors is in no way logic.

Someone already posted from the memoirs of a Syrian government figure who says that you're wrong.

Bad attempt at a dodge there.....

"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." (Ben Gurion 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)

Since reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits: I'll use smaller words.

Palestinians left to allow other arabs to kill Jews. After Arabs lost, Jews not allow Palestinians back.

Simple enough?


Third time you've posted that, despite evidence to the contrary.

Bad attempt at a dodge there.....

"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." (Ben Gurion 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)

Not a dodge. You need to go back in the thread and read what the Syrian wrote.

It sounds to me like the Jews wanted them out. It also sounds like their "Arab brothers" also wanted to fuck the Palestinians over.

There is no logic in this. Punishing the oppressed instead of the oppressors is in no way logic.

And punishing innocents is no way logical to anyone.

The official UN analysis disagrees with you

In the original area of the partition, Jews were a majority, with aprox 580,000 Jews and 390,000 Arabs. I think your statisitics are making the commom mistake of including Jordan in the calculations

His "statistics" are more along the lines of just pulling crap out of his ass.

The official UN analysis disagrees with you

In the original area of the partition, Jews were a majority, with aprox 580,000 Jews and 390,000 Arabs. I think your statisitics are making the commom mistake of including Jordan in the calculationsNo. When the UN division plan was set up, Jews weren't the majority in any of the sections.

Third time you've posted that, despite evidence to the contrary.

That's nice. The "evidence" is lacking.

No. When the UN division plan was set up, Jews weren't the majority in any of the sections.

They were. See the Wizard, he has something for you.

And punishing innocents is no way logical to anyone.Agreed. That's why there is no reason to punish Arabs by taking away some of their land and giving it to foreign Jews.

No. When the UN division plan was set up, Jews weren't the majority in any of the sections.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

No. When the UN division plan was set up, Jews weren't the majority in any of the sections.

Source it.

Whoops, wrong again.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4797062

WHOOPS, WRONG AGAIN! Geez you just may be the most childish poster I 've ever come across.

here's a link to counter your silly post a link game......hmmm let me anticipate your next post......"oh that's a anti-Semite website" or something similar, let's be honest here in your eyes Israel can do no wrong no matter how illegal and transparent it's real motives are, morality is never a consideration.


http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-shaoul110905.htm

Not a dodge. You need to go back in the thread and read what the Syrian wrote.

It sounds to me like the Jews wanted them out. It also sounds like their "Arab brothers" also wanted to fuck the Palestinians over.

I thought it fairly obvious they've been fucked over. However there seems to be a climate of denial around the Israeli actions. The Palestinians were expelled in 1947/8 - its a truth which I think should be acknowledged.

WHOOPS, WRONG AGAIN! Geez you just may be the most childish poster I 've ever come across.

here's a link to counter your silly post a link game......hmmm let me anticipate your next post......"oh that's a anti-Semite website" or something similar, let's be honest here in your eyes Israel can do no wrong no matter how illegal and transparent it's real motives are, morality is never a consideration.


http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-shaoul110905.htm

NSG's motto is "Never Again doesn't apply to brown people."

That's nice. The "evidence" is lacking.

Then why did Begin lie in his memoirs? And why is the historical record being doctored to show that Rabin did similarily, as did the Hagganah, at Ben Gurions direction.

I thought it fairly obvious they've been fucked over. However there seems to be a climate of denial around the Israeli actions. The Palestinians were expelled in 1947/8 - its a truth which I think should be acknowledged.

It should be acknowledged that the Syrians and Egyptians were knowing, willing, and equally culpable partners in that fucking over.

And when the Palestinians tried to fuck over Jordan, and Black September happened, the Palestinians can't blame the Jews for the revenge and expulsion the Jordanians exacted on the Palestinians.

Call me stupid, but when the world/middle east runs out of fossile fuels in the next 50 years, our happy hamas campers will slowly run out of funds and all this intifada business will turn from blowing up school busses to finally doing something constructive this century.

Then why did Begin lie in his memoirs? And why is the historical record being doctored to show that Rabin did similarily, as did the Hagganah, at Ben Gurions direction.

I can ask the same about the Syrian PM whom I quoted.

His "statistics" are more along the lines of just pulling crap out of his ass.


And your posts consist of the same genralised statements, bereft of reference to facts, people or events, that characterise the worst excesses of propoganda.

Source it.

There you go again "source it" how predictable

Those who honestly look for the truth do so on their own. Those who don't want to know only look at one side and refuse to look for themselves. Just close your eyes cover you ears and deny, deny, deny.

How about just as an experiment you do your own research and view the other sides opinion with an open mind?

WHOOPS, WRONG AGAIN! Geez you just may be the most childish poster I 've ever come across.

here's a link to counter your silly post a link game......hmmm let me anticipate your next post......"oh that's a anti-Semite website" or something similar, let's be honest here in your eyes Israel can do no wrong no matter how illegal and transparent it's real motives are, morality is never a consideration.


http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-shaoul110905.htm

That's nice. Now you make "assumptions" as to what I'm going to say. People provide links to actually support thier arguments.

I guess forceably removing people is moving them in, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/23/west.bank.pullout/index.html
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/8643.htm

ANd why were the various pullouts stopped? Oh, right. Bombings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011105/aponline152339_000.htm

There you go again "source it" how predictable

Those who honestly look for the truth do so on their own. Those who don't want to know only look at one side and refuse to look for themselves. Just close your eyes cover you ears and deny, deny, deny.

How about just as an experiment you do your own research and view the other sides opinion with an open mind?

Because the person making the claim has to put up where he got it. Failure to do so shows that you are blowing smoke.

I can ask the same about the Syrian PM whom I quoted.

He states that the Syrians took advantage of the Palestinians and is in that much correct. There is no evidence for a mass exodus on anybodys orders however. There is independent and verifiable evidence of what I state down to the day and place it happened, all of it from original Israeli sources. Bit of a difference.

There you go again "source it" how predictable

Those who honestly look for the truth do so on their own. Those who don't want to know only look at one side and refuse to look for themselves. Just close your eyes cover you ears and deny, deny, deny.

How about just as an experiment you do your own research and view the other sides opinion with an open mind?

If people would provide evidence instead of just making things up (Nodinia does this even if I don't support the hypothesis) You would be taken a bit more seriously.

Why don't you try and support your arguements w/ facts, unless you're claiming that everything posted on the internet is the truth.

He states that the Syrians took advantage of the Palestinians and is in that much correct. There is no evidence for a mass exodus on anybodys orders however. There is independent and verifiable evidence of what I state down to the day and place it happened, all of it from original Israeli sources. Bit of a difference.

He clearly stated that it was the Arabs who MADE THEM LEAVE. That sure sounds like one to me.

It should be acknowledged that the Syrians and Egyptians were knowing, willing, and equally culpable partners in that fucking over.

It is acknowledged.

And your posts consist of the same genralised statements, bereft of reference to facts, people or events, that characterise the worst excesses of propoganda.

800K Palestinians left Isreal when it was attacked. That is a fact. They weren't all "displaced" nor had their land taken from them before. And what did the other arab nations do? Did they take them in? No.

800K Palestinians left Isreal when it was attacked. That is a fact. They weren't all "displaced" nor had their land taken from them before. And what did the other arab nations do? Did they take them in? No.

It should also be noted that an almost equal number of Jews were expelled from Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. Israel took them in even though they lacked the infrastructure to do so.

He clearly stated that it was the Arabs who MADE THEM LEAVE. That sure sounds like one to me.

I presumed he refered to the Invasion by Jordan, Syria and the rest which resulted in the explusions. Its not like they had a few ballots among the Palestinians before charging in.....

Source it.From my Atlas of World History: UN division plan for Palestine (1947)

Jewish state: 15100 km^2, 499200 Jews, 509780 Arabs
Arab state: 11600 km^2, 9520 Jews, 749010 Arabs
Jerusalem (int zone): 176 km^2, 99960 Jews, 105540 Arabs

by the end of the year more Jews had immigrated.

800K Palestinians left Isreal when it was attacked. That is a fact. They weren't all "displaced" nor had their land taken from them before. And what did the other arab nations do? Did they take them in? No.

"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)

The Arab nations is neither here nor there in the question "Were the Palestinians expelled in 1947/48?" In approprating blame and the aftermath, perhaps.

The number is disputed. They were, in the majority, displaced and had their land taken after they left. They were never meant to return. Thats what happened.

From my Atlas of World History: UN division plan for Palestine (1947)

Jewish state: 15100 km^2, 499200 Jews, 509780 Arabs
Arab state: 11600 km^2, 9520 Jews, 749010 Arabs
Jerusalem (int zone): 176 km^2, 99960 Jews, 105540 Arabs

Well that sure seems to be a little different than your 10%/90% figure you stated earlier.

It's also different than what the UNSCOP lists.

Territory Arab population % Arab Jewish population % Jewish Total population
Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000
Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000
International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000
Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000
http://www.mideastweb.org/unscop1947.htm

If people would provide evidence instead of just making things up (Nodinia does this even if I don't support the hypothesis) You would be taken a bit more seriously.

Why don't you try and support your arguements w/ facts, unless you're claiming that everything posted on the internet is the truth.

pointless giving you a source because you and others like you merely discredit the source if it doesn't agree with your immoral view of the world.
I could do the same for your sources but I do not because it's waste of time.

When I give you a unassailable source such as the Geneva Convention you refuse to look at it and find an excuse to dismiss it because you know it's correct. You are not an honest debater only a flamer.

Debates on morality, right and wrong, justice and injustice do not require sources/links, links are for those who cannot debate honestly.

...the 10%/90% figure referred to the time before the Jewish immigration. The natural state.

"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)

The Arab nations is neither here nor there in the question "Were the Palestinians expelled in 1947/48?" In approprating blame and the aftermath, perhaps.

The number is disputed. They were, in the majority, displaced and had their land taken after they left. They were never meant to return. Thats what happened.

They were never meant to return by either side. Had they stayed, and since the overwhelming majority did not have thier land taken previously, barring more violence as seen just after the UN vote :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

it is reasonable to say that Isreal wouldn't have taken it from them, or, if they had, they wouldn't have had any justification and been taken to task for it.

"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)

The Arab nations is neither here nor there in the question "Were the Palestinians expelled in 1947/48?" In approprating blame and the aftermath, perhaps.

The number is disputed. They were, in the majority, displaced and had their land taken after they left. They were never meant to return. Thats what happened.Yet folks call it just.

the 10%/90% figure referred to the time before the Jewish immigration. The natural state.

Then why did you source 1947?

Yet folks call it just.

That's happened in countless wars. So?

http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews_and_palestinians_1946.gif

pointless giving you a source because you and others like you merely discredit the source if it doesn't agree with your immoral view of the world.
I could do the same for your sources but I do not because it's waste of time.

Translation: You can't support your assertions so you'll resort to calling me "immoral".

When I give you a unassailable source such as the Geneva Convention you refuse to look at it and find an excuse to dismiss it because you know it's correct. You are not an honest debater only a flamer.

Even though the GC wasn't written in 1948 yet you claimed that Isreal was in violation of it.

Debates on morality, right and wrong, justice and injustice do not require sources/links, links are for those who cannot debate honestly.

Debates containing claims and assertions of fact do. Links are for those who can support thier assertions. Since numerous of your claims have been found lacking, I guess you can't debate honestly and should start using links.

Even though the GC wasn't written in 1948 yet you claimed that Isreal was in violation of it.The Geneva Convention was first adopted in 1864.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Geneva_Conventions_1864-1949.png

pointless giving you a source because you and others like you merely discredit the source if it doesn't agree with your immoral view of the world.
I could do the same for your sources but I do not because it's waste of time.

When I give you a unassailable source such as the Geneva Convention you refuse to look at it and find an excuse to dismiss it because you know it's correct. You are not an honest debater only a flamer.

Debates on morality, right and wrong, justice and injustice do not require sources/links, links are for those who cannot debate honestly.

Let me explain something very, very clearly.

The geneva convention was written in 1950. Israel gained independance in 1948. How could Israel violate something that did not exist?

http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews_and_palestinians_1946.gif

Still says about the same thing. The areas that would have been under Jewish control still had an overall Jewish majority while the Palestinian areas were overwhelmingly Arab.

Guess who started the hostilities following the UN vote? going after civilians?

the 10%/90% figure referred to the time before the Jewish immigration. The natural state.

There was no such thing as the natural state.

The Geneva Convention was first adopted in 1864.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Geneva_Conventions_1864-1949.png

The binding geneva convention, geneva convention 1 was written in 1950.

Additionally by definition Israel can not be bound to a convention it hasn't signed off on. Even IF the geneva convention existed 'In some form" at this time, Israel did not. As it did not, it couldn't have signed on to it.

Since it could not have signed on to it, it wasn't bound by it.

A country is not bound by any law it does not willingly bind itself to. In 1948 Israel was not bound by the geneva convention.

Still says about the same thing. The areas that would have been under Jewish control still had an overall Jewish majority while the Palestinian areas were overwhelmingly Arab.If Jews were in the minority in every district except one, how could they be in an 'overall' majority?
Guess who started the hostilities following the UN vote? going after civilians?Jews had started hostilities before the vote, especially in Galilee and northern Samaria.

There was no such thing as the natural state.Of course there was. Just the way it was for over a millennium.

The Geneva Convention was first adopted in 1864.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Geneva_Conventions_1864-1949.png

No, those were the Hague conventions.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html

It also contains a little bit about non-military personnel taking up arms being considered belligerents, kind of like the Palestinians did against Isreal.

Translation: You can't support your assertions so you'll resort to calling me "immoral".



Even though the GC wasn't written in 1948 yet you claimed that Isreal was in violation of it.



Debates containing claims and assertions of fact do. Links are for those who can support thier assertions. Since numerous of your claims have been found lacking, I guess you can't debate honestly and should start using links.

The west bank was occupied in '67 and land confiscations still continue in defiance of the G.C. Does '67 came after or before '48?
Which of my "numerous" claims claims are lacking(you post a link, I counter with another, how childish)! . You asked for one link and I gave you G.C. and you went into denial and refused to look it up, I gave you another which was a waste of time because I knew you'd dismiss or ignore that as well, this "show me a link" crap is a waste of time and childish because it leads nowhere. Debates aren't won with dubious links. Debating is an art you have yet to master.

No, those were the Hague conventions.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html

It also contains a little bit about non-military personnel taking up arms being considered belligerents, kind of like the Palestinians did against Isreal.Ridiculous. The Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions) of 1864 is named thus because it took place in Geneva. The Hague Convention was 1899.

The west bank was occupied in '67 and land confiscations still continue in defiance of the G.C. Does '67 came after or before '48?
Which of my "numerous" claims claims are lacking(you post a link, I counter with another, how childish)! . You asked for one link and I gave you G.C. and you went into denial and refused to look it up, I gave you another which was a waste of time because I knew you'd dismiss or ignore that as well, this "show me a link" crap is a waste of time and childish because it leads nowhere. Debates aren't won with dubious links. Debating is an art you have yet to master.

And more personal attacks. I guess you must be a master debater then.

Why was the West Bank occupied? Because Isreal was being attacked from there. They didn't start the hostilities w/ Jordan. Do you deny that?

Has Isreal numerous times started WB withdrawal? Yes. Has the PLO continued to attack? Yes.

Are people attacking you and those supporting them considered belligerents according to the GC? Yes.

When was palestine first called that? Oh, right, 70AD by the Romans.

I've asked for several sources. You've provided one.

.

A country is not bound by any law it does not willingly bind itself to. In 1948 Israel was not bound by the geneva convention.

well ok then! Israel can do all the ethnic cleansing it wants,. Why stop at the west bank Jordon has lots of land those nasty Arabs can move Saudi Arabia. And why stop there, jews at one time lived in Iraq and Egypt too. It's all good since they never signed any treaties regarding human rights.

When was palestine first called that? Oh, right, 70AD by the Romans.What's the point in this? The name doesn't change what people live in the land. A part of the land has been called Philistia long before 70 CE. Palaestina is only the Latin rendition of the Greek word.

Ridiculous. The Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions) of 1864 is named thus because it took place in Geneva. The Hague Convention was 1899.

Try Red Cross Convention.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva04.htm

What's the point in this? The name doesn't change what people live in the land. A part of the land has been called Philistia long before 70 CE. Palaestina is only the Latin rendition of the Greek word.

And Canaan etc. Still doesn't change the fact that wasn't a Palestinian state.

well ok then! Israel can do all the ethnic cleansing it wants,. Why stop at the west bank Jordon has lots of land those nasty Arabs can move Saudi Arabia. And why stop there, jews at one time lived in Iraq and Egypt too. It's all good since they never signed any treaties regarding human rights.You're talking to a US-American. You can't expect an understanding of humanity from him. You know, these folks messed up Afghanistan and Iraq, and set up detention camps in Guantanamo and elsewhere so they can hold people without charge...

well ok then! Israel can do all the ethnic cleansing it wants,. Why stop at the west bank Jordon has lots of land those nasty Arabs can move Saudi Arabia. And why stop there, jews at one time lived in Iraq and Egypt too. It's all good since they never signed any treaties regarding human rights.

Right. Once again all that land taken from the Arabs:

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

And Canaan etc. Still doesn't change the fact that wasn't a Palestinian state.And? It was Arab land. That's enough. As I said, the land belongs tho those who have lived on it since ancient times.

You're talking to a US-American. You can't expect an understanding of humanity from him. You know, these folks messed up Afghanistan and Iraq, and set up detention camps in Guantanamo and elsewhere so they can hold people without charge...

And once more resorting to the traditional US bashing.

Of course this coming from someone who justifies the murder of non-combatants, women, and children is really funny.

Right. Once again all that land taken from the Arabs:

...

You can't even distinguish Arabs from Muslims. And the size of the taken land is of no relevance. The injustice remains.

And? It was Arab land. That's enough. As I said, the land belongs tho those who have lived on it since ancient times.

Whoops, now we're going back to ancient times again. Since the Arabs invaded then, I guess it goes back to the Jews again.

You can't even distinguish Arabs from Muslims. And the size of the taken land is of no relevance. The injustice remains.

I can't? Really? The map I posted doesn't contain primarily arab countries?

And once more resorting to the traditional US bashing.

Of course this coming from someone who justifies the murder of non-combatants, women, and children is really funny.Of course this coming from someone who employs the military to achieve the murder of non-combatants, women, and children is really funny.

I can't? Really? The map I posted doesn't contain primarily arab countries?Like Turkey and Iran, huh? Very Arabic indeed. :rolleyes:

And more personal attacks. I guess you must be a master debater then.

Why was the West Bank occupied? Because Isreal was being attacked from there. They didn't start the hostilities w/ Jordan. Do you deny that?

Has Isreal numerous times started WB withdrawal? Yes. Has the PLO continued to attack? Yes.

Are people attacking you and those supporting them considered belligerents according to the GC? Yes.

When was palestine first called that? Oh, right, 70AD by the Romans.

I've asked for several sources. You've provided one.personal attacks, no, just an opinion of your methods.

Occupying the west bank after being attacked is one thing and I can accept that. Annexing the land when Israel is no longer at war with Jordon is unjustifiable and illegal under International Law.

West Bank withdrawl, Israel can withdraw if it wanted to, the UN would step in quickly to secure the border if requested. Israel doesn't want the UN securing the border because it has no intention of giving up the West Bank.

Are the Palestinian resistance belligerents? sure. Is the Israeli army a hostile illegal and belligerent occupation force, absolutely.

When was Palestine first called that? I have no idea, what has that got to do with the price of rice in China?

I gave you two sources, you refused to look at one and didn't even acknowledge the other, so as I posted earlier "links=poor debating"

No links in this post, there is hope for you yet.

You can't even distinguish Arabs from Muslims. And the size of the taken land is of no relevance. The injustice remains.

agreed, that's the most pathetic link I've seen; part of the reason I stopped looking at links

I'm not an expert on the nationalities of all those countries but there at least 20 that are not Arab.

agreed, that's the most pathetic link I've seen; part of the reason I stopped looking at links

I'm not an expert on the nationalities of all those countries but there at least 20 that are not Arab.

The word Arab isnt mentioned. It says Muslim

The word Arab isnt mentioned. It says MuslimNo, it (Kecibukia) says Arab.

The word Arab isnt mentioned. It says Muslim

I know what it says, Kecibukia implies that all Arabs are Muslim. According the leap of logic of this point and I've heard it many times is that Palestinians refugees and could just happily move to another Muslim country. Many of those countries don't speak Arabic, many are not even the same ethnic origins, some are not even white.

This a common racist based logic that because someone is Muslim they must be
an Arab. Arabic is language that ties many of these countries together it does not mean they are of the same ethnic group(Eygptians are not arabs). USA, Canada, GB, Aus, and many counties around the world all speak english but they are not all english, they are very distinct peoples.

Where is master debater Kecibukia gone? Could be after giving one last pathetic link of the vast Arab lands(Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Niger, Pakistan etc:rolleyes: ) he's run to ground?

I rest my case, if you need links to debate responsibly you aren't much of a debater, merely a flamer.

No, it (Kecibukia) says Arab.

Read the poster. IT says muslim

Read the poster. IT says muslim

we know the link says muslim lands but Kecibukia said it was arab. he/she deliberately tried to mislead by posting a picture of all the muslim lands to make Israel look as insignificant as possible, implying the people were all arabs in those countries.