NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Actually, people who use links aren't flamers. It is proper ettiquette during a debate to supply links that support your assertations. Otherwise you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

Actually, people who use links aren't flamers. It is proper ettiquette during a debate to supply links that support your assertations. Otherwise you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

Yeah I read your posts you really debate with an open mind:rolleyes: classic flamer, no substance. Any link you post likely come only from an officially approved IDF sites(no co-incidence where you choose your name), absolutely biased and worthless links.

Can't debate? no worries just post a useless link from your favourite propaganda site to try legitimize it.Ya your the best.

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

Wrong Spanky. The GPW existed long before 1950, they were in force PRIOR to WWII. The 1949 agreement was the FOURTH Geneva Convention. The Hague Convention (1907) was previous to the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. For WWII, the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention adoped in 1929 were in force.

So... Socialist Pyrates' argument is essentially that you're much better at debating if you just make up random facts without evidence, and if people provide evidence that contradicts your knowledge their site is a 'propaganda site'? :rolleyes:

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

Indeed, and even prior to that the Rules of Land War existed to cover the conduct of armies and nations in war.

Are you kidding me? Israel may have its flaws, and may only exist because of the United States, but this is ridiculos. Did Israel kill 12 million people based on race? I don't think so.

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

Which would you prefer

No more dead and two states

Or millions dead over decades of conflict and one state

Wrong Spanky. The GPW existed long before 1950, they were in force PRIOR to WWII. The 1949 agreement was the FOURTH Geneva Convention. The Hague Convention (1907) was previous to the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. For WWII, the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention adoped in 1929 were in force.

Very cute. None of which was binding on Israel because they weren't around prior to 1948 to sign on to it.

The only agreement that Israel COULD be bound to was the 1950 agreement, which didn't exist in 1948.

In essence, Israel couldn't be bound to something that was created before it existed

Which would you prefer

No more dead and two states

Or millions dead over decades of conflict and one state

In 1 state it would've just been another Holocaust. The leader of the Palestinians at the time was the Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Al-Husseini was a very high ranking SS Officer who recruited thousands of Muslims into the SS and helped Himmler plan the Final Solution and then convince Hitler to carry it out.

Yeah I read your posts you really debate with an open mind:rolleyes: classic flamer, no substance. Any link you post likely come only from an officially approved IDF sites(no co-incidence where you choose your name), absolutely biased and worthless links.

Can't debate? no worries just post a useless link from your favourite propaganda site to try legitimize it.Ya your the best.So making historical arguments equals flaming.

Let me ask you a question, what color is the sky in your world?

Flaming would be calling you a four letter word.

Stating historical fact about the situation =/= flaming.

Of course there was. Just the way it was for over a millennium.

You really have no clue to history do you?

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

It wasn't even Arab land. Jesus God in heaven, you are so stupid.

You really have no clue to history do you?

He doesnt have a clue about agriculture either, failing to realise the land he so despeatrly wants the Palesitians to have will be made baran and wasteland by being soaked with all the blood he wants to be spilt to get it.

Are you kidding me? Israel may have its flaws, and may only exist because of the United States, but this is ridiculos. Did Israel kill 12 million people based on race? I don't think so.

Ironicly, the USSR predates us in recognition of Israel.

So... Socialist Pyrates' argument is essentially that you're much better at debating if you just make up random facts without evidence, and if people provide evidence that contradicts your knowledge their site is a 'propaganda site'? :rolleyes:

how do you debate morality, good vs evil, right from wrong with propaganda websites?........I post that Israel is in violation of human rights and the Geneva Convention all of which are easily verifiable if you do a simple search, the Geneva Convention is not the product of any propaganda website........if you want to counter that claim with a Zionist pro Israeli website that is hardly qualifies as a debating skill, reading the Geneva Convention and proving me wrong would be good but that didn't happen. What response did I get? Israel is above the G.C. and does not have to respect international laws and human rights.

Oh yeah you guys are great debaters.

So making historical arguments equals flaming.

Let me ask you a question, what color is the sky in your world?

Flaming would be calling you a four letter word.

Stating historical fact about the situation =/= flaming.

exchanging links of propaganda sites does do not equal a debate, but of course i must be wrong because as everyone knows only your websites tell the truth all others that disagree are anti-semitic hate sites:rolleyes:

you may want to look up the definition of a debate, it says nothing about exchanging websites. If you aren't capable of defending your position in a debate without dubious websites maybe you should find another hobby.

exchanging links of propaganda sites does do not equal a debate, but of course i must be wrong because as everyone knows only your websites tell the truth all others that disagree are anti-semitic hate sites:rolleyes:

you may want to look up the definition of a debate, it says nothing about exchanging websites. If you aren't capable of defending your position in a debate without dubious websites maybe you should find another hobby.
The Palestinians actually have a high standard of living. Their GDP per capita is $20,038,393 USD.

Refute that without posting websites, o ye of little logic.

I like when debates break down into debating who is the better debater.

The Palestinians actually have a high standard of living. Their GDP per capita is $20,038,393 USD.

Refute that without posting websites, o ye of little logic.

and the point of that would be? I find a link that agrees with me then you claim it's an anti-semitic website and we get back were we started which is you still not knowing how to debate properly. I played along with the childish link exchange and what happened??? do you know? did you read the posts?
With one, the Geneva Convention (no actual link but how hard is it to find a legitimate International Document with Google)and what response did I get? From one poster that Israel is above the GC so it doesn't count the other knew I was correct and the other said the Geneva C was signed in '48 so it excludes Israel, that the occupation of the west bank was in '67 was ignored. The other instance I countered a link with my own, what was the response? Nothing, again it was ignored, so what does that say about links and counter links?
Links are a waste of time, those who ask for links don't care what's in them they will deny them as it doesn't suit their argument. It's not honest debating.

I like when debates break down into debating who is the better debater.

I love a good debate but exchanging links isn't debating. It's like thinking that you can have honest exchange of ideas with those religious types that knock on your door on Saturday mornings.

I love a good debate but exchanging links isn't debating.

And going on and on about what a crappy debator your opponent(s) are is?

Web links, or any other source, can support a fact which in turn can support an argument. It's not that complicated a concept.

And going on and on about what a crappy debator your opponent(s) are is?

Web links, or any other source, can support a fact which in turn can support an argument. It's not that complicated a concept.

if someone quotes my post they get a response, if they like you don't care then post nothing.

Posting links that will only be ignored in a debate is a waste of time.
It's not that complicated a concept.

if someone quotes my post they get a response, if they like you don't care then post nothing.

Posting links that will only be ignored in a debate is a waste of time.
It's not that complicated a concept.
How do you suggest you determine whether your links will be ignored or not? Psychic powers, perhaps? If you refuse to post links, the message that sends is that you have no factual basis and are just making up crap out of thin air.

How do you suggest you determine whether your links will be ignored or not? Psychic powers, perhaps? If you refuse to post links, the message that sends is that you have no factual basis and are just making up crap out of thin air.when I give a link when requested and other poster replies to my post without addressing the link or calling it biased or in the case of the Geneva Convention implying it's irrelevant ...it's been dismissed

so links IMO are equal to pulling crap out of thin air, as links are biased one way or another and there is no way to debate or prove their accuracy.

when I give a link when requested and other poster replies to my post without addressing the link or calling it biased or in the case of the Geneva Convention implying it's irrelevant ...it's been dismissed

the geneva convention is irrelevant when it's applied to a country that didn't sign on to it.

What's so hard to understand about that? Nations are not bound by any laws they do not chose to be bound by. If israel didn't sign the geneva convention in 1948 then it was not bound by the geneva convention in 1948.

So yes I will dismiss anything that you haven't proved to be binding. Since you have not demonstrated that at the time Israel had signed the geneva conventions, and thus were bound by them, the conventions are irrelevant as law.

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

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

That just shows more of a reason why the jews have no place in Palestine.

Very cute. None of which was binding on Israel because they weren't around prior to 1948 to sign on to it.

The only agreement that Israel COULD be bound to was the 1950 agreement, which didn't exist in 1948.

In essence, Israel couldn't be bound to something that was created before it existed

But the Third Convention existed in 1948 and it was considered routine for nations to sign onto the convention when practical. It's not like a one time good deal, nor was it a creation out of whole cloth. The British government in November 1917 in the Balfour Declaration announced it's intention to facilitate the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted the British this mandate. Until midnight May 14, 1948, the portion of the state of Palestine managed by the British was subject to the rules established by the Third Geneva Convention as a British Crown State. (The British government was/is still a High Contracting Party)

David Ben-Gurion did not alter or change those conditions as the First Prime Minister of Israel, and Israel was considered SUBJECT TO to the Third GPW. The creation of Israel was approved in the United Nations in late 1947. Israel, as a State is a High Contracting Party and was signatory to GPIV in 1949 under Ben-Gurion.

Some of my sources used for this iclude the ADF, Foundation for Middle East Peace, The United Nations and the Swiss Federal Council.

Posting links that will only be ignored in a debate is a waste of time.
It's not that complicated a concept.

Well, making arrogant accusations about how superior at debating you are, is a waste of time as well.

In fact, debating may well be a waste of time.

Like most activities on the internet.

...your point?

But the Third Convention existed in 1948 and it was considered routine for nations to sign onto the convention when practical. It's not like a one time good deal, nor was it a creation out of whole cloth. The British government in November 1917 in the Balfour Declaration announced it's intention to facilitate the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted the British this mandate. Until midnight May 14, 1948, the portion of the state of Palestine managed by the British was subject to the rules established by the Third Geneva Convention as a British Crown State. (The British government was/is still a High Contracting Party)

David Ben-Gurion did not alter or change those conditions as the First Prime Minister of Israel, and Israel was considered SUBJECT TO to the Third GPW. The creation of Israel was approved in the United Nations in late 1947. Israel, as a State is a High Contracting Party and was signatory to GPIV in 1949 under Ben-Gurion.

Some of my sources used for this iclude the ADF, Foundation for Middle East Peace, The United Nations and the Swiss Federal Council.

OK so we've now established that israel was bound under the third (but not the fourth as it wasn't written yet) geneva convention.

Did the 3rd say that annexing territories in war was illegal?

That just shows more of a reason why the jews have no place in Palestine.


And this shows how you have no place in this debate.

That just shows more of a reason why the jews have no place in Palestine.

No. It shows the immense greed and racism of the surrounding nations. There are so many places for Muslims, but only one tiny slither of land for the Jews.

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.

That is irrelvent.

Muslims have a massive area of land, and the Jews have a tiny slither. The Jews have offered and offered and offered again land for peace. The 2000 accords were more than reasonable, giving up nearly all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and all of Gaza. The Palestinans have made no counter offer and have continued a campagin of terroirsim, intentionally killing civilians. The Isralies have been only trying to kill the people who are killing them, not the civilians, but the terrorists who hide among them

Considering that most of the middle east is not a high tech society....

actually Bahrain, Kuwait, oman, qatar, saudi arabia and the UAE are now classified as Newly Industrialised Countries (NICs). Which is still not a high tech society, but they're getting there..


NICs usually share some other common features, including:

* Increased social freedoms and civil rights.
* A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector.
* An increasingly "open" economy, allowing for free trade with its neighbours, such as that obtained by joining a trade bloc.

actually Bahrain, Kuwait, oman, qatar, saudi arabia and the UAE are now classified as Newly Industrialised Countries (NICs). Which is still not a high tech society, but they're getting there..


NICs usually share some other common features, including:

* Increased social freedoms and civil rights.
* A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector.
* An increasingly "open" economy, allowing for free trade with its neighbours, such as that obtained by joining a trade bloc.

I would hardly call Saudi Arabia one, with their torture and religious pesecution records still very much bloodstained.

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.

NS is full of anti-everything. That's the point isn't it? you need pro and anti for any discussion.

oh and being anti-israel does not equal anti-semite.

I would hardly call Saudi Arabia one, with their torture and religious pesecution records still very much bloodstained.

????
oh well if you would'nt then its not one is it?

The FACT is that those countries including a few other are classified as NICs.

source:
Principles of Economics, 4th Edition. N. Gregory Mankiw

EDIT: sorry if i sound snippy, just read some of the crap that's been posted on this thread

i've just caught up on the last few pages and i have to say.

Bravo, this is one of the few threads that actually makes my eyes ache.

I love a good debate but exchanging links isn't debating.

But it is proper debating tactics as it shows where they got their information from. Disagreeing with said information does not make said site a propaganda site however.

Congratulations, I managed to read the first 30 or so pages of this, and I've lost a part of my soul. Thanks a lot internet, for destroying some of the little respect I still have for humanity.

the guy who made this is stupid the Isrealies havent done alot of wrong things and the Nazis are extinct so what i say is up yours :upyours:

Congratulations, I managed to read the first 30 or so pages of this, and I've lost a part of my soul. Thanks a lot internet, for destroying some of the little respect I still have for humanity.

You're very welcome.

Welcome to NSG.

No. It shows the immense greed and racism of the surrounding nations. There are so many places for Muslims, but only one tiny slither of land for the Jews.

i would call america a pretty dam big piece of land.

i would call america a pretty dam big piece of land.

Which is where a lot of them moved, BUT, I generally like to allow people to move where they want, and not say "alright Jews, you go to this country, or else".

the guy who made this is stupid the Isrealies havent done alot of wrong things and the Nazis are extinct so what i say is up yours.

Hate to break this to you but Nazis still exist and are not extinct.

That just shows more of a reason why the jews have no place in Palestine.

Why don't you grow a set of balls and actually defend you bullshit?

????
oh well if you would'nt then its not one is it?

The FACT is that those countries including a few other are classified as NICs.

source:
Principles of Economics, 4th Edition. N. Gregory Mankiw

EDIT: sorry if i sound snippy, just read some of the crap that's been posted on this thread

I heard what you said, and I'd dispute that classification

The reason being that the clasification specifies advanced human rights, which Saudi Arabia does not have. Ergo the classification of Saudi Arabia as an NIC is flawed.

i would call america a pretty dam big piece of land.

Indeed, and people can live freely there. The same is not true for the Jews amoung the Arab states.

I like when debates break down into debating who is the better debater.

Which I why I left. Having one individual tell me that posting links is flaming and another saying I support genocide when he's calling for the murder of women and children.

Indeed, and people can live freely there. The same is not true for the Jews among the Arab states.That's due to the attitude Jews have shown by demanding a state there. So if people can live freely in America, then let the Jews live freely in America. Maybe create a new state for them in Utah.

That's due to the attitude Jews have shown by demanding a state there. So if people can live freely in America, then let the Jews live freely in America. Maybe create a new state for them in Utah.

So you don't care about uprooting millions of people to be displaced? Or is it only Jews and now Mormons you don't care about?

So you don't care about uprooting millions of people to be displaced? Or is it only Jews and now Mormons you don't care about?

Kec, it's pretty obvious that Beleriand's definition of humans only applies to Arabs.

For example, the people that "live there" and are "born there" get to call it home.

Unless, of course, they are the evil j00z. In which case, it doesn't matter how many generations were born there.

Perhaps what Beleriand is really upset about is despite the fact that Egyptian soldiers can get their act together in 1973, and the Hezbollah can fight effectively in this past year's actions, the Palestinians are still the idiot stepchildren of the God of War - they can't do anything without being wtfpwned.

That just shows more of a reason why the jews have no place in Palestine.

Now show me where "Palestine" is on the map.

Kec, it's pretty obvious that Beleriand's definition of humans only applies to Arabs.

For example, the people that "live there" and are "born there" get to call it home.

Unless, of course, they are the evil j00z. In which case, it doesn't matter how many generations were born there.

Perhaps what Beleriand is really upset about is despite the fact that Egyptian soldiers can get their act together in 1973, and the Hezbollah can fight effectively in this past year's actions, the Palestinians are still the idiot stepchildren of the God of War - they can't do anything without being wtfpwned.

Oh, I know. I just want him to admit his blatant hypocricsy.

OK so we've now established that israel was bound under the third (but not the fourth as it wasn't written yet) geneva convention.

Did the 3rd say that annexing territories in war was illegal?

Yes.

That's due to the attitude Jews have shown by demanding a state there. So if people can live freely in America, then let the Jews live freely in America. Maybe create a new state for them in Utah.

You are an idiot. There is simply no other term for you. Just as many if not more Jews were uprooted by Arabs after the 48 war than there were Palestinians who left.

Go on now troll. You're off to see the Wizard to get something the Scarecrow needed.

Oh, I know. I just want him to admit his blatant hypocricsy.

He won't, the Irish whiskey has damaged his brain cells.

Yes.

Which article?

That is irrelvent.

Muslims have a massive area of land, and the Jews have a tiny slither. The Jews have offered and offered and offered again land for peace. The 2000 accords were more than reasonable, giving up nearly all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and all of Gaza. The Palestinans have made no counter offer and have continued a campagin of terroirsim, intentionally killing civilians. The Isralies have been only trying to kill the people who are killing them, not the civilians, but the terrorists who hide among them"

offered land for peace? that would be like a thief stealing 100,000$ from you then offering to loan you back to you if you drop criminal charges against him.

Israel is not offering the Palestinians a dysfunctional state that cannot possibly thrive, what is offered is a Bantuland like the Aparthied regime in S Africa tried to install. Why should any people who live in under a brutal foreign military occupation have to negotiate their freedom and return of their land?
"please answer that"(of course no one will because there is no defense for occupying the West Bank) Where else in the world has this been acceptable?

As for terrorism, it has always been acceptable for native populations to resist occupation armies it's self defense. And those who resist are not hiding among the civilians, they are civilians, where else do you expect them to go.

"

offered land for peace? that would be like a thief stealing 100,000$ from you then offering to loan you back to you if you drop criminal charges against him.

Israel is not offering the Palestinians a dysfunctional state that cannot possibly thrive, what is offered is a Bantuland like the Aparthied regime in S Africa tried to install. Why should any people who live in under a brutal foreign military occupation have to negotiate their freedom and return of their land?
"please answer that"(of course no one will because there is no defense for occupying the West Bank) Where else in the world has this been acceptable?

As for terrorism, it has always been acceptable for native populations to resist occupation armies it's self defense. And those who resist are not hiding among the civilians, they are civilians, where else do you expect them to go.



Of course that whole being attacked by Jordan from the West Bank thing completely escapes you.

People who take up arms are not considered "civilians". They are belligerants. Hiding among non-combatants IS against the Geneva conventions. Indescriminately attacking civilian targets is also against the Geneva Conventions. Or do only the Isreali's have to follow it now?

So you don't care about uprooting millions of people to be displaced? Or is it only Jews and now Mormons you don't care about?

Sounds like he supports ethnic cleansing doesn't it?

"

offered land for peace? that would be like a thief stealing 100,000$ from you then offering to loan you back to you if you drop criminal charges against him.

Happened with Egypt in 1973. They got the Sinai Peninsula back when they signed a peace treaty with Israel.

Sounds like he supports ethnic cleansing doesn't it?

Remember though, the ones that lived there prior to 1946 can stay. Anyone else born or immigrated after that time has to go.

That's due to the attitude Jews have shown by demanding a state there. So if people can live freely in America, then let the Jews live freely in America. Maybe create a new state for them in Utah.

let's expand that thought-
-Give all the prime land in Utah to any religious sect whose members come from around the world.
No one else is allowed to immigrate to Utah except that sect, family members of existing natives are not allowed to immigrate to Utah.
New arrivals are given select areas of land forbidden to natives.
Natives are not allowed to travel on the new comers roads.
Natives must clear military checkpoints to move around Utah, a 5minute trip can take a day through detours.
New comers are given control of the one major natural resource(in the west bank it's water).
Water is supplied for the newcomers lawns and swimming pools but denied the natives from farming needs.
Natives are rarely given permits to build homes on their own land forcing them into ever worsening living conditions, when they build on their own land homes are torn down as they built without permits.
Newcomers are rarely denied building permits and illegal buildings are rarely torn down.
Natives are told they have control of their own land but in truth the new comers control all airspace and borders.
That was essentially generous offer for peace from Israel, it's not surprising Arafat nor any other Palestinian leader could not accept it, their people would refuse.

Happened with Egypt in 1973. They got the Sinai Peninsula back when they signed a peace treaty with Israel.

Of course the analogy would be more like a thief trying to break into your house, you smacking him down and taking his car, then giving his car back for the promise never to do it again.

Remember though, the ones that lived there prior to 1946 can stay. Anyone else born or immigrated after that time has to go.

Then that should include the palestinians who were born after 1946 because it was not there land either. :D

let's expand that thought-
-Give all the prime land in Utah to any religious sect whose members come from around the world.
No one else is allowed to immigrate to Utah except that sect, family members of existing natives are not allowed to immigrate to Utah.
New arrivals are given select areas of land forbidden to natives.
Natives are not allowed to travel on the new comers roads.
Natives must clear military checkpoints to move around Utah, a 5minute trip can take a day through detours.
New comers are given control of the one major natural resource(in the west bank it's water).
Water is supplied for the newcomers lawns and swimming pools but denied the natives from farming needs.
Natives are rarely given permits to build homes on their own land forcing them into ever worsening living conditions, when they build on their own land homes are torn down as they built without permits.
Newcomers are rarely denied building permits and illegal buildings are rarely torn down.
Natives are told they have control of their own land but in truth the new comers control all airspace and borders.
That was essentially generous offer for peace from Israel, it's not surprising Arafat nor any other Palestinian leader could not accept it, their people would refuse.

Nothing like ethnic cleansing, eh?

http://i13.tinypic.com/4i71ro6.png

http://i13.tinypic.com/4i71ro6.png

So you're saying we should kiss and make up? :)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/1147555133782.jpg

So you're saying we should kiss and make up? :)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/1147555133782.jpg

Mmmmmm, patriotic lesbianism

Which article?

Article 49, para 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was a clarification of the same Article in the Third Geneva Convention.

WWII produced a problem with "creeping" annexation. A tactic used to justify full annexation of territory by introducing the occupier's civilians into occupied territory. The justification post conflict would be arguing against the uprooting of said civilians.

Annexation of territory by Treaty or legal instrument is not covered. As a historical note, the League of Nations redrew national lines in Versailles in 1919, depriving Germany of 13.5% of it's national territory (approximately 7 million people) as a remedy for WWI.

(See the Treaty of Versailles and it's 440 Articles...yeesh)

Territorial Annexation in war has been frowned upon since WWI and various treaties have offered punitive remedies for violators.

Kec, it's pretty obvious that Beleriand's definition of humans only applies to Arabs.

For example, the people that "live there" and are "born there" get to call it home.

Unless, of course, they are the evil j00z. In which case, it doesn't matter how many generations were born there.

Perhaps what Beleriand is really upset about is despite the fact that Egyptian soldiers can get their act together in 1973, and the Hezbollah can fight effectively in this past year's actions, the Palestinians are still the idiot stepchildren of the God of War - they can't do anything without being wtfpwned.Unless, of course, they are the evil immigrant j00z.

Article 49, para 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was a clarification of the same Article in the Third Geneva Convention.

WWII produced a problem with "creeping" annexation. A tactic used to justify full annexation of territory by introducing the occupier's civilians into occupied territory. The justification post conflict would be arguing against the uprooting of said civilians.

Annexation of territory by Treaty or legal instrument is not covered. As a historical note, the League of Nations redrew national lines in Versailles in 1919, depriving Germany of 13.5% of it's national territory (approximately 7 million people) as a remedy for WWI.

(See the Treaty of Versailles and it's 440 Articles...yeesh)

Territorial Annexation in war has been frowned upon since WWI and various treaties have offered punitive remedies for violators.

Frowned upon yes. I'll agree that the 4th is against people in occupied territories. However, it has nothing to do w. the 49th article of the 3rd which covers Labor of prisoners of war. Isn't it nice how presenting a source can make for supporting a debate point.

Now an interesting point that was brought up was that it was claimed only the West Bank was occupied and was the only section under discussion here. I support the occupation of the WB but not the settlements. The point of contention here was that UB considers ALL of Isreal occupied by the Jews and not just the GS and WB.

Nothing like ethnic cleansing, eh?

Remember, it's not ethnic cleansing if they're brown people- who are terrorists by defintion.

:rolleyes:

Nothing like ethnic cleansing, eh?Guess you should know as you're on the invaders' side.

Now show me where "Palestine" is on the map.

Its the place currently occupied by the jews. InshAllah this won't be for much longer.

Now show me where "Palestine" is on the map.Show me Israel on a 1947 map and I'll show you Palestine.

Show me Israel on a 1947 map and I'll show you Palestine.

Translation: You'll make it up as much as you claim the UN did.

Unless, of course, they are the evil immigrant j00z.

now show me the percentage that are direct immigrants as compared to those born there. Howabout those that are being killed?

Its the place currently occupied by the jews. InshAllah this won't be for much longer.

Translation: Nowhere. It doesn't exist.

now show me the percentage that are direct immigrants as compared to those born there. Howabout those that are being killed?

last I saw, israel is about 60% immigrant

Of course that whole being attacked by Jordan from the West Bank thing completely escapes you.

People who take up arms are not considered "civilians". They are belligerants. Hiding among non-combatants IS against the Geneva conventions. Indescriminately attacking civilian targets is also against the Geneva Conventions. Or do only the Isreali's have to follow it now?

her's what you conveniently omit, Israel and Jordon have a peace treaty signed in '94, the war is over so why is Israel still in the West Bank? building permanent colonies?

Calling resistance fighters terrorists may be acceptable from 1967-'94 but once the treaty with Jordan was official Israel had no right to remain in the West Bank, it's blatant annexation.
It's not surprising the populace has revolted, Jordan has given up on them, the USA blocks any move at the UN to have Israel removed from the West bank. 40yrs under a military occupation with no end in site and no hope for their future, only terms offered them are worse than anything that existed in S Africa's apartheid regime, worse than the conditions in Tibet. .....What choice do they have but to strap bombs to themselves, desperate people born in desperate conditions take desperate measures.

now show me the percentage that are direct immigrants as compared to those born there. Howabout those that are being killed?Very funny. Just look at the numbers. Look how many Jews lived in Palestine in 1918 or so and then look how many were there in 1947. The increase was surely not caused by human reproduction.

last I saw, israel is about 60% immigrant

"Last you saw"? And where was that?

According to the Isreali census, it's about 65% natural citizens.

Very funny. Just look at the numbers. Look how many Jews lived in Palestine in 1918 or so and then look how many were there in 1947. The increase was surely not caused by human reproduction.

So people born there after 1918 are still immigrants in your world? Nice that you're now dropping the date 30 years earlier.

her's what you conveniently omit, Israel and Jordon have a peace treaty signed in '94, the war is over so why is Israel still in the West Bank? building permanent colonies?

Has Jordan recognized Isreal?

Edit: Yes

Have they (Jordan)followed suit on the security agreements?

No

Jordan is in violation of Article 4.

Calling resistance fighters terrorists may be acceptable from 1967-'94 but once the treaty with Jordan was official Israel had no right to remain in the West Bank, it's blatant annexation.
It's not surprising the populace has revolted, Jordan has given up on them, the USA blocks any move at the UN to have Israel removed from the West bank. 40yrs under a military occupation with no end in site and no hope for their future, only terms offered them are worse than anything that existed in S Africa's apartheid regime, worse than the conditions in Tibet. .....What choice do they have but to strap bombs to themselves, desperate people born in desperate conditions take desperate measures.

Have the bombings stopped from the WB? Who rejected every peace treaty? Since you don't like sourcing things, why should I take your word that the terms are "terms offered them are worse than anything that existed in S Africa's apartheid regime"?

Has Jordan recognized Isreal?



yes, and if I'm not mistaken they even sold out to the west and signed a peace agreement with them.

yes, and if I'm not mistaken they even sold out to the west and signed a peace agreement with them.

So stopping a war is "selling out".

Gotcha.

So stopping a war is "selling out".

Gotcha.

The illegitimate government back down from Islamic values and defending Muslims for favours and money from the west. That is most definitely selling out.

So people born there after 1918 are still immigrants in your world? Nice that you're now dropping the date 30 years earlier.They are the immigrants' offspring.
So seem to have a problem with looking at the issue from the beginning. The beginning was the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (although Jews/Zionists had been claiming a Jewish state for some before that) when Arabs were freed of Turkish oppression, after which the Middle East was sliced up into petty administrative areas. Unfortunately in reality those areas were spheres of interest of former colonial powers.

They are the immigrants' offspring...

then all the people in the US are immigrants still because of their forefathers... except the native americans of course. stupid argument, if they were born in Israel, they're not an immigrant.

They are the immigrants' offspring.
So seem to have a problem with looking at the issue from the beginning. The beginning was the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (although Jews/Zionists had been claiming a Jewish state for some before that) when Arabs were freed of Turkish oppression, after which the Middle East was sliced up into petty administrative areas. Unfortunately in reality those areas were spheres of interest of former colonial powers.

So you just selectively pick dates to justify who "owns" the land and who it's OK to kill.

then all the people in the US are immigrants still because of their forefathers... except the native americans of course. stupid argument, if they were born in Israel, they're not an immigrant.

But then he couldn't justify blowing up buildings filled w/ teenagers. He considers them combatants.

The illegitimate government back down from Islamic values and defending Muslims for favours and money from the west. That is most definitely selling out.

Because they don't kowtow to killing all jews you mean.

then all the people in the US are immigrants still because of their forefathers... except the native americans of course. stupid argument, if they were born in Israel, they're not an immigrant.They weren't supposed to be born there just as their parents weren't supposed to be there.
Why didn't they simply hold a referendum in the British administrative area of Palestine and ask its inhabitants what they wanted? If they were for a division or against. But I guess the mandatory powers would have feared the outcome and would have had to accept that there was in fact no justification to proceed with the partition.

They weren't supposed to be born there just as their parents weren't supposed to be there.
Why didn't they simply hold a referendum in the British administrative area of Palestine and ask its inhabitants what they wanted? If they were for a division or against. But I guess the mandatory powers would have feared the outcome and would have had to accept that there was in fact no justification to proceed with the partition.

You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?

How far back are you going to go this time?

Nicely ironic that the most of the Palestinians born today haven't lived there but you keep trying to argue it's "thier" land.

You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?What a BS. Most folks in the region just tried to survive by tilling their soil. They did not really care what happened in distant Germany, just like folks in rural Germany didn't care what happened in distant Berlin. I'm not sure what your idea of those times is. They had no news on the internet then, no tv and no papers for the most part as well. All that Palestinian Arabs saw was that after the Turks had gone Jews came in. One group of unfriendly foreigners who wanted Arab land was replaced by another.

You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?



Though I've given up on this thread, I am forced back by that gross distortion. Whatever about the activities of the Grand M., saying that Palestinians as a people "supported the ss" is a distortion. The Arabs wanted independence and allied themselves with the British in WW1, and in hope of the same with the Germans in WWII. I doubt the majority knew what "Nazi" meant at the time.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia;12057023]Has Jordan recognized Isreal?

Edit: Yes

Have they (Jordan)followed suit on the security agreements?

No

Jordan is in violation of Article 4.



Have the bombings stopped from the WB? Who rejected every peace treaty? Since you don't like sourcing things, why should I take your word that the terms are "terms offered them are worse than anything that existed in S Africa's apartheid regime"?[/QUOTE

Violation of article 4-I wouldn't know

Bombings stopped from the West Bank-there was a time when things were relatively peaceful on the west bank, but that ended when the people saw they were being screwed over, Israel was never planning on leaving, so Israel is responsible for the worsening of the violence.

why should you take my word? that's up to you, I have my best friend of 30yrs a Black S African who lived through the worst of the Aparthied regime(he has some horrific stories), his words "we had it good compared to the Palestinians, those people are really f**ked"

They weren't supposed to be born there just as their parents weren't supposed to be there.
Why didn't they simply hold a referendum in the British administrative area of Palestine and ask its inhabitants what they wanted? If they were for a division or against. But I guess the mandatory powers would have feared the outcome and would have had to accept that there was in fact no justification to proceed with the partition.

They didn't do that because the Palestinians were led by an SS Officer who helped plan, sell to Hitler, and then implement the Final Solution.

But yeah, in your world it's reasonable to let such a leader rule over the Jews.

What a BS. Most folks in the region just tried to survive by tilling their soil. They did not really care what happened in distant Germany, just like folks in rural Germany didn't care what happened in distant Berlin. I'm not sure what your idea of those times is. They had no news on the internet then, no tv and no papers for the most part as well. All that Palestinian Arabs saw was that after the Turks had gone Jews came in. One group of unfriendly foreigners who wanted Arab land was replaced by another.

You're the one who is full of BS. The leader of the Palestinians was Haj Amin Al-Husseini. He and Himmler were the architects of the Final Solution. You know jack shit and just showed it to everyone.

I doubt the majority knew what "Nazi" meant at the time.Even most German didn't. Surely not those living in rural areas outside the larger cities.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia;12057023]Has Jordan recognized Isreal?

Edit: Yes

Have they (Jordan)followed suit on the security agreements?

No

Jordan is in violation of Article 4.



Have the bombings stopped from the WB? Who rejected every peace treaty? Since you don't like sourcing things, why should I take your word that the terms are "terms offered them are worse than anything that existed in S Africa's apartheid regime"?[/QUOTE

Violation of article 4-I wouldn't know

Bombings stopped from the West Bank-there was a time when things were relatively peaceful on the west bank, but that ended when the people saw they were being screwed over, Israel was never planning on leaving, so Israel is responsible for the worsening of the violence.

why should you take my word? that's up to you, I have my best friend of 30yrs a Black S African who lived through the worst of the Aparthied regime(he has some horrific stories), his words "we had it good compared to the Palestinians, those people are really f**ked"



So you deny continued attacks by Hezbollah throughout the years and it's continued existance?

Disarming/stopping them was part of the security agreement. Jordan did not and has not done so.

You're anectdote really has no authority.

They weren't supposed to be born there just as their parents weren't supposed to be there.
Why didn't they simply hold a referendum in the British administrative area of Palestine and ask its inhabitants what they wanted? If they were for a division or against. But I guess the mandatory powers would have feared the outcome and would have had to accept that there was in fact no justification to proceed with the partition.

whether or not they "weren't supposed to be there" ... they were there. that just sounds like a whiney argument to me. "but but... its MY TURN!!!!"

Instead of whining about what happened in the past, why aren't the people trying to get their situation fixed rationally? I don't disagree that Israel isn't complicit in underhanded dealings and questionable military actions, but the Palestinians seem to be doing nothing constructive towards getting their own nation-state in the region.

They didn't do that because the Palestinians were led by an SS Officer who helped plan, sell to Hitler, and then implement the Final Solution.

But yeah, in your world it's reasonable to let such a leader rule over the Jews.

He did not "plan, sell to Hitler and then implement the final solution". You won't find that in any creditable text on the period - its a monumental exaggeration of his importance. Secondly, as he left the area in 1936, how much he was actually "leading" in any active sense is open to question.

Even most German didn't. Surely not those living in rural areas outside the larger cities.

Right. More made up history on your part.

Though I've given up on this thread, I am forced back by that gross distortion. Whatever about the activities of the Grand M., saying that Palestinians as a people "supported the ss" is a distortion. The Arabs wanted independence and allied themselves with the British in WW1, and in hope of the same with the Germans in WWII. I doubt the majority knew what "Nazi" meant at the time.I never knew that about the German /Palestine connection in ww2, not surprising if true, seeing as how they fought along the Brits against the Turks to get independence only to see the brits renege on the deal and promise it as a Jewish homeland....I suppose they figured we can't trust the Brits so we'll throw in with their enemies they must be better at keeping an agreement(can't be worse)

You're the one who is full of BS. The leader of the Palestinians was Haj Amin Al-Husseini. He and Himmler were the architects of the Final Solution. You know jack shit and just showed it to everyone.


"He and Himmler"? Sheer fantasy. Why was he not at Wannsee then? Did he delegate the job to Heydrich?

Right. More made up history on your part.You overestimate the education of ordinary Germans in the 1920ies. They voted for the Nazis because their promises to create work sounded good. Maybe you should go back to school and finally learn something, youngling. They knew nothing of what they really planned.

He did not "plan, sell to Hitler and then implement the final solution". You won't find that in any creditable text on the period - its a monumental exaggeration of his importance. Secondly, as he left the area in 1936, how much he was actually "leading" in any active sense is open to question.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248081,00.html

You overestimate the education of ordinary Germans in th 1920ies. They voted for the Nazis because their promises to create work sounded good. Maybe you should go back to school and finally learn something, youngling.

Hee, hee. So first you say that they didn't know who the Nazi's were now you're saying they voted for them? I guess Men Kampf being a best seller and near mandatory ownership doesn't mean anything.

Seems my history is a little more accurate than yours.

I never knew that about the German /Palestine connection in ww2, not surprising if true, seeing as how they fought along the Brits against the Turks to get independence only to see the brits renege on the deal and promise it as a Jewish homeland....I suppose they figured we can't trust the Brits so we'll throw in with their enemies they must be better at keeping an agreement(can't be worse)

Nail on the head. However the (quite genuine) Nazi sympathies of one individual are being used to blacken the people as a whole, and his importance distorted beyond recognition.

Nail on the head. However the (quite genuine) Nazi sympathies of one individual are being used to blacken the people as a whole, and his importance distorted beyond recognition.

Now reading the article shows the Nazi's believed they had strong public support based on hatred of Jews.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248081,00.html

And what about that contradicts what I said below....?

"Though I've given up on this thread, I am forced back by that gross distortion. Whatever about the activities of the Grand M., saying that Palestinians as a people "supported the ss" is a distortion. The Arabs wanted independence and allied themselves with the British in WW1, and in hope of the same with the Germans in WWII. I doubt the majority knew what "Nazi" meant at the time."

Now reading the article shows the Nazi's believed they had strong public support based on hatred of Jews.

And this equals=support of the third reich=the holocaust = OMG TEH ARABESEZ ARE NAZIS111!!!!111"? Seems like theres more than one here with a taste for fantasy.

And what about that contradicts what I said below....?

"Though I've given up on this thread, I am forced back by that gross distortion. Whatever about the activities of the Grand M., saying that Palestinians as a people "supported the ss" is a distortion. The Arabs wanted independence and allied themselves with the British in WW1, and in hope of the same with the Germans in WWII. I doubt the majority knew what "Nazi" meant at the time."

“The Palestinian Arabs show on all levels a great sympathy for the new Germany and its Fuhrer, a sympathy whose value is particularly
high as it is based on a purely ideological foundation,” a Nazi official in Palestine wrote in a letter to Berlin in 1937."

Hee, hee. So first you say that they didn't know who the Nazi's were now you're saying they voted for them? I guess Men Kampf being a best seller and near mandatory ownership doesn't mean anything.

Seems my history is a little more accurate than yours.Ordinary Germans haven't read Mein Kampf, most haven't read any books after they left school in fact. Who teaches you such bs? Of course most folks didn't know what Nazis where, they only may have seen their election pamphlets with all the nice sounding promises, you know they didn't know back then what we know today.

And this equals=support of the third reich=the holocaust = OMG TEH ARABESEZ ARE NAZIS111!!!!111"? Seems like theres more than one here with a taste for fantasy.

Nice strawman. Did I say "Arabs" are Nazi's? Nope, try again. Did I say there was support for the Nazi's by the populace during WWII? Yes.

but the Palestinians seem to be doing nothing constructive towards getting their own nation-state in the region.

40yrs of occupation, how patient do you expect them to be before they explode.....my parents and brothers and sisters lived in occupied europe for 6 yrs, my mother has never gotten over it and still breaks down when she thinks about it, I don't think she could comprehend 40yrs of oppression, curfews, ID checks, guns pointed at your head, family menbers dragged off by military police, innocent neighbours murdered, beatings, homes with entire families blown up......which makes it all so hard for me to understand here is a people who suffered horribly under the nazi's and they have no problem doing the same to another people(not all however, I know of a number of Jews who are deeply troubled by Israels behaviour)

Now reading the article shows the Nazi's believed they had strong public support based on hatred of Jews.No. The support was based on Nazi promises to fight unemployment and heal the economic wounds of WW1.

well, my thoughts on the OP is that Sovietstan's opinion is highly colored due to his apparently renewal of religious faith. How could anyone think that the israeli's were worse than the nazi's is beyond me. I think once the nation of israel starts systematically killing non-jews for them being non-jews, then we can start to compare... otherwise. It's worse than comparing apples and oranges.

Ordinary Germans haven't read Mein Kampf, most haven't read any books after they left school in fact. Who teaches you such bs? Of course most folks didn't know what Nazis where, they only may have seen their election pamphlets with all the nice sounding promises, you know they didn't know back then what we know today.

And you have some sort of proof that most people didn't read books? You seem to forget about this nice little thing called "radio". I've already shown one book you cited as incorrect as well as called you on your other "facts"? There were over 10 million copies sold or distributed by the end of the war. Every soldier got one as well as every newlywed couple.

Make up some more "facts" why don't you.

No. The support was based on Nazi promises to fight unemployment and heal the economic wounds of WW1.

Prove it. Your "evidence" here has been pretty pathetic.

40yrs of occupation, how patient do you expect them to be before they explode.....my parents and brothers and sisters lived in occupied europe for 6 yrs, my mother has never gotten over it and still breaks down when she thinks about it, I don't think she could comprehend 40yrs of oppression, curfews, ID checks, guns pointed at your head, family menbers dragged off by military police, innocent neighbours murdered, beatings, homes with entire families blown up......which makes it all so hard for me to understand here is a people who suffered horribly under the nazi's and they have no problem doing the same to another people(not all however, I know of a number of Jews who are deeply troubled by Israels behaviour)

how old are you again? Did you miss my statement of i disagree w/ israel's underhanded tactics?

“The Palestinian Arabs show on all levels a great sympathy for the new Germany and its Fuhrer, a sympathy whose value is particularly
high as it is based on a purely ideological foundation,” a Nazi official in Palestine wrote in a letter to Berlin in 1937."

So Arab Ideology allows them to link with the Nazis in 1937...despite the fact that certain elements of Nazism are so at odds with even moderate Islam he'd be sent home in pieces if they knew what the "new Germany" entailed. Its essentially taking the letter of a man trying to get his project off the ground and is essentially applying the butter, and distorting it out of all importance and context. Intellectual dishonesty of the first order. When you have to subvert truth to further your agenda, its time to start questioning yourself.

40yrs of occupation, how patient do you expect them to be before they explode.....my parents and brothers and sisters lived in occupied europe for 6 yrs, my mother has never gotten over it and still breaks down when she thinks about it, I don't think she could comprehend 40yrs of oppression, curfews, ID checks, guns pointed at your head, family menbers dragged off by military police, innocent neighbours murdered, beatings, homes with entire families blown up......which makes it all so hard for me to understand here is a people who suffered horribly under the nazi's and they have no problem doing the same to another people(not all however, I know of a number of Jews who are deeply troubled by Israels behaviour)

And being that Isreal isn't doing nearly what the Nazi's did and have been under attack themselves for almost 60 years is once again completely ignored.

Prove it. Your "evidence" here has been pretty pathetic.Germans had other problems after WW1 than Jews. They may have used them as scape goats, but they surely didn't make them vote for any particular party.

So Arab Ideology allows them to link with the Nazis in 1937...despite the fact that certain elements of Nazism are so at odds with even moderate Islam he'd be sent home in pieces if they knew what the "new Germany" entailed. Its essentially taking the letter of a man trying to get his project off the ground and is essentially applying the butter, and distorting it out of all importance and context. Intellectual dishonesty of the first order. When you have to subvert truth to further your agenda, its time to start questioning yourself.

"Intellectual dishonesty"? Please. You mean that you think the Germans wouldn't use the Arabs to keep the Jews down? There weren't arms shipments? Who was lower on their list?

Now reading the article shows the Nazi's believed they had strong public support based on hatred of Jews.impossible to get into someone's head 60-70 yrs ago, but I can see the Palestinians being upset to see Jews being given a country when they had an agreement for the same land.....it wouldn't be hard for the Nazi's to convince them that the Zionists had to be resisted....I can't fault them for that, I wouldn't be too happy having a foreign power give away my people's hopes for nationhood to another group....

Nice strawman. Did I say "Arabs" are Nazi's? Nope, try again. Did I say there was support for the Nazi's by the populace during WWII? Yes.


You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?

Theres a clear implication there. And its not that a group under imperial dominion sought the aid of its enemies to further their own ends.

And being that Isreal isn't doing nearly what the Nazi's did and have been under attack themselves for almost 60 years is once again completely ignored.They could have gone elsewhere. Their coming to the Middle East created the problem, not the Arabs being already there.

impossible to get into someone's head 60-70 yrs ago, but I can see the Palestinians being upset to see Jews being given a country when they had an agreement for the same land.....it wouldn't be hard for the Nazi's to convince them that the Zionists had to be resisted....I can't fault them for that, I wouldn't be too happy having a foreign power give away my people's hopes for nationhood to another group....

Yet the violence against the Jews started years before that.

They could have gone elsewhere. Their coming to the Middle East created the problem, not the Arabs being already there.

So once again, you're okay w/ displacing other people.

Yet the violence against the Jews started years before that.That's not true. The first Jewish immigrants were even helped by Arabs.

You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?

Theres a clear implication there. And its not that a group under imperial dominion sought the aid of its enemies to further their own ends.

Now who's being intellectually dishonest? The post was directed toward the "Palestinians" not "Arabs".

"Intellectual dishonesty"? Please. You mean that you think the Germans wouldn't use the Arabs to keep the Jews down? There weren't arms shipments? Who was lower on their list?

To once again show your original. You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?

What the Germans would or would not do with the Arabs is neither here nor there. Anyone promising to aid the Germans was given weapons. IRA men captured fighting Franco were freed to get weapons back to engage the British on what was hoped would be another front.

That's not true. The first Jewish immigrants were even helped by Arabs.

Did I say they weren't? No. I said the violence between the Jews and Muslims started before the 1930's.

Now who's being intellectually dishonest? The post was directed toward the "Palestinians" not "Arabs".

Now this, this is a straw man.

To once again show your original. You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?

What the Germans would or would not do with the Arabs is neither here nor there. Anyone promising to aid the Germans was given weapons. IRA men captured fighting Franco were freed to get weapons back to engage the British on what was hoped would be another front.

So what's your point? The Palestinians supported the Germans against the English and Jews. Why should the English give them a choice which was the question?

So once again, you're okay w/ displacing other people.how would diverting the Jews to another place have been displacing? They were leaving Europe anyways, but there was no need to exactly go to the Middle East, where they knew that other people were living already.

And being that Isreal isn't doing nearly what the Nazi's did and have been under attack themselves for almost 60 years is once again completely ignored.

Actually, according to my mother and father other than the death camps, Israeli occupation is worse than that of the Nazi's. I know them well so I'll accept their as expertise on the subject of brutal military occupations as superior anything you have to offer.

Now this, this is a straw man.

No, this is trying to keep you from dodging around. The topic was a Palestinian Mandate. Not an "Arab" one.

Nice try but no cigar.

how would diverting the Jews to another place have been displacing? They were leaving Europe anyways, but there was no need to exactly go to the Middle East, where they knew that other people were living already.

So where would they go that had no people? You tell me.

Now who's being intellectually dishonest? The post was directed toward the "Palestinians" not "Arabs".Weren't you the one always claiming Palestinians didn't exist? Well, that's in fact true. They were Arabs only living in a territory called Palestine. That's what made them Palestinians, not any different views.

Actually, according to my mother and father other than the death camps, Israeli occupation is worse than that of the Nazi's. I know them well so I'll accept their as expertise on the subject of brutal military occupations as superior anything you have to offer.

And since I don't know them nor you, why should I accept anectdotes you have to offer?

So where would they go that had no people? You tell me.I don't care. Not the Middle East. E.g. the US has vast empty spaces, and Americans seem to love chews.

Weren't you the one always claiming Palestinians didn't exist? Well, that's in fact true. They were Arabs only living in a territory called Palestine. That's what made them Palestinians, not any different views.

Yet you called for a mandate? Should that have included every single place that included Arabs or are you just dodging around again?

I don't care. Not the Middle East. E.g. the US has vast empty spaces.

Right. You just contradict yourself. You do care. NIMBY.

Right. You just contradict yourself. You do care. NIMBY.The Middle East already had people. I do not contradict myself if and when I say that I don't care what other place they would have settled in. Just no place where they expected the inhabitants to just move over.

Yet you called for a mandate? Should that have included every single place that included Arabs or are you just dodging around again?Who called for a mandate? I did not even call for slicing up the area into spheres of colonial influence. I would have let the Arabs govern themselves.

So what's your point? The Palestinians supported the Germans against the English and Jews. Why should the English give them a choice which was the question?


"The Palestinians supported the Germans against the English and the perceived threat of Zionist immigrants" is what you're after. They had plenty of opportunity to bump off the Jews living amongst them yet they were still there by the time the Brits arrived.

As to "why?" It was the British violation of their promise to the Arabs which caused them to turn to Germany in the first place. Secondly the terms of the mandate were such that they were obligated to grant indepence. And as the German state was not obliterated after WWII and broken up, why should a pre-war requisite for an independent state in the middle east be denied?

No, this is trying to keep you from dodging around. The topic was a Palestinian Mandate. Not an "Arab" one.

Nice try but no cigar.

And when you stated "You mean the same people that allied themselves w/ Nazi Germany and supported the SS?" who were you referring to?

Yet the violence against the Jews started years before that.
yes but the agreement then the agreement was broken years before too.....not long ago I saw BBC interview with either Tony Blair or his number 2(I forget which), and he openly admitted that Britain was at fault for the problems of the middle east, the agreement with the Zionist was wrong but there was nothing that could be done about it now.....

yes but the agreement then the agreement was broken years before too.....not long ago I saw BBC interview with either Tony Blair or his number 2(I forget which), and he openly admitted that Britain was at fault for the problems of the middle east, the agreement with the Zionist was wrong but there was nothing that could be done about it now.....Blair admitted that? Well, there's always a way to correct a mistake. Let the Jews have half of Wales now, the UN can surely draw up a partition plan...

Blair admitted that? Well, there's always a way to correct a mistake. Let the Jews have Wales now.Blair or the other name that comes to mind Jack Straw? I'm no longer sure .....but anyways the problem can be overcome if there is a will to do so......it's a matter of Israel and the USA negotiating honestly, just as South Africa did....the apartheid regime had the strength to hold power but at what cost....they choose to take the risk, release Mandela begin the process of healing, the black s africans responded forgave the crimes of the oppressive regime and accepted the whites.....except for a high crime rate due to extreme poverty the country has a racial peace.....

my solution for Israel/Palestine.....one state, Israel will not give up the west bank so they must accept the Palestinians as citizen's and become a secular state for Jews and Muslims......and over a period of time start accepting the return of the refugees and compensate them for lost homes......the money needed for compensation can come from the 6 billion per yr the US gives in mostly military aid, it would be a bargain for the US to end the cycle of terror attacks against them(how much has the 9/11 cost them, including Iraq?)if it brings peace to the region Israel won't need the 6 billion for weapons anymore....of course there will be people saying there is too much hate between them for it to work...but I have faith in human nature, even my mother talks to Germans again(not totally forgiven though)....

Wow. This thread is part of the problem. People seem to be unable to discuss this issue logically!

It seems to me that the issue of Isreal's right to exist rests on a few key issues:

Did the jews "steal" the land from those living there?
--I would say yes because a majority of the pre 1947 inhabitans do not have a say in their futer.

Was it an "evil" master plan of the jews?
--I would say no because the zionist movment stated in 1890 in response to the Drefus affair in France. it was a nonissue untill the holocaust.

Do the Palestinians "deserve" what they are getting?
--absolutely not! The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are the worlds largest concentration camps.

weather or not the Zionists started out with the intention of forming an appartied state is unkowable but there is no doubt that the Israelis are currently systematically destroying the Palestinians.

There is a word for that and it is GENOSIDE

now I am sure there are many angry people out there after reading this. Let me make myself perfectly clear.

I DO NOT HATE JEWS. I do have a major problem with ISRAELIS

There is a word for that and it is GENOSIDE
:p

Genocide? Oh, please. How are the Israelis systematically destroying the Palestinians? The Palestinians would happily kill every Israeli, if they had the chance. Israel obviously is in the position of power here, but I don't see them slaughtering Palestinians by the thousands.

How are the Israelis systematically destroying the Palestinians?By being in the land they are not supposed to be in. Since two peoples cannot live in the same place, the newcomers must go back.

So what about a partition of Wales by the UN to give one half to Jews?
Wouldn't that be the best for all? What, the British wouldn't want that? Well, then why was the same forced on the Arabs?

By being in the land they are not supposed to be in. Since two peoples cannot live in the same place, the newcomers must go back.

So what about a partition of Wales by the UN to give one half to Jews?
Wouldn't that be the best for all? What, the British wouldn't want that? Well, then why was the same forced on the Arabs?
:rolleyes:
White Australia Policy! Keep the black people out of Australia, we don't want them destroying our culture!
HOW can two people not live in the same place?

You do not see Israelis lineing Palestinians up to be shot no of course not.

That is because they have learned the hard way that if you create martyers it gets worse.

You DO see them takeing land that isn't their's
You DO see them destroying ancient olive groves
You DO see them destroying homes
You DO see them creating an apartheid system

Currently the palestinians hold one Israeli soldier hostage
the Israelis have 10000 prisoners in in cluding 2000 women and 1000 children (under the age of 12)

A majority of palestinians would like nothing better than to go on with their lives normaly regardless of Israels existance.

They would have no problem with Israel if Israel didn't keep coming in with tanks, fighter jets and modernly equipped soldiers and shooting stone throwing kids.

The military threat possed by Palestinve is minimal as witnessed by the causualty rate of palestinians vs. Israelis.

The Israelis are far beong the boarders agreed on and recorded in international law. They repeatedly break the Geneva convention (as does the US I might add)

Why does the US support a racist regime? and a fascist Israeli government.


NoteL before squaking about the word fascist look it up!!

fascist doesn't equal Nazi

Whats with all the Nazi threads, its like Godwins law times 100.
It's called the Big Lie technique:headbang:

It's not apartheid or racist. They have Arab members of parliament and Arab citizens have exactly the same civil rights as Jewish citizens.

It's not apartheid or racist. They have Arab members of parliament and Arab citizens have exactly the same civil rights as Jewish citizens.

Well that is a complete Lie...

The right of travel is restricted. the Israeli military reestricts who can and can't enter the occupied territories. Humanitrian aid has often needed to wait days at check points.

A palestinian needs a pass to be out of the Occupied territories. can any one remember the yellow stars jews needed to wear!?

Just thought this might come up eventually: I have a close friend who lives in Jerusalem so my information is from him. as the news as been known to be.. ahm... less than adequate.

:rolleyes:
White Australia Policy! Keep the black people out of Australia, we don't want them destroying our culture!
HOW can two people not live in the same place?Because the resources of Palestine are limited and are not supposed to support foreigners over native people.

So what about a partition of Wales by the UN to give one half to Jews?
Wouldn't that be the best for all? What, the British wouldn't want that? Well, then why was the same forced on the Arabs?

The jews have every right to live in Palestine but if they do there can be no caste system. Jew, Palestinian, muslim or christian it shouldn't matter.

I think half the probem might be that the israeli government is trying to be a theocracy with a secular society maybe? (That is a serious question) what do you think?

So what about a partition of Wales by the UN to give one half to Jews?
Wouldn't that be the best for all? What, the British wouldn't want that? Well, then why was the same forced on the Arabs?

good point. IF you are infavor of a Jewish homeland start with you neighborhood

don't steal someone elses!

Well according to his signature he's a Muslim, and he hates Jews. I am American and do not hate Jews or Israel. So OP, go play in traffic.

You do not see Israelis lineing Palestinians up to be shot no of course not.

That is because they have learned the hard way that if you create martyers it gets worse.

You DO see them takeing land that isn't their's
You DO see them destroying ancient olive groves
You DO see them destroying homes
You DO see them creating an apartheid system

Currently the palestinians hold one Israeli soldier hostage
the Israelis have 10000 prisoners in in cluding 2000 women and 1000 children (under the age of 12)

A majority of palestinians would like nothing better than to go on with their lives normaly regardless of Israels existance.

They would have no problem with Israel if Israel didn't keep coming in with tanks, fighter jets and modernly equipped soldiers and shooting stone throwing kids.

The military threat possed by Palestinve is minimal as witnessed by the causualty rate of palestinians vs. Israelis.

The Israelis are far beong the boarders agreed on and recorded in international law. They repeatedly break the Geneva convention (as does the US I might add)

Why does the US support a racist regime? and a fascist Israeli government.


NoteL before squaking about the word fascist look it up!!

fascist doesn't equal Nazi

:headbang: Wow. You are just another "Down with the Jews! America supports them, so they must be destroyed. Evil American and Evil Israel."

:headbang: Wow. You are just another "Down with the Jews! America supports them, so they must be destroyed. Evil American and Evil Israel."

You scare alotta crows with those strawmen?

:headbang: Wow. You are just another "Down with the Jews! America supports them, so they must be destroyed. Evil American and Evil Israel."It's not that simple. It's not important that it's Jews who came to Palestine to demand a state but that any foreigners would do that.

Frowned upon yes. I'll agree that the 4th is against people in occupied territories. However, it has nothing to do w. the 49th article of the 3rd which covers Labor of prisoners of war. Isn't it nice how presenting a source can make for supporting a debate point.

How? Article 49 of the Third Convention still prohibited Annexation of Territory gained in war. The Fourth Convention Art. 49, para 6 CLARIFIED the position to include "creeping" annexation. Read.

Further,various treaties between 1907 and 1919 provided harsh remedies against nations that annexed territory in war. The Second Geneva Convention was not clear on the subject so it was made abundantly clear through independent enforcement in harsh terms that such behavior was beyond the pale.

If you think i'm just another jew/america hater you havn't read my posts.

look at what the information is telling you! or look it up for youself if you don't belive me!!!

Okay but Israel did nothing wrong. Do you remember a time when five Middle Eastern nations attacked Israel and tried to DESTROY IT?! The Jews have been treated horribly since they entered the region. They defended themselves, and continue to defend themselves. Why shouldn't they occupy Arab nations? They have every right to after what these nations tried to do to them.

And yes I do see the invasion of a country that took Israel soldiers prisoner as the right and just thing to do.

Okay but Israel did nothing wrong. Do you remember a time when five Middle Eastern nations attacked Israel and tried to DESTROY IT?! The Jews have been treated horribly since they entered the region. They defended themselves, and continue to defend themselves. Why shouldn't they occupy Arab nations? They have every right to after what these nations tried to do to them.

And yes I do see the invasion of a country that took Israel soldiers prisoner as the right and just thing to do.BS. Why did foreign Jews enter the region in the first place? Because of their firm determination to create a state there, regardless who already lived there.
It was immigrant Jews who caused and started the conflict. There would have been no such conflict without their selfish ambitions.

Again, what about a partition of Wales by the UN to give one half to Jews?

Israel continues to exist and repress a significant portion of it's inhabitants because of US support. which is un founded. The Arab nations tried to destroy Israel for the same reason we destroyed Nazi Germany and the Confederate States of America.

Do you belive in Social Darwinism perchance?

BS. Why did foreign Jews enter the region in the first place? Because of their firm determination to create a state there, regardless who already lived there.
It was immigrant Jews who caused and started the conflict. There would have been no such conflict without their ambitions.

What? They wanted a homeland, and now the warring in the Middle East is THEIR fault? I hardly think that's fair. They shouldn't have to wander different countries AND be persecuted in those countries just so the Arabs can have a place to piss and moan about another country.

What? They wanted a homeland, and now the warring in the Middle East is THEIR fault? I hardly think that's fair. They shouldn't have to wander different countries AND be persecuted in those countries just so the Arabs can have a place to piss and moan about another country.

So Jews now have a more valid claim to that land than the Arabs? How do you justify that?

Israel continues to exist and repress a significant portion of it's inhabitants because of US support. which is un founded. The Arab nations tried to destroy Israel for the same reason we destroyed Nazi Germany and the Confederate States of America.

Do you belive in Social Darwinism perchance?

Israel is not commiting genocide. I don't ever recall them saying "We must kill every Arab we find because we're evil." They can't live in peace for five minutes without being threatened by terrorists that they're going to rape their woman and blow up their children.

Okay but Israel did nothing wrong. Do you remember a time when five Middle Eastern nations attacked Israel and tried to DESTROY IT?! The Jews have been treated horribly since they entered the region. They defended themselves, and continue to defend themselves. Why shouldn't they occupy Arab nations? They have every right to after what these nations tried to do to them.

And yes I do see the invasion of a country that took Israel soldiers prisoner as the right and just thing to do.

I sense by your post that you're not well acquainted with the history of the region or international law, it's very complex and the blame can be spread around to many countries particularly the Imperialistic ones of the last century, USA, Britain, France, Turkey(Ottoman Empire)-Israel and their Muslim opponents are the product of Imperialism....

Israel is not the innocent persecuted country it makes itself out to be, you need to "see the world through the other sides eyes too"

What? They wanted a homeland, and now the warring in the Middle East is THEIR fault? I hardly think that's fair. They shouldn't have to wander different countries AND be persecuted in those countries just so the Arabs can have a place to piss and moan about another country.wtf? They could have wanted their homeland elsewhere. Of course it's THEIR fault. And Arabs had every right to keep their homeland. It wasn't a decision to give the land to Jews or Arabs, it was a decision to take away land from the Arabs to give it to Jews.

Israel is not commiting genocide. I don't ever recall them saying "We must kill every Arab we find because we're evil." They can't live in peace for five minutes without being threatened by terrorists that they're going to rape their woman and blow up their children.

I recall Israeli snipers shooting palestinian kids in the head while they slept.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1007051,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250870992.html

So Jews now have a more valid claim to that land than the Arabs? How do you justify that?

They don't have a more valid claim. They deserve to have a homeland though. How do you justify the Arabs invading the second the Jews decided to settle in the region? What makes the Arab nations have a more valid claim to the Middle East? The fact that they've been there for a considerably longer amount of time than modern day Isreal? No, the Jews have the same right as anyone to be there.

Israel is not commiting genocide. I don't ever recall them saying "We must kill every Arab we find because we're evil." They can't live in peace for five minutes without being threatened by terrorists that they're going to rape their woman and blow up their children.

Of course they wouldn't say that. the whole success of Israel depends on favorable world opinin if the world ever decideds to look at the situation truthfully Israel will be gone.

I think you need to stop posting and go read history. at least my obviously biased remarkes are coming from knowledge.

your's are coming from ignorance...

Israel is not commiting genocide. I don't ever recall them saying "We must kill every Arab we find because we're evil." They can't live in peace for five minutes without being threatened by terrorists that they're going to rape their woman and blow up their children.Did you read this thread at all? There was no Israel 60 years ago, while Arabs were there since ancient times. There was absolutely NO reason to give away Arab land to foreigners over the heads of the Arabs.

I sense by your post that you're not well acquainted with the history of the region or international law, it's very complex and the blame can be spread around to many countries particularly the Imperialistic ones of the last century, USA, Britain, France, Turkey(Ottoman Empire)-Israel and their Muslim opponents are the product of Imperialism....

Israel is not the innocent persecuted country it makes itself out to be, you need to "see the world through the other sides eyes too"

Oh, I have. But the Arab nations have murdered their share of Jews. If Israel just came in, and no one attacked them, there wouldn't be any trouble.

BS. Why did foreign Jews enter the region in the first place? Because of their firm determination to create a state there, regardless who already lived there.
It was immigrant Jews who caused and started the conflict. There would have been no such conflict without their selfish ambitions.

Again, what about a partition of Wales by the UN to give one half to Jews?
that's a good point until the displacement of the Palestinians Jews were not only welcome in Muslim countries they were given safe haven there from persecution in Christian Europe......there may have been the odd conflict in the past between jews and muslims but no worse than what Christians sects did to each other, it was normal for the times....Muslims were over the centuries were very enlightened and tolerant of other religions.....

They don't have a more valid claim. They deserve to have a homeland though.
Then give them a homeland that isn't already occupied.

How do you justify the Arabs invading the second the Jews decided to settle in the region?
They were responding to what they perceived was an invasion.


What makes the Arab nations have a more valid claim to the Middle East?
The fact that they've been there for a considerably longer amount of time than modern day Isreal? No, the Jews have the same right as anyone to be there.

Are you saying that you have just as much claim to my house as I do simply because you exist? What are you talking about?

Everyone check out this cite.

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/

it is very good.

What makes the Arab nations have a more valid claim to the Middle East? It's not about Arab nations, it's about Arabs. And they have a more valid claim to the Middle East because it's their home while it's not the foreign Jews home at all. They had their lives and possessions elsewhere.

The fact that they've been there for a considerably longer amount of time than modern day Isreal? Yes.

No, the Jews have the same right as anyone to be there.How can foreigners have the same right to a land as its inhabitants? That's big big bs.

They were responding to what they perceived was an invasion.They were responding to an invasion.

Oh, I have. But the Arab nations have murdered their share of Jews. If Israel just came in, and no one attacked them, there wouldn't be any trouble.So you would let any alien intruders come to dwell in your home? Or would to try to get them out again?

Ouch. Yes, I just read a bit of Israel's history and its begginings, and I've been an ass. An ignorant ass. They could have done a number of things, as well as settle in land actually offered to them by the Soviets. I've been ignorant, and I am sorry.

Agnosial you seam to belive that everyone should have a homeland...

I agree whole heartedly but what gave you the idea that it was OK to take away the Palestinian Homeland and give it to the Jews!?!?!?!

Oh, I have. But the Arab nations have murdered their share of Jews. If Israel just came in, and no one attacked them, there wouldn't be any trouble.

alright..think about this for a moment....using your reasoning.......what if China decides it wants to have more living room, what if they decide they want your country? your home, your resources, they will set up a government of their design, you will need an identity card to travel in land where you were free in before, and you have no say in the matter because Great Britain, the USA and the UN says it's ok.....you would be ok with that?

They were responding to an invasion.

Mass emigration would be a more correct term, the Israelis would have been fine me if they had followed what was mandated by the British. A Jewish and an Arab state living together. The Israelis kicking the Arabs out was not justified, but neither was the six-days war.

Agnosial I accept your apology now the next time an election comes will you remember what you learned or will you go on letting this happen?

I have a very personal stake in this conflict I have A friend in Jerusalem and many in other parts of the Middle East. The resolution or at leat the lowering of tensions is imperative to heir survival and I might argue ours...

Mass emigration would be a more correct term, the Israelis would have been fine me if they had followed what was mandated by the British. A Jewish and an Arab state living together. The Israelis kicking the Arabs out was not justified, but neither was the six-days war.Mass immigration motivated by the selfish wish to set-up a state in a land abroad is an invasion. This whole mandate thing was/is bollocks. Arabs should have determined their own fate and ruled themselves right after the Ottoman Empire was defeated. The untrustworthy British colonialists should never have set foot in the Middle East.

Agnosial I accept your apology now the next time an election comes will you remember what you learned or will you go on letting this happen?

I have a very personal stake in this conflict I have A friend in Jerusalem and many in other parts of the Middle East. The resolution or at leat the lowering of tensions is imperative to heir survival and I might argue ours...

Thank you.

I'll be sure to remember what I've learned here today. The Jews were not justified in taking Palestinian lands.

as I have posted earlier I do not like debating with links, too many sights are biased and only propaganda outlets......but since I'm not countering another link I'll post this one, I bet very few Americans have seen this, it's about the Israel/Palestine situation but it's also a very good assessment of american journalism,

it's an hour long but very informative.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696

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

Without further comment I think http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/taz.gif

Mass immigration motivated by the selfish wish to set-up a state in a land abroad is an invasion. This whole mandate thing was/is bollocks. Arabs should have determined their own fate and ruled themselves right after the Ottoman Empire was defeated. The untrustworthy British colonialists should never have set foot in the Middle East.

The British had control of the ottoman lands after WWI, that whole "to the victor, the spoils" thing. The Arabs should have been given their own land and their own state, but sadly they weren't. I am not against the fundemental idea of Israel, I am against how that idea was implemented.

The Arabs should have been given their own land and their own state,.You mean, they should have been allowed to rule what was already their own land. There was no 'giving' of land required.

You mean, they should have been allowed to rule what was already their own land. There was no 'giving' of land required.

Basically yes, but the Jews should have been given influence in the government. To protect Jewish rights, it isn't much of a homeland if they're subjugated.

Basically yes, but the Jews should have been given influence in the government. To protect Jewish rights, it isn't much of a homeland if they're subjugated.Only if you mean the Jews who were already there around 1918, for whom the land really was the homeland. The others should have remained where they were, in their respective homelands.

Basically yes, but the Jews should have been given influence in the government. To protect Jewish rights, it isn't much of a homeland if they're subjugated.but Muslims in the past had no problems with Jews, it wasn't unusual for Jews to gain very high office in Muslim countries......I've no doubt had the Brits installed a secular one state system for Muslims and Jews the Muslims would have been fine with that.....it's when they created a "Jewish state" in a predominately Muslim region that all hell broke out....it must be remembered that they Palestinians had been under Turkish rule for 400(?) yrs, I don't think they were to keen to exchange a Turkish ruler for a Zionist one, especially since they just fighting a war to free themselves of Turkish domination.....

Because they don't kowtow to killing all jews you mean.

no, they are illegitmate because they a propped up by the west and do the wishes of the west instead of their people who are Muslims.

no, they are illegitmate because they a propped up by the west and do the wishes of the west instead of their people who are Muslims.Arabs. No matter if Muslim, Christian, Jewish, .... (religion is bulk anyways)

Soviestan, your sig is wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws).

For reference:"And they (jews and Christians) say, 'none shall ever enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.'

A non-Jew who keeps the Noahide Law in all its details is said to attain the same spiritual and moral level as Israel's own Kohen Gadol (high priest) (Talmud, Bava Kamma 38a). Maimonides states in his work Mishneh Torah (The laws of kings and their rulership 8:11) that a Ger Toshav who is precise in the observance of these Seven Noahide commandments is considered to be a Righteous Gentile and has earned a place in the world to come. This follows a similar statement in the Talmud (tractate Sanhedrin 105b). However, according to Maimonides, a gentile is considered righteous only if a person follows the Noahide laws specifically because he or she considers them to be of divine origin (through the Torah) and not if they are merely considered to be intellectually compelling or good rules for living.[3]



Hah.

Soviestan, your sig is wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws).

For reference:



Hah.

Its a metaphor genius. Its basically saying both the Jews and Christians claim their religion to be the right one and not to be fooled by them and to stay true to Islam as it is the surest path to paradise. I would add that things get lost in translation. You will notice small differences between different translations of the Qur'an from Arabic to English. So it may not be exactly what it says if you were to read the Qur'an in Arabic as we should, but its close enough to get the idea.

edit: hah.

Because the resources of Palestine are limited and are not supposed to support foreigners over native people.
Israel has the highest standard of living in the Middle East. If there was peace, Israel would have plenty of resources to support the Palestinians reasonably well too.

Israel continues to exist and repress a significant portion of it's inhabitants because of US support. which is un founded. The Arab nations tried to destroy Israel for the same reason we destroyed Nazi Germany and the Confederate States of America.

Do you belive in Social Darwinism perchance?

Do you believe in factual history? Neither one of those wars were caused because the governments were racist (though they were), WW2 was caused mostly because Germany wanted more land, and revenge for WWI, the American Civil War was caused because a group of people couldn't manage to work out economic differences, slavery was just a part of the reason there was such a huge gap in economic issues between the industrialized North and the unindustrialized South.

Ouch. Yes, I just read a bit of Israel's history and its begginings, and I've been an ass. An ignorant ass. They could have done a number of things, as well as settle in land actually offered to them by the Soviets. I've been ignorant, and I am sorry.

Where was the land the Russians were offering them? I've not heard of this before. Not that I don't believe you, but for some reason I'm expecting either the middle of Siberia or Chechnya.

Actually, according to my mother and father other than the death camps, Israeli occupation is worse than that of the Nazi's. I know them well so I'll accept their as expertise on the subject of brutal military occupations as superior anything you have to offer.

"My Mommy and Daddy tell me Jews are Evil"
This is an awful way to support an arguement, if I told you about my friend's Dad who says he knows a reporter in Israel who has documented supposed Israeli attacks in which the people who were supposed to be dead stood up before the video ended would you believe me? I doubt it. I also have to ask, have your parents been in both Nazi-occupied Europe as well as in Israel?

Something that has been brought up again and again, and annoys me everytime, is someone talking about shooting kids that are throwing rocks. There's a difference, if you'd believe it, in skipping rocks across a pond and trying to stone a man to death. I think throwing rocks at a tank is more an act of stupidity than anything else.

Seesh, I talked of losing my faith in humanity earlier because I couldn't believe how stupid people could be, why am I still here? I think if both sides could manage to stop shooting each other for a while I think they'd be able to get along fine, that or nuke the whole region, no man no problem, as they say.

As the leader of the Jew Crew, I heartily approve of the Pro-Israeli sentiments expressed in this thread.

All 81 pages, that is.

Israel has the highest standard of living in the Middle East. If there was peace, Israel would have plenty of resources to support the Palestinians reasonably well too.If there were no Israel, Palestine would have plenty of resources to support the Palestinians reasonably well. The Israeli standard of living is irrelevant. The Jewish standard of living in Europe wasn't bad either before they decided to go to Palestine to selfishly claim another people's homeland for themselves.

the Pro-Israeli sentiments?You mean the constant cry for land, land, and more land?

If there were no Israel, Palestine would have plenty of resources to support the Palestinians reasonably well. The Israeli standard of living is irrelevant. The Jewish standard of living in Europe wasn't bad either before they decided to go to Palestine to selfishly claim another people's homeland for themselves.

If there were no Israel, we'd see more Palestinian Attacks on Americans because there is no Israel to draw away Palestinian Attacks.

You mean the constant cry for land, land, and more land?


The stuff they're giving over to the Palis?

If it's a security threat they'll use force and take it, not scream, whine, and cry about it.

um...no, it isn't. Before the Israeili's built up the land there, it was basically a desert. The Israeli's built it up in the face of opposition from Palestinians who attacked them on land THEY HAD BOUGHT from it's owners. The Palestinians would then beg for handouts and help from the Israeilis, who often gave it, and were then attacked by the same peopel AGAIN.

If I had to make a choice, if it was one or the other, I would very quickly chose in favor of wiping out the Palestinians. The Israelis would then go on using the land and trying to improve the place. The Palestinians have never done anything but fight amongst themselves and murder each other on their way to attacking the Israeilis.

Mind, I don't particulalry dislike the Palestinians, or think they couldn't improve themselves. They just choose not to, even in when we throw money and help at them to do so. They would rather live in hate and for revenge than actually improve their lot in life.

Now I know my comments are going to cause a hge uproar, but try to keep in mind I actually had to serve there while in the Army. It certainly wasn't the Israelis who kept trying to kill me, as I tried to protect them. If I have...opinions, they were not in place before I got there.

If there were no Israel, we'd see more Palestinian Attacks on Americans because there is no Israel to draw away Palestinian Attacks.Utter crap. What Palestinian Attacks on Americans?

um...no, it isn't. Before the Israeili's built up the land there, it was basically a desert. The Israeli's built it up in the face of opposition from Palestinians who attacked them on land THEY HAD BOUGHT from it's owners. The Palestinians would then beg for handouts and help from the Israeilis, who often gave it, and were then attacked by the same peopel AGAIN.

If I had to make a choice, if it was one or the other, I would very quickly chose in favor of wiping out the Palestinians. The Israelis would then go on using the land and trying to improve the place. The Palestinians have never done anything but fight amongst themselves and murder each other on their way to attacking the Israeilis.

Mind, I don't particulalry dislike the Palestinians, or think they couldn't improve themselves. They just choose not to, even in when we throw money and help at them to do so. They would rather live in hate and for revenge than actually improve their lot in life.

Now I know my comments are going to cause a hge uproar, but try to keep in mind I actually had to serve there while in the Army. It certainly wasn't the Israelis who kept trying to kill me, as I tried to protect them. If I have...opinions, they were not in place before I got there.

I don't think wiping out the palestinians would be the answer. Negative on that, bravo tango delta niner...

They've got some potential, but they're using it for the wrong purposes.

um...no, it isn't. Before the Israeili's built up the land there, it was basically a desert. The Israeli's built it up in the face of opposition from Palestinians who attacked them on land THEY HAD BOUGHT from it's owners. The Palestinians would then beg for handouts and help from the Israeilis, who often gave it, and were then attacked by the same peopel AGAIN.

If I had to make a choice, if it was one or the other, I would very quickly chose in favor of wiping out the Palestinians. The Israelis would then go on using the land and trying to improve the place. The Palestinians have never done anything but fight amongst themselves and murder each other on their way to attacking the Israeilis.

Mind, I don't particulalry dislike the Palestinians, or think they couldn't improve themselves. They just choose not to, even in when we throw money and help at them to do so. They would rather live in hate and for revenge than actually improve their lot in life.

Now I know my comments are going to cause a hge uproar, but try to keep in mind I actually had to serve there while in the Army. It certainly wasn't the Israelis who kept trying to kill me, as I tried to protect them. If I have...opinions, they were not in place before I got there.If it was a desert, it was the Arabs' desert, and not any foreign Jews'. And we are already through your baseless point on land ownership, I even posted a map.
Anyone who accepts Israel is anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Semitic, and has absolutely no understanding of justice. The partition of Palestine was a mistake, and almost everybody has finally recognized that, except for Americans of course .
If someone over there was trying to kill you, it was because you were siding with the invaders.

Utter crap.

BS.

America would become the new "Oppressor" of the poor, poor palestinians, even after the Aid arrives....


Corrupt leaders have to keep their people hating something to keep it off themselves.

BS.

America would become the new "Oppressor" of the poor, poor palestinians, even after the Aid arrives....

Corrupt leaders have to keep their people hating something to keep it off themselves.You surely speak of Bush and his ambition to keep Americans hating Muslims?
And if you uneducated decadent kid had ever lost your home because of foreign settlers you would talk otherwise.

If there were no Israel, we'd see more Palestinian Attacks on Americans because there is no Israel to draw away Palestinian Attacks.

I can't believe that anyone could possibly believe this!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets see here... The Palestinians are going to through rocks across the Atlantic Ocean and knock down some tall building!?

The only reason the Palestinians are acting violently is the Israeli occupation!

ah... I don't think so. You are claiming the folks in Southern Lebanon right now are there protecting Israeli's and that is why they keep getting attacked as well?

No. I don't thinks so. and neither does the UN.

And I will say again, I was simply drawing the issue out as far as it would go, not claiming I want to or would. And no, I am afraid not. If I buy land from your boss, what right do you have to attack me and claim it is your land? It was bought and paid for- the people who had the right sold it, and that's the end of that. This is a matter of record, mind, not flight of fantasy.

You are welcome to defend the Pallestinians all you want, doens't make their attacks on early jewish settlements, which were on land the Jews bought from its owners, rightous. It's still evil, and it's still the beginnings of this 60 year war.
Your map is great and all, if it was actually waht happened. But it doesn't really explain why the palestinians attacks jews on land the jews had bought and paid for. Care to explain that one?

If I buy land from you, tat means I can own it but not use it? Should I just wad some money up, wrap it around a hand grenade, so you can take the money and pull the pin on the grenade to throw it back at me?

Come on! They wanted a place to live where they were safe. They bought land. They moved there. Then after they improved it the palestinians saw how much it was worth and decided sudden;y that they wanted it.

ah... I don't think so. You are claiming the folks in Southern Lebanon right now are there protecting Israeli's and that is why they keep getting attacked as well?

No. I don't thinks so. and neither does the UN.

And I will say again, I was simply drawing the issue out as far as it would go, not claiming I want to or would. And no, I am afraid not. If I buy land from your boss, what right do you have to attack me and claim it is your land? It was bought and paid for- the people who had the right sold it, and that's the end of that. This is a matter of record, mind, not flight of fantasy.

You are welcome to defend the Pallestinians all you want, doens't make their attacks on early jewish settlements, which were on land the Jews bought from its owners, rightous. It's still evil, and it's still the beginnings of this 60 year war.The evil was in the Jews coming to Palestine from Europe and elsewhere to create a Jewish state in a land they didn't belong in.
The Jewish land ownership wasn't that large anyways.

it was large enoug that tey could settle and provide for themselves. L:arge enough that they were murdered by palestinians who wanted it.


Ah yeah. After 6 mililoin or more jews were baked to death by Europeans, and they decided to find a place of their own, AND BUY IT from its owners, they're somehow evil?


You aren't really making very much sense. In fact you seem to be backing up my comment that the Palestinians would rather hate each other and everybody else and fight than actually have a home, land, and a good lif for themselves. Which they would have had by now if they weren't busy murdering jews--those spawn of satans. No, I stand by my arguments. Palestinians are being dumb, and deserve what they get.

The fact is here, the threat to Israel is insignificant, but is perceived to be great for justification. The fact is Israel has the largest and most advanced military in the entire region, if every Palestinian picked up a rifle today and marched into Israel they would be no match for the IDF. Israel say they live in fear yet it is them who have created the fear, it has become an endless cycle of violence, Israel has created the perception that they live under fear, an endless victimisation of themselves.

And because of this the Jews have become hard, they have learn to do what was done to them. Thousands of Palestinians working in Israel are subject to hours of waiting in lines and are often beaten by checkpoint guards. The threat has been made out to be so large in fact that it has blinded Israel, and peace can never come this way. The missiles from Palestinian militants rarely ever even make it into Israel, even more rarely do they hit anything, and even more rarely do they damage property or possibly hurt or injure someone, more people would die in traffic accidents.

The occupation of the West Bank will eventually corrupt the state of Israel, plainly because you cannot decide one day to be cruel and the next to be kind. The true traitors to the state of Israel are those that keep the walls up, you initiative racial segregation and oppression. It's those zionists in the Israeli govt that build the settlements and put their people in danger in the name of a 'Greater Israel'.


From Warsaw Ghetto to Abu Dis Ghetto.

If there were no Israel, Palestine would have plenty of resources to support the Palestinians reasonably well. The Israeli standard of living is irrelevant. The Jewish standard of living in Europe wasn't bad either before they decided to go to Palestine to selfishly claim another people's homeland for themselves.
We do not need another Saudi Arabia or a similar country in the Middle East, thank you very much. Judging by the rest of the Middle East, which has oil to boot, the Palestinians would not be particularly well off. Israel has little things like the vote for women, which is nice.
And you're talking about the Palestinian 'homeland'? I was under the impression before you were talking about how homelands were a silly concept. The Palestinians can have their homeland, but not Jews?

no. because they are only foreigners. not like they didn't live there for a thousand years before being dragged kicking and screaming away by a variety of governments. Not like they didn't buy their own family land back before they bagan settling it:rolleyes:


honestly, I think the whole israel palestine thing is a case of both sides being to dumb to tie their own shoelaces.

kids throw rocks at MBT's so they get blwon in half by machine gun fire??? what the heck is THAT?

palestinians get mad because jews buy their land and try to grow food on it, so they strap bombs to themselves and kill as many palestinians as jews in some insane attempt at revenge? WTF?

it would be comical if it wasn't so...horrendous.

yes, and if I'm not mistaken they even sold out to the west and signed a peace agreement with them.

Since when is signing an accord ending a war, selling out? What are you? racist?

So once again, you're okay w/ displacing other people.

Isn't it amazing that he supports "ethnic cleansing" while accusing Israel of the samething that he wants done to the Jews?

Actually, according to my mother and father other than the death camps, Israeli occupation is worse than that of the Nazi's. I know them well so I'll accept their as expertise on the subject of brutal military occupations as superior anything you have to offer.

And their expertise in this matter comes from where? Where they in the area in 1948?

By being in the land they are not supposed to be in.

Hate to break it to you but that is not systematicly destroying a people.

So Jews now have a more valid claim to that land than the Arabs? How do you justify that?

I guess someone has not read up on history. Jews were their before the arabs legally speaking.

wtf? They could have wanted their homeland elsewhere. Of course it's THEIR fault. And Arabs had every right to keep their homeland. It wasn't a decision to give the land to Jews or Arabs, it was a decision to take away land from the Arabs to give it to Jews.

So they should not have their homeland in the ancestrial homeland where they were their before the arabs?

There was no Israel 60 years ago, while Arabs were there since ancient times.

So where the Jews but I know you do not care about that.

Oh, I have. But the Arab nations have murdered their share of Jews. If Israel just came in, and no one attacked them, there wouldn't be any trouble.

AMEN!!!

I think we should just let this one go. As I said, If I HAD to make a choice I would make it poorly. I don't think any of us are really qualified to judge either side. I guess both sides have their valid issues, and both sides have their really stupid moments (or days or years or decades).

As I read the thread, I feel I must apologuze for some of my comments. I do not believe the Palestinians should be wiped out--I was saying that sort of facetously, and tried to hedge what I was saying by defending it with my experiences there. Which was crap. Both sides have reason to hate the other, and both are wrong at this point.

In fact, I think it better if we try to whack this mole by looking at what we have RIGHT NOW.

Anyone able to give a clear briefing on the Israel/Palestine/Lebannon situ?

[this thread] :sniper:

It seems to depend; are you are a Jew or a Palestinian? Nobody truly thinks others have it as bad as they do.

Much of the Muslim world beleives the holocaust was severly exaggerated, and that the situation is Palestine is much worse than what the western world believes, going far enough to challenge historical records. Westerners, who generally consider it to be the the epitome of evil actions, see the situation reversed.
In terms of the reality vested in the human mind, there is no definite truth.

Allegheny County 2, you have to be the worst multiple post offender I have ever seen.

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

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

What are you, insane? Israel doesn't even come close to what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, as well as the many other groups that were killed. Not to mention, the Nazis did start World War 2, the worst war of all time, I think that is little bit worse than what Israel has done.

Congratulations, I managed to read the first 30 or so pages of this, and I've lost a part of my soul. Thanks a lot internet, for destroying some of the little respect I still have for humanity.

:p
you to heh?

I heard what you said, and I'd dispute that classification

The reason being that the clasification specifies advanced human rights, which Saudi Arabia does not have. Ergo the classification of Saudi Arabia as an NIC is flawed.

you see that's where people make a mistake.

quote from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_countries)
NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached first world status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their third world counterparts. Another characterization of NIC's is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC. In many NIC's, social upheaval can occur as primarily rural, agricultural populations migrate to the cities, where the growth of manufacturing concerns and factories can draw many thousands of laborers.

NICs usually share some other common features, including:

* Increased social freedoms and civil rights.
* A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector.
* An increasingly "open" economy, allowing for free trade with its neighbours, such as that obtained by joining a trade bloc.



Oh and Saudi arabia are taking small steps in the right direction. Albeit patheticaly small steps, but still steps.

"In 2005 the Saudi government announced that half of the city government positions would be elected in non-partisan races. The government has also permitted the creation of some human rights organizations and national debates about the role of women in Saudi Arabia and the depiction of Islam in the western world."

It's not apartheid or racist. They have Arab members of parliament and Arab citizens have exactly the same civil rights as Jewish citizens.


Not in practice they don't. Particularily if they are Bedouin.


um...no, it isn't. Before the Israeili's built up the land there, it was basically a desert. .

Untrue. the mandate was exporting agricultural produce pre-1948 from Arab dominated markets.


The Israeli's built it up in the face of opposition from Palestinians who attacked them on land THEY HAD BOUGHT from it's owners. The Palestinians would then beg for handouts and help from the Israeilis, who often gave it, and were then attacked by the same peopel AGAIN. .

The myth of the useless treacherous Arab./ The total amount of land purchased by 1947 was 7% of the Area of the mandate. 7%.

Hate to break it to you but that is not systematicly destroying a people.Oh yes it is.

"Last you saw"? And where was that?

According to the Isreali census, it's about 65% natural citizens.

According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, as of May 2006, of Israel's 7 million people, 77% were Jews, 18.5% Arabs, and 4.3% "others".[42] Among Jews, 68% were Sabras (Israeli-born), mostly second or third-generation Israelis, and the rest are olim: 22% from Europe and the Americas, and 10% from Asia and Africa, including the Arab countries.[43]

It seems to depend; are you are a Jew or a Palestinian? Nobody truly thinks others have it as bad as they do.

Much of the Muslim world beleives the holocaust was severly exaggerated, and that the situation is Palestine is much worse than what the western world believes, going far enough to challenge historical records. Westerners, who generally consider it to be the the epitome of evil actions, see the situation reversed.
In terms of the reality vested in the human mind, there is no definite truth.The fact that up until 1948 any such thing as a Jewish state did not exist is definite truth. The ambition to create a Jewish state in foreign land with the clear aim to get a foothold in the Middle East regardless what it may cost the actual inhabitants is evil to the core. That's a definite truth. It's reality. Jews were and are just as anti-Semitic as the Europeans they wanted to leave behind.

Tell me again: why wasn't Pennsylvania divided in two parts to give one to Jews?

According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, as of May 2006, of Israel's 7 million people, 77% were Jews, 18.5% Arabs, and 4.3% "others".[42] Among Jews, 68% were Sabras (Israeli-born), mostly second or third-generation Israelis, and the rest are olim: 22% from Europe and the Americas, and 10% from Asia and Africa, including the Arab countries.[43]And how many of those are the offspring of Jews who had immigrated to Palestine since 1918? The number of Jews then was around 60000.

http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

And how many of those are the offspring of Jews who had immigrated to Palestine since 1918? The number of Jews then was around 60000.

http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

errr..... did you read the bolded parts of the 68% most are second and third generation.... or is that not self explanatory?